• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Bledisloe 2

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Rugby Matches
allblacksaustralia
1.3k Posts 87 Posters 110.9k Views
Bledisloe 2
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • TimT Away
    TimT Away
    Tim
    wrote on last edited by
    #105

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to Tim on last edited by
    #106

    @Tim said in Bledisloe 2:

    Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.

    KiwiMurphK Crazy HorseC 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • KiwiMurphK Offline
    KiwiMurphK Offline
    KiwiMurph
    replied to Crucial on last edited by KiwiMurph
    #107

    @Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Tim said in Bledisloe 2:

    Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.

    Just because the game was brought forward doesn't mean the regular citing cycle is brought forward - the same as if someone was cited out of Argie-Boks.

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to KiwiMurph on last edited by
    #108

    @KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Tim said in Bledisloe 2:

    Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.

    Just because the game was brought forward doesn't mean the regular citing cycle is brought forward - the same as if someone was cited out of Argie-Boks.

    Still, bureaucracy not in tune with the game requirements. Maybe when RA proposed moving the game this was a known outcome and they took the risk.

    StargazerS ACT CrusaderA 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to Crucial on last edited by Stargazer
    #109

    @Crucial If he had been found "not guilty" on Monday (citing dismissed), he would have been available. All this points at a "guilty" verdict from the foul play committee on Monday, with Swain/Rugby Australia opting to go to a full judicial hearing on Wednesday, hoping to get another outcome.

    NTAN 1 Reply Last reply
    5
  • NTAN Offline
    NTAN Offline
    NTA
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #110

    @Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Crucial If he had been found "not guilty" on Monday (citing dismissed), he would have been available. All this points at a "guilty" verdict from the foul play committee on Monday, with Swain/Rugby Australia opting to go to a full judicial hearing on Wednesday, hoping to get another outcome.

    I hope the silly fluffybunny gets 6-8 weeks. Yes he's got talent but fuck me like Wright has the brain of a pea.

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • TheMojomanT Offline
    TheMojomanT Offline
    TheMojoman
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #111

    @Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:

    I wonder which section he's been cited under.

    I can only see three sections that could be used:

    e69e76f2-4a02-4fee-9220-6e52f7f3cce3-image.png


    There was no head contact, so no minimum mid-week range starting point.

    A lot will depend on the degree of recklessness or intent the judiciary thinks was involved in Swines' actions.

    As to possible reductions: he won't get the full 50% reduction because of his red card for head butting. So if the starting point is 6 weeks, he'd probably get 4. Of course, it also depends on whether he admits to what he's been cited for. Is he fighting that, or just the sanction? If he doesn't admit he's done anything wrong, that also means less deduction.

    I genuinely hope the starting point is at least 10 weeks, so he'd get at least 6 weeks suspension, but that would mean they have to start at a top-end entry point. Will they?

    Edited to add that there's no reason why he can't be charged under more than one provision.

    Judiciary is on Wed. Apparently last night was the Foul Play Committee which referred the matter to the Judiciary rather than dismissing it.

    From "The Roar" - The Judicial Committee for the Hearing will be Andre Oosthuizen SC (Chair), De Wet Barry and José Luis Rolandi and it will be held via video conference on Wednesday at 5:00pm (AEST).

    ACT CrusaderA 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT Crusader
    replied to TheMojoman on last edited by
    #112

    @TheMojoman said in Bledisloe 2:

    From "The Roar" - The Judicial Committee for the Hearing will be Andre Oosthuizen SC (Chair), De Wet Barry and José Luis Rolandi and it will be held via video conference on Wednesday at 5:00pm (AEST).

    Do the Wallabies / Swain know any Sth African QC’s…

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT Crusader
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #113

    @Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:

    @KiwiMurph said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Tim said in Bledisloe 2:

    Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.

    Just because the game was brought forward doesn't mean the regular citing cycle is brought forward - the same as if someone was cited out of Argie-Boks.

    Still, bureaucracy not in tune with the game requirements. Maybe when RA proposed moving the game this was a known outcome and they took the risk.

    You run the gauntlet with this stuff in any event when there are back to back games in consecutive weekends.

    And let’s not forget the Lauaki debacle at the 2007 RWC…

    1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • Daffy JaffyD Offline
    Daffy JaffyD Offline
    Daffy Jaffy
    wrote on last edited by
    #114

    CrucialC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to Daffy Jaffy on last edited by
    #115

    @Daffy-Jaffy said in Bledisloe 2:

    Scott Barrett is probably our best performing forward according to Jase.
    Just shows that a coaches lens is different to a TV screen, eh?

    voodooV kiwiinmelbK 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • voodooV Offline
    voodooV Offline
    voodoo
    replied to Crucial on last edited by voodoo
    #116

    @Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Daffy-Jaffy said in Bledisloe 2:

    Scott Barrett is probably our best performing forward according to Jase.
    Just shows that a coaches lens is different to a TV screen, eh?

    You reckon? I think there is a pretty general consensus around here that SB has surprised to the upside this season, and is locked (sorry) in to a position in the 23. I'd go further and say that I reckon 95% of posters would have him as the 3rd lock, and many would even have him in the top 2 at the moment as BBBR works his way back. Go further again, and I'd guess that there is even a significant cohort that would pick SB at 6 if the SB/BBBR duo are fit and starting.

    Aside from Sami who is clearly #1 (sorry Jase, we know you agree), what's the competition for #2? Ardie for the lovers out there, then daylight to SW I guess?

    M CrucialC Crazy HorseC 3 Replies Last reply
    2
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    Machpants
    replied to voodoo on last edited by Machpants
    #117

    @voodoo said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Daffy-Jaffy said in Bledisloe 2:

    Scott Barrett is probably our best performing forward according to Jase.
    Just shows that a coaches lens is different to a TV screen, eh?

    You reckon? I think there is a pretty general consensus around here that SB has surprised to the upside this season, and is locked (sorry) in to a position in the 23. I'd go further and say that I reckon 95% of posters would have him as the 3rd lock, and many would even have him in the top 2 at the moment as BBBR works his way back. Go further again, and I'd guess that there is even a significant cohort that would pick SB at 6 if the SB/BBBR duo are fit and starting.

    Aside from Sami who is clearly #1 (sorry Jase, we know you agree), what's the competition for #2? Ardie for the lovers out there, then daylight to SW I guess?

    Yup, maybe we don't see him as the best,as a fern collective, but he's top 3!

    21 Savea
    20 Taukeiaho
    15 S Barrett
    12 R Ioane
    8 Whitelock
    6 Smith
    4 A Ioane
    4 Jordan
    3 Reece
    3 Bower
    3 Clarke
    3 Cane
    3 de Groot
    2 Tupaea
    2 Retallick

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • CrucialC Offline
    CrucialC Offline
    Crucial
    replied to voodoo on last edited by
    #118

    @voodoo I was going of the posts from the last game saying he was ineffective.

    nostrildamusN 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • kiwiinmelbK Offline
    kiwiinmelbK Offline
    kiwiinmelb
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #119

    @Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Daffy-Jaffy said in Bledisloe 2:

    Scott Barrett is probably our best performing forward according to Jase.
    Just shows that a coaches lens is different to a TV screen, eh?

    I dont want to get into any debates over which position he should play 🙂 but has a fucken big motor , no doubting that .

    I kind of get them wanting him out there for 80 mins .

    1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • TimT Away
    TimT Away
    Tim
    wrote on last edited by
    #120

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/129937661/wallaby-darcy-swain-gets-judiciary-date-after-ugly-quinn-tupaea-incident--and-a-long-ban-is-possible

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • nostrildamusN Offline
    nostrildamusN Offline
    nostrildamus
    replied to Crucial on last edited by
    #121

    @Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:

    @voodoo I was going of the posts from the last game saying he was ineffective.

    as a 6. Most on here would have him in top 2 locks now I suspect.
    I thought I heard Brodie say before the match that SB called the lineout strategy and probably would even from 6 and given the lineouts have improved over the year (?) it makes sense that Jason Ryan rates him highly (at least as lock)...but yes on listening to Ryan he highly rates him at 6 too. I'm also surprised a little, didn't notice him that much during the game..maybe he was doing all the dirty work...

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #122

    @Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Crucial no, i would say very very few people actually think...im going to injury this guy

    I have always just seen a difference between

    "im going to tackle this knee"

    and

    "im watching the ball....watching...watching...of shit where did you come from?"

    That guy jumping in the air you talk about is doing it deliberately without care.

    KiwiwombleK canefanC 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble Banned
    replied to Bones on last edited by
    #123

    @Bones and i see that as different to someone that sees a knee and still decides to tackle said knee....not without any responsibility...but different to the later for me

    BonesB 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #124

    @Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:

    @Bones and i see that as different to someone that sees a knee and still decides to tackle said knee....not without any responsibility...but different to the later for me

    I don't. You know others are going to be competing for the ball, pretending they don't exist is the same as seeing a knee and still driving.

    KiwiwombleK 1 Reply Last reply
    0

Bledisloe 2
Rugby Matches
allblacksaustralia
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.