RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
-
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@nostrildamus said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Did the sanctimonious piston wristed gibbon have a go at Frizell again like he does in every video featuring the ABs?
A bit like publicly stating “we have a no dickheads rule” and then picking a convicted domestic abuser.
You don't mean Shannon do you? Not convicted (charges dropped), and not domestic abuse as far as I know.
Erm. Don’t you mean pled guilty and attended police diversion? Though you’re correct, not domestic abuse, he punched a non-related woman. My bad.
Well this is an honest question but does he have a conviction? I'm obviously no lawyer, but also I don't know distinctions between the UK and NZ on this:
Will a diversion show up on my criminal record?
Find out about the adult diversion scheme and whether it will show on your criminal record.
Edit: my confusion is, convicted=found guilty of something versus conviction=what appears on a (criminal) record. Perhaps they are the same?
-
Agreed it is confusing. We don’t have anything the same as police diversion for criminal offences in the UK - that I know of. From what I understand of the NZ system, which is mostly based on in depth research carried out on The Fern, Police Diversion may be a laudable attempt to offer a second chance to some people but is often used as a cop out (pun intended) to protect well known people. At the time of the Frizzell case there was much gnashing of teeth on here with many people feeling he’d got off very lightly, purely because he was an All Black, or likely to be.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@canefan said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@canefan said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Looking at the Frizzel "incident" again, Steven Kitsoff smashes him in the side of the head with his arm. Of course, the TMO completely missed this and YCed Frizzel for falling over. What a farken joke.
I felt that it could have easily been ruled a rugby contact incident. No penalties, play on
It should have been. I've not seen an penalty and a YC for something so innocuous before. Ever. I wonder if Ardie went down and squealed like a little bitch and cries foul at every ruck African Jesus may have been shown red and 6 weeks.
I don't know what Foley's qualifications are, but I don't believe he's a test ref. Crazy to be in that position of power
I'd be interested to know how an amateur who doesn't even follow the game, if given a perimeters to work with, how they would apply the laws. Whether SC would have been upgraded, or African Jesus would have been upgraded, or whether SF would have even seen a penalty, or maybe Kitsoff would be sent off.
I hate to say it but we reap what we sow. In the NH, for the last 18 months, both would have been red, I think up until the Curry decision in the WC both would have been red. The wailing and gnashing of teeth about some of the early reds was the reason mitigation became more generous during the tournament. On that basis, the yellow / upgrade to red decisions were consistent with what we’d seen in the previous weeks.
It is not the refs fault. IMO it’s barely even WR’s fault. It’s a reflection of rugby laws being subjective, and the fact we want and need them to be so.
-
@nzzp said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
. It was the persistent intervention by the TMO looking for shit and missing heaps.
and that's it right there.
If you pick everything up, people will grumble, generally understand and adapt. If you pick up some stuff, and rule it randomly, you leave people frustrated and disappointed.
We joke about the card lottery, but it's real. It's on display consistently. If something gets seen, you're in for it, but if it gets missed, no effect on the game move on. Super annoying as a fan.
Watching GP games, sometimes you hear the ongoing conversation between the ref and the TMO - please can you check that hit, mate we’ve got a knock on in the previous phase etc. in my view, it works well, and you get the sense of the officials as a team trying to get to the right decision.
The disallowed try in the final is a good example of how we confuse two things, one is the process by which refs make decisions, and one is the fact that human error still exists. The process was correct, the decision was wrong because the knock on was more than two phases before the try. That is an individual error, by the TMO and Barnes for not checking the phase count with him.
We have to allow individual errors to take place, as annoying as they are, because humans are involved, without questioning the whole process.
The Shag argument is one we should consider, and discuss as a rugby community, but personally not one I subscribe too. I’d rather we got the right decisions than leave refs subject to abuse because they make inevitable mistakes. The TMO is there to reduce the number of mistakes / howlers, exactly as it is in cricket. The lack of understanding or acceptance of that concept is the route of most of the issues IMO
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
The process was correct, the decision was wrong
I'm in disagreement here.
Decision was correct, process was wrong.
As much as I jumped up and whooped when Nuggie went over I expected it to go back as it was an obvious knock on.
I have other issues with the officiating which I'm not in the mood to whinge about right now.
But the ruling out of that try is not an issue I'm indignant about. Despite the process being wrong.
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@nzzp said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
. It was the persistent intervention by the TMO looking for shit and missing heaps.
and that's it right there.
If you pick everything up, people will grumble, generally understand and adapt. If you pick up some stuff, and rule it randomly, you leave people frustrated and disappointed.
We joke about the card lottery, but it's real. It's on display consistently. If something gets seen, you're in for it, but if it gets missed, no effect on the game move on. Super annoying as a fan.
Watching GP games, sometimes you hear the ongoing conversation between the ref and the TMO - please can you check that hit, mate we’ve got a knock on in the previous phase etc. in my view, it works well, and you get the sense of the officials as a team trying to get to the right decision.
The disallowed try in the final is a good example of how we confuse two things, one is the process by which refs make decisions, and one is the fact that human error still exists. The process was correct, the decision was wrong because the knock on was more than two phases before the try. That is an individual error, by the TMO and Barnes for not checking the phase count with him.
We have to allow individual errors to take place, as annoying as they are, because humans are involved, without questioning the whole process.
The Shag argument is one we should consider, and discuss as a rugby community, but personally not one I subscribe too. I’d rather we got the right decisions than leave refs subject to abuse because they make inevitable mistakes. The TMO is there to reduce the number of mistakes / howlers, exactly as it is in cricket. The lack of understanding or acceptance of that concept is the route of most of the issues IMO
Ultimately it was Barnes who made the mistake by not calling the knock on
Everyone knew it was but he said play on
If the technology is there, why limit it to 2 phases?
I'd much rather have a situation where it was a clear and obvious knock on which was ruled on beyond the 2 phases, than a situation where a human being (Barnes) makes an incorrect call in real time but which can't be reversed because it was more than 2 phases on
If that try had stood, then that would have been a blight on the game IMHO
-
@MiketheSnow Barnsie made the call on what he saw. I have no issue with the on field ref calling that and we get on with it.
If the TMO is calling it back he calls it in play, not after 3-4 minutes of thrilling play which mean absolutely nothing because we're waiting for someone to score.
Let's say Nuggie knocks on as he attempts to pick up that last pass. 5m scrum Boks. NZ Scrum monsters boks and we score. It's as if Ardie's knock on never happened, and that 3-4 minutes, of seemingly brilliant entertaining play counts again...
I think I'm looking for the GOM and State of the Game threads.
-
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
The process was correct, the decision was wrong
I'm in disagreement here.
Decision was correct, process was wrong.
As much as I jumped up and whooped when Nuggie went over I expected it to go back as it was an obvious knock on.
I have other issues with the officiating which I'm not in the mood to whinge about right now.
But the ruling out of that try is not an issue I'm indignant about. Despite the process being wrong.
Process was correct as the rules are currently written is my point, not that the process is correct into the future. The mistake was in the final decision not to notice the number of phases
The mistake came a. in Barnes missing the knock on live and b. that once it was brought back to check, the knock on was seen, but then between them, the TMO and ref should have confirmed the number of phases - the way the laws currently are written the knock on should not have been awarded.
As it goes, i agree with you that its difficult to be too annoyed with a decision making process that ultimately spotted and gave the knock on.
-
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@MiketheSnow Barnsie made the call on what he saw. I have no issue with the on field ref calling that and we get on with it.
If the TMO is calling it back he calls it in play, not after 3-4 minutes of thrilling play which mean absolutely nothing because we're waiting for someone to score.
Let's say Nuggie knocks on as he attempts to pick up that last pass. 5m scrum Boks. NZ Scrum monsters boks and we score. It's as if Ardie's knock on never happened, and that 3-4 minutes, of seemingly brilliant entertaining play counts again...
I think I'm looking for the GOM and State of the Game threads.
I think we're saying the same thing
Not sure though
-
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
We don’t have anything the same as police diversion for criminal offences in the UK - that I know of.
There is something very similar. Gets wiped after 6 years.
-
@Bones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
We don’t have anything the same as police diversion for criminal offences in the UK - that I know of.
There is something very similar. Gets wiped after 6 years.
there speaks a voice of experience...
-
@Bones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
We don’t have anything the same as police diversion for criminal offences in the UK - that I know of.
There is something very similar. Gets wiped after 6 years.
Yes re the wiping of the slate after 6 years but not I think in relation to dodging a conviction or guilty plea?
-
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Bones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
We don’t have anything the same as police diversion for criminal offences in the UK - that I know of.
There is something very similar. Gets wiped after 6 years.
Yes re the wiping of the slate after 6 years but not I think in relation to dodging a conviction or guilty plea?
Ok maybe I misunderstood, I thought diversion in NZ was it you plead guilty.
-
@Bones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Bones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
We don’t have anything the same as police diversion for criminal offences in the UK - that I know of.
There is something very similar. Gets wiped after 6 years.
Yes re the wiping of the slate after 6 years but not I think in relation to dodging a conviction or guilty plea?
Ok maybe I misunderstood, I thought diversion in NZ was it you plead guilty.
We may be talking at cross purposes here, because I think you’re right in that assumption. My point though was in pleading guilty you then get PD and no real sanction, including a criminal record, which is different to having your record cleared after 6 years.
-
-
-
Afaik He hasn’t taken it back yet😂🤪
https://x.com/rugbybits/status/1719666251042017398?s=46&t=CcaaSLoKzW0UYf4UN0FjvA
-
@nostrildamus the diversion thing and the clean slate act are different things.
Diversion is usually aimed at younger offendefs or 1st time offenders and usually minor offences, to avoid a conviction on thier record that might affect thier lives (for younger people) or careers (guess this is how Frizzell got it)
Although if you offend again, the diversion offence will most likely be taken into account.
Clean slate act is where you have had a conviction and haven't been in jail or home detention for it, after 7 years you no longer need to disclose it...unsure how this works when entering other countries though.
-
That is how I read it bur feck knows how an international back row forward punching a woman can be considered a "minor" offence. That was the gist of all the angst on here at the time if I recall.
Clean Slate scheme | New Zealand Ministry of Justice
