Bledisloe II - Have a stab at the teams.

taniwharugby

an eye for an eye?
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="610526" data-time="1472452288">
<div>
<img src="http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc493/BlairClaydon82/2016-08-29 00.29.34.png" alt="2016-08-29%2000.29.34.png">
 
Whats Coleman doing to Read here? Footage here <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://streamable.com/9ms8'>https://streamable.com/9ms8</a>
 
Next time I'm having breakfast with Jerome Kaino, Liam Squire, Damien MacKenzie and Joe Moody I'll ask them their thoughts.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rocky Rock Rockbottom" data-cid="610145" data-time="1472367686">
<div>
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/Bent/sport/8759e359-a05e-4087-a182-21b3cf80fbe7_zpshff9jerr.jpg" alt="8759e359-a05e-4087-a182-21b3cf80fbe7_zps">
</div>
</blockquote>

Toddy

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="610537" data-time="1472453750">
<div>
Genuine question: is a facial illegal?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The regulations do mention
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 
10.4(m) Contact with the Eye(s) or the Eye Area
</blockquote>
Franks does look to make contact with the 'Eye Area'.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.worldrugby.org/wr-resources/WorldRugbyDIR/Handbook/English/pubData/source/files/Regulation17.pdf'>http://www.worldrugby.org/wr-resources/WorldRugbyDIR/Handbook/English/pubData/source/files/Regulation17.pdf</a>

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="610537" data-time="1472453750">
Genuine question: is a facial illegal?</blockquote>
 
Let me rephrase ... is it bannable?

booboo

Relations with Aussie rugby seem to be heading South. 
It's gone rather Woodward05. And I think it's down to very similar reasons. Not enjoying the vitriole really. 
But I'll feed the beast. 
Listened to Devlin talikng to Mike Brewer this morning. 
"Mr Brewer" did make a rather telling comment towards the end of the interview that Moore's post match function speech was about 30s long and was rather sullen and petulant. Barely said anything. Boiled down to "I have to thanks coz I'm the Australian captain. So thanks". 
Apparently didn't acknowledge the opposition or officials. 
Hope Kearns calls him out on his "class". 
Links below. About 9 min 30s into second link. 
http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2016.08.29-09.00.00-S.mp3 
http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2016.08.29-09.15.00-S.mp3

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="610547" data-time="1472455748">
<div>
Let me rephrase ... is it bannable?
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes. Lower end is 12 weeks according to that. Although I seem to remember some people getting shorter bans.

Immenso Rapido

Do they still have after match functions?

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Immenso Rapido" data-cid="610592" data-time="1472463045">
Do they still have after match functions?</blockquote>
 
Apparently

NTA

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="610588" data-time="1472462802">
<div>
Yes. Lower end is 12 weeks according to that. Although I seem to remember some people getting shorter bans.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
If you go to the page marked "271" of this document it has the recommendations for
 
"Contact with the Eye(s) or the Eye Area"
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.worldrugby.org/wr-resources/World_Rugby_Handbook/EN/pubData/source/files/Regulation17_1.pdf'>http://www.worldrugby.org/wr-resources/World_Rugby_Handbook/EN/pubData/source/files/Regulation17_1.pdf</a>
 
Low End - 12 weeks
Mid Range - 18 weeks
Top End - 24+ weeks
 
Maximum Sanction - 208 weeks = 4 years. You'd need to skullfuck someone for that, surely? The only others on that level are Biting and Squirrels.
 
The only ones higher are Physical Abuse of match official (Life), Threatening Words/Actions against a Match Official (260 weeks). Headbutt is 2 years max, and everything else is 1 year.
 
 
For Franks (or Coleman) there would be a fair bit of mitigation and probably bring it down to 6 weeks max.

Mick Gold Coast QLD

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="610551" data-time="1472456549">
<div>
Relations with Aussie rugby seem to be heading South. 
It's gone rather Woodward05. And I think it's down to very similar reasons. Not enjoying the vitriole really. 
But I'll feed the beast. 
Listened to Devlin talikng to Mike Brewer this morning. 
"Mr Brewer" did make a rather telling comment towards the end of the interview that Moore's post match function speech was about 30s long and was rather sullen and petulant. Barely said anything. Boiled down to "I have to thanks coz I'm the Australian captain. So thanks". 
Apparently didn't acknowledge the opposition or officials. 
Hope Kearns calls him out on his "class". 
Links below. About 9 min 30s into second link. 
http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2016.08.29-09.00.00-S.mp3 
http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2016.08.29-09.15.00-S.mp3
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Oh dear. He's not learning real quick.
 
I would prefer Stephen Moore stop, think, spend some time with Andrew Slack or Farr Hyphen Jones, and improve how he does the captain part of his job. Notwithstanding that, when I cast around I find there is no-one to replace him. Foley is the last man standing.
 
The call is out over here to appoint Bono because he shook the referee's hand at the end of the match and on-one has ever done that before, ever. He will have already ordered a print from FoxSports to attach to his parliamentary rÃ©sumÃ©.

pooler fan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="610588" data-time="1472462802">Yes. Lower end is 12 weeks according to that. Although I seem to remember some people getting shorter bans.</blockquote>
Wales prop Tomas Francis got an 8 week ban for a similar offence during the 6 nations vs England. 
Francis' actions looked a lot more clumsy & accidental though. Franks' seemed more calculated & deliberate looking at the footage. Only he knew if he meant it, if he did I hope he gets what's coming to him. 
Personally think it's the worst offence any player can inflict on a rugby pitch. Only happened to me once in 20 years of senior rugby, once was enough !

Crucial

I'm not convinced Franks' action was deliberately targeting the eyes. He does seem to have taken the presented opportunity to do a facial though and should have been penalised and given a stern warning or YC at the time. If left to the citing procedure it needs to meet RC threshold, and in the case of eye contact the penalty is so strong that you'd want to be pretty sure before issuing a citing. 
Kind of falls in a gap because Poite took no action at the time. 
The maul needs a complete clean up anyway as nearly every single one has players reaching blindly around heads. In the Franks one I think from the reverse angle the first hand to face contact is from a Wallaby on an AB before Franks has two goes. It does just happen without intent and causes enough consternation that tweaking the maul laws could stop the potential right away.

Zader

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mick Gold Coast QLD" data-cid="610538" data-time="1472453843">
<div>
There is no remaining question - the process* used to investigate if there is anything to investigate has been followed and a finding has been announced.
 
* Comprising referee on the spot and looking at the play, linesman on the spot, video referee and SANZAR post game review. If the process is not to your liking then bang off a letter to SANZAR. It would have been preferable that you did so before the season commenced ... or did you only just now discover the process and decide you didn't like it for some reason?
</div>
</blockquote>
Well that is an asinine response. All they've said there isn't case to answer, but everyone can see the footage so in this day that isn't adequate. I'll get my legal team on right away Mick. Honestly.

rotated

Franks at most falls under 10.4a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist. If he copped 2 weeks under that charge I would not dispute it (aside from pointing out dozens of worse charges that went free). But eye gouging is another level charge and you would want to see some pretty clear evidence that there is actual "gouging" going on. Looks like a clear facial to me, that is not an ideal angle for an eye gouge.
 
Interesting Phibbs went uncited under 10.4(f) Holding, pushing or obstructing an Opponent not holding the ball, by a Player who is not in possession of the ball, except in a scrum, ruck or maul. Somewhere between 2-6 weeks the guidelines calls for.

kiwiinmelb

Yeah I dont believe it was an attempt at a gouge , mainly because it was too much in the open right in front of the ref , that stuff usually happens in dark corners ,
 
With all the niggle going on , I believe he was giving some back in the way of a facial ,
 
 but if the contact got too close to the eyes and still deserves punishment , ive got no idea on the technicalities of that one 
 
bad look though and probably shouldve been penalized

Mick Gold Coast QLD

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mick Gold Coast QLD" data-cid="610538" data-time="1472453843">
<div>
There is no remaining question - the process* used to investigate if there is anything to investigate has been followed and a finding has been announced.
 
* Comprising referee on the spot and looking at the play, linesman on the spot, video referee and SANZAR post game review. If the process is not to your liking then bang off a letter to SANZAR. It would have been preferable that you did so before the season commenced ... or did you only just now discover the process and decide you didn't like it for some reason?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Zader" data-cid="610625" data-time="1472486384">
<div>
Well that is an asinine response. All they've said there isn't case to answer, but everyone can see the footage so in this day that isn't adequate. I'll get my legal team on right away Mick. Honestly.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Ummm - Zader, is it possible your difficulty is with "everyone can see the footage so in this day that isn't adequate" rather than with my account, my "foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid" account?
 
Yesterday at 12:27pm I set out what has happened since that ruck was formed:
 
Whatever happened, or did not happen, happened in front of the referee and he made that clear by giving a direction to Franks; and in front of a linesman standing on the other side to the referee. Neither saw reason to act. The video referee remained silent too.
 
SANZAR, which runs the show, reviewed the whole match and stated there were no incidents in which it needed to intervene.
 
Australian management had the opportunity to make a claim within 12 hours after the match and they did not. Douglas had the same opportunity and did not take it.
 
In summary, the four independent elements in the system cranked over, did their job and powered down again. The supposedly aggrieved party, individual and collective, raised no issue.
 
That's pretty much the truth so far as I can see. SANZAR has "laws" and practices and it has acted consistently with them. Knock on SANZAR's door and announce to them that they are "asinine". 
 
There is another way which might appease the masses - a couple of extra referees, one embedded behind 1 in the line out, another jogging behind the midfield - that sort of thing - who can at any time announce "Suspected forward pass - vote now!" During the halt in play, while Mission Control tallies and seasonally adjusts the texts in response, Harvey Norman and Frank from National Tiles might distract the crowd from burning the stand to the ground, maybe.

sparky

Quite an achievement by Owen Franks to clearly not eye-gouge someone and yet wind up Brian "I could have died" O'Driscoll, Brennan " Keven Mealamu was poached from Tokoroa" Gallagher, Stephen "ban Sean Fitzpatrick for life" Jones, Brain " I am incandescent with rage that the World Cup is going to New Zealand" Moore and the Rugby correspondent of that notoriously racist and homophobic rag, the Daily Mail. None of those gentlemen are exactly admirers of the wonders of All Black Rugby. <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/83659114/international-media-slam-all-blacks-cloak-of-invisibility-over-owen-franks-incident">http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/83659114/international-media-slam-all-blacks-cloak-of-invisibility-over-owen-franks-incident</a>

booboo

"Incandescent with rage" was John Inverdale

barbarian

The fallout from the Franks gouge just raises more questions about SANZAAR processes.
 
I don't really know if it was a gouge or not, and can live with Franks not being cited. But there is clearly a bit of angst out there about it, and SANZAAR have fuelled that by their silence.
 
Why haven't they come out and given their point of view? A couple of paragraphs, saying 'We have reviewed all available footage and believe the contact to the face was incidental, and we saw no evidence of an eye gouge or any malicious action'. 
 
But they are sitting back and letting this run, and I can't see how that is in anyone's interest.

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mick Gold Coast QLD" data-cid="610667" data-time="1472510191">
<div>
That's pretty much the truth so far as I can see. SANZAR has "laws" and practices and it has acted consistently with them. Knock on SANZAR's door and announce to them that they are "asinine".
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Given their track record, I don't know how anyone can come on here and cite SANZAAR's 'laws and practices' with a straight face.

Tim

Anyone know if SANZAR has a press release or documentation site?

The Silver Fern

Bledisloe II - Have a stab at the teams.