NPR

tc27 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 12:52 pm WR need to make sure referees stop giving England players undeserved red cards. Whilst we won this game it clearly cost us the game vs Ireland in the 6Ns.

I demand any England cards are immediately reviewed by a 'special bunker' team consisting of Andy Goode, Will Carling and Clive Woodward.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:43 am Yeah MK and Bletchley would probably be the two non Range Rover options (I stick in the Chilterns unless I can't help it ). MK's new ground (probably a decade old or so now) had all the bells and whistles but I have a suspicion it was built by Barratt or someone and is likely already falling down. Wolverton still have a cricket club, albeit they are a shadow of what they were even 10 years ago, MK lacks any properly strong rugby or cricket club which is a little bizarre.

inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 12:54 pm It makes you wonder what he actually has to do to get a ban.

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 10:14 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:24 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:33 am
I played for Buckingham in the 1970's before they moved out of town to Maids Moreton
I can assure that there were no Range Rovers at Bletchley or the newly formed Milton Keynes who changed their name from Newport Pagnell in t5hose days

I didn't get around to pointing this out to Paddington i.e. Bucks excluding Milton Keynes!

FWIW, Milton Keynes did not change it's name from Newport Pagnell. It was re-formed from Wolverton Rugby (after a long hiatus between the Wars) by a PE teacher at the then grammar school (Ced Parry). Until then, being a railway town, most played football but those more in the professional classes played cricket. They played on a recreation field in Wolverton, HQ'd in a pub and used the railway work's bath house for ablutions. Later they played as MK in a sh*thole new estate called Greenleys before it was sold for housing and they then relocated to a slightly less rough, but equally soulless lego-land estate at Emerson Valley. These days, most serious rugby people in the area will play for Bletchley or Ampthill.

I was at Bletchley Rugby on Sunday and worryingly mass lego-land housing is being built at a rate of knots towards their pitches. One wonders how long before MK Council shafts them too for some backhanders from builders.

Bugger, I guessed wrong, I knew it was Wolverton or NP!!
Played at the MK Greenleys pitch a couple of times and yep a shithole!!
I do hope Bletchley survive as is, always a good bunch in the old days, a proper club. Some good village pubs on the way back to Buckingham as well.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 12:54 pm

Note that Farrell was not in the process of making a legal tackle only for it to be turned into an illegal one due to a late change in dynamics. The change in dynamics happened, then Farrell decided to make a hugely illegal hit.

I cannot think of a single more stupid decision made by a citing committee in the pro era. The final nail in the coffin of making any real effort to deal with head injuries and player safety.

Great for England and as a fan I hope it inspires Farrell to actually start performing for the team, but an absolutely dreadful day for the sport.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:03 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 12:54 pm

Note that Farrell was not in the process of making a legal tackle only for it to be turned into an illegal one due to a late change in dynamics. The change in dynamics happened, then Farrell decided to make a hugely illegal hit.

I cannot think of a single more stupid decision made by a citing committee in the pro era. The final nail in the coffin of making any real effort to deal with head injuries and player safety.

Great for England and as a fan I hope it inspires Farrell to actually start performing for the team, but an absolutely dreadful day for the sport.

Jesssus f***king kerrrrist. We all knew they'd attempt some fudge but this is simply taking the p*ss. As you say, they have basically run up a flag pronouncing "all this player welfare stuff is simply bollox rinsing".

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:07 pm
Southern Hemisphere, funny how if he'd had an English board judging him, he'd probably have gotten 5 weeks.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:10 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:07 pm
Southern Hemisphere, funny how if he'd had an English board judging him, he'd probably have gotten 5 weeks.

Eng had no chance at RWC so undermining if further by giving Farrell a freebie at the expense of everything rugby claims to have been trying to fix is an abomination. I would really love to get Steve Thompson's take on this.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:10 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:07 pm
Southern Hemisphere, funny how if he'd had an English board judging him, he'd probably have gotten 5 weeks.

Eng had no chance at RWC so undermining it further by giving Farrell a freebie at the expense of everything rugby claims to have been trying to fix is an abomination. I would really love to get Steve Thompson's take on this.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:18 pm I said after the Zander Fagerson debacle that it would add fuel to the fire of those who are bringing a suit against World Rugby for them not taking adequate precautions to ensure player safety.

This doesn't so much add fuel to the fire as pours a tanker fuel of aviation fuel over it and starts a wind machine blowing at it.

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:22 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:10 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:07 pm
Southern Hemisphere, funny how if he'd had an English board judging him, he'd probably have gotten 5 weeks.

Eng had no chance at RWC so undermining it further by giving Farrell a freebie at the expense of everything rugby claims to have been trying to fix is an abomination. I would really love to get Steve Thompson's take on this.

Alix Popham was in the paper today saying it was the type of challenge they need to come down heavily on

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:17 pm As a reminder of what happened and an easy example of how bad a decision this is, look at all the angles in the second half of this clip

In every single one, it's clear he that he isn't trying to make a tackle until after the change in direction, he's always upright, never trying to wrap with the hitting shoulder, and is never going to be legal.

The late change of direction is nothing out of the ordinary. Basham doesn't suddenly fall or get shoved 90 degrees. A sidestep would've been more dramatic. It's absolutely insane that they reached this decision and if I had hair long enough I'd be pulling it out right now.

assfly wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:41 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:17 pm As a reminder of what happened and an easy example of how bad a decision this is, look at all the angles in the second half of this clip

In every single one, it's clear he that he isn't trying to make a tackle until after the change in direction, he's always upright, never trying to wrap with the hitting shoulder, and is never going to be legal.

The late change of direction is nothing out of the ordinary. Basham doesn't suddenly fall or get shoved 90 degrees. A sidestep would've been more dramatic. It's absolutely insane that they reached this decision and if I had hair long enough I'd be pulling it out right now.

Agreed 100%. His technique is horrific, he's launching up towards Basham's head and there is no discernable change in height at all from Basham.

It's completely mind-boggling what the committee must have been watching.

Six Nations chief moved to insist the officials from Saturday’s match cannot be criticised for their judgement in the match. That stance will only further cloud rugby’s already confused disciplinary processes, at a time when the sport is desperately seeking clarity amid grave safety fears.

“The committee believe it is important to record that no criticism is made of the Foul Play Review Officer nor would any be warranted,” read the Six Nations statement.

“Unlike the Foul Play Review Officer the Committee had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident and the proper application of the Head Contact Process."

“The Committee believe this is in contrast to the Foul Play Review Officer, who was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes without the benefit of all the additional material including hearing from the player and his legal representative.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:58 pm And so the arse covering begins:

Six Nations chief moved to insist the officials from Saturday’s match cannot be criticised for their judgement in the match. That stance will only further cloud rugby’s already confused disciplinary processes, at a time when the sport is desperately seeking clarity amid grave safety fears.

“The committee believe it is important to record that no criticism is made of the Foul Play Review Officer nor would any be warranted,” read the Six Nations statement.

“Unlike the Foul Play Review Officer the Committee had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident and the proper application of the Head Contact Process."

“The Committee believe this is in contrast to the Foul Play Review Officer, who was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes without the benefit of all the additional material including hearing from the player and his legal representative.

Nice try slimeballs but the clear inference is that the on field decision DID NOT follow the proper application of the Laws.

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:44 pm God help World Rugby if a player can get them into the US Court system, the blazers will be bankrupted with this sort of attitude to player welfare.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:05 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:58 pm And so the arse covering begins:

Six Nations chief moved to insist the officials from Saturday’s match cannot be criticised for their judgement in the match. That stance will only further cloud rugby’s already confused disciplinary processes, at a time when the sport is desperately seeking clarity amid grave safety fears.

“The committee believe it is important to record that no criticism is made of the Foul Play Review Officer nor would any be warranted,” read the Six Nations statement.

“Unlike the Foul Play Review Officer the Committee had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident and the proper application of the Head Contact Process."

“The Committee believe this is in contrast to the Foul Play Review Officer, who was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes without the benefit of all the additional material including hearing from the player and his legal representative.

Nice try slimeballs but the clear inference is that the on field decision DID NOT follow the proper application of the Laws.

It's one of two things:

Either the TMO fucked up or the disciplinary committee did. Thre's not fudging this.

Given the many, many head contact incidents most rugby fans will have seen over the last few years, it looks much more like the latter are at fault than the former.

Big D wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:18 pm Will be interesting to see if WR appeal this. I think they get 48hrs to appeal.

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:21 pm

Big D wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:18 pm Will be interesting to see if WR appeal this. I think they get 48hrs to appeal.

I don't properly understand this, is it not WR making the decision?

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:21 pm

Big D wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:18 pm Will be interesting to see if WR appeal this. I think they get 48hrs to appeal.

I don't properly understand this, is it not WR making the decision?