General Rugby Discussion

irishbucsfan

Winters wrote: »

One of the benefits of the current fragmented season structure is that where there are overlaps between the international and domestic fixtures is that the club games are not European games, playoff games or competition finals.

How an overlap could be incorporated into the planned global season is going to be one tricky conversation.

I don't think there's be a problem with overlapping in autumn, nobody really has crucial games in that period. Alternatively they can completely avoid an overlap if they incorporate a couple of midweek games per season, which is how the 26 game domestic season was made to work, they could even agree to play November club games on Sundays if the internationals agree to play autumn tests on Saturdays which would make a great difference.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

You really need to read my posts properly. I've said all along that there will have to either be overlap or a reduction in games. And I went on to say that I don't see there being a reduction in games.

You're the one who spoke about scheduling the club game from Sept-April and the internationals games from May-July. Forgive me if I assumed that meant no overlap, but it clearly suggests just that.

I see now you're saying that the November Internationals wouldn't move, and that would probably work, but it'd be interesting to see how it would all fit with the SHs requirements as well.

No, I never said that, you just assumed it.

The SH requirements are nowhere near as severe, they're not going to be an issue.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, I never said that, you just assumed it.

If you read the part you bolded yourself you'd see I said exactly that myself......

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

If you read the part you bolded yourself you'd see I said exactly that myself......

I know you said that there would be overlap, what I'm saying is that you assumed that I meant that there would be no overlap which was entirely wrong. It hardly matters.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I know you said that there would be overlap, what I'm saying is that you assumed that I meant that there would be no overlap which was entirely wrong. It hardly matters.

You're right, it hardly matters. But just so we're clear what I meant in that last post was that I had already admitted to making the assumption. That's where the word "assumed" came from in the line you bolded.

In terms of the global calendar are we bringing both hemispheres in line so that the international window is the same all over the world? If we were to do that, but keep the November Internationals, then when would the Super Rugby fit in? Because bringing it all in line would mean blocking out May and June for internationals and playing the RC in May alongside the 6 Nations. That would either necessitate Super Rugby take a 2 month break or be completely rescheduled. If it is pushed out to the start of July after the international window then it will have to take a break for the AIs, which would be less than ideal as it would require more than the 3 weeks it currently breaks for in June (to factor in the travel issues).

Or are we talking about leaving the SH international window as-is and just moving the 6 Nations?

irishbucsfan

Sounds like Premiership Rugby are making moves to make player salaries public information in order to combat suspicion around salary caps (according to Gloucester Rugby CEO). It works for the NFL so it would be a good move, I assume they have to give quite a bit of notice on something like that though. If the salaries really are much higher in Premiership Rugby it could be a problem for Pro 12 teams that they're public (although current exchange rate might help us!).

EDIT: Listening to the podcast myself what's actually happening (rather than relying on Twitter) is that Premiership clubs are this year sharing salary data openly between themselves and he (Gloucester's CEO) thinks that in future they will follow the American model, rather than the wheels being in motion currently.

sydthebeat

http://www.rugby365.com/article/74899-douglas-says-he-wasn-t-eye-gouged-by-franks

Douglas said the footage made Franks' actions look worse than what it was.

"I probably didn't realise how bad it looked until after the game [when watching replays]," he said.

"My eyes were fine and it all happened so quickly I was on to the next thing in the game."

chapter closed

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

http://www.rugby365.com/article/74899-douglas-says-he-wasn-t-eye-gouged-by-franks



chapter closed

Happens all the time that players defend their opponents in these situations. Cullen defended Quinlan as well if I remember (maybe because his Lions tour was on the line). It's an absolutely disgraceful situation for SANZAR that this went completely unreviewed (let alone sanctioned) and they need to address how system works before they can begin to rebuild their reputation.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Happens all the time that players defend their opponents in these situations. Cullen defended Quinlan as well if I remember (maybe because his Lions tour was on the line). It's an absolutely disgraceful situation for SANZAR that this went completely unreviewed (let alone sanctioned) and they need to address how system works before they can begin to rebuild their reputation.

Rugby is a weird old sport in that respect. Players seem to go out of their way to not point the finger at people who may have deliberately done something to them, gouging, kicking etc. Maybe the idea is that they trust the powers that be to get these calls right so don't see the need to get involved themselves?

Thinking too of Sexton getting a terrible time after he was lifted out of a ruck and slammed on the ground against Scotland. Him hamming it up a bit got a worse reaction from other/former players than the guy who tried to kill him got.

CatFromHue

sydthebeat wrote: »

http://www.rugby365.com/article/74899-douglas-says-he-wasn-t-eye-gouged-by-franks



chapter closed

He is and isn't defending him as he also says

Douglas said he did not believe Franks' actions amounted to eye-gouging.

"I didn't think of it like that," he told Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper.

"It was an All Black trying to stop me driving through the maul, arms everywhere and everything happening in a few seconds.

"I've got no issue at all but obviously you want to be protecting the eyes of players."

So he doesn't think he was gouged but he wants the powers that be to be protecting the eyes of the players i.e. he got some fingers in the eye

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Happens all the time that players defend their opponents in these situations. Cullen defended Quinlan as well if I remember (maybe because his Lions tour was on the line). It's an absolutely disgraceful situation for SANZAR that this went completely unreviewed (let alone sanctioned) and they need to address how system works before they can begin to rebuild their reputation.

But it was reviewed. The citing commissioner reviewed all the available footage and chose not to cite him. At the time I thought Franks was in trouble but then I again I like most of the others commenting on social media, have seen one or two angles. I'm speculating but I think the citing commissioner has probably seen more. Also the reaction of Douglas at the time and post match, suggests there was nothing to it.

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

But it was reviewed. The citing commissioner reviewed all the available footage and chose not to cite him. At the time I thought Franks was in trouble but then I again I like most of the others commenting on social media, have seen one or two angles. I'm speculating but I think the citing commissioner has probably seen more. Also the reaction of Douglas at the time and post match, suggests there was nothing to it.

Attempting to excuse it is just ludicrous. How can you say with a straight face that he didn't make contact with his eye area?

former total

Nick Kennedy also spoke up for Jennings at the hearing, in spite of going ballistic during the game. It's not uncommon.

Franks should have been cited. Reckless, maybe, but still.

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Attempting to excuse it is just ludicrous. How can you say with a straight face that he didn't make contact with his eye area?

I'm not attempting to excuse it. You said it wasn't reviewed. It was. I thought there was contact with the eye area but I haven't seen all the angles.

When I watched the match I thought he would be cited but I've come realise that some citing commissioners see things completely differently to 99% of rugby fans.

CatFromHue

I'm genuinely amazed with some of the Kiwi commentary on this.

Dunno if anyone noticed but BOD tweeted that it was a farce he wasn't cited and stuff.co.nz had a few articles going on about how he was still sore about what happened to him in 2005.

Then there's John Kirwan saying this

“I still love you Brian, but I think you’re still upset about what happened when Tana didn’t get weeks.”
“And you don’t like New Zealanders because you went down to Australia and you didn’t actually make that final side,” Kirwan added with his tongue-in-cheek.

“He’s totally wrong with that. The judge was there for that, the decision was made. Get over it.”

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/sport/brian-odriscoll-told-to-get-over-it-by-former-kiwi-star-752551.html

I think it's the Kiwi's who need to get over what happened in 2005.

Teferi

Kiwis are the most thin-skinned, saltiest winners in rugby. It's actually unreal. I've been watching the whole saga unfold and their reaction is absolutely bizarre tbh.

irishbucsfan

CatFromHue wrote: »

I'm genuinely amazed with some of the Kiwi commentary on this.

Dunno if anyone noticed but BOD tweeted that it was a farce he wasn't cited and stuff.co.nz had a few articles going on about how he was still sore about what happened to him in 2005.

Then there's John Kirwan saying this



http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/sport/brian-odriscoll-told-to-get-over-it-by-former-kiwi-star-752551.html

I think it's the Kiwi's who need to get over what happened in 2005.

O'Driscoll tweeted (jokingly it seems) that Kiwis are so precious about their rugby team because there's nothing else in New Zealand to be proud of (he then deleted it and apologised because it was childish). I can understand them being unhappy with that, even if Kirwan is talking nonsense.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

O'Driscoll tweeted (jokingly it seems) that Kiwis are so precious about their rugby team because there's nothing else in New Zealand to be proud of (he then deleted it and apologised because it was childish). I can understand them being unhappy with that, even if Kirwan is talking nonsense.

I think BOD claims he aimed that tweet at individuals. Like "you must not have much else in your life if you're so obsessed with this", but he phrased it poorly and it sounded like a jab st the wonderful and varied nation of new Zealand.

Bigbok

Teferi wrote: »

Kiwis are the most thin-skinned, saltiest winners in rugby. It's actually unreal. I've been watching the whole saga unfold and their reaction is absolutely bizarre tbh.

Yet I find the Irish go into dreamland,when they win a game then they seem to think they the best and get cocky?with regards to the 2005 incident I feel the Irish are the ones that can't forget it and keep bringing it up.

irishbucsfan

Bigbok wrote: »

Yet I find the Irish go into dreamland,when they win a game then they seem to think they the best and get cocky?with regards to the 2005 incident I feel the Irish are the ones that can't forget it and keep bringing it up.

Ah yes I remember you telling us how deluded we were before we beat you this summer! Then it all went very quiet for a while...

Yeah_Right

CatFromHue wrote: »

I'm genuinely amazed with some of the Kiwi commentary on this.

Dunno if anyone noticed but BOD tweeted that it was a farce he wasn't cited and stuff.co.nz had a few articles going on about how he was still sore about what happened to him in 2005.

Then there's John Kirwan saying this



http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/sport/brian-odriscoll-told-to-get-over-it-by-former-kiwi-star-752551.html

I think it's the Kiwi's who need to get over what happened in 2005.

I have to say that it's a sad indictment on our society that tweets are quoted by news organisations as if they're actually relevant. It's lazy journalism, click bait and bull****. BOD in a Twitter fight with a couple of kiwi morons, yawn.

As for letting go the 2005 incident, after living in Ireland for nearly a decade, it's Irish fans that need to let it go in my experience. My gf and her family now hate the Blues (my team) because of Umaga. I can't even begin to count the amount of times I've been given grief in pubs or parties because of it. Kiwis only bring it up to wind Irish fans up

Bigbok

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah yes I remember you telling us how deluded we were before we beat you this summer! Then it all went very quiet for a while...

Yeah and remember how everyone saying after the first test what a great team Ireland are and u will give anyone a run for their money.....when in fact u couldn't win a test series against the worst bok team in living memory.

CatFromHue

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Kiwis only bring it up to wind Irish fans up

and it works so well :mad::mad:

:pac:

irishbucsfan

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I have to say that it's a sad indictment on our society that tweets are quoted by news organisations as if they're actually relevant. It's lazy journalism, click bait and bull****. BOD in a Twitter fight with a couple of kiwi morons, yawn.

As for letting go the 2005 incident, after living in Ireland for nearly a decade, it's Irish fans that need to let it go in my experience. My gf and her family now hate the Blues (my team) because of Umaga. I can't even begin to count the amount of times I've been given grief in pubs or parties because of it. Kiwis only bring it up to wind Irish fans up

Ah it's only because when Irish players commit acts of violent conduct they're generally reprimanded for it and held to account, I can understand why the kiwis are so perplexed by the notion, it doesn't seem to happen to their players ever.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I thought we held onto that BOD thing in the same way we hang onto Thierry Henry's handball. We're not really mad about it we just like to pretend we are. Or maybe that's just me?

CatFromHue

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I thought we held onto that BOD thing in the same way we hang onto Thierry Henry's handball. We're not really mad about it we just like to pretend we are. Or maybe that's just me?

I was just surprised at how quick the Kiwi newspapers and Kirwan brought it up when BOD mentioned how poor a decision it was not to cite Franks.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

CatFromHue wrote: »

I was just surprised at how quick the Kiwi newspapers and Kirwan brought it up when BOD mentioned how poor a decision it was not to cite Franks.

Maybe they don't get that we're mostly joking when we bring it up and think we really are obsessed with it :eek:

molloyjh

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I have to say that it's a sad indictment on our society that tweets are quoted by news organisations as if they're actually relevant. It's lazy journalism, click bait and bull****. BOD in a Twitter fight with a couple of kiwi morons, yawn.

As for letting go the 2005 incident, after living in Ireland for nearly a decade, it's Irish fans that need to let it go in my experience. My gf and her family now hate the Blues (my team) because of Umaga. I can't even begin to count the amount of times I've been given grief in pubs or parties because of it. Kiwis only bring it up to wind Irish fans up

There is a small minority of people who seem utterly incapable of letting that stuff go (see the Henry handball for another classic example). It's embarrassing and frustrating in equal measure. But it's also something Drico has been at pains for years to point out is in the past and should be forgotten about. And we don't have pundits banging on about it either, ever AFAIK. That Kirwan felt the need to bring it up himself, as well as the dropping in Oz, is really crass and quite frankly (excuse the pun ) pathetic.

I think the big issue here is that the only reaction we have to go on here is online reaction and the reaction of the NZ media. Now if Kiwis were basing their opinions of Irish rugby fans on those same things then I can't imagine they'd be getting a very positive picture. Both can be very skewed by their nature.

My own personal opinion is that there is clearly hands in and around the eye area. No amount of additional angles takes the hand away from that area. It might provide greater clarity as to exactly what happened, but the hand was still in the eye area and still moved across the eye area. It should have led to a citing. That doesn't mean a ban, but it should have led to a hearing of some sort. I'd say the same thing regardless of who the player or team in question was.

molloyjh

Bigbok wrote: »

Yet I find the Irish go into dreamland,when they win a game then they seem to think they the best and get cocky?with regards to the 2005 incident I feel the Irish are the ones that can't forget it and keep bringing it up.

I think maybe now would be a good time for you to provide some sort of proof for your claim that after 1 win we think we're the best. A lot of us were delighted with that win given the circumstances and praised it, rightfully so, as a result. I can't remember anyone here suddenly claiming that Ireland were the best team in the world off the back of it though.

Also, when was the last time anyone mentioned the 2005 incident here? I don't remember the last time I heard or saw anything about it until Kirwan brought it up.

Maybe if you're going to start making claims like the ones above you should have a look to see if you can back them up first. Just a thought.

Yeah_Right

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah it's only because when Irish players commit acts of violent conduct they're generally reprimanded for it and held to account, I can understand why the kiwis are so perplexed by the notion, it doesn't seem to happen to their players ever.

This is simply a cultural difference. What you see as violent conduct or thuggery, we see as doing your job. That's why we're shocked when one of our players gets done for a cheeky stamp, a sneaky punch, a thumping great tip tackle or shoulder charge. We simply don't understand what the big deal is about a facial between forwards. We can understand a back having a whinge but not a forward.