@catogrande damn you to hell, you made me read the WR relating to disciplinary hearings .

So disciplinary hearings are structured differently than what I (and you) imagined. I thought it would be structured like a trial, with someone presenting the case for the prosecution and the player then having an opportunity to defend themselves.

What actually happens is that citing commissioner lays a charge and compiles the evidence which is then presented to disciplinary committee and the player being cited. A citing is treated basically the same as a sending off in this regard.

Once a player has been cited, the onus shifts onto the cited player to convince the committee that he should not be sanctioned.

The SA team doctor in this case did not testify as an expert, but rather as a meterial witness. He testified to the existence and nature of Mostert's injury, that's it.

The regulations are written in such a way that committee can basically do as they like in terms of process (except ironically in determining the burden of proof to be applied), but it does not appear that SA are entitled to present expert testimony in this case. It is also not really practical to do so given the time frames involved and the lack of clear rules regarding discovery.

@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@catogrande damn you to hell, you made me read the WR relating to disciplinary hearings .

My sincerest apologies.

Rassie is such a tricksy fox

“We want to see a change in mentality from our players in terms of speeding up the game. We want to see less ‘ball out of play’ and more action.” SA Rugby’s director of rugby Rassie Erasmus, 25 February 2021

@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.

'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).

@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.

'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).

Deals? Que?

@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.

'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).

Deals? Que?

Should be quoi, but oui, deals.

Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.

I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.

@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.

The way I read it, the forearm got pushed into a mouth in the dynamic ruck. The injury was really minor - so the argument is that it wasn't clearly a bite, and could have been incidental contact.

I have some sympathy for this position... I'd hate to be hung on someone pushing a forearm into my open mouth. And what's te point of a gentle bite that doesn't puncture the skin?

@nzzp I guess they had enough evidence to go down that road. Plenty of accidental contact to the head gets punished though. I'm just a bit dubious about it all.

Getting an accidental bite in with a mouth guard in as well?

@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@nzzp I guess they had enough evidence to go down that road. Plenty of accidental contact to the head gets punished though. I'm just a bit dubious about it all.

Getting an accidental bite in with a mouth guard in as well?

Kyle doesn’t wear one.

@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@nzzp I guess they had enough evidence to go down that road. Plenty of accidental contact to the head gets punished though. I'm just a bit dubious about it all.

Getting an accidental bite in with a mouth guard in as well?

Kyle doesn’t wear one.

That would explain it then. Also confirms why I think that he is an idiot.

@nzzp said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.

The way I read it, the forearm got pushed into a mouth in the dynamic ruck. The injury was really minor - so the argument is that it wasn't clearly a bite, and could have been incidental contact.

I have some sympathy for this position... I'd hate to be hung on someone pushing a forearm into my open mouth. And what's te point of a gentle bite that doesn't puncture the skin?

We once had a guy on the ground, head near opponent's leg. Opponent screamed, gets up with bite mark. Ref didn't "see" it, but red card on probability. What wasn't evident was the opponent was reefing away at our bloke's headgear, so it was reactionary.

12 weeks for biting, basically because the ref could connect 2 events and we didn't have any video to back up claims of the head being attacked.

@daffy-jaffy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

reddit rugby feed

the RugbyUnion reddit is possibly the dumbest place on the internet.

@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.

'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).

Deals? Que?

Should be quoi, but oui, deals.

Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.

I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.

Sorry but is this a Lions thing or is it a French thing? Anything specific that leads you down either road mate?

@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.

'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).

Deals? Que?

Should be quoi, but oui, deals.

Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.

I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.

Sorry but is this a Lions thing or is it a French thing? Anything specific that leads you down either road mate?

It's both really. The former leading to the latter.

Always heaps of off field stuff with lions tours. From taking a spin doctor like Alistair Campbell on tour, to a 1 hour after match video by a coach. All designed to influence opinions. It is part of a Lions tour that you have very passionate fans, and they only happen every 4 years so the off field antics ramp up a lot on all sides. That increases pressure on the officials and some "interesting" decisions (read French there in my example).

@snowy

Yeah the Campbell thing was outrageous, mind you, my friend brought back some of the NZ press from the 2005 tour which was equally appalling, slating the players, the coaching staff, the officials and “highlighting” various areas of the Lions play in the build up in what looked like attempts to influence the refereeing. It was pretty non-stop and quite often front page. Woodward was awful on that tour and in truth I don’t see Gatland as being a whole lot better. Erasmus just stepped it all up a notch.

Deals though? Nah.

what a fucking jackass

@mariner4life said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:

what a fucking jackass

He's officially beyond contempt

Interesting to see how the aftermath of the Rassie thing has been totally ignored by the local media and official channels.

Glad to hear that the result of the series is not being over-turned though! But, a bit disappointing that 3 of the allegations of errors were found incorrect by the expert officials panel. He was ruled correct on only a measly 23 of them.

But, the huge leaked revelation/allegation is that Erasmus sent a copy of the video to Referee Nic Berry before it surfaced in Aussie media. Looks like somebody deliberately hung Erasmus out to dry. I wonder if any action will be taken on that, as apparently sending a review video to a referee is not a novel thing?