Let’s be fair, Mann rattled the cage and got a reaction

Mann flicked a hand at Eben’s jaw after it had seemingly all quietened down

Then Eben lost it

Big time

@MiketheSnow said in Bokke vs Wales:

Let’s be fair, Mann rattled the cage and got a reaction

Mann flicked a hand at Eben’s jaw after it had seemingly all quietened down

Then Eben lost it

Big time

Whatever set him off, it clearly wasn't any action at the ruck otherwise he'd have done it immediately.

i didnt see the game , was going to have a look at the highlights but saw the scoreline somewhere else and didnt bother ,

now this stuff has blown up everywhere ,

i like Eben , great player , yeah bit of a hothead but seems like a good bloke off the field

gone a bit too far this time unfortunately for him , you would imagine they will make an example of him , otherwise next time player x will say eben only got this penalty

@antipodean said in Bokke vs Wales:

@MiketheSnow said in Bokke vs Wales:

Let’s be fair, Mann rattled the cage and got a reaction

Mann flicked a hand at Eben’s jaw after it had seemingly all quietened down

Then Eben lost it

Big time

Whatever set him off, it clearly wasn't any action at the ruck otherwise he'd have done it immediately.

That’s where it started

Eben came in with an elbow

@MiketheSnow said in Bokke vs Wales:

This match was part of a two match deal with SA which was brokered pre-Covid

Yes, it was a a beating.

Yes, we’re really poor at the moment.

But like all things sport there’s a lot of recency bias in the aftermath of this drubbing.

A far better Welsh team than the one which played yesterday had an even bigger hiding in Pretoria in 1998

June 1999 - almost exact one year to the day - Wales recorded their first ever win over SA

Perhaps lightning will strike twice

And Rassie played in both matches

It's worth remembering (when wanting to rip WRU in pieces), that this game was meant to be played in 2020 and a little thing called covid killed it, then 2021, ditto with covid. And if Wales hadn't played the test they stood to have to pay SARU $1m.

@nostrildamus said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@Dan54 said in Bokke vs Wales:

I personally would be happy if Esteben was finished as a rugby player after this. Just stupidity of highest order, and I see nothing to gained from seeing him on rugby field again.

Worth noting that in .. something like 140 tests he has never had a red card. Not condoning his actions today, but he is not a dirty player. A moment of madness.

You have a go at someone's eye you are a dirty player. Doesn't matter you wore white underwear on the outside, a cape, and a "Peace Bro!" armband for 139 tests.

Reports are that the panel is split on Etsedeths ban. Some say intentional, others accidental. Happy that they are not immediately calling for his head.
You are assuming he went for the eye intentionally.

FFS

"'The giant lock is said to have pleaded his actions were reckless but "not intentional" during a five-hour hearing on Tuesday night that ran until almost midnight, according to South African outlet Netwerk24.

Such was Etzebeth's defence argument, the independent disciplinary panel were unable to reach agreement on the length of punishment and made the unusual request for more time to consider their punishment.

It is reported a verdict could now come as late as Sunday - over a week after the incident which sickened the Principality Stadium. The decision on whether Etzebeth's action was deliberate or just reckless and unintentional is crucial in terms of the length of sanction.'

My reading is that the panel are split on what should be length of Etzebeth's ban, but not that a ban is appropriate.

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

@reprobate looking at his facial expression while his thumb was in the eye would seem he was very angry and intent on something....regardless of the level of punishment for Eben, watch WR fuck this one up.

The whole carding and judiciary process is a joke and needs an overhaul, including the TMO.

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

FFS

Didn't Owen Franks get away with an eye gouge? Against the Wallabies??

I might be going against the grain here, but I'm glad the panel are taking their time and gathering all the available evidence and assessing it before announcing what the ban should be. Let's hope they are being thorough and fair in their police work.

@sparky evidence? How many times do they need to view the footage?

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

Not sure if that would make for a fair process though. Accidental contact with the eyes is different than deliberate obviously. This could be a career defining issue for him not to mention the money he will likely lose. I find it hard to believe that he went after his eyes.

@MiketheSnow said in Bokke vs Wales:

FFS

No. Fair treatment under the law. He will get a ban, so calm down.

@Toddy said in Bokke vs Wales:

Didn't Owen Franks get away with an eye gouge? Against the Wallabies??

Yep.

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

Not sure if that would make for a fair process though. Accidental contact with the eyes is different than deliberate obviously. This could be a career defining issue for him not to mention the money he will likely lose. I find it hard to believe that he went after his eyes.

My point is that if you can't judge intent accurately - which in most cases you can't - then you need to choose to sanction without regard for it - all deliberate or all accidental.
My preference would be to treat it all as deliberate, unless the player isn't in a position to see that it is a face they are targeting. As soon as it is a face and they know it, fuck 'em all off.

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

Not sure if that would make for a fair process though. Accidental contact with the eyes is different than deliberate obviously. This could be a career defining issue for him not to mention the money he will likely lose. I find it hard to believe that he went after his eyes.

My point is that if you can't judge intent accurately - which in most cases you can't - then you need to choose to sanction without regard for it - all deliberate or all accidental.
My preference would be to treat it all as deliberate, unless the player isn't in a position to see that it is a face they are targeting. As soon as it is a face and they know it, fuck 'em all off.

Except now you have to make a discernment on whether the player can see the other players face or not. Look, I wish it were as simple as you would like it to be, but it isn’t. These players earn a living playing the game. They deserve a fair “trial”

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Isn't there a pretty strong rumour the one saying it unintentional is Welsh?

@taniwharugby said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate looking at his facial expression while his thumb was in the eye would seem he was very angry and intent on something....regardless of the level of punishment for Eben, watch WR fuck this one up.

The whole carding and judiciary process is a joke and needs an overhaul, including the TMO.

How does it get overhauled? I not sure it's ideal, but have not a lot of ideas (that wouldn't get shot to pieces), so would love to hear ideas being discussed.

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

Not sure if that would make for a fair process though. Accidental contact with the eyes is different than deliberate obviously. This could be a career defining issue for him not to mention the money he will likely lose. I find it hard to believe that he went after his eyes.

My point is that if you can't judge intent accurately - which in most cases you can't - then you need to choose to sanction without regard for it - all deliberate or all accidental.
My preference would be to treat it all as deliberate, unless the player isn't in a position to see that it is a face they are targeting. As soon as it is a face and they know it, fuck 'em all off.

Except now you have to make a discernment on whether the player can see the other players face or not. Look, I wish it were as simple as you would like it to be, but it isn’t. These players earn a living playing the game. They deserve a fair “trial”

Line of sight is a shitload easier for an outside observer to judge than the evil in Eben's heart mate.
If it is known that the face is off limits, then what wouldn't be fair about it?

@Dan54 point is, the system seems broken, wildly inconsistent, these people at WR have the tools and resources to find better more consistent ways to deal with it.

Sure, no.model will be perfect, but right now, it is a long way from where it should be for a professional organisation.

if you put your thumb in someone's eye and keep pushing then you're a fluffybunny. Trying to work out what he was thinking or went through his thick roided head before during and after is about as irrelevant as what colour his underpants were.

Downvote

Apparently the All Blacks' self-styled spiritual leader provided a "character testimony" for Etzebeth.

So because they share an agent and pray together, one of them can commit assault against a third person with reduced consequences. Utter, utter bollocks.

Shameful.

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@reprobate said in Bokke vs Wales:

Ah, South Africans on the panel are there? Poor old Eben.

Actually, I don't believe so.

Well that's good if so. Intent is a very hard thing to prove or disprove in this situation I would have thought - but really my opinion is as simple as: if you make the decision to attack someone's face, well, that's where their fucking eyes are - and that makes it deliberate.

Not sure if that would make for a fair process though. Accidental contact with the eyes is different than deliberate obviously. This could be a career defining issue for him not to mention the money he will likely lose. I find it hard to believe that he went after his eyes.

Well he pushed his thumb hard into his eye socket while looking straight at the players face.

I find it hard to believe he had any other intention other than going for his eyes.

Do we know how long is thumb was in his eye for?

@sparky said in Bokke vs Wales:

Apparently the All Blacks' self-styled spiritual leader provided a "character testimony" for Etzebeth.

So because they share an agent and pray together, one of them can commit assault against a third person with reduced consequences. Utter, utter bollocks.

Shameful.

Seriously? Why would that even come into consideration?

First BB helps out someone who smacks him in the head and now Savea doing this.

Stop fluffing the boks. Stop being the nice guys of a gladiatoral sport.

Stop acting like pussies and get angry that everyone now thinks we are pussies

@W32 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@Toddy said in Bokke vs Wales:

Didn't Owen Franks get away with an eye gouge? Against the Wallabies??

Yep.

View embedded content

Er...no. There was no citing by either team after the Wobblie forward involved said it was entirely accidental, IIRC

@DaGrubster said in Bokke vs Wales:

@sparky said in Bokke vs Wales:

Apparently the All Blacks' self-styled spiritual leader provided a "character testimony" for Etzebeth.

So because they share an agent and pray together, one of them can commit assault against a third person with reduced consequences. Utter, utter bollocks.

Shameful.

Seriously? Why would that even come into consideration?

First BB helps out someone who smacks him in the head and now Savea doing this.

Stop fluffing the boks. Stop being the nice guys of a gladiatoral sport.

Stop acting like pussies and get angry that everyone now thinks we are pussies

Always been done Grubs. hell I have even given a character reference at a rugby judiciary hearing in Brisbane and at Levin only at club level of course. I recall Sam T (Nua ,you know him)doing exactly same for an Auckland player after Nua -Auckland shield match, well that wasn't a character one. more just bullshitted that what happened never really happened.
Like in normal court, I not sure it makes a difference, and I have supplied one there too, you not actually defending the actions, just how you find the person from your dealings with him.
It's not unusual, hell it has happened when Abs etc go up for too. Whether it actually makes a difference, I not sure.
I always used to laugh, Brad Thorn always publicly spoke up for Bakkies Botha, a lot of players did, reckoned that off field he was great joker etc, hell I even heard Phil Kearns among others say same about Richard Loe, who let's face it if we honest made Botha, Estebeth etc look angels!

@DaGrubster said in Bokke vs Wales:

@sparky said in Bokke vs Wales:

Apparently the All Blacks' self-styled spiritual leader provided a "character testimony" for Etzebeth.

So because they share an agent and pray together, one of them can commit assault against a third person with reduced consequences. Utter, utter bollocks.

Shameful.

Seriously? Why would that even come into consideration?

First BB helps out someone who smacks him in the head and now Savea doing this.

Stop fluffing the boks. Stop being the nice guys of a gladiatoral sport.

Stop acting like pussies and get angry that everyone now thinks we are pussies

i dont have a problem with BB....because he was actually involved, first hand he can talk about the atmosphere and if he thinks its was deliberate.....no idea why savea is getting involved, he wasn't on the pitch

@Kiwiwomble said in Bokke vs Wales:

@DaGrubster said in Bokke vs Wales:

@sparky said in Bokke vs Wales:

Apparently the All Blacks' self-styled spiritual leader provided a "character testimony" for Etzebeth.

So because they share an agent and pray together, one of them can commit assault against a third person with reduced consequences. Utter, utter bollocks.

Shameful.

Seriously? Why would that even come into consideration?

First BB helps out someone who smacks him in the head and now Savea doing this.

Stop fluffing the boks. Stop being the nice guys of a gladiatoral sport.

Stop acting like pussies and get angry that everyone now thinks we are pussies

i dont have a problem with BB....because he was actually involved, first hand he can talk about the atmosphere and if he thinks its was deliberate.....no idea why savea is getting involved, he wasn't on the pitch

Cos he’s a really big deal in Social Media. Have you seen his Insta ?

@MN5 said in Bokke vs Wales:

@Kiwiwomble said in Bokke vs Wales:

@DaGrubster said in Bokke vs Wales:

@sparky said in Bokke vs Wales:

Apparently the All Blacks' self-styled spiritual leader provided a "character testimony" for Etzebeth.

So because they share an agent and pray together, one of them can commit assault against a third person with reduced consequences. Utter, utter bollocks.

Shameful.

Seriously? Why would that even come into consideration?

First BB helps out someone who smacks him in the head and now Savea doing this.

Stop fluffing the boks. Stop being the nice guys of a gladiatoral sport.

Stop acting like pussies and get angry that everyone now thinks we are pussies

i dont have a problem with BB....because he was actually involved, first hand he can talk about the atmosphere and if he thinks its was deliberate.....no idea why savea is getting involved, he wasn't on the pitch

Cos he’s a really big deal in Social Media. Have you seen his Insta ?

i should rephrase.....i think i know WHY....i dont think he SHOULD

April 18. Ospreys vs Sharks. Physical price.

The All Blacks are a bunch of fucking cats.

But even above that, why the fuck does a character reference from someone who wasn't even playing come in to it.