@mn5 said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
That is hilarious.
Honestly, the gall of South Africa to score more points than the Lions and win the series.
I'm going to come off really sexist and misogynistic... But I get Nienaber calling instructions given he's been a professional coach since 2008 with WeePee, Stormers, Bokke and Munster, whereas Rene Naylor is a physio
... what does she know about defensive alignments?
@booboo said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@mn5 said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
That is hilarious.
Honestly, the gall of South Africa to score more points than the Lions and win the series.
I'm going to come off really sexist and misogynistic... But I get Nienaber calling instructions given he's been a professional coach since 2008 with WeePee, Stormers, Bokke and Munster, whereas Rene Naylor is a physio
... what does she know about defensive alignments?
Well she seems to think she does?!
This is the only SA-BIL test I didn't get up for, and the game ended up being the best of the lot. Not that hard really.
I was hoping to watch the recording last night but a power cut ended that idea. I'll read through the match comments later but a draw would have been the perfect ending.
@bovidae said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This is the only SA-BIL test I didn't get up for, and the game ended up being the best of the lot. Not that hard really.
I was hoping to watch the recording last night but a power cut ended that idea. I'll read through the match comments later but a draw would have been the perfect ending.
Watch some old Lions vids from 2017, you never know what might happen.
@mn5 said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
That is hilarious.
Honestly, the gall of South Africa to score more points than the Lions and win the series.
Right, it shows a lack of goddamn decent respect.
Despite being in the right time zone, this had almost zero interest from me. Clashing with the Olympics, no crowds and all tests played in Capetown, dull rugby from 2 undercooked teams, and no clear underdog for the neutrals to back. I suppose it means more to the SA supporters so maybe the best result for rugby.
@majorrage said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@victor-meldrew said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
Even Chiefs supporters think Foster should go.
I would say a large number of Chiefs fans think he should go. They had more chance of winning Lotto than a title when he was there.
Even Chiefs supporters? I'd say we are the front runners in
a) not wanting him appointed to the AB coaching panel in the first place
b) not wanting him as head coach
c) wanting him to go !Saturdays game had so many parallels to the chiefs era under him. Here's a few
- Stupid penalties given away for no reason as not under pressure
- Lack of any sort of game plan that made any sense
- 20 minutes of being on the front foot, scoring good points and dominating
- 20 minutes of being asleep on the pitch.
That was my point to Victor. Chiefs fans would be at the front of the lynch mob.
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
Without exception they are a pile of shite. Jingoistic, one eyed, myopic, biased with click bait headlines that usually bear little resemblance to the pathetic article.
That certainly describes Rugby Onslaught. Best to avoid.
Now the stories are coming out. Apparently on the flight home Biggar got into the free booze a bit too much and started talking himself up. Without being asked he introduced himself to the guy in the next seat saying “I’m Mike Biggar, British & Irish Lions test fly half”. “yes” the answer came back. “I recognise you. My name is Robbie Henshaw”.
@catogrande the next story making the rounds is that he tried introducing himself to the seat on the othe side. As luck would have it that was occupied by his brother accompanying him on the trip home.
So now the story gets Biggar and Biggar.
@catogrande everybody likes Mike.
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
Now the stories are coming out. Apparently on the flight home Biggar got into the free booze a bit too much and started talking himself up. Without being asked he introduced himself to the guy in the next seat saying “I’m Mike Biggar, British & Irish Lions test fly half”. “yes” the answer came back. “I recognise you. My name is Robbie Henshaw”.
He was so pissed that he forgot his position ? I guess we can cut him some slack, he is in his 70s after all.
@gibbonrib said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
Now the stories are coming out. Apparently on the flight home Biggar got into the free booze a bit too much and started talking himself up. Without being asked he introduced himself to the guy in the next seat saying “I’m Mike Biggar, British & Irish Lions test fly half”. “yes” the answer came back. “I recognise you. My name is Robbie Henshaw”.
He was so pissed that he forgot his position ? I guess we can cut him some slack, he is in his 70s after all.
Bugger. I got the wrong bugger I mean Biggar
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@gibbonrib said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
Now the stories are coming out. Apparently on the flight home Biggar got into the free booze a bit too much and started talking himself up. Without being asked he introduced himself to the guy in the next seat saying “I’m Mike Biggar, British & Irish Lions test fly half”. “yes” the answer came back. “I recognise you. My name is Robbie Henshaw”.
He was so pissed that he forgot his position ? I guess we can cut him some slack, he is in his 70s after all.
Bugger. I got the wrong
buggerI mean Biggar
You’ve made Biggar mistakes.
@pakman said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@gibbonrib said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
Now the stories are coming out. Apparently on the flight home Biggar got into the free booze a bit too much and started talking himself up. Without being asked he introduced himself to the guy in the next seat saying “I’m Mike Biggar, British & Irish Lions test fly half”. “yes” the answer came back. “I recognise you. My name is Robbie Henshaw”.
He was so pissed that he forgot his position ? I guess we can cut him some slack, he is in his 70s after all.
Bugger. I got the wrong
buggerI mean BiggarYou’ve made Biggar mistakes.
But buggered if I can remember when.
Holy fucking shit, I thought the journalist misrepresented the finding, so I checked the WR website.
In short, they accept that there was bite-like injury to Mostert, the only possible source of the injury was Sinckler, but intention was not proven to their satisfaction.
Now I don't mean to suggest that the SC who chaired the hearing is a blithering incompetent, rather that he would have failed law of evidence at any competent university.
The standard (quoted in the decision) is that the cited player must show on the balance of probabilities that the citation must not be upheld.
So the bite-like injury was either intentional or not. I would suggest that a bite is more likely to be intentional than not, but even if the panel doesn't agree, there needs to be evidence, any evidence, to support the conclusion that it was not intentional. The standard they used here was the "beyond a reasonable doubt", which basically requires all reasonable alternatives explanations to be dismissed.
I don't know if Sinckler bit Mostert and I understand the panel not wanting to find a player guilty with limited evidence, but the mental gymnastics that they had to go through to justify their finding is absurd. The regulations, as written, are maybe wrong and if WR wants to maintain some credibility they should rewrite them ASAP.
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
Holy fucking shit, I thought the journalist misrepresented the finding, so I checked the WR website.
In short, they accept that there was bite-like injury to Mostert, the only possible source of the injury was Sinckler, but intention was not proven to their satisfaction.
Now I don't mean to suggest that the SC who chaired the hearing is a blithering incompetent, rather that he would have failed law of evidence at any competent university.
The standard (quoted in the decision) is that the cited player must show on the balance of probabilities that the citation must not be upheld.
So the bite-like injury was either intentional or not. I would suggest that a bite is more likely to be intentional than not, but even if the panel doesn't agree, there needs to be evidence, any evidence, to support the conclusion that it was not intentional. The standard they used here was the "beyond a reasonable doubt", which basically requires all reasonable alternatives explanations to be dismissed.
I don't know if Sinckler bit Mostert and I understand the panel not wanting to find a player guilty with limited evidence, but the mental gymnastics that they had to go through to justify their finding is absurd. The regulations, as written, are maybe wrong and if WR wants to maintain some credibility they should rewrite them ASAP.
Like you, I do not know if Sinckler did bite Mostert or not but it seems the evidence was not conclusive enough to deem it was an actual bite. The SA "expert" admitted he was not qualified to judge this issue. The BILs expert was and his evidence (shown in the wider case details) was as follows:-
"The mark demonstrates small linear elements that are consistent with superficial contact by the biting edges of human upper or lower front teeth. The mark does not demonstrate the features of the biting edges of individual upper or lower front teeth. Consequently, it is not possible to state with certainty which part of the mark was caused by a specific upper or lower front tooth.
The arrangement of the linear elements is consistent with the very slight movement of the biting edges of upper or lower front teeth on the surface of the skin.
The appearance of the mark on the right forearm of Franco Mostert supports the opinion that the mark was caused by either the very slight movement of the teeth or the very slight movement of the skin or a combination of both mechanisms. It is not possible to identify which of the three possible mechanisms of contact was responsible for the mark.
It is important to note that the mark does not demonstrate any of the features of an incisive bite mark. The appearance of the mark is consistent with a recent injury.
The degree of soft tissue injury in the mark is consistent with mild force between the biting edges of upper or lower front teeth and the skin.
Conclusions
The mark referred to in the conclusions means the mark on the right forearm of Franco Mostert.
So, it seems the panel did have some evidence to support their decision.
Edit: Like you, I am probably of the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is most likely a duck". However that is not sufficient to hang someone with.
