EOYT: Wales vs New Zealand, 24/11/2012

[cyRil]

This thread's brilliant. I've got more rep's from this thread than I have from all the others over the entire rest of the year. I love this thread. I wish all threads were like this thread, then there'd just be the great big paradoxical loop of me constantly getting more and more rep's as I gain more and more that year, until I cause the internet to combust, at which point sales for newspapers and magazines skyrocket, and they all attribute it to me, so I get 15% of the profits of all print media without writing a word of it.

Aye

 

[187]

No idea why players/team officials/supporters end up trying to support their offending player when it comes to violent on field incidents. And this "oh yeah what about when Mccaw was elbowed" blah blah is just childish. Hore's 'tackle' was totally illegal, the ball was nowhere in sight and he could have seriously injured the other guy. It should not matter that he plays for your team, it's a game and no-one wants to see a player, any player, seriously injured or hurt. If you're a Kiwi you should be the ones that are the most vocal and most critical of Hore. You shouldn't be trying to bloody defend him or mitigate the offence by mentioning other on-field incidents such as Powells. They are completely irrelevant. The All Blacks aren't a thuggish side, never have been, but there have been a few unsavory incidents in the last few years that really have been dealt with very poorly. The ABS have a fantastic reputation, but crap like Hores tackle only damages it. And when the ABs + supporters act defiantly this only worsens their reputation.

Well hopefully players will think twice before they start trying to obstruct and run lazily... You do that & you will get knocked the **** out! Lol.

I'm just playing. Yeah Hore shouldn't have done what he did but what would the ref's have done if he pointed it out? Give him a warning? Yeah that's probably ok but a penalty would've been a good slap on the wrist. There's no place in rugby for what Hore did but also no place in rugby for obstruction.


Wellington Lions | Wellington Hurricanes | All Blacks | 'Ikale Tahi & now England!

 

[nickdnz]

Well hopefully players will think twice before they start trying to obstruct and run lazily... You do that & you will get knocked the **** out! Lol.

I'm just playing. Yeah Hore shouldn't have done what he did but what would the ref's have done if he pointed it out? Give him a warning? Yeah that's probably ok but a penalty would've been a good slap on the wrist. There's no place in rugby for what Hore did but also no place in rugby for obstruction.
Wellington Lions | Wellington Hurricanes | All Blacks | 'Ikale Tahi & now England!

To be fair - the All Blacks lazy run all the time - especially in support play. Usually isn't so blatant but I think all teams are guilty of it.

 

[smartcooky]

To be fair - the All Blacks lazy run all the time - especially in support play. Usually isn't so blatant but I think all teams are guilty of it.

Like I said, I have no problem with players running their own line and if they get in the way, well, sometimes **** happens.

What I object to is players doing what Davies did; looking around and changing their line (he did it twice) to make sure they get in your way. That is blatant, and it needs to be sorted out.

 

[Zed]

Well hopefully players will think twice before they start trying to obstruct and run lazily... You do that & you will get knocked the **** out! Lol.

I'm just playing. Yeah Hore shouldn't have done what he did but what would the ref's have done if he pointed it out? Give him a warning? Yeah that's probably ok but a penalty would've been a good slap on the wrist. There's no place in rugby for what Hore did but also no place in rugby for obstruction.


Wellington Lions | Wellington Hurricanes | All Blacks | 'Ikale Tahi & now England!

That's a really silly thing to say. Hitting someone to the head/neck from behind and hospitialising them is an incredibly extreme reaction to being obstructed. You shouldn't say "There's no place in rugby for what Hore did but also no place in rugby for obstruction." This would have been a more sensible thing to say - "There's no place in rugby for what Hore did". What is disappointing is how some Kiwi supporters are reacting. Their responses are condemning of Hore, however there is a always a 'but'. There is no but, there is no justification, any illegal hits on Richie McCaw are completely irrelevant etc etc etc take of your black cap for a second, his nationality is of no relevance. If this was a Wallaby I would be highly critical of him and would be hoping he would get a decent ban. We don't need dickheads in this sport that have no control over their emotions and act like thugs. Perhaps the media in the UK have been a bit extreme regarding this incident, but the attitude of some of the Kiwi supporters is pretty disappointing. I get you're trying to stand up for your team/nationality etc but you're going about it the wrong way. Hore ****ed up, period. trying to throw a 'but' into the equation essentially implies you are supporting him.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

That's a really silly thing to say. Hitting someone to the head/neck from behind and hospitialising them is an incredibly extreme reaction to being obstructed. You shouldn't say "There's no place in rugby for what Hore did but also no place in rugby for obstruction." it's akin to saying a rape victim shouldn't have worn a short skirt. This would have been a more sensible thing to say - "There's no place in rugby for what Hore did". What is disappointing is how some Kiwi supporters are reacting. Their responses are condemning of Hore, however there is a always a 'but'. There is no but, there is no justification, any illegal hits on Richie McCaw are completely irrelevant etc etc etc take of your black cap for a second, his nationality is of no relevance. If this was a Wallaby I would be highly critical of him and would be hoping he would get a decent ban. We don't need dickheads in this sport that have no control over their emotions and act like thugs. Perhaps the media in the UK have been a bit extreme regarding this incident, but the attitude of some of the Kiwi supporters is pretty disappointing. I get you're trying to stand up for your team/nationality etc but you're going about it the wrong way. Hore ****ed up, period. trying to throw a 'but' into the equation essentially implies you are supporting him.

Stop trying to tell us what we mean. Everyone's individual view is their own and you are not the world's authority on what's right or wrong and neither am I. Where were you in the threads relating to Scott Higginbotham and his headbutt? Not as prevalent as you are here that's for sure if you were there at all. Get your own Wallaby hat off before telling us to take off our black caps.

Also, how DARE YOU belittle RAPE by using it in an example of that kind above. Even though you are stating that a victim doesn't deserve an attack (which is true) you should never compare a rugby situation in even the remotest comparison to rape. Your post should be deleted. You ever done anything wrong? I think think you bloody well have here mate and maybe YOU should for once admit you've made a mistake. That was straight out bang out of order. Use sports comparisons or argument comparisons, not sexual assaults.


Back to what should be discussed! Throwing buts into an argument in the case kiwi's have used it here is as a reference to the past and the future of citing incidents and rugby attacks and DOES carry relevance. The panels reviewing citings and penalties in rugby do indeed take the past examples and the future into the equation. Incidents on a rugby field are after all comparable in degrees of intensity and effect. (A HELL of a lot better idea than what you used as a comparison above!!!). Why shouldn't we also be able to compare the past and future examples of misconduct when more sensible authorities than yourself use them?

 

[smartcooky]

You shouldn't say "There's no place in rugby for what Hore did but also no place in rugby for obstruction." it's akin to saying a rape victim shouldn't have worn a short skirt.

I echo Mr Iverson's comments on your using of rape as some kind of comparison

 

[Zed]

Also, how DARE YOU belittle RAPE by using it in an example of that kind above. Even though you are stating that a victim doesn't deserve an attack (which is true) you should never compare a rugby situation in even the remotest comparison to rape. Your post should be deleted. You ever done anything wrong? I think think you bloody well have here mate and maybe YOU should for once admit you've made a mistake. That was straight out bang out of order. Use sports comparisons or argument comparisons, not sexual assaults.


?

I agree, apologies post edited.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I agree, apologies post edited.

Also, I think I should add that outside of that, I've totally respected your right to disagree with many of us on the overall Hore incident. On that, you have your points. I've a lot more respect for you again for retracting that, thanks.

 

[187]

Dayum Zed. I said "But" but that doesn't mean I support what Hore did because I don't. I was just trying to point out why he did what he did. Sometimes retaliation is justified, sometimes it isn't. In this case it was a little extreme what he did. A good hard shove from behind to send him flying would've been fine.


Wellington Lions | Wellington Hurricanes | All Blacks | 'Ikale Tahi & now England!

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Dayum Zed. I said "But" but that doesn't mean I support what Hore did because I don't. I was just trying to point out why he did what he did. Sometimes retaliation is justified, sometimes it isn't. In this case it was a little extreme what he did. A good hard shove from behind to send him flying would've been fine.


Wellington Lions | Wellington Hurricanes | All Blacks | 'Ikale Tahi & now England!

I think that's about what most of us read into what you said. At no point was I thinking "187 wanted a swinging arm". I think you just respect old school rugby and the way you make infringers go away. Hore's method was just plain wrong.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Dayum Zed. I said "But" but that doesn't mean I support what Hore did because I don't. I was just trying to point out why he did what he did. Sometimes retaliation is justified, sometimes it isn't. In this case it was a little extreme what he did. A good hard shove from behind to send him flying would've been fine.


Wellington Lions | Wellington Hurricanes | All Blacks | 'Ikale Tahi & now England!

Yeah, but Retaliation is frowned upon in Rugby, it's viewed more extreme than the act which caused the player to retaliate.

CA Iverson, while I do agree that Zed go a bit over the top with the rape reference, I do think you are missing the point that the word rape, has evolved in a more general way of expressing harshness. Dane Cook the American comedian had a whole set about the word rape, along the lines of video games, and more specifically the game of HALO. where he was continuously raped by other players online...

As for the citing section, i think its a bit of a win some/lose some scenario. Adam Thompson's citing incident before this even happened, I think has to be viewed in conjunction with Hore's citing. Thompson and Hore didn't commit the same type of offence, and based on the footage, Hore's swinging arm looked much more severe than Thompson's, yet the IRB appealed Thompson's suspension as being not harsh enough. Yet the IRB was happy with Hore's 5 week ban, which IMHO should've been much more. the view as a SANZAR-team supporter, is that the All Blacks get special treatment, even though there is no prescribed document or proof to show it. If Schalk Burger, Bakkies Botha, Eben Etzebeth, Flip van der Merwe or any other Saffa did exactly the same as Hore, the suspension would've been a minimum of 12 weeks. So why didn't the IRB appeal this citing outcome as well??

 

[nickdnz]

Yeah, but Retaliation is frowned upon in Rugby, it's viewed more extreme than the act which caused the player to retaliate.

CA Iverson, while I do agree that Zed go a bit over the top with the rape reference, I do think you are missing the point that the word rape, has evolved in a more general way of expressing harshness. Dane Cook the American comedian had a whole set about the word rape, along the lines of video games, and more specifically the game of HALO. where he was continuously raped by other players online...

As for the citing section, i think its a bit of a win some/lose some scenario. Adam Thompson's citing incident before this even happened, I think has to be viewed in conjunction with Hore's citing. Thompson and Hore didn't commit the same type of offence, and based on the footage, Hore's swinging arm looked much more severe than Thompson's, yet the IRB appealed Thompson's suspension as being not harsh enough. Yet the IRB was happy with Hore's 5 week ban, which IMHO should've been much more. the view as a SANZAR-team supporter, is that the All Blacks get special treatment, even though there is no prescribed document or proof to show it. If Schalk Burger, Bakkies Botha, Eben Etzebeth, Flip van der Merwe or any other Saffa did exactly the same as Hore, the suspension would've been a minimum of 12 weeks. So why didn't the IRB appeal this citing outcome as well??

Yes, but you must remember - Dane Cook is the least funny person to ever be born. Also the way he used rape was through an analogy of people justifying a women getting rape'd. He's agreed that it was a misguided phraze - so no harm done - just pointing out that it wasn't the same.

Well that's obsurd. As mentioned - Greyling did something arguably more dangerous and less provoked and got only 1 week.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

CA Iverson, while I do agree that Zed go a bit over the top with the rape reference, I do think you are missing the point that the word rape, has evolved in a more general way of expressing harshness. Dane Cook the American comedian had a whole set about the word rape, along the lines of video games, and more specifically the game of HALO. where he was continuously raped by other players online...

As for the citing section, i think its a bit of a win some/lose some scenario. Adam Thompson's citing incident before this even happened, I think has to be viewed in conjunction with Hore's citing. Thompson and Hore didn't commit the same type of offence, and based on the footage, Hore's swinging arm looked much more severe than Thompson's, yet the IRB appealed Thompson's suspension as being not harsh enough. Yet the IRB was happy with Hore's 5 week ban, which IMHO should've been much more. the view as a SANZAR-team supporter, is that the All Blacks get special treatment, even though there is no prescribed document or proof to show it. If Schalk Burger, Bakkies Botha, Eben Etzebeth, Flip van der Merwe or any other Saffa did exactly the same as Hore, the suspension would've been a minimum of 12 weeks. So why didn't the IRB appeal this citing outcome as well??

First of all Heineken, my dear old buddy, I'm pretty sure it's an indictment on western society that rape has become a go-to humor resource and I'm pretty sure that TRF is privately owned. I think that most/all of those owners are not happy to trivialize this subject. Imagine for 20 seconds that it ACTUALLY DOES happen to someone you know. Do you think you'd be comfortably going up to them and saying that your about to go online and trivialize the subject?

Secondly I have to say that the man you were defending about rape comparing, Zed, was very good in second guessing himself and realizing that the subject was totally unrelated and out of order. Which is to his credit. We all make mistakes.

Finally you must remember that the man your defending, Zed, also felt that comparing the Hore incident to anything else was WRONG, that ANY buts were not acceptable. Including buts were you say, "but the All Blacks are favoured at judiciaries" and the like. Hore's ban was 8 weeks and good behavior was brought in. As it should be. Should your friend Bakkies get it?

 

[TRF_heineken]

First of all Heineken, my dear old buddy, I'm pretty sure it's an indictment on western society that rape has become a go-to humor resource and I'm pretty sure that TRF is privately owned. I think that most/all of those owners are not happy to trivialize this subject. Imagine for 20 seconds that it ACTUALLY DOES happen to someone you know. Do you think you'd be comfortably going up to them and saying that your about to go online and trivialize the subject?

Secondly I have to say that the man you were defending about rape comparing, Zed, was very good in second guessing himself and realizing that the subject was totally unrelated and out of order. Which is to his credit. We all make mistakes.

Finally you must remember that the man your defending, Zed, also felt that comparing the Hore incident to anything else was WRONG, that ANY buts were not acceptable. Including buts were you say, "but the All Blacks are favoured at judiciaries" and the like. Hore's ban was 8 weeks and good behavior was brought in. As it should be. Should your friend Bakkies get it?

Hahaha, I knew I'd get a reaction from you... at least I know this isn't a dummy account anymore...

As for the rape comments, I hate that word! and I live in SOuth Africa which has one of the highest number of rapes and victims of it in the world. I know the severity of the crime, and the sorrow and anger it brings out in people.

As for the citing part of my comments, Thanx for clearing that up, I misread the part of Hore got a lesser sentence for good behaviour, he's a real nice guy, I met him once at the Airport. Bakkies shouldn't get it no, but you know, those judicial officers doesn't understand him...

 

[Zed]

Yeah the 'rape' comment was a bad, bad analogy! Lets move on!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Yeah the 'rape' comment was a bad, bad analogy! Lets move on!

they have....three days ago

 

[Zed]

they have....three days ago

Yeah takes while for the internet to get to Perth.

 

[LittleGuy]

they have....three days ago

I'm sure someone will bring it up next time Zed makes an argument they don't like, it really wasn't that big a deal in the first place. A poor analogy one that didn't really work either but the context was fairly obvious I think it was turned into a major issue to make Zed look like an asshole so the rest of his argument could be beaten into the ground.

 

[dullonien]

Is there any way to remove feedback given? I've just realised that I accidentally neg repped Zed at some point in this thread. If I can't remove it myself, could a mod please remove it?