Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2007
SA vs Manu Samoa
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BokMagic" data-source="post: 144504"><p>Right, here is how things stand at present:</p><p></p><p>1- The particular incident happened right under the noses of both the referee, and the touch judge. This can be seen from the fact that the touch judge flagged the incident, and the referee <strong>took action</strong>, awarding a penalty to Samoa, and giving a verbal warning to Schalk. Since the match officials saw the incident and took action, there is absolutely no prescedent for the citing commissioner to get involved. If the citing officials can get involved in incidents seen, and actioned by match officials, well that directly undermines the authority of the match officials. Anybody who disagrees with this statement, will have to agree with the Darryl Hair suspension as a cricket umpire. Either that, or you`re a hypocrite. Plus if the citing commissioner can get involved in an issue where the referee took action, well then Carl Hayman should`ve gotten a mandatory sentence for punching in the Italy game too, yellow card notwithstanding.</p><p></p><p>2- The citing commissioner banned Schalk for 4 weeks, stating that the tackle was <strong>sloppy, dangerous and reckless.</strong> The part about it being reckless and dangerous implies that there was malicious intent.</p><p></p><p>3- Upon appeal, the original decision was actually overturned, not reduced. By looking at the wording of the appeal, the citing official clearly states that Schalk <strong>went for the ball, but the execution was sloppy.</strong> The suspension was reduced to 2 weeks. For a sloppy tackle. So basically, the appeal decision is a clear admission by the citing committee that they erred in the original judgement. Also, getting any sort of a ban for sloppy play is just ridiculous. But well, because of the fact that the initial sentence proposed a ban, I guess that the reduced sentence probably had to find reason for a ban too. Seeing as the citing commissio would`ve looked even more foolish had the entire thing been thrown out, as it should have.</p><p></p><p>So basically, I`m pretty happy that the appeal found in favour of Schalk, admitting the initial mistake, even if the sentence wasn`t removed completely. Kinda makes everyone out here calling Schalk a dirty c**t look pretty ignorant.....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BokMagic, post: 144504"] Right, here is how things stand at present: 1- The particular incident happened right under the noses of both the referee, and the touch judge. This can be seen from the fact that the touch judge flagged the incident, and the referee [b]took action[/b], awarding a penalty to Samoa, and giving a verbal warning to Schalk. Since the match officials saw the incident and took action, there is absolutely no prescedent for the citing commissioner to get involved. If the citing officials can get involved in incidents seen, and actioned by match officials, well that directly undermines the authority of the match officials. Anybody who disagrees with this statement, will have to agree with the Darryl Hair suspension as a cricket umpire. Either that, or you`re a hypocrite. Plus if the citing commissioner can get involved in an issue where the referee took action, well then Carl Hayman should`ve gotten a mandatory sentence for punching in the Italy game too, yellow card notwithstanding. 2- The citing commissioner banned Schalk for 4 weeks, stating that the tackle was [b]sloppy, dangerous and reckless.[/b] The part about it being reckless and dangerous implies that there was malicious intent. 3- Upon appeal, the original decision was actually overturned, not reduced. By looking at the wording of the appeal, the citing official clearly states that Schalk [b]went for the ball, but the execution was sloppy.[/b] The suspension was reduced to 2 weeks. For a sloppy tackle. So basically, the appeal decision is a clear admission by the citing committee that they erred in the original judgement. Also, getting any sort of a ban for sloppy play is just ridiculous. But well, because of the fact that the initial sentence proposed a ban, I guess that the reduced sentence probably had to find reason for a ban too. Seeing as the citing commissio would`ve looked even more foolish had the entire thing been thrown out, as it should have. So basically, I`m pretty happy that the appeal found in favour of Schalk, admitting the initial mistake, even if the sentence wasn`t removed completely. Kinda makes everyone out here calling Schalk a dirty c**t look pretty ignorant..... [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2007
SA vs Manu Samoa
Top