Australia v. New Zealand is going to be quite a FORCE-ful encounter or something, fuck it, you do the jokes.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Barrett gets a three game ban and rightly so.

This angle says it all really. As red as red can be.

[Mikey Brown]

I do feel for him, for that to happen in such close quarters, but it’s that pointed shoulder that really does it.

[Puja]

So, first game of the RWC and there's no Barrett and possibly no Retallick - who's in against SA? Tuipulotu?

Not that you're in any danger from Italy, but second place in the group must be a real possibility now.

Puja

[zer0]

Pretty sure Barrett will be available for the SA match, thanks to the NPC. At least in this case there will at least be a plausible case, as opposed to that game of three halves silliness a few years ago.

EDIT: Indeed probably available for the Tonga test, according to this:

While he will not be allowed to play in the blockbuster Bledisloe Cup test against the Wallabies in Auckland on Saturday night, Barrett will be eligible to play Tonga in Hamilton on September 7 and is now available for the World Cup in Japan. The All Blacks first game of the tournament is against South Africa in Yokohama on September 21.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all ... -world-cup

But were he unavailable, I'd probably go for Romano. Elsewise there's no one else really as we're plunging the similar depths of 2011's first fives. Maybe Franklin, I guess? But Romano would be safer.

[Digby]

David Pocock was forced to sit out a test match against the Springboks after, ironically enough, being neckrolled out of several rucks a couple of years ago by the All Blacks.

It's also clearly covered in the World Rugby, in law no. 9

20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.

a. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.
b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
c. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.

I'm not defending the players in this, but they do seem to have a general sense that the actual risks from neck rolls are far less than worrisome than the ugliness of seeing it happen. And one injury in x years doesn't scream they're wrong, though they are wrong plenty often enough.

I'd be much more worried about neck rolls at lower levels of the game where people don't have such developed shoulder and neck muscles, so I can understand wanting it out of the game from a more general safety issue. And it certainly doesn't look good on TV, even if at the top level it's perhaps questionable to focus on neck rolls as the game has whilst ignoring scatter rucking is all

[Puja]

Pretty sure Barrett will be available for the SA match, thanks to the NPC. At least in this case there will at least be a plausible case, as opposed to that game of three halves silliness a few years ago.

EDIT: Indeed probably available for the Tonga test, according to this:

While he will not be allowed to play in the blockbuster Bledisloe Cup test against the Wallabies in Auckland on Saturday night, Barrett will be eligible to play Tonga in Hamilton on September 7 and is now available for the World Cup in Japan. The All Blacks first game of the tournament is against South Africa in Yokohama on September 21.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all ... -world-cup

But were he unavailable, I'd probably go for Romano. Elsewise there's no one else really as we're plunging the similar depths of 2011's first fives. Maybe Franklin, I guess? But Romano would be safer.

Would he really have played the NPC? Really?

Puja

[Digby]

David Pocock was forced to sit out a test match against the Springboks after, ironically enough, being neckrolled out of several rucks a couple of years ago by the All Blacks.

It's also clearly covered in the World Rugby, in law no. 9

I'm not defending the players in this, but they do seem to have a general sense that the actual risks from neck rolls are far less than worrisome than the ugliness of seeing it happen. And one injury in x years doesn't scream they're wrong, though they are wrong plenty often enough.

I'd be much more worried about neck rolls at lower levels of the game where people don't have such developed shoulder and neck muscles, so I can understand wanting it out of the game from a more general safety issue. And it certainly doesn't look good on TV, even if at the top level it's perhaps questionable to focus on neck rolls as the game has whilst ignoring scatter rucking is all

That there hasn't been a major injury yet is no reason to be lackadaisical in policing it. Last I checked, having a someone that is stronger than the average person forcefully yanking on your neck isn't exactly conducive to good health, and it's pretty clearly a matter of time. Sam Cane certainly wasn't too happy about it, considering he's just come back from a broken neck - and it further adds evidence that Garces is not fit to referee at the test level, when he's willing to apply the letter of the law when it comes to foul play to one team, but not the other.

I think there's an issue in going after perceived problems rather than being guided by facts, but I'm also not going to worry much if neck rolls aren't allowed. And I'm happy to sympathise providing he doesn't have a history that includes him dishing out neck rolls, it would surprise me if he didn't as he has a history of dishing it out (that's mostly a compliment, I rather like Cane as a player)

[zer0]

So here's a question - which is it? Is it three weeks, or is it three games?

It's matches these days, isn't it? I distinctly recall some shenanigans a few years ago over whether one of those 'game of three halves' counted as a match for the purposes of suspensions. If it's weeks then there's absolutely no problem over his RWC availability.

Would he really have played the NPC? Really?

IIRC he played a fair bit for the Crusaders, so probably not. But Williams, Tu'inukuafe, and a few others have played in the NPC, so it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility.

As it is, I'm quite in favour of suspensions being applicable at the level the match was played at, or higher. Using Barrett's example, he was suspended playing in a test, so he'd have to miss the next three All Black tests. He could play as much provincial rugby as he wanted, but would be unavailable for the AB's until the third test had passed. If it had occurred in a SR match, say a semifinal, then he'd have to sit out the SR final, as well as the first two test matches. But he could play as much provincial, or club, rugby as he'd like without it impacting upon his ban.

[Spy]

It’s 3 weeks, not matches.

[Puja]

It’s 3 weeks, not matches.

That's my point. If they want him to sit out 3 fixtures, then adjust the terms accordingly. This "it's 3 weeks, but 3 weeks of fixtures" bullshit is just that - bullshit, and it can fuck right off. It's like with the SBW ban from a couple of years ago: "4 weeks," and then when they realised there was an All Blacks fixture he'd be available for, "Nooooo, not like that!" Fuck off, like.

To be fair, the outcry last time was because you managed to claim a glorified opposed training run as an actual match and got away with it.

Puja

[Puja]

So? Weeks is weeks. If they meant something different, then be clear about it.

I think you're misremembering that one (or we're thinking of different occasions from the many times when the ABs have tried to play the system). That one was for "X games" and the uproar was your lot trying to claim that a training run counted. Granted, you got away with it, so fair play, but still cheeky as f*ck.

Puja

[Digby]

So? Weeks is weeks. If they meant something different, then be clear about it.

I think you're misremembering that one (or we're thinking of different occasions from the many times when the ABs have tried to play the system). That one was for "X games" and the uproar was your lot trying to claim that a training run counted. Granted, you got away with it, so fair play, but still cheeky as f*ck.

Puja

It was a 4 week ban after an early guilty plea. Or it was reported as such. It's ridiculous that the judiciary can then turn around and try to redefine what a "week" is. Last I checked, it's a 7-day period, regardless of whether or not there are any games on.

I had in mind though whether there are any games on is specifically meaningful when setting a ban, is that wrong?

[Puja]

I think you're misremembering that one (or we're thinking of different occasions from the many times when the ABs have tried to play the system). That one was for "X games" and the uproar was your lot trying to claim that a training run counted. Granted, you got away with it, so fair play, but still cheeky as f*ck.

Puja

It was a 4 week ban after an early guilty plea. Or it was reported as such. It's ridiculous that the judiciary can then turn around and try to redefine what a "week" is. Last I checked, it's a 7-day period, regardless of whether or not there are any games on.

I had in mind though whether there are any games on is specifically meaningful when setting a ban, is that wrong?

I believe it's 4 match-weeks.

Puja

[J Dory]

Match-week? So if there is a game on Sunday and another on the following Friday, does that count as one ban served or two?

It's all so confusing. What about weak matches, do they count?

[Renniks]

Why don't they just set a date?! (I assume for some form of consistency shite, but it's so inconsistent, just get it over with)

“This is a level 5 ban, adjusted to level 4 for good behaviour in the hearing, as such, you're banned until the 3rd of November”

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Why don't they just set a date?! (I assume for some form of consistency shite, but it's so inconsistent, just get it over with)

“This is a level 5 ban, adjusted to level 4 for good behaviour in the hearing, as such, you're banned until the 3rd of November”

Because it led to some people serving their bans almost entirely during the off season