Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Post Reply
JP14
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7484
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:37 am

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by JP14 »

I think it’s clear I wasn’t the only one who lost their 💩 that day!
Formerly of Burbaaage (not Inkleh), now up north at uni
Mark62
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by Mark62 »

Typical of Maxwell Keyes that he felt the need to go running to the head teacher.

Karl Dickson when faced with an angry Chris Boyd the other Saturday on the pitch at half time had the balls to deal with it himself
JP14
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7484
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:37 am

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by JP14 »

Maxwell-Keys did somewhat institgate the incident by probably not answering Murphy’s (probably initially polite) interrogation and walking away, just proves the incompetence.
Formerly of Burbaaage (not Inkleh), now up north at uni
Traveller
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:46 pm

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by Traveller »

Crofty wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 12:23 am
Traveller wrote: Wed May 29, 2019 8:41 am
Crofty wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 11:51 pm

The points swing if CMK and the TMO had got the decisions right was 17 or 19 dependent on the conversion of our try that was wrongly chalked off. Are you honestly of the opinion that any team in the top half of the league (our minimum aspiration, surely) can afford a 17 point handicap when playing another top half team and that it's purely down to utterly sub standard coaching that we could only cover 16 points of it? :smt017
Let's assume / agree the refereeing was awful. Where has Murphy's temper tantrum got us? Our Head Coach, with lots of new players to blend into a team, may be unable to coach/ attend matches in the first three weeks of a season that needs to start well. It is pointless, and self-indulgent to do what he did. As evidenced by the outcome.

Last season we fired the coach after the first game and got a player sent off in the second or third. I thought it couldn't get worse. This season we are a man down before the season even starts. It is about being pragmatic and single minded, and resisting the temptation to have a 'hissy fit'. We all just want Tigers to win.

To answer your question directly (I note you didn't respond to my Callum Green question). I do think the reason we conceded more points than any other team in the premiership was down to very poor coaching rather than the quality of refereeing. The 40+s by Worcester & Bristol come jarringly into memory, and the defensive comedy show against Bristol at home.

I think the fact that the Head Coach was happy to be quoted in the Mercury saying that next season there won't be any more 'running into brick walls, next season' (he actually said it), is indicative of the fact that the coaching has been very poor. The fact we felt the need to 'bring in' Mike Ford for the final few games, is indicative of the fact that the coaching wasn't good enough. If it had been, they wouldn't have needed him. Which other clubs rushed 'consultant coaches' into their ranks for the final games of the season? Any?

So, to avoid doubt. In my opinion the coaching is really poor. I think the actions of the club (outlined above) prove that to be the case. Nonetheless, I think we have to stick with GM, because to fire yet another coach after one season would mean we lose what little credibility we have left with other talented coaches. He should be supported by building a better team around him. Then we cross our fingers and pray.

None of which means that I think the quality of refereeing is adequate. It isn't.
That wasn't my question, my question was specific to the match about which Murphy was vexed. As for your Callum Green question all I can say is can I have this week's lottery numbers, being as you can see the future. Also, it seems a little odd juxtaposed to your veneration of the hand of Back, if he did that in a game today TMO would have sir blowing his whistle in a split second, conceding the penalty and likely the game.

You also suggest that his having a go at the ref (or TMO, or not addressing them with a sufficiently supine posture, I've not actually yet managed to find an account of what he actually did or said that was so bad) means he thinks that his presence is unimportant however you also characterise it as a hissy fit, suggesting an unthinking action.

Look, I get it, the coaching this season as a whole has been unacceptably poor (although, I note, not so unacceptable to you that you want him replaced), but the team's performance in the game against Bath was better than most games this year, and good enough to win but for a TMO of questionable fairness, given that he is both human and under a lot of pressure over results (basically to the ignorance of performance) I can understand his frustration boiling over.
1. You won't answer the hypothetical question because you know the answer. Which is? It is difficult for a coach to tell his players to remain disciplined under pressure if as the coach don't lead by example. Simple. No lottery ticket required.

2. Neil Back did not scream at the ref and tell him it should have been a Tigers 'put in' and in the process give Munster a penalty. Hence my use of the word pragmatic. Conversely we lost him for a lengthy suspension when he did lose his cool and push a referee. Not pragmatic.

3. If Back was playing today he'd be aware of cameras all over the place and I guess he would have the wit to adjust his game. He was a very pragmatic player.

3. You and I don't know what happened exactly with GM and the Ref. But we know Murphy pleaded guilty and has been disciplined.

4. If it wasn't a 'hissy fit', temper tantrum, loss of emotional control. What was it? Well considered. An action that will help Tigers at the start of the season? I get it that people lose their temper. My disagreement is with the argument that it is somehow justified because of the quality of refereeing. It's not. It's pointless. It won't help us become a better team.

5.At no point did I suggest that GM thinks his presence is unimportant. I can't comment on what GM thinks? Perverse and inaccurate comment.

6. I think GM is too inexperienced for the task (as evidenced by the teams performance and GM's overall performance - note comments above). In my opinion, in an ideal world we would appoint a better DOR / Head Coach. However we don't live in an ideal world, and I suspect it would make it difficult for us to attract quality coaches in the future if we fire yet another HC after just a year. So for me, GM is a compromise, and given his overall contribution to the club, and the season he has just had, I think he can expect loyalty to be shown to him. I hope he proves me wrong and grows successfully into the role. I will be delighted for him and it will be good news for Tigers.
Crofty
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1216
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:07 pm
Location: The bagging area (unexpectedly)

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by Crofty »

Traveller wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:04 am
Crofty wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 12:23 am
Traveller wrote: Wed May 29, 2019 8:41 am
Let's assume / agree the refereeing was awful. Where has Murphy's temper tantrum got us? Our Head Coach, with lots of new players to blend into a team, may be unable to coach/ attend matches in the first three weeks of a season that needs to start well. It is pointless, and self-indulgent to do what he did. As evidenced by the outcome.

Last season we fired the coach after the first game and got a player sent off in the second or third. I thought it couldn't get worse. This season we are a man down before the season even starts. It is about being pragmatic and single minded, and resisting the temptation to have a 'hissy fit'. We all just want Tigers to win.

To answer your question directly (I note you didn't respond to my Callum Green question). I do think the reason we conceded more points than any other team in the premiership was down to very poor coaching rather than the quality of refereeing. The 40+s by Worcester & Bristol come jarringly into memory, and the defensive comedy show against Bristol at home.

I think the fact that the Head Coach was happy to be quoted in the Mercury saying that next season there won't be any more 'running into brick walls, next season' (he actually said it), is indicative of the fact that the coaching has been very poor. The fact we felt the need to 'bring in' Mike Ford for the final few games, is indicative of the fact that the coaching wasn't good enough. If it had been, they wouldn't have needed him. Which other clubs rushed 'consultant coaches' into their ranks for the final games of the season? Any?

So, to avoid doubt. In my opinion the coaching is really poor. I think the actions of the club (outlined above) prove that to be the case. Nonetheless, I think we have to stick with GM, because to fire yet another coach after one season would mean we lose what little credibility we have left with other talented coaches. He should be supported by building a better team around him. Then we cross our fingers and pray.

None of which means that I think the quality of refereeing is adequate. It isn't.
That wasn't my question, my question was specific to the match about which Murphy was vexed. As for your Callum Green question all I can say is can I have this week's lottery numbers, being as you can see the future. Also, it seems a little odd juxtaposed to your veneration of the hand of Back, if he did that in a game today TMO would have sir blowing his whistle in a split second, conceding the penalty and likely the game.

You also suggest that his having a go at the ref (or TMO, or not addressing them with a sufficiently supine posture, I've not actually yet managed to find an account of what he actually did or said that was so bad) means he thinks that his presence is unimportant however you also characterise it as a hissy fit, suggesting an unthinking action.

Look, I get it, the coaching this season as a whole has been unacceptably poor (although, I note, not so unacceptable to you that you want him replaced), but the team's performance in the game against Bath was better than most games this year, and good enough to win but for a TMO of questionable fairness, given that he is both human and under a lot of pressure over results (basically to the ignorance of performance) I can understand his frustration boiling over.
1. You won't answer the hypothetical question because you know the answer. Which is? It is difficult for a coach to tell his players to remain disciplined under pressure if as the coach don't lead by example. Simple. No lottery ticket required.

2. Neil Back did not scream at the ref and tell him it should have been a Tigers 'put in' and in the process give Munster a penalty. Hence my use of the word pragmatic. Conversely we lost him for a lengthy suspension when he did lose his cool and push a referee. Not pragmatic.

3. If Back was playing today he'd be aware of cameras all over the place and I guess he would have the wit to adjust his game. He was a very pragmatic player.

3. You and I don't know what happened exactly with GM and the Ref. But we know Murphy pleaded guilty and has been disciplined.

4. If it wasn't a 'hissy fit', temper tantrum, loss of emotional control. What was it? Well considered. An action that will help Tigers at the start of the season? I get it that people lose their temper. My disagreement is with the argument that it is somehow justified because of the quality of refereeing. It's not. It's pointless. It won't help us become a better team.

5.At no point did I suggest that GM thinks his presence is unimportant. I can't comment on what GM thinks? Perverse and inaccurate comment.

6. I think GM is too inexperienced for the task (as evidenced by the teams performance and GM's overall performance - note comments above). In my opinion, in an ideal world we would appoint a better DOR / Head Coach. However we don't live in an ideal world, and I suspect it would make it difficult for us to attract quality coaches in the future if we fire yet another HC after just a year. So for me, GM is a compromise, and given his overall contribution to the club, and the season he has just had, I think he can expect loyalty to be shown to him. I hope he proves me wrong and grows successfully into the role. I will be delighted for him and it will be good news for Tigers.
1) Probably he would say something along the lines of, "You saw what happened to me at the end of last season, learn from my mistake" that is the sort of thing that good leaders do when developing those who work for them.

2) No, he didn't scream at the ref, but nor did Murphy, Back however did commit a cynical act of foul play at a crucial moment in a big game, hardly a pragmatic thing to do.

3) There were cameras all over the place back then, hence his prominent featuring in countless "same old Tigers, always cheating" compilations on YouTube (other video sharing platforms are available).

3) (again) He probably plead guilty to reduce his sentence, having read the report it's a bit of he said she said regarding comments about the TMO not on his presence, unwise for sure but hardly crime of the century and quite mild compared to the verdict passed on TMO in the stands, to my mind not abuse but then I work in a "robust" environment so a little salty language isn't going to send me to the fainting couch. It is also worthwhile to note that the judicial officer's notes suggest that Murphy could have argued that it wasn't abuse as TMO wasn't there to hear it and that the suspension and fine issued here cannot be used as precedent in similar circumstances in the future.

4) It being a loss of temper isn't justification that is correct, but his losing his temper is understandable given the circumstances is what is being said. Humans like fairness, what happened to Tigers because of the TMO was unfair. This wasn't a game we were always going to lose, it was a game we were expected to lose, played well enough to win and were cheated out of. Much like the Munstermen with the hand of Back, this will be sore for many of us for a while.

5) You at least heavily implied it in you original post, "The fact that he obviously doesn't think it is particularly important whether or not he is there to coach the team at the start of a new season, says it all". As previously stated, I'm quite robust so expect no apologies but I will extract some private mirth over your ridiculous lie.

6) So ideally we'd sack him but then we'd not be able to get a decent top man. Finally, something sort of resembling sence, and more that the BoD has demonstrated since the end of the 2015/16 campaign.

[Edits for auto correct and a mild change of tone on point 6]
No, not that one!

Remember, whatever you do to the smallest of the backs you do to his prop, and you can't avoid the rucks and mauls forever...

I know you don't like it when I boo him but how else will he know he's wrong?

non possumus capere
Traveller
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:46 pm

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by Traveller »

Crofty wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:11 am
Traveller wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:04 am
Crofty wrote: Fri May 31, 2019 12:23 am

That wasn't my question, my question was specific to the match about which Murphy was vexed. As for your Callum Green question all I can say is can I have this week's lottery numbers, being as you can see the future. Also, it seems a little odd juxtaposed to your veneration of the hand of Back, if he did that in a game today TMO would have sir blowing his whistle in a split second, conceding the penalty and likely the game.

You also suggest that his having a go at the ref (or TMO, or not addressing them with a sufficiently supine posture, I've not actually yet managed to find an account of what he actually did or said that was so bad) means he thinks that his presence is unimportant however you also characterise it as a hissy fit, suggesting an unthinking action.

Look, I get it, the coaching this season as a whole has been unacceptably poor (although, I note, not so unacceptable to you that you want him replaced), but the team's performance in the game against Bath was better than most games this year, and good enough to win but for a TMO of questionable fairness, given that he is both human and under a lot of pressure over results (basically to the ignorance of performance) I can understand his frustration boiling over.
1. You won't answer the hypothetical question because you know the answer. Which is? It is difficult for a coach to tell his players to remain disciplined under pressure if as the coach don't lead by example. Simple. No lottery ticket required.

2. Neil Back did not scream at the ref and tell him it should have been a Tigers 'put in' and in the process give Munster a penalty. Hence my use of the word pragmatic. Conversely we lost him for a lengthy suspension when he did lose his cool and push a referee. Not pragmatic.

3. If Back was playing today he'd be aware of cameras all over the place and I guess he would have the wit to adjust his game. He was a very pragmatic player.

3. You and I don't know what happened exactly with GM and the Ref. But we know Murphy pleaded guilty and has been disciplined.

4. If it wasn't a 'hissy fit', temper tantrum, loss of emotional control. What was it? Well considered. An action that will help Tigers at the start of the season? I get it that people lose their temper. My disagreement is with the argument that it is somehow justified because of the quality of refereeing. It's not. It's pointless. It won't help us become a better team.

5.At no point did I suggest that GM thinks his presence is unimportant. I can't comment on what GM thinks? Perverse and inaccurate comment.

6. I think GM is too inexperienced for the task (as evidenced by the teams performance and GM's overall performance - note comments above). In my opinion, in an ideal world we would appoint a better DOR / Head Coach. However we don't live in an ideal world, and I suspect it would make it difficult for us to attract quality coaches in the future if we fire yet another HC after just a year. So for me, GM is a compromise, and given his overall contribution to the club, and the season he has just had, I think he can expect loyalty to be shown to him. I hope he proves me wrong and grows successfully into the role. I will be delighted for him and it will be good news for Tigers.
1) Probably he would say something along the lines of, "You saw what happened to me at the end of last season, learn from my mistake" that is the sort of thing that good leaders do when developing those who work for them.

2) No, he didn't scream at the ref, but nor did Murphy, Back however did commit a cynical act of foul play at a crucial moment in a big game, hardly a pragmatic thing to do.

3) There were cameras all over the place back then, hence his prominent featuring in countless "same old Tigers, always cheating" compilations on YouTube (other video sharing platforms are available).

3) (again) He probably plead guilty to reduce his sentence, having read the report it's a bit of he said she said regarding comments about the TMO not on his presence, unwise for sure but hardly crime of the century and quite mild compared to the verdict passed on TMO in the stands, to my mind not abuse but then I work in a "robust" environment so a little salty language isn't going to send me to the fainting couch. It is also worthwhile to note that the judicial officer's notes suggest that Murphy could have argued that it wasn't abuse as TMO wasn't there to hear it and that the suspension and fine issued here cannot be used as precedent in similar circumstances in the future.

4) It being a loss of temper isn't justification that is correct, but his losing his temper is understandable given the circumstances is what is being said. Humans like fairness, what happened to Tigers because of the TMO was unfair. This wasn't a game we were always going to lose, it was a game we were expected to lose, played well enough to win and were cheated out of. Much like the Munstermen with the hand of Back, this will be sore for many of us for a while.

5) You at least heavily implied it in you original post, "The fact that he obviously doesn't think it is particularly important whether or not he is there to coach the team at the start of a new season, says it all". As previously stated, I'm quite robust so expect no apologies but I will extract some private mirth over your ridiculous lie.

6) So ideally we'd sack him but then we'd not be able to get a decent top man. Finally, something sort of resembling sence, and more that the BoD has demonstrated since the end of the 2015/16 campaign.

[Edits for auto correct and a mild change of tone on point 6]
I refer to the various points that you raise seriatim.

1. So, GM was wrong. It was a 'mistake'. He did err. (As per your response).

2. Exactly. Neil Back was guilty of an act of foul play as per law 19. He made a practical, realistic, decision (was pragmatic) to do something he knew to be against the laws, in order to try to influence the result of an important match. He knew he was breaking the law, but did it all the same, because on balance he thought he would get away with it and he did. That is not as you say “hardly pragmatic”. It is almost the definition of the word ‘pragmatic’ because Back made a practical, realistic decision (to try to win the game by cheating) above other more theoretical considerations about ‘fair play’ and ‘sportsmanship’. If you are going to try to put forward a counter argument, at least have a working knowledge of the meaning of the words being used, otherwise the forum can’t function. Interestingly afterwards, Back admitted he regretted having done it, because for some his career was defined for many people by that one action.

3. There were very few tv cameras at grounds. In 2002 Sky operated a standard 4-6 camera system. It was not until March 2012 when a TMO system was piloted that there was a sudden increase. Which is precisely why Back got away with it.

4. Frustratingly, what happens in your working environment, the point at which you have to take a ‘fainting couch’, the fortitude you display in coping with ‘salty language’, the pleasure you take from ‘robust’ argument - is completely and utterly irrelevant / of no consequence at all - to GM’s working environment and whether he is disciplined because of his behaviour. However, personally I have no doubt that in future Tigers would benefit from your acute legal insights. It’s just sad that you were only able to offer them to me, and not GM before he decided how to plead.

5. Clearly, GM is not alone in losing his temper.

6. ‘Imply’ and ‘lie’. Now they might sound the same, but they don’t mean the same. It’s an even bigger jump from you making an inference, to me actually lying. But then ‘pragmatic’ and ‘dogmatic’ sound the same, but don’t mean the same things, do they?

7. 'Sence'? No sure of word.

Anyway, genuinely hope that GM has a good holiday, and a good pre-season (which the team didn’t last year by all accounts) and that he does develop into a first-class HC.
Crofty
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1216
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:07 pm
Location: The bagging area (unexpectedly)

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by Crofty »

Traveller wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:04 pm
Crofty wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:11 am
Traveller wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:04 am

1. You won't answer the hypothetical question because you know the answer. Which is? It is difficult for a coach to tell his players to remain disciplined under pressure if as the coach don't lead by example. Simple. No lottery ticket required.

2. Neil Back did not scream at the ref and tell him it should have been a Tigers 'put in' and in the process give Munster a penalty. Hence my use of the word pragmatic. Conversely we lost him for a lengthy suspension when he did lose his cool and push a referee. Not pragmatic.

3. If Back was playing today he'd be aware of cameras all over the place and I guess he would have the wit to adjust his game. He was a very pragmatic player.

3. You and I don't know what happened exactly with GM and the Ref. But we know Murphy pleaded guilty and has been disciplined.

4. If it wasn't a 'hissy fit', temper tantrum, loss of emotional control. What was it? Well considered. An action that will help Tigers at the start of the season? I get it that people lose their temper. My disagreement is with the argument that it is somehow justified because of the quality of refereeing. It's not. It's pointless. It won't help us become a better team.

5.At no point did I suggest that GM thinks his presence is unimportant. I can't comment on what GM thinks? Perverse and inaccurate comment.

6. I think GM is too inexperienced for the task (as evidenced by the teams performance and GM's overall performance - note comments above). In my opinion, in an ideal world we would appoint a better DOR / Head Coach. However we don't live in an ideal world, and I suspect it would make it difficult for us to attract quality coaches in the future if we fire yet another HC after just a year. So for me, GM is a compromise, and given his overall contribution to the club, and the season he has just had, I think he can expect loyalty to be shown to him. I hope he proves me wrong and grows successfully into the role. I will be delighted for him and it will be good news for Tigers.
1) Probably he would say something along the lines of, "You saw what happened to me at the end of last season, learn from my mistake" that is the sort of thing that good leaders do when developing those who work for them.

2) No, he didn't scream at the ref, but nor did Murphy, Back however did commit a cynical act of foul play at a crucial moment in a big game, hardly a pragmatic thing to do.

3) There were cameras all over the place back then, hence his prominent featuring in countless "same old Tigers, always cheating" compilations on YouTube (other video sharing platforms are available).

3) (again) He probably plead guilty to reduce his sentence, having read the report it's a bit of he said she said regarding comments about the TMO not on his presence, unwise for sure but hardly crime of the century and quite mild compared to the verdict passed on TMO in the stands, to my mind not abuse but then I work in a "robust" environment so a little salty language isn't going to send me to the fainting couch. It is also worthwhile to note that the judicial officer's notes suggest that Murphy could have argued that it wasn't abuse as TMO wasn't there to hear it and that the suspension and fine issued here cannot be used as precedent in similar circumstances in the future.

4) It being a loss of temper isn't justification that is correct, but his losing his temper is understandable given the circumstances is what is being said. Humans like fairness, what happened to Tigers because of the TMO was unfair. This wasn't a game we were always going to lose, it was a game we were expected to lose, played well enough to win and were cheated out of. Much like the Munstermen with the hand of Back, this will be sore for many of us for a while.

5) You at least heavily implied it in you original post, "The fact that he obviously doesn't think it is particularly important whether or not he is there to coach the team at the start of a new season, says it all". As previously stated, I'm quite robust so expect no apologies but I will extract some private mirth over your ridiculous lie.

6) So ideally we'd sack him but then we'd not be able to get a decent top man. Finally, something sort of resembling sence, and more that the BoD has demonstrated since the end of the 2015/16 campaign.

[Edits for auto correct and a mild change of tone on point 6]
I refer to the various points that you raise seriatim.

1. So, GM was wrong. It was a 'mistake'. He did err. (As per your response).

2. Exactly. Neil Back was guilty of an act of foul play as per law 19. He made a practical, realistic, decision (was pragmatic) to do something he knew to be against the laws, in order to try to influence the result of an important match. He knew he was breaking the law, but did it all the same, because on balance he thought he would get away with it and he did. That is not as you say “hardly pragmatic”. It is almost the definition of the word ‘pragmatic’ because Back made a practical, realistic decision (to try to win the game by cheating) above other more theoretical considerations about ‘fair play’ and ‘sportsmanship’. If you are going to try to put forward a counter argument, at least have a working knowledge of the meaning of the words being used, otherwise the forum can’t function. Interestingly afterwards, Back admitted he regretted having done it, because for some his career was defined for many people by that one action.

3. There were very few tv cameras at grounds. In 2002 Sky operated a standard 4-6 camera system. It was not until March 2012 when a TMO system was piloted that there was a sudden increase. Which is precisely why Back got away with it.

4. Frustratingly, what happens in your working environment, the point at which you have to take a ‘fainting couch’, the fortitude you display in coping with ‘salty language’, the pleasure you take from ‘robust’ argument - is completely and utterly irrelevant / of no consequence at all - to GM’s working environment and whether he is disciplined because of his behaviour. However, personally I have no doubt that in future Tigers would benefit from your acute legal insights. It’s just sad that you were only able to offer them to me, and not GM before he decided how to plead.

5. Clearly, GM is not alone in losing his temper.

6. ‘Imply’ and ‘lie’. Now they might sound the same, but they don’t mean the same. It’s an even bigger jump from you making an inference, to me actually lying. But then ‘pragmatic’ and ‘dogmatic’ sound the same, but don’t mean the same things, do they?

7. 'Sence'? No sure of word.

Anyway, genuinely hope that GM has a good holiday, and a good pre-season (which the team didn’t last year by all accounts) and that he does develop into a first-class HC.
1) Video Sir was wrong, and by enough to cost us a game we legitimately should have won, and by quite a margin, which was my initial point, one you've as yet to refute, so I'll take it as read you concede it.

2) Even with those few cameras, if deputy sir had done his job Back would have cost us that game, not pragmatism, luck defined that as the game winning move it turned out to be. Pragmatism would be to take the realistic and practical view to be ready to peel off and defend in case Munster won the scrum legitimately. Back's actions seem to have come from a place of frustration at the unfairness of a refereeing error, something you seem to think is inexcusable when Murphy does it.

3) There may not have been TMO but there were still two deputy sirs, he was :censored: lucky to get away with it.

4) I presume this is actually a response to 3) (again) my explanation of why I don't see the language reported as abuse is there as context as to why I don't think it's so big of a deal as reported. The legal stuff isn't my opinion (unless you're referring to my guess at why the plea was guilty) but a paraphrasing of what was written in the report, so it has a significant bearing on this matter in future cases.

5) Clearly. I was angry while at the game, as were most of those around me, and further around the stadium I'd say the bulk of the 20,000 there, we may have even put that into noisy voice (I think I heard someone impugn the honour of sir's mother, heaven forefend). It's part of being human, right now I'm quite calm indeed I'm having a lot of fun with this, you seem somewhat irate though. Not sure which point you're trying to address though? Tell me, are you one of those who would have us sit or stand in reverential silence unless Tigers are doing something good?

6) You said, "The fact that he obviously doesn't think it is particularly important whether or not he is there to coach the team at the start of a new season, says it all". You later said, "At no point did I suggest that GM thinks his presence is unimportant. I can't comment on what GM thinks? Perverse and inaccurate comment." which in the light of your earlier comment is a lie.

7) Whoops spelling mistake that I missed, an odd thing to bring into this discussion, who was it who has lost their temper again?
No, not that one!

Remember, whatever you do to the smallest of the backs you do to his prop, and you can't avoid the rucks and mauls forever...

I know you don't like it when I boo him but how else will he know he's wrong?

non possumus capere
Redstripeman
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by Redstripeman »

Cardiff Tig wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:37 am
1989Tiger wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:25 am
fleabane wrote: Wed May 29, 2019 12:03 pm Sam, I totally agree with your comments.

Murphy was stupid, should have known better and been more disciplined. He has done the club no favours at all, and frustration is no excuse. Players (including he himself) and officials have all shown themselves to be less than competent on occasion, and swearing and berating them is not a successful approach to improving their judgement.

Murphy is supposed to demonstrate leadership qualities, both on and off the pitch. He didn’t on this occasion and he has to bear the consequences.

I am looking forward to reading his letter of apology.
Do you know what was actually said? How do you know exactly swore?

I’m asking as I haven’t seen anything about what was said.
It doesn't matter what GM said.

There is no excuse to verbally abuse match officials in any form no matter how poorly they perform. Just as there is no excuse for fans to verbally abuse players no matter how poorly they perform either.

In every sport, the referee's decision is final, and it's unacceptable to give them any sort of abuse. There are official channels for complaints to be made. Rugby wouldn't exist without them, and decisions even out over 22 matches.
.... you say that, but it is definitely not the case.
The big teams are always favoured by the refs. Human frailties are a factor the same in football.
Try telling quoting that to the teams at the bottom, who will tell you that it is just a well established saying and a meaningless platitude!!
DingDong
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:06 am

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by DingDong »

Redstripeman wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:07 am The big teams are always favoured by the refs. Human frailties are a factor the same in football.
Try telling quoting that to the teams at the bottom, who will tell you that it is just a well established saying and a meaningless platitude!!
So, the teams at the bottom ie THE LOSING SIDES are moaning about refs bias - how surprising!! :smt005
Cardiff Tig
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:25 pm

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by Cardiff Tig »

Redstripeman wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:07 am
Cardiff Tig wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:37 am
1989Tiger wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:25 am

Do you know what was actually said? How do you know exactly swore?

I’m asking as I haven’t seen anything about what was said.
It doesn't matter what GM said.

There is no excuse to verbally abuse match officials in any form no matter how poorly they perform. Just as there is no excuse for fans to verbally abuse players no matter how poorly they perform either.

In every sport, the referee's decision is final, and it's unacceptable to give them any sort of abuse. There are official channels for complaints to be made. Rugby wouldn't exist without them, and decisions even out over 22 matches.
.... you say that, but it is definitely not the case.
The big teams are always favoured by the refs. Human frailties are a factor the same in football.
Try telling quoting that to the teams at the bottom, who will tell you that it is just a well established saying and a meaningless platitude!!
It doesn't matter if what you've said is true or not, it still doesn't give anybody the right to verbally abuse a match official. GM was a player in the early days of professionalism, had a career that included almost every trophy and has been a coach for 5 years now. He knows as well as anyone else what is expected of him, how the officials should be treated and the values of rugby that need to be upheld.
Dangerous4
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1359
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:15 pm
Location: High Wycombe, Bucks.

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by Dangerous4 »

Redstripeman wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:07 am
Cardiff Tig wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:37 am
1989Tiger wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 8:25 am

Do you know what was actually said? How do you know exactly swore?

I’m asking as I haven’t seen anything about what was said.
It doesn't matter what GM said.

There is no excuse to verbally abuse match officials in any form no matter how poorly they perform. Just as there is no excuse for fans to verbally abuse players no matter how poorly they perform either.

In every sport, the referee's decision is final, and it's unacceptable to give them any sort of abuse. There are official channels for complaints to be made. Rugby wouldn't exist without them, and decisions even out over 22 matches.
.... you say that, but it is definitely not the case.
The big teams are always favoured by the refs. Human frailties are a factor the same in football.
Try telling quoting that to the teams at the bottom, who will tell you that it is just a well established saying and a meaningless platitude!!


So you are saying all referees are cheats! I really have to dismiss the last paragraph as utter nonsense. :smt018 :smt018
h's dad
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:19 pm
Location: In front of pc

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by h's dad »

Traveller wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:04 pm
1. So, GM was wrong. It was a 'mistake'. He did err. (As per your response).
All we really have in evidence is the content of the RFU disciplinary report and I can't see anywhere where it states that GM was wrong. The closest it gets is that his comments were 'strong.'

Ill advised and unacceptable maybe, but wrong?
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
h's dad
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:19 pm
Location: In front of pc

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by h's dad »

JP14 wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:39 am Maxwell-Keys did somewhat institgate the incident by probably not answering Murphy’s (probably initially polite) interrogation and walking away, just proves the incompetence.
Read the report again. Murphy came on strong, possibly in the heat of the recent moment. CMK appeared to realise this by saying let's get cleaned up and discuss later in an effort to defuse the situation. Possibly his best effort at a good decision for the entire day.
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
Ashurstwoodtiger
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 8:17 pm

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by Ashurstwoodtiger »

Do you have a link to report I can't seem to find it. Always like to have a laugh at some of the reports
h's dad
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:19 pm
Location: In front of pc

Re: Geordie up before the beak...three week ban!

Post by h's dad »

Ashurstwoodtiger wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:20 pm Do you have a link to report I can't seem to find it. Always like to have a laugh at some of the reports
Previous page, courtesy of fentiger:

https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Documen ... nglish.pdf
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
Post Reply