Tempest accepted that Lam said Afoa was injured (or whatever) and couldn't return, and so then asked which other player was to be removed - as per the rules. But rather than do that Bristol allowed Afoa to go on.
Also, he says "“Then the Leicester boys came in and started going and accusing us" - from what I could see there was only Borthwick, who is there as our team manager and entitled to know what is going on. And all he said was for Lam to stop lying - because Afoa was not injured. Which appears to be correct.
Listened to the eggchasers podcast and they said Lams response was like a sociopath trying to gas-light you. Sounds about right.
Originally I thought Borthwick was saying Afoa was not injured so should go on - watching back I think Borthwick was actually annoyed Lam originally said he was injured then when finding out it meant going down to 13 changed his mind. Hence “you just said he was injured Pat”.
mol2 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:16 pm
I don't think anyone was suggesting that Tempest was in anyway biased, merely that he bottled a situation where many refs would have given a penalty try. Presumably because he did not wan to decide the result.
He handled the situation with Afoa quite well when the benches were arguing.
Once the situation had got that messy I would have ascertained that Afoa was fit (or not)- returned to the 5m line given the sanction for the penalty as a penalty try. Then confirmed time was up.
Why should it have been a penalty try? Tigers were not going towards the try line and a try was not likely to be scored.
A try was only not likely to be scored because they kept cheating and collapsing the scrum the second we started moving forwards. Until Uren just decided to pick the ball up out of the scrum and kick it out..
This! It's a huge blindspot in the the laws as they currently stand, in this situation, as a defending team you just have the loosey drop the scrum immediately each time, no way the dominant scrum can get any go forward and get their just rewards, worst that will happen is you end up down to 12 and uncontested scrums...
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?
Lam also claims Afoa decided, himself, to go on to the pitch. From what I see, when Lam is told he's down to 13, he turns to Afoa and gives him a nod and then Afoa gets up and walks on to the pitch.
I would argue we had started to go forward on a number of those scrums before the penalties were given.
It would appear their tight head was going backwards before he took the scrum down.
Old Hob wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:46 am
Lam also claims Afoa decided, himself, to go on to the pitch. From what I see, when Lam is told he's down to 13, he turns to Afoa and gives him a nod and then Afoa gets up and walks on to the pitch.
yep he does
find a better way of life, http://www.marillion.com
So, according to the Guardian, RFU are investigating SB’s behaviour but not Pat Lam’s.
If true, this sums up everything that’s wrong with the way the game is overseen. Will Carling was right all those years ago….and it’s clearly still true today that the blazers who run our game are more concerned with protecting the mythical gentlemanly code than attempting to ensure actual ethical behaviour.
chris111 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:05 pm
So, according to the Guardian, RFU are investigating SB’s behaviour but not Pat Lam’s.
If true, this sums up everything that’s wrong with the way the game is overseen. Will Carling was right all those years ago….and it’s clearly still true today that the blazers who run our game are more concerned with protecting the mythical gentlemanly code than attempting to ensure actual ethical behaviour.
The fact that this isn't even surprising tells you everything you need to know about the way Rugby is governed
Last edited by kpj tiger on Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
chris111 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:05 pm
So, according to the Guardian, RFU are investigating SB’s behaviour but not Pat Lam’s.
If true, this sums up everything that’s wrong with the way the game is overseen. Will Carling was right all those years ago….and it’s clearly still true today that the blazers who run our game are more concerned with protecting the mythical gentlemanly code than attempting to ensure actual ethical behaviour.
The RFU is like the BBBOC,not fit for purpose! Just pigs with their noses in the trough!
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
chris111 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:05 pm
So, according to the Guardian, RFU are investigating SB’s behaviour but not Pat Lam’s.
If true, this sums up everything that’s wrong with the way the game is overseen. Will Carling was right all those years ago….and it’s clearly still true today that the blazers who run our game are more concerned with protecting the mythical gentlemanly code than attempting to ensure actual ethical behaviour.
Article doesn't actually say that they are not investigating Pat but does describe SB behaviour
find a better way of life, http://www.marillion.com
As far as I could see from watching the farce at the end of the match on Sat.. Lam lies (this is clear for all to see when he repeatedly says Afoa is injured and then changes his mind when Tempest says they will be down to 13, and this change of tune is without any additional input from his staff) and Borthwick simply calls him what he was, a lier. That was it. Nothing more. So how Borthwick can be investigated for stating a fact is beyond me. Lam lied and then when he realised he would be down to 13 players he changed his tune. Haven't read the article but would be very disappointed if anything at all happens regarding Borthwick's comments. Lam is the one who needs sanctioning, not Borthwick!
Oakham lad born and bred, Tigers season ticket holder who is enjoying steady progression back towards the good old days!
OakhamTiger32 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:34 pm
As far as I could see from watching the farce at the end of the match on Sat.. Lam lies (this is clear for all to see when he repeatedly says Afoa is injured and then changes his mind when Tempest says they will be down to 13, and this change of tune is without any additional input from his staff) and Borthwick simply calls him what he was, a lier. That was it. Nothing more. So how Borthwick can be investigated for stating a fact is beyond me. Lam lied and then when he realised he would be down to 13 players he changed his tune. Haven't read the article but would be very disappointed if anything at all happens regarding Borthwick's comments. Lam is the one who needs sanctioning, not Borthwick!
and if they look at Pat's after match interview, he just makes it worse. Effectively he says he knowingly fielded and injured player, then say sSincler was injured on the Thursday, even though he was named on the Friday, waffles on about a car trip and just looks silly.
Last edited by daktari on Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
find a better way of life, http://www.marillion.com
Tigers86asw wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:13 pm
Very good point. If Sinclair was injured on Thursday why was he on the team sheet on Friday? Nonsense from top to bottom.
it is just nonsense, and its obvious nonsense
find a better way of life, http://www.marillion.com
If Afoa was only fit enough to play 40 minutes and is carrying a knock why was he even in the team? Are Afoa and Chapparo their only fit senior tightheads at all? If not you can make a pretty fair player welfare argument to say its irresponsible to play somebody if they are that unfit/injured
