Rugby World Cup warm up games

[TigerFeetSteve]

4 test matches in to his role as Australia attack coach Brad Davis has retired, EJ still running through coaches quickly.

https://twitter.com/TheRoarSports/statu ... bGIfA&s=19

[PIEANDAPINT]

Thanks!

[Hot_Charlie]

4 test matches in to his role as Australia attack coach Brad Davis has retired, EJ still running through coaches quickly.

https://twitter.com/TheRoarSports/statu ... bGIfA&s=19

Ideal timing! EJ taking over the attack himself? He's done that before.

[TigerFeetSteve]

4 test matches in to his role as Australia attack coach Brad Davis has retired, EJ still running through coaches quickly.

https://twitter.com/TheRoarSports/statu ... bGIfA&s=19

Ideal timing! EJ taking over the attack himself? He's done that before.

He's supposedly quoted as saying (not sure how reliable) that he has someone lined up who will "improve" the coaching setup from what it was.... so subtle digs in there at the outgoing guy...

[Hot_Charlie]

4 test matches in to his role as Australia attack coach Brad Davis has retired, EJ still running through coaches quickly.

https://twitter.com/TheRoarSports/statu ... bGIfA&s=19

Ideal timing! EJ taking over the attack himself? He's done that before.

He's supposedly quoted as saying (not sure how reliable) that he has someone lined up who will "improve" the coaching setup from what it was.... so subtle digs in there at the outgoing guy...

Peak Eddie.

[Smudge]

A bit late, but I have a view on Farrell's "crime".
Most have based their condemnation on the TV angles transmitted at the time. Added to which is their dislike of the man.
The reviewers will have had the benefit of a lot more angles, plus fame by frame slow motion. In addition, there will have been the testimony of all involved, backed up by legal counsel. I am not sure the bunker had all the extra angles at the time of their deliberation, I would be surprised if they did. We regularly see how different incidents look from other angles when the ref does a simple on-field review. As with gut reactions to sentences given in criminal cases, unless you were party to ALL the evidence and testaments, how can you possibly pronounce on the justness of the verdict?

[ay2oh]

Agree to an extent and I suppose I’m a bit anti Farrell but it seems that he gets off too often for my liking.

[TigerFeetSteve]

A bit late, but I have a view on Farrell's "crime".
Most have based their condemnation on the TV angles transmitted at the time. Added to which is their dislike of the man.
The reviewers will have had the benefit of a lot more angles, plus fame by frame slow motion. In addition, there will have been the testimony of all involved, backed up by legal counsel. I am not sure the bunker had all the extra angles at the time of their deliberation, I would be surprised if they did. We regularly see how different incidents look from other angles when the ref does a simple on-field review. As with gut reactions to sentences given in criminal cases, unless you were party to ALL the evidence and testaments, how can you possibly pronounce on the justness of the verdict?

The bunker has access to all TV angles so the only angles that they did not have were ones filmed by the England staff themselves

[TigerFeetSteve]

Now being reported that World Rugby HAVE officially appealed the Owen Farrell decision...

https://twitter.com/jameswhile/status/1 ... e98Sg&s=19

[westwinds31]

Agree to an extent and I suppose I’m a bit anti Farrell but it seems that he gets off too often for my liking.

"a bit"....

[Scott1]

Fantastic news,well done World Rugby!

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

Fantastic news,well done World Rugby!

Perhaps they should appeal Moala's as well but the opposite way.

[Smudge]

Steve wrote "

The bunker has access to all TV angles so the only angles that they did not have were ones filmed by the England staff themselves

.

Not true. In the short time they had to make their judgement some B cam footage may have been available but I very much doubt if C D and E (filler) footage could have been accessed in that time.
My point is, unless a list is available to you (or me), only the official tribunal will know and they decided not to punish him further.
So without all the facts, we cannot fairly judge.
I suspect that World Rugby will have that pointed out to them.

[Scott1]

Steve wrote "

The bunker has access to all TV angles so the only angles that they did not have were ones filmed by the England staff themselves

.

Not true. In the short time they had to make their judgement some B cam footage may have been available but I very much doubt if C D and E (filler) footage could have been accessed in that time.
My point is, unless a list is available to you (or me), only the official tribunal will know and they decided not to punish him further.
So without all the facts, we cannot fairly judge.
I suspect that World Rugby will have that pointed out to them.

They get 8 minutes and I believe there is nothing they don't see what the citing commission can. They got the decision spot on,the citing commission is the let down here I'm afraid

[TigerFeetSteve]

Steve wrote "

The bunker has access to all TV angles so the only angles that they did not have were ones filmed by the England staff themselves

.

Not true. In the short time they had to make their judgement some B cam footage may have been available but I very much doubt if C D and E (filler) footage could have been accessed in that time.
My point is, unless a list is available to you (or me), only the official tribunal will know and they decided not to punish him further.
So without all the facts, we cannot fairly judge.
I suspect that World Rugby will have that pointed out to them.

They definitely have access to all camera angles during the 8 minutes they have to decide.

A dedicated Foul Play Review Officer will then have up to eight minutes to review the incident using all available footage and technology, including Hawk-Eye split screen and zoom technology, to determine the outcome.