jean valjean wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 12:46 pm
Farrell might want to bring stu simply for the fact he knows he isn't a break glass option but is capable of playing against Romania and tonga without risking one of henshaw or bundi. Henshaw can play 13 at a push so 4 good centres is better than 3 and a jack of all trades like JOB.
Possibly but JOB’s probably earmarked for 15 in a game or two.
Stu may need a forward to miss out. He covers flanker of course….
solidarity wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 8:46 am
On Saturday's form, England could lose to Japan and Argentina and be on their way home before the end of September.
I'm not sure anyone has got their timing just right for a RWC peak, and certainly England are having to play catch up (sacking Jones was a mistake IMHO). But I still expect them to be in the mix in France.
I honestly expected France to look better than they have in the warm-ups. But not far enough behind not to have home advantage give them all they need to tip the balance (just not sure which way it will tip it)
NZ are about the best in terms of peaking. Could get themselves back to their World Number 1 status (they are welcome to it) on the eve of the competition.
Don't eat the yellow snow. Never trust a skinny chef. And never bet against the All Blacks.
BR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:21 pm
6 weeks reduced to 4 for guilty plea, remorse and good character ... suit, hands out of pockets and not eating the bourbons
Not seen the reasoning yet but he didn’t plead guilty and his previous wouldn’t help.
I suspect the decision is probably technically more deficient than the first one.
BR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:21 pm
6 weeks reduced to 4 for guilty plea, remorse and good character ... suit, hands out of pockets and not eating the bourbons
Not seen the reasoning yet but he didn’t plead guilty and his previous wouldn’t help.
I suspect the decision is probably technically more deficient than the first one.
Why do you say he didn't plead guilty? The video footage was plain as day. Not to plead guilty would have been insane.
BR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:21 pm
6 weeks reduced to 4 for guilty plea, remorse and good character ... suit, hands out of pockets and not eating the bourbons
Not seen the reasoning yet but he didn’t plead guilty and his previous wouldn’t help.
I suspect the decision is probably technically more deficient than the first one.
Why do you say he didn't plead guilty? The video footage was plain as day. Not to plead guilty would have been insane.
Whilst admitting a foul, he denied that the incident was a red card offence at the initial hearing.
He admitted foul play (I don't know that, but I strongly suspect he did)
He raised evidence in mitigation.
The original panel accepted that evidence was sufficient that the on-field sanction for the offence 'should have been' mitigated to a YC under the framework.
That hearing was therefore null and void.
IRB appeal that decision.
New hearing finds that the original panel was in error.
Only once that is decided, the panel hears the case to decide on red-card sanctions (technically for the first time) and OnlyFans gets to be remorseful, etc.
Yep, having now read the initial decision(!), he did actually admit foul play AND that it occurred with sufficient force to warrant a red card at the first hearing (so effectively pleading guilty).
The fact that the panel did not reference the Foul Play Review Officer’s opinion that Farrell failed to attempt to wrap with the arm in question required fresh evidence on that point alone.
The FPRO was found to be correct and the tackle was considered to be “always illegal” meaning no mitigation could be applied.
The somewhat strange “always illegal” phrase came in on 9 March replacing “highly reckless”.
Billy V has just been done for 6 weeks reduced to 3 (or 2 with tackle school).
No - he got a red and it was upheld, therefore no mitigation was applied to the red-card decision. Mitigation may have been applied to the tariff at the hearing. That's a different thing.
BR wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:39 am
No - he got a red and it was upheld, therefore no mitigation was applied to the red-card decision. Mitigation may have been applied to the tariff at the hearing. That's a different thing.
You’re right. I shall never slag a ref off again. Possibly.
BR wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:39 am
No - he got a red and it was upheld, therefore no mitigation was applied to the red-card decision. Mitigation may have been applied to the tariff at the hearing. That's a different thing.
You’re right. I shall never slag a ref off again. Possibly.
