Shocking Calls

Snipe Watson · Post by **Snipe Watson** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:50 pm

Gary wrote:The League had no choice here and charging Lam was inevitable. What really is important is what happens at the hearing. I would assume Lam's legal reps. would have the opportunity to question Hodges.

My thoughts exactly Gary. They will try to bully him into standing down and taking a punishment. I really hope he has the guts to take this on and see it through. I suspect he has, as coming to a press conference with footage of the calumny is not the act of a man who is intending to engage reverse gear any time soon.

Spiffsson · Post by **Spiffsson** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:56 pm

BaggyTrousers wrote:
shamalicious wrote:
That is not just outrageous, it's utterly shameless by the powers that be, to being disciplined for telling the truth, the whole truth & feck all but the truth.

I deem them cowards.

Je suis Pat Lam aussi.

Cmon Baggers. You know it is not that simple. If coaches were allowed to get away with slagging off refs and their assistants in public then it would be a total shambles out there. I have every sympathy with Pat and Connacht and was totally pisssed at the end of that game. But I do think he made an error of judgement in his response. He had no hope of winning this one.

Hans Indaruck · Post by **Hans Indaruck** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:28 pm

Spiffsson wrote:
BaggyTrousers wrote:
shamalicious wrote:
That is not just outrageous, it's utterly shameless by the powers that be, to being disciplined for telling the truth, the whole truth & feck all but the truth.

I deem them cowards.

Je suis Pat Lam aussi.
Cmon Baggers. You know it is not that simple. If coaches were allowed to get away with slagging off refs and their assistants in public then it would be a total shambles out there. I have every sympathy with Pat and Connacht and was totally pisssed at the end of that game. But I do think he made an error of judgement in his response. He had no hope of winning this one.

Spiff,

If it was just slagging off officials then you are correct. However, Pat Lamb chose his words carefully and more to the point stated that he has already raised the points through the proper channels (Ed Morrison et al). He is entitled to air his concerns, just as many other coaches etc. do (e.g. in respect of reffing the breakdown/ choke tackles and so forth). Had Pat Lam not raised his concerns through official channels then threr is cause for complaint. However, one cannot help but feel that this is more to do with the nature of the complaint itself - in effect the need to 'close ranks'. I wish him luck, but I do agree with you insofar as he has no chance of winning - but that, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or demerits of his case!

Snipe Watson · Post by **Snipe Watson** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:38 pm

I applaud a man who will not simply kowtow to the powers that be who are presiding over this shambles. The 'mistake' made by the officials was clear and obvious. "Any reason why I should not award this penalty?" "Yes there was no ruck, no offside line and no foul committed". Game over.
This does not mean there should be carte blanche to bad mouth officials. If you bad mouth an official you should have to provide evidence that you are right and the official is wrong as was done in this case. Officials need to be accountable or the credibility of the game goes to pot. As the public believes that the authorities simply close ranks and back their referee.

LegsLikeSausages · Post by **LegsLikeSausages** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:35 pm

How are these things dealt with? Is it the same sort of disciplinary panel the citing commissioner refers too?

If he gets the tag rugby experts Luke and Roger had he's fecked. He needs to get himself properly (and I mean properly) lawyered up, because he is very much in the right and at the very least could make life quite uncomfortable for the powers that be by drawing the process out. Here's hoping...

Deraless · Post by **Deraless** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Lam fined £5,800. Meh.

for dog and ulcer · Post by **for dog and ulcer** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:16 pm

Deraless wrote:Lam fined £5,800. Meh.

Disgraceful. No doubt LH escapes without any sanction?

Russ · Post by **Russ** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:32 pm

Of course

Hodges backed
Garces backed
Whoever sent Finm Russell off was backed

They will always back their own

rumncoke · Post by **rumncoke** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:15 pm

Referees are allowed mistakes and all errors are assumed to be mistakes .

And to be honest with out respect for the referee the game could descend to a real Barney

Thus the powers that be in public will back the ref every time what happens behind the scenes may be totally different .

Then there is also the fact that there are public punishments and private ones . Maybe lams fine has been paid for him for all we know !!!?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

stu · Post by **stu** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:45 am

Russ wrote:Of course

Hodges backed
Garces backed
Whoever sent Finm Russell off was backed

They will always back their own

Publically...

Given Garces' decisions regarding contact in the air since he sent Payne off it seems fairly clear that he was told he'd got it wrong and not to do it again.

BuckRogers · Post by **BuckRogers** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:57 am

stu wrote:
Russ wrote:Of course

Hodges backed
Garces backed
Whoever sent Finm Russell off was backed

They will always back their own
Publically...

Given Garces' decisions regarding contact in the air since he sent Payne off it seems fairly clear that he was told he'd got it wrong and not to do it again.

Given Garces set a precedent and we have now seen a number of red cards for 'dropping dans la tete' I think World Rugby backed him to the hilt. Trimble on that 6N thing on Friday night said as much.

stu · Post by **stu** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:06 am

BuckRogers wrote:Given Garces set a precedent and we have now seen a number of red cards for 'dropping dans la tete' I think World Rugby backed him to the hilt. Trimble on that 6N thing on Friday night said as much.

I think we've seen many more cases where reds should have been given if following Garces' precedent but yellow or less has resulted.

BuckRogers · Post by **BuckRogers** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:23 am

stu wrote:
BuckRogers wrote:Given Garces set a precedent and we have now seen a number of red cards for 'dropping dans la tete' I think World Rugby backed him to the hilt. Trimble on that 6N thing on Friday night said as much.
I think we've seen many more cases where reds should have been given if following Garces' precedent but yellow or less has resulted.

That is referee's individually bottling it IMO. World Rugby has come down quite hard on 'offenders' in terms of bans.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:34 am

Du plessis got banned for four weeks for a deliberate kick to the face. Compare that to the Luke Marshall incident. Joke shop.

bazzaj · Post by **bazzaj** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:44 pm

stu wrote:
Russ wrote:Of course

Hodges backed
Garces backed
Whoever sent Finm Russell off was backed

They will always back their own
Publically...

Given Garces' decisions regarding contact in the air since he sent Payne off it seems fairly clear that he was told he'd got it wrong and not to do it again.

One of the key moments on Saturday was Garces refusal to give Payne a yellow when he played the man in the air.
All the commentators and pundits were unanimously in agreement that Payne was lucky to escape punishment.
Personally I thought it was a worse challenge than the one he got red for against sarries.
Can only lead me to believe someome had a word on the quiet with Garces after the sarries game or he himself thought he got it wrong in the aftermath.

The UAFC

Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls

Re: Shocking Calls