Kiwis cry foul

[Manu Vatuvei]

F*ck British people are weird. Seriously.

 

[mean]

Has Chalmers ever played the game? I bet he was a right pussycat!!!

He played for NZ Universities, Wainuiomata (I think) and had a stint at Manly.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

. In a 3 match series you can't have the same length of punishments as in a 26 game season so more use should be made of the sin-bin.

I have seen this point a few times, and it still has no merit at all to me

A high tackle is a hugh tackle, no matter what you are playing, and should be treated the same across the board

A bloke who gets his jaw broken in a test match will not have a faster healing process just coz it was a test, so would should the perpetrator get off lighter ?

 

[Rich102]

Is this the same Kiwis who hadn't anything to say when Nigel Vagana smashed Paul Deacons head in. Where were they all then?

It's a tough old game to play and what the game doesn't need is idiots like Chalmers spouting off trying to influence officials before games or judiciary if the decisions go against him.

Having said that I believe that the GB coach has highlighted the solution and that is that Burgess should have been sin-binned. In a 3 match series you can't have the same length of punishments as in a 26 game season so more use should be made of the sin-bin.

Has Chalmers ever played the game? I bet he was a right pussycat!!!

Did you see Matai's tackle on Gasnier that got him sent off?
Putting the player "on report" is intended to keep players on the field for the duration of the game. Too often we have seen one sided games where a side is penalised because one of it's players have been sent off. However this system only works if the judiciary then disciplines the player.
If you are telling us that Morley's and Burgess' tackles are OK, that's fine. Let it be! Just don't complain when next time it is one of yours who is stretchered off. We have long memories of Kiwi players being suspended by the NRL judiciary making them ineligible for test matches.
Supposedly there is no place in the modern game for foul play. Touch judges and video referees see everything. Surely if there is any doubt then it should be referred to the judicial panel - they can decide what's acceptable. Not the host nation.

 

[Geordie]

Did you see Matai's tackle on Gasnier that got him sent off?
Putting the player "on report" is intended to keep players on the field for the duration of the game. Too often we have seen one sided games where a side is penalised because one of it's players have been sent off. However this system only works if the judiciary then disciplines the player.
If you are telling us that Morley's and Burgess' tackles are OK, that's fine. Let it be! Just don't complain when next time it is one of yours who is stretchered off. We have long memories of Kiwi players being suspended by the NRL judiciary making them ineligible for test matches.
Supposedly there is no place in the modern game for foul play. Touch judges and video referees see everything. Surely if there is any doubt then it should be referred to the judicial panel - they can decide what's acceptable. Not the host nation.

As I said at the start of my post, where were all you Kiwis when Vagana caused the most horrendous injury I have seen on Paul Deacon!!!! I cannot recall all this huffing and puffing. The reason Chalmers is doing so much shouting is to try to make sure that GB have to put out a weakened team as he is frightened his squad are going to be whitewashed. The man is an hypocrite, full stop.

 

[Martli]

As I said at the start of my post, where were all you Kiwis when Vagana caused the most horrendous injury I have seen on Paul Deacon!!!! I cannot recall all this huffing and puffing. The reason Chalmers is doing so much shouting is to try to make sure that GB have to put out a weakened team as he is frightened his squad are going to be whitewashed. The man is an hypocrite, full stop.

Your argument is pretty flawed. Firstly, Chalmers wasn't the head of the NZRL when that tackle happened, it was Sel Bennet. How can Chalmers be a hypocrite when he didn't even publically express his opinion on the Vagana tackle. Different people come in with different views and different agendas, and ultimately run their opperation differently. Learn to recognise this before calling people hypocrites.

Secondly, Vagana got a ban for the tackle. Chalmers is "crying foul" over a player--who is also a repeat offender--not receiving a ban. How can you apply the same situation to the Vagana tackle? He got a ban, you can't complain that he didn't get a ban when he did. I don't think anyone thought that his tackle was reasonable.

You're clutching at the straws with this argument, it's just unfortunate for you that they don't exist.