NPR

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 11:45 am

Biffer wrote: Tue May 27, 2025 1:14 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Tue May 27, 2025 11:11 am

It is about her being selected for virtual signalling quota-itis rather than competency which is a problem created by EPCR and not me. I can sympathise with Damian Vidagany.

So it is to do with being a woman.

On the basis that she has been selected on criteria other than competence, yes, EPCR made it about her being a woman.
I don't give a flying f**k what denomination she is as long as she was fit for purpose, which she was not.
That really isn't hard to grasp and your Trump-esque attempts at interpretation do you a disservice. But to be clear, I rarely hold any truck on quotas over merit appointments in any scenario.

So it wasn't because she was a woman, now it is because she's a woman, but it's someone else's fault because quotas.

Which one of us sounds like Trump?

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 11:45 am

Biffer wrote: Tue May 27, 2025 1:14 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Tue May 27, 2025 11:11 am

It is about her being selected for virtual signalling quota-itis rather than competency which is a problem created by EPCR and not me. I can sympathise with Damian Vidagany.

So it is to do with being a woman.

On the basis that she has been selected on criteria other than competence, yes, EPCR made it about her being a woman.
I don't give a flying f**k what denomination she is as long as she was fit for purpose, which she was not.
That really isn't hard to grasp and your Trump-esque attempts at interpretation do you a disservice. But to be clear, I rarely hold any truck on quotas over merit appointments in any scenario.

Eh? "she has been selected on criteria other than competence" where on earth did you get that from? Do you have evidence or did you just pull it out of your arse to support your prejudice?

Poirot gets 2 weeks

The committee determined the act met the low end of World Rugby’s sanctions, which carries a four-week ban.
However, due to the prop’s guilty plea, good disciplinary record and full co-operation with the disciplinary process, the ban was halved, meaning he is free to play again on Monday June 9.

There's been an awful lot of coverage for something that turns out to be low end.

Stranger wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 3:16 pm There's been an awful lot of coverage for something that turns out to be low end.

Yep Ridiculous.
Strange how a 20 year old kid managed to get in their heads quite so badly mind

SaintK wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 4:02 pm

Stranger wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 3:16 pm There's been an awful lot of coverage for something that turns out to be low end.

Yep Ridiculous.
Strange how a 20 year old kid managed to get in their heads quite so badly mind

Frankly the odder thing is that got a ban and Buros is fine. You can it turns out run at a prone player and intend to jump over them, and if that player instead exhibits freedom of though and sits up you can smash them in the head with your knee and you're golden. Rugby doesn't want to win the concussion case when it comes to court.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 5:11 pm

SaintK wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 4:02 pm

Stranger wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 3:16 pm There's been an awful lot of coverage for something that turns out to be low end.

Yep Ridiculous.
Strange how a 20 year old kid managed to get in their heads quite so badly mind

Frankly the odder thing is that got a ban and Buros is fine. You can it turns out run at a prone player and intend to jump over them, and if that player instead exhibits freedom of though and sits up you can smash them in the head with your knee and you're golden. Rugby doesn't want to win the concussion case when it comes to court.

That is the most ridiculous version of events I've read this week.

Kawazaki wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 6:17 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 5:11 pm

SaintK wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 4:02 pm
Yep Ridiculous.
Strange how a 20 year old kid managed to get in their heads quite so badly mind

Frankly the odder thing is that got a ban and Buros is fine. You can it turns out run at a prone player and intend to jump over them, and if that player instead exhibits freedom of though and sits up you can smash them in the head with your knee and you're golden. Rugby doesn't want to win the concussion case when it comes to court.

That is the most ridiculous version of events I've read this week.

He knows there's a player on the floor, he runs at him with the intent to leap over him, does indeed leap over him, and having introduced risk for Furbank sparks him out once Burbank lifts his head off the ground. It's accidental, it's also very reckless, he's running into a space occupied by a prone player. But the game clearly doesn't care too much about people getting smashed in the head, some red cards are yellow cards, some red cards aren't cards at all.

SaintK wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 4:02 pm

Stranger wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 3:16 pm There's been an awful lot of coverage for something that turns out to be low end.

Yep Ridiculous.
Strange how a 20 year old kid managed to get in their heads quite so badly mind

Imagine what the Aussies are going to be like.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 11:45 am
EPCR made it about her being a woman.

Sorry what?

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 6:33 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 6:17 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 5:11 pm

Frankly the odder thing is that got a ban and Buros is fine. You can it turns out run at a prone player and intend to jump over them, and if that player instead exhibits freedom of though and sits up you can smash them in the head with your knee and you're golden. Rugby doesn't want to win the concussion case when it comes to court.

That is the most ridiculous version of events I've read this week.

He knows there's a player on the floor, he runs at him with the intent to leap over him, does indeed leap over him, and having introduced risk for Furbank sparks him out once Burbank lifts his head off the ground. It's accidental, it's also very reckless, he's running into a space occupied by a prone player. But the game clearly doesn't care too much about people getting smashed in the head, some red cards are yellow cards, some red cards aren't cards at all.

There has been some really odd takes on this. In fairness this is one of the less weird.

If you look at the footage, the ball bounced to the left then bounces back to the right. He has his eye on the ball the whole time, changes direction and whacks him in the head. It's very unfortunate, but it's also rugby, these things happen. I just don't see anything particularly reckless about it.

Slick wrote: Fri May 30, 2025 8:23 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 6:33 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 6:17 pm



That is the most ridiculous version of events I've read this week.

He knows there's a player on the floor, he runs at him with the intent to leap over him, does indeed leap over him, and having introduced risk for Furbank sparks him out once Burbank lifts his head off the ground. It's accidental, it's also very reckless, he's running into a space occupied by a prone player. But the game clearly doesn't care too much about people getting smashed in the head, some red cards are yellow cards, some red cards aren't cards at all.

There has been some really odd takes on this. In fairness this is one of the less weird.

If you look at the footage, the ball bounced to the left then bounces back to the right. He has his eye on the ball the whole time, changes direction and whacks him in the head. It's very unfortunate, but it's also rugby, these things happen. I just don't see anything particularly reckless about it.

Yep, it looked like the epitome of a "rugby incident" to me, very unfortunate but things happen.

So no need to look where you're going? does that thinking apply to high tackles when there's suddenly a ball carrier in front of you? it should if being consistent

If he'd tripped over Furbank I suppose one could contend it was just very unlucky, but he's doing something dangerous (or at least very risky) even if it works for him

I remember when Hughes kicked North in the head a few seasons back and that I thought was an accident because North got spun into the path of Hughes, he wasn't there when Hughes started on that running line. this does seem different because he's always running into the space another player occupies, it'd be like a racing driver diving up the inside on a corner and then claiming he didn't realise the other car was going to turn in too, that space is always closing in unsafe fashion

OomStruisbaai wrote: Wed Jun 12, 2024 12:57 pm The 2024/25 Champions Cup and Challenge Cup tournaments will continue with the same pool stage format as last season

FFS

Biffer wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 11:49 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 11:45 am

Biffer wrote: Tue May 27, 2025 1:14 pm

So it is to do with being a woman.

On the basis that she has been selected on criteria other than competence, yes, EPCR made it about her being a woman.
I don't give a flying f**k what denomination she is as long as she was fit for purpose, which she was not.
That really isn't hard to grasp and your Trump-esque attempts at interpretation do you a disservice. But to be clear, I rarely hold any truck on quotas over merit appointments in any scenario.

So it wasn't because she was a woman, now it is because she's a woman, but it's someone else's fault because quotas.

Which one of us sounds like Trump?

Maybe you have comprehension issues a la aforementioned president. Hadn't taken you for a thickie, but whatever.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 5:11 pm

SaintK wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 4:02 pm

Stranger wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 3:16 pm There's been an awful lot of coverage for something that turns out to be low end.

Yep Ridiculous.
Strange how a 20 year old kid managed to get in their heads quite so badly mind

Frankly the odder thing is that got a ban and Buros is fine. You can it turns out run at a prone player and intend to jump over them, and if that player instead exhibits freedom of though and sits up you can smash them in the head with your knee and you're golden. Rugby doesn't want to win the concussion case when it comes to court.

Talk about delusional interpretations. How about red card for Furbank for, well, multiple offences:
- no arms tackle
- interfering with play whilst on the floor
- taking player out without the ball
- preventing a clear try scoring chance which should have been a pen try

Actually more plausible than the Stalinist revision you wrote.

Stranger wrote: Fri May 30, 2025 8:31 am Yep, it looked like the epitome of a "rugby incident" to me, very unfortunate but things happen.

Plus which it took Buros out of the game too and with UBB moving B-B to FB, arguably caused more disruption to their backline than the loss of Ramm and Furbank did for Saints.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Fri May 30, 2025 10:36 am

Biffer wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 11:49 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 11:45 am
On the basis that she has been selected on criteria other than competence, yes, EPCR made it about her being a woman.
I don't give a flying f**k what denomination she is as long as she was fit for purpose, which she was not.
That really isn't hard to grasp and your Trump-esque attempts at interpretation do you a disservice. But to be clear, I rarely hold any truck on quotas over merit appointments in any scenario.

So it wasn't because she was a woman, now it is because she's a woman, but it's someone else's fault because quotas.

Which one of us sounds like Trump?

Maybe you have comprehension issues a la aforementioned president. Hadn't taken you for a thickie, but whatever.

You’re the one doing the ‘yes, but it’s all someone else’s fault’ shtick.

FFS, hopefully the clown that approved the Pollock and Freeman interview with TNT has been sacked. Absolutely cringe worthy nonsense watching Flatman and Kay blowing smoke up Pollock's arse.