Foul play on Richie McCaw from Al Nz on Vimeo.
The time for a citing may or may not have expired, but surely the IRB cannot ignore this blatant incident of foul play.
UPDATE: The deadline of 10.45pm last night has come and gone, but there has been no citing in the Rougerie case. Aurelian Rougerie's act of foul play will go unpunished, whilst the IRB gets in a lather and fines France for crossing the half-way line during the All Black haka. It would seem that Will Carling's 57 old farts are still in control of rugby.
4 comments:
just saw it repeated 4 times on Breakfast and it was deliberate BUT it's all over for me
Hansen says move on.
I agree remembering that revenge is a dish best eaten cold etc.
Pretendong the eye-gouge didn't happen is like pretending National are good at getting an economy to grow...
http://thestandard.org.nz/nats-in-a-world-of-their-own/
Gordon Campbell on Scoop has very good points on what to make of National. He opines:
Going into that election, the Key government has two main policy planks – the partial asset sales and the benefit reform process – for which it has yet to provide any kind of net costings. We await a spreadsheet where the gains/losses of the options of retaining the assets in question in state ownership are placed alongside those from the mixed ownership model that the government is promoting. So far, no transparent figures on the net position have emerged, for the public to evaluate. With the partial asset sales, we have been given only estimates of what revenue could conceivably be generated from a sell down. To repeat: there are no estimates of the long term comparative gains and losses from keeping them, as opposed to selling them
Similarly, there seems to be no modelling of the likely costs and savings from the much-heralded reform of the benefit system. Treasury does monitor and measure such things: eg the Prefu document pointed to the savings in benefit payments since the Budget from the lower than expected unemployment figures. On page 63 of the Prefu document, it also concludes that many of the Welfare Working Group recommendations “would result in large upfront costs if adopted”. It must be doing those calculations though, on the back of an envelope. Because when I asked English yesterday what the aspirational target – and/or the expected net gain – was for the benefit reform process in say, its first year of operation, he maintained that no such work had yet been done.
Essentially then, the government is heading into the election campaign asking the public for a blank cheque in two of its main policy areas. We should be asking for more.
Post a Comment