Viewing comments for flanker2712
Red 5 is itching for a scrap from the start. When the tackled player gave the tackler a bit of a "what the hell was that" shove in the face, it looks like it would have ended there. But, as DrG points out, red 5 gets involved.
For me, the trigger for it all properly kicking off is when red 5 shoves his hand (fingers?) in yellow 4's face (eyes?). Yellow 4 up to this point looks like he has been trying to defuse the situation. Yellow 4 gets angry and voilá.
5 Months, 2 Weeks ago
It seems to me that Andy Farrell had a bigger say all along in selection (and likely coaching) than Lancaster ever did. I'm sure he out his foot down a few times, and Lancaster doesn't seem like a man to stand up to Farrell. The Burgess experiment went horribly wrong, and I can't see how that was anything other than Farrell having his way.
7 Months, 3 Weeks ago
Not even the best Argie try.
But I'm not bitter!
8 Months, 1 Week ago
Agree with the sentiment of the majority who have posted.
What troubles me most in this is the amount of time that passes between the tackle and the game being stopped. I know its only a few seconds, but in that type of situation, a few seconds is all it takes for a more serious injury to happen to a player who has no way of protecting himself. Admittedly I've seen worse (I remember one incident on here a couple of years ago, possibly from a Super Rugby game, where the unconscious player was in the middle of some pretty ferocious rucking and counter rucking).
I know that you play to the whistle, that these things happen in the game, that players get knocked out and then are back on their feet a few seconds after etc. But surely one or more of the players in close proximity to the tackle must have heard the thud and seen the player knocked out cold. If the ref doesn't blow up, should they not try to let the ref know immediately? I see the blue 2 hit the ruck pretty hard, right above his unconscious teammate's face. I see blue 6 (I think) pick the ball up and try to make a few yards. Can't see his number, but a grey right behind the tackler seems to have a pretty good view and doesn't seem to bat an eyelid.
Maybe I'm being too harsh?
8 Months, 2 Weeks ago
I would guess that the word "caution" has a very clear meaning for both participants in a conversation between the referee and the TMO of a professional rugby game in South Africa, both of whom are likely to be very familiar with the laws of the game!
9 Months, 1 Week ago
Even in a charity match, Delon Armitage does something that makes you want to punch him!
10 Months, 17 Hours ago
I clicked on the "View Video" link expecting to see Stroudos fuming silently for 5 minutes.
10 Months, 1 Day ago
Word limit reached!
Not much more to add, other than the TV channel would obviously argue that, even with respect to the statements made on air, such comments are not what pundits and commentators are hired for and therefore shouldn't be considered to be made in the normal course of employment.
Sorry if I've bored you, but I took your last comment very literally!
Any more knowledgeable lawyers feel free to correct me (but maybe we can take it offline!)
10 Months, 2 Weeks ago
I am a lawyer, but not a defamation lawyer (so this does NOT constitute legal advice to Joubert, Kearns or anyone else!).
Anyone who just wants rugby discussion, stop reading!
This could form the basis of a good law school exam question! There are already jurisdiction issues, a questionable cause of action, a plausible defence and potential vicarious liability. You could tag on a breach of contract claim by the TV channel against Kearns. Oh, how I long for those university days of boozing and chasing tail...
Assuming English defamation law applied (which would be unlikely given recent changes to restrict defamation tourists coming to London), Joubert would have to show any statement complained of caused "serious harm" to his reputation and lowered Joubert in the estimation of reasonable members of society (or something like that). A statement that he has had a "shocker" could be interpreted as suggesting he is not fit to do his job. Saying that he handed the All Blacks the World Cup could be interpreted as an allegation of cheating or other wrongdoing. So he probably has a case.
Kearns would likely use the defence of honest opinion (which in broad terms replaced the defence of fair comment). I'm not sure of the ins and outs of the defence, but if a reasonable person could have held the same opinion based on facts existing at the time the statement was made, then I think he would have a case. Not having access to everything that he said or wrote, it's difficult to know whether he could satisfy other requirements of the defence.
Assuming a court found one or more statements defamatory, the TV channel could be held vicariously liable if it could be shown that Kearns was an employee (which would require analysis of his contractual position) and that the tort was committed in the normal course of his employment. The TV channel would clearly try to distinguish between the comments made on air and those made in a personal capacity in the following days.
10 Months, 2 Weeks ago
Looks like Russell Brand after a couple of decent meals and a few gym sessions.
10 Months, 2 Weeks ago