QRU send SANZAR please explain
A “please explain” will be issued by the Queensland Rugby Union to SANZAR after they claimed the late arrival of key documents forced them to abort appealing Quade Cooper’s ban.
And Cooper backed the QRU to pursue the governing body over what he believed were judicial inconsistencies after being forced to watch the Reds’ sudden death finals clash with the Sharks on Saturday night from the Suncorp Stadium stands.
“It is a major issue from a player point of view. When you get so much inconsistencies in different calls and rulings – the players don’t know where to sit,” Cooper told Fox Sports’ The Rugby Club on Thursday night.
“I am happy to sit back in the background and let the QRU try and work a strategy to fix this problem.
“To see how passionate the club … felt I had been done wrong has been good for my confidence … and I hope something does get worked out.”
Despite Cooper tweeting otherwise, the QRU was still exploring an appeal after requesting a transcript of Monday night’s marathon judicial hearing.
However, the documents did not arrive until midday Thursday.
The QRU believed it had grounds to challenge Cooper’s one match ban for a dangerous tackle on NSW centre Berrick Barnes after reading them.
But it officially pulled the pin an hour before the 8pm AEST appeal deadline on Thursday claiming it had insufficient time.
The QRU had earlier this week complained about a delay in the written judgement’s arrival.
“After fully considering the SANZAR transcript received at midday today, QRU still firmly believes that the tackle in question did not reach the red card threshold at which Cooper was initially cited and therefore did not warrant any further action than the yellow card,” a QRU statement said.
“Also, evidence presented to the video conference over a four-and-a-half hour period, failed to validate the citing commissioner’s claim that Cooper’s tackle initially made contact with Barnes’ head, in QRU’s opinion.
“We initially anticipated we would gain a better understanding of the decision by the Judicial Officer though obtaining the full SANZAR transcripts.
“However, they failed to reveal any further detail or clarification on why the judgement was made and the delay in receiving these documents has made it near impossible to mount an appeal.”
QRU CEO Jim Carmichael said he would formally write to SANZAR “to outline their concerns and seek clarification around a range of points”.
Cooper stood by his Wednesday night tweet that he wanted to abort an appeal in order to not further disturb the Reds’ preparation.
“I definitely don’t want to be a distraction,” he said.
“But at the same time I have full faith in my teammates to get the job done this weekend.”
Ben Lucas is expected to replace Cooper at No.10 when the Reds team is named on Friday.
If the Reds defeat the Sharks on Saturday night, Cooper will be free to play against the Chiefs in Hamilton next week.
© AAP 2013The Crowd Says (30) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- QRU, Quade Cooper, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby
July 20th 2012 @ 4:44am
biltongbek said | July 20th 2012 @ 4:44am | Report comment
Just let the guy play, I can’t say I am crazy about the guy, but with all the inconsistencies with citings it would probably make more sense to let him play than keeping up with this farce.
At least allow the Reds to put their first choice players out and then let the best team on the day win.
July 20th 2012 @ 6:43am
Red Kev said | July 20th 2012 @ 6:43am | Report comment
I’d rather see the Reds win without Cooper – the Reds’ fans complaints about the suspension offsets the Sharks’ fans complaints about the home final.
July 20th 2012 @ 6:49am
biltongbek said | July 20th 2012 @ 6:49am | Report comment
To be honest Idon’t care about either those issues.
My objection to the way the conference system isn’t aimed at any specific team, this season has run its course and so will the next two, the format has been cast in stone, my hope is the next negotiations will iron out some of the issues I have mentioned before..
July 20th 2012 @ 6:51am
Red Kev said | July 20th 2012 @ 6:51am | Report comment
Is it only the next two? I thought it was the next three (2013, 2014, 2015) and that the 2016 season was the earliest the format could be changed (see the story about the Kings not playing until 2016 – or is that a typo).
July 20th 2012 @ 6:58am
biltongbek said | July 20th 2012 @ 6:58am | Report comment
Two, three however it maybe, you probably right, not sure.
July 20th 2012 @ 9:14am
Happy Hooker said | July 20th 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Mmmm. Note to self: check meaning of “Guru” in the Oxford English dictionary.
July 20th 2012 @ 4:17pm
biltongbek said | July 20th 2012 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
your point?
July 20th 2012 @ 6:19am
Ash said | July 20th 2012 @ 6:19am | Report comment
In order to get consistency we need the same people judging every case across the competition. I would go with a panel of 3 and make sure a former player was involved.
At the moment it is a joke.
July 20th 2012 @ 9:28am
Rabbitz said | July 20th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Why do people always insist that a former player be on a committee?
Footy players, in general, aren’t Rhodes Scholars or businessmen or judges.
Just because you have played (once upon a time) doesn’t make to a management expert.
July 21st 2012 @ 8:16am
Jutsie said | July 21st 2012 @ 8:16am | Report comment
But you do have a natural feel/understanding for the game if you have actually played it., And alot of the blokes who played before the advent of the professional era probably do have management expertise or degrees anyway.
July 20th 2012 @ 9:23am
AussieKiwi said | July 20th 2012 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Did anyone see QC’s comments on the Rugby Club last night? They basically trapped him into saying he had been unfairly treated and the process was inconsistent and unfiar. QC obviously needs better media training on how talk without actually saying anything.
And what was going on with Greg Martin??????
July 20th 2012 @ 3:26pm
AndyS said | July 20th 2012 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
A few or more sherbets would be my bet…
July 20th 2012 @ 3:45pm
David said | July 20th 2012 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
The sadder point is that ordinary players (not captains) need media training.
Interviewers are often relentless and not for e good of the game but for the good of their headlines. They incorrectly quite others to encourage a response.
They may be professionals but they are still just rugby players.
And I don’t even like QC
July 20th 2012 @ 9:46am
Cattledog said | July 20th 2012 @ 9:46am | Report comment
The judiciary lacks credibility at present although much of this rests with an inept SANZAR. Either they take action to wipe out all incidents by sighting every and any discrepancy and then deal with each case by a panel which includes past players, or they turn a blind eye, which is fraught with danger.
Rugby is a contact sport and whilst there will be indiscretions, it really comes down to the intent of an individual when making a tackle. Was the intent of Digby Ioane’s tackle any worse than that of the Canes player (name forgotten) on Sonny Bill, or Horne’s indiscretion weeks earlier? Certainly, it must have been as one received 5 weeks, one 10 mins and the other nothing. However, the point here is that to the rugby public, there didn’t appear to be much difference, if at all.
Whilst I don’t want to see every small incident sighted, the only way we will get some consistency is if a tackle such as Digbys is given 5 weeks, then perhaps all other lifting tackles need to be at least discussed by the judiciary and an explanation by them as to why they don’t consider the offence significant. It doesn’t have to be pages of legal jargon, just an executive summary outlining their findings.
Only then will we start to get some consistency and the fans an understanding as to why sentences, deemed significantly harsh, are given.
July 20th 2012 @ 10:21am
Hoy said | July 20th 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
I have issue with past indiscretions, guilty pleas etc as well. I do not condone attacking heads etc, but common sense has to prevail, and as you say Cattledog, one in, all in. There are tackles like Coopers every week, that have no penalty at all. So why this one?
In regards to pleas, players are made to plead guilty early, to get a lesser sentence, but then that guilty plea comes back to bite them in situations in future when they are done for a similar tackle. If they fight the charge, they might get longer on the sideline. Why? Because they don’t think they did wrong? It isn’t a criminal justice system. There are other factors at play in a tackle situation than breaking the law. It isn’t like “You should know better than to assault someone, so plead guilty and show you understand what you have done is wrong”. So by challenging, they are showing examples of other tackles, using biomechanics experts these days etc. But risking longer sentences by challenging? Why? That is crazy.
With regards to Digby, he supposedly had form because a tackle he did when? 4 years ago was deemed dangerous as well? So because maybe two tackles out of the last 500 he has done were deemed dangerous, he was given a long sentence. That is crazy.
July 20th 2012 @ 10:34pm
Dtox said | July 20th 2012 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
It would take Digby Ioane 100 years to make 500 tackles.
July 20th 2012 @ 3:57pm
David said | July 20th 2012 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
All we want is consistency. Believe it or not but I think citing and sentencing is more consistent than last year. However with SANZAR running it there will be problems. The late transcripts are a pathetic job and obviously useless to the reds
Re: Digby Ioane
I had sympathy with Ioane for the 5 weeks. However the reaction was overdone. It wasn’t 5 weeks for the primary offense but it got aggravated b his 2012 spear tackle.
In my book Ioane should have gotten a red card (like hougard earlier) but I would have kept it 2 or 3 weeks.
July 20th 2012 @ 9:40pm
Darwin Stubbie said | July 20th 2012 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
Are people forgetting he actually got a white card in all this – that basically means he was on report and the tackle was going to be scrutinized …. All these other examples are meaningless – they were either missed or dealt with on the pitch without a card …. Cooper hit a bloke high which resulted in a concussion – once on report he was looking at time on the sideline
July 20th 2012 @ 11:11pm
Cattledog said | July 20th 2012 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
You don’t need a white card for a tackle to be scrutinised. The point is the examples aren’t meaningless as in this technological era, tackles and other areas of concern can now be scrutinised after the event.
People aren’t protesting the fact Cooper was suspended, they are protesting the fact that similar and perhaps worse have gone unpunished when there is the ability to now scrutinise and site if necessary players who transgress. All they are after is consistency and at this present time, I think it’s fair to say SANZAR hasn’t got it right.
Because a player isn’t penalised or carded during a game, doesn’t mean that player can’t be brought to account after the fact.
July 21st 2012 @ 7:32am
Kuruki said | July 21st 2012 @ 7:32am | Report comment
There has been clear footage raised of McCaw being eye gouged multiple times, you would think if something this sinister is let lie after the fact then surely most of the examples being tossed around would hardly be worth a second look.
White Card means they actually have to go through the process and come up with a verdict either way, with an explanation as to how and why they reached that decision.
Non white card offences do not require them to offer any explanation for not reviewing them, they can simply just ignore it if they wish, which is what happens weekly, otherwise there would be multiple sightings after every game and then there would be allot more whingers then there are now.
July 21st 2012 @ 10:14pm
Cattledog said | July 21st 2012 @ 10:14pm | Report comment
‘Non white card offences do not require them to offer any explanation for not reviewing them, they can simply just ignore it if they wish, which is what happens weekly, otherwise there would be multiple sightings after every game and then there would be allot more whingers then there are now’.
You really don’t understand how the judicial system works, do you. Please explain what a ‘non white card offense is’?
July 20th 2012 @ 11:15pm
Cattledog said | July 20th 2012 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
It’s also nonsense to assume because a player is on report, he will spend time on the sideline.
July 21st 2012 @ 7:11am
Darwin Stubbie said | July 21st 2012 @ 7:11am | Report comment
I’m not assuming anything … All I’m pointing out is he got a white card – which in turn means that the tackle was going to be placed under the microscope – it may well have anyway because of what the end result was …. Yeah there were other high tackles – but they firstly weren’t picked up and just as importantly the receiving player wasn’t concussed ….
July 21st 2012 @ 8:05am
Red Kev said | July 21st 2012 @ 8:05am | Report comment
I think the Rebels players that Motu Matu’u knocked senseless would disagree with that statement – Lachlan Mitchell got put in a neck brace and was stretchered off (and watching it again it was pretty much exactly the same as Cooper’s tackle, initial contact legal, followed through onto head due to the tackler driving upwards).
July 21st 2012 @ 8:13am
Jutsie said | July 21st 2012 @ 8:13am | Report comment
I remember many roar commentators who have condemned quade for this tackle coming on here and passionatley defending motu for his mitchell. “it started low and slipped up”…sounds familiar.
July 21st 2012 @ 8:44am
Kuruki said | July 21st 2012 @ 8:44am | Report comment
When has anyone ever been reported for an accidental head clash?
Mark Gerrard had a damaged sternum, indicating there is no question the initial contact was in the middle of his chest.
You one eyed Queensland supporters have constantly raised the fact Barnes was ducking into the tackle, which i find a load of rubbish.
At no stage did Barnes change the height of his body position from when he first caught the pass, which was the reason he lowered his body position in the first place. Which means there was no case for Cooper to argue Barnes ducking into the tackle as a tackle should not be initiated before a player is even in possession of the ball. it was Coopers duty to assess the body height of Barnes when he was in possession of the ball, and then tackle accordingly.
At no stage was Cooper aiming for any other part of the body then that of which he made contact.
So to say Barnes ducked into the tackle is rubbish, he never changed his position at any stage when he had secured possession.
Maybe you should watch the footage of the Mitchell hit again, Matuu was crouched down to the level where he would have hit him in the bread basket. Before Mitchell got smashed he tucked his body and brought himself down to the same level to try and bump him off, he actually drove down into Matu’u at the same time Matu’u drove into Mitchell.
The Gerrard tackle was an accidental head clash with the most damaged done by the contact in the middle of his chest.
July 21st 2012 @ 11:43am
Cattledog said | July 21st 2012 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Course you’re assuming DS. ‘…once on report he was looking at time on the sideline’. Is that not an assumption?
July 21st 2012 @ 12:46pm
Kuruki said | July 21st 2012 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
“It’s also nonsense to assume because a player is on report, he will spend time on the sideline.”
it’s not nonsense at all. If there was nothing to be worried about the White card would not be issued. They don’t just pull it out for the sake of it, they do it based on a judgement that further scrutiny is deserved. Therefore it is not nonsense to assume something more will come of it, because that is exactly what the ref has done by pulling out the white card.
July 21st 2012 @ 10:11pm
Cattledog said | July 21st 2012 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Kuruki, it’s nonsense to ASSUME anything relating to suspensions. ‘He’s been given a white card, therefore he will be suspended’. That’s nonsense. There are enough examples of players being reported at all levels and no further action taken. So yes, the assumption is nonsense. Remember, white cards have only been used this year but players have still been sited.
The crux of my original post was that the technology is available to site players who have not been carded and if SANZAR are serious about wanting to clean things up, then they need to use this advantage they have. If for no other reason than to dispel rumours and provide more consistency across the board.
We won’t get things perfect, but they can be a hell of a lot better than they currently are with regard to consistency.
July 24th 2012 @ 11:55am
7andabit said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Matu’s tackles were illegal. No matter where the contact starts. If it goes high its dangerous.