There is a key point I don’t see comments on . That is the tie in with the Roger Davis clear statement regarding the KB contract .
He said it was a triparty contract and ARU could not cancel and needed Waratahs agreement to cancel . They did not have this .

Surely it means the ARU has seriously mislead and misrepresented matters to the formal Tribunal .

It goes like this :-

Tribunal formally requests the ARU to submit its recommendation for KB penalty in event he is found guilty .
ARU formally submits their recommendation to the tribunal that KB contract should be cancelled.
Tribunal takes this to account in assessing penalty and decides on a different penalty.

Tribunal could easily have accepted the ARU recommendation and were clearly minded to consider it in there deliberations having requested and received it .

It is a fact that the ARU has knowingly or negligently mislead the Tribunal who had no reason to believe the ARU did not have the power to impose a cancellation. Had the Tribunal made a finding for cancellation, this circus would have turned to farce with neither the ARU or Tribunal able to enforce it .

I say this is a most serious failure by ARU and its controls , management and governance , either someone knew and deceived the Tribunal in hope of shifting the decision to the Tribunal OR they were again completely negligent in the face of a formal submission to an Independant enquiry.
Either way , the ARU management are now exposed for misleading the Tribunal in a way that they clearly state suited their own preferences. At every level this is unacceptible and heads must roll .

Like many stories , the path has unexpected consequences eg EM resigning. On the points above , it is impossible for this management to deny responsibility and consequences . If Michael Hawker s Listed Company had mislead an independent Tribunal I’m sure heads would have rolled . It’s time Michael, to stand up .

The real remaining point is that it is now proved that Patson did not present any evidence of her claims that proved KB guilt on anything including the first image and text .
It is now clear that she only provided screenshots of incoming material and he outgoing texts with 3 omitted and not supplied even after request .
Lack of evidence on KB side has established KB cannot be found responsible for the alleged 2 nd image . This is because she withheld the hard evidence – her phone .

The first image is no different Same copied screenshot and no hard phone evidence .
It is only KB admission and KB phone records that prove the first image . Patsons alone would fall into same camp as unproven second image . Even forensic allowed the possibility it may not exist on evidence seen .
In fact Patson has simply made allegations and refused her hard evidence if it exists. This is not good enough .
Luckily for ARU KB admitted something !

No I know I know

Sporo – your spot on. Pulver is singlehandedly the elevator of this mess from spat to pratt proportions. He jumped early and thought he was smart closing off the integrity hearing re events on plane so EM and DP did not have to explain what ” complicated” really meant. It’s instructive tat even though the volume of leaked material could sink the Titanic, no factual version of the detailed plane events emerged yet.
EM ( the Boss) was near DP and other payers were right there.
Also if this was to be judged as non private and in a public place as claimed , why has no input emerged from one of the “public” who were traumatised by the events in front of them Any self respecting hour I would have got on to this. Can we assume with such a big touring party there was actually no public near the exchange ? And no public offense. Where are these impacted parties?
However the players were there – and it is they that stood up for Beale there and then
But Pulver shelved this. Maybe he was more cunning than was obvious attime.
It begs question, what did he come to know and when.
He then went on a transparently “he’s guilty” attack on Beale while pretending to appoint an independent hearing.
Clearly he jumped early and had no idea what would unfold This is because the management structure for the Wallaby component of ARU was inadequate on his watch and he had no clear lines of reporting except the potentially compromised EM in middle.
This was bad enough, but he still lurched on unable to grasp that it was no longer Beale but DP and finally EM that couldn’t accept the burgeoning scrutiny.
His watch -his escalation – his turmoil – and a good coach lost just before the all important northern tour where we play our two group stage adversaries.
These are not any old games – these are key RWC preparations.
Pulverise must go – and a team manager separate from Coach must be installed to separate game and non game issues and uncomplicated the Coach precise role

Where was Hawker in all this. ? At what level of crisis does the ARU need to be before the Chairman shows to the public he has a steadying hand on the tiller?

Finally I can’t believe EM could not progress with this team to North Hem matches. If that is not so then he has himself done something irreversible that we are not privy to.
It is far more likely that he either knew about the texts , may not be honest about Di , or just accepts the management that he gathered in total into himself has failed.
I prefer to think he has chose to protect Di from further public exposure at any level by falling on his sword. A fallible but good man lost to wallabies
I trust Pulver will walk out the same door – blame and shame hand in hand

Why are we not tapping in with our wallaby exiles .
Surely This is an opportunity for James OConner and mat Giteau who has been far and away the best Australian centre this last year.

The biggest howlers this Ashes were DRS decisions where the final decision did not remotely match the evidence viewed – – establishing that all of the following did not apply.
— the ” benefit of the doubt to batsman” ;
a requirement for conclusive evidence for the selected final decision ;
the preparedness to overturn the original Umpire’s call with inconclusive evidence.

This is both contrary to older rules and fairness once one has decided to add a DRS world to umpiring decisions – it can be easily rectified with a clear change to the present mandate .

The second set of howlers arose out of wrong decisions which could not be reviewed as reviews had been used ( eg the Broad incident . Secondly several decisions were proved wrong when fielding Captain or Batsman decided against revue . This decision was made due to fear of review loss and not purely on the event . This influence is disproportionate and was proved to have material influence on games outcome .
This is unnecessary . we have let DRS into the room – it clearly outperforms the naked eye – it should be used and relied on with the caveat of conclusive ness. It is the ICB rules on its application that are the problem and can be changed to remove a further 80/90% of the “DRS” howlers .

Finally the idea that an inconclusive review can be used to positively uphold an Umpires Out decision must be removed .

We need to step out of a mindset that Umpires decisions need protection and return to a requirement of conclusive evidence for an out decision – batsman’s benefit of the doubt otherwise.

It’s the fact that we are still debating who should play where that is the Deans indictment . There is no possibility that the Lions would ever pick an inexperienced 10 player to play 10 against us . Nor should we . Deans has had a lo of time – cooper is only one tha ticks the box at least for test 1 a Suncorp .
Anyone who says JOC has been brilliant at 10 for his few games at the rebels is blind. Even so , this is the Lions and he is a speculation in that position right now.
Beale likewise can’t now be 10 starter , Toomua will wait for injury or later in year to be considered , and Barnes – solid but better one out – would be to deny a chance of ascendancy via distribution .
If there were genuine match hardened established 10 s this would already be clear – there aren’t – and Cooper is our best right now – with warts etc – throw in the combo with Genia when going gets tough – the argument for the alternative is not there – right now at least .
This is all to do with playing a real 10 , not an out of position winger, centre, fullback – and has nothing to do with Coopers game for Reds ( without Genia) .

Come the moment – cometh the man . Given the ridiculous decision of ARU not to have a wam up test against anybody – Nauru iIsland or Essendon AFL would do – Deans is forced to give higher consideration to past test performers versus current form – at least for first test . Hooper had such an impressive performance in the Autumn – proving he rises to big matches. Beale has on several occasions shown that extra bottle (genius) to pull games off at the death – true class – he only has to play a couple of good games ( and no bad) to be in . JOC has performed at test level for Deans – his form now is not the issue – avoid more than one bad game and he is in . On other side, dozens in these comments all slot Quade clearly at 10 – his play lately with Genia is the best in our conference . Lets not forget Genia has gone public that it is Cooper that makes Genia play better . This is the winning combination for 1st test . BIL are not quaking in their boots about Toomua or LLO or Barnes . If this was match play Cooper has the wood on Farrell and Sexton – this is the point . Will Deans pick him ?
And as for standing up when it counts – and BIL counts – it’s impossible to not go with George Smith – he’s shown his form now and his record is peerless at lifting his game for the big ones .
Also Deans will find a slot for McCabe – in the face of heavy competition and form – he won’t be able to help himself putting containing Tuilagi/ Roberts ahead of his own penetration – this may be a good thing . Debate able
Finally , Deans will have one wild card to play – Folau will start . This is a big risk for Deans and against character – but Izzy has proved his class in the hottest cauldron of Rugby League and won’t be daunted by the occasion . There will then be no room for other experiments .
However this is a long 3 test series and injury and performance could see a quite different setup in Sydney if it is a decider .

HT I’m not comparing in this post the respective Wallaby v Lions positions .
My point is that a combined English Wales + pack won’t be demonstrably better than the English or Welsh separately .
With Wallaby complement of fit players back to good level we should fancy ourself against either of those on tour in Oz having last beaten them away .your claim that we have no parity in any position belies actual results even with all our injured first line players.
IMO the combo side won’t be better than the separate nations – our backs and forwards will be better than last year and the Welsh Lions reserve their greatest and fiercest passions to beating England for the 6 nations – or any time – and provably not Oz where they are 1 from 10 recently.

Yes sorry . – obviously the Blacks game in that sequence of three – high to low .

Cramps – oh yes – obviously meant the Blacks demolition – sorry for that but probably obvious.

Of course some logic is with you on this – relevance of Italy is both they and Wales showed England was not all conquering after the Blacks game and have changed the selection balance away from England . In the bigger picture we are 9 out of last 10 v Wales and England has done us up front repeatedly . Ask anyone whether the wallabies would rather play Wales or England .
O’D may not start but there are 3 tests. Gatland likes big wingers who get the ball – Tuilagi rarely passes wide and generally occupies the wing channel himself . He may start wing . Both England wings did nothing outside him this season.

This scenario is entirely why I don’t believe these infractions deserve a game changing 3 points. I’m not specifically concerned here about the refs call – ill leave that to you front rowers – I’m addressing disproportionate value. Kick able Penalties should always require one ingredient in eyes of Ref clear intent .

Hi Elisha
I have never been comfortable about leaving our best intl standard players out of starting lineup – a thousand articles have been written about lack of Aussie depth and resources . For once , gratis huge injury count , we have genuine back up .
I always believed leaving Hooper or Pocock out of starting is a luxury not affordable at Wallaby level .
Now injury has spoken again but along came Gill .
The Lions selection is focussing on huge – we can’t play Gill and Hooper – we have been undone by northern Hemisphere forward power repeatedly – if we win we find a different way to do it – often after conceding pushover or penalty tries – her they come again .

There was recently a several hundred comment debate on our best backline – this was stimulated by the number of Roarers that disagreed with each other – we are hardly settled then . Lions will be well settled and played in vs Ba Bas and several tour games .

We need a defensive strategy to match our normally good defence – a la White – and some lateral thinking.

I would start right now preparing Hooper to play inside centre – he is very quick off mark – and elsewhere we have pointed out we have plenty of playmakers . Deans already tried this with McCabe but the playmakers were not there .

The inside centr position has changed a lot and no reason not to change it more – I would love to see Hoopers presence in the wider tackle channels and also to force the Flyhalf channel even closer to his 7 .

We can return to a different game if we want after the lions – for now its all talent on the park – we will soon be under siege – we need boiling oil not sharper arrows .

Ted says
Drop Goals have had far greater impact than the ones mentioned .
Transky to win in ’95 – in extra time. Larkham to win in extra time versus Boks in 99 Semi , to go on to win. Jannie De Beers five Drops to take out England in Paris 99 quarters . Rob andrew stealing the quarter final from Australia on the siren in 95 .
And I haven’t addressed the results ” changed ” by near or unaccountable misses (like Wales).
It is easy to equate this latter category with dropped passes with try line open – but it is not . All these Dropgoal points have been scored (or not) when the game is at its closing phase and when the the die seem caste so to speak – it is unfair to undo the previous work with drop points on offer as a decidedly lower risk strategy than pushing for five points or pressuring a penalty ( by definition we are within 3 points)
Many solutions have been proposed – as well as dont touch at all – reduce points to 2 points which would deter earlier accumulation but not address the end game , add risk by hving a minimum distance circle eg 40 metres, ban dropgoals in last five minutes and/or extra time – or a combination . Some comparative or relative risk needs adding.
The debate will go on BUT history is clear that the World Cup multigame Knockout format brings Dropgoals out of the woodwork compared to other test Rugby