Is Cheika on thin ice as Wallabies coach

[Crucial]

There is a story in the NZ Herald this morning ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11429676 ) that Waratahs and Wallabies coach Cheika entered the referees room at half time during the Tahs/ Blues game the weekend before last.
For those that don't know, Cheika has a history with behaviour issues toward match officials and crew and in on a six month suspended sentence for abusing a cameraman last year. The period of suspension has not expired and if this latest allegation is true he could have the 6 months invoked meaning he would effectively be unable to coach the Wallabies in the TRC and the RWC.
As the article says, Sanzar have kept this potential drama under wraps and are not commenting.

Watch this space.

 

[Dickie E]

apparently he's received an official warning:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...issued-warning-for-halftime-talk-with-referee

 

[Crucial]

"Sanzar have been asked for comment"

They are certainly hoping this story will die. A coach on a suspended sentence breaches the terms of that suspension (however minor) and they send him a warning?

The consequences were too big and they wanted to dodge them.

This cracked me up ""Michael was not even aware of that ruling and would not have approached the match officials' room if he had been aware of it."

How long has this guy been coaching around the world?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Of course suspicion levels were raised because the penalty count was running 8 - 1 against his side before he visited the referee, and then ran 9 - 1 in favour of his side after the visit.

Whether or not this even means anything, the optics here are terrible!

 

[The Fat]

It would be hard to imagine that a coach could say anything that would make a RWC referee (it was Jaco Peyper wasn't it?) suddenly decide to even up the penalty count. You may get a low level ref to start 2nd guessing himself if issues were raised by a coach at half time?
I would love to know what was discussed and how the conversation went. One would have to think it was polite otherwise you would think the match officials would have had something to report.

 

[Crucial]

According to the press statement it was a clarification on scrum rulings.

The funny thing is that Cheika and Peyper have been warned and all other franchises reminded that they are not to approach the ref or enter the room, yet this is not deemed a breach 'in the circumstances'.

If I was a coach I'd do the same and claim I was only doing what he did.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It would be hard to imagine that a coach could say anything that would make a RWC referee (it was Jaco Peyper wasn't it?) suddenly decide to even up the penalty count. You may get a low level ref to start 2nd guessing himself if issues were raised by a coach at half time?
I would love to know what was discussed and how the conversation went. One would have to think it was polite otherwise you would think the match officials would have had something to report.

I agree.

Perception, however, is king!!

 

[Dickie E]

If I was a coach I'd do the same and claim I was only doing what he did.

If I was a coach I'd spend the invaluable 10 minutes with my players on the 2nd half strategy. Maybe the sandwiches were better in the ref's dugout?

 

[Camquin]

I always thought that the point of a suspended sentence was take took effect if you committed another offense - and even though he only received a warning, the fact they needed to send that means he broke the rules.

It seems to me the sports regulators choose not to ban players or coaches from a major tournament, for offenses in a lesser one. For example it seems to me many player bans the RFU give run out the day before an international.

Of course he has a warning and a suspended sentence. This should be taken into account if he infringes again during the RWC. Which surely would be even more disruptive than banning him now - while a replacement has the TRC to get up to speed.

 

[Dixpat]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11430237

An opinion piece following the decision

 

[Crucial]

They dodged banning him last year by making his sentence a suspended one and acting tough, saying that he better not do anything again in the next year or he would have to cop it.
As soon as he tested their resolve they crumpled because they don't want the shitfight that would ensue from the ARU losing their national coach.
Just makes them look weak..
As any parent knows, if you don't enforce a threat, you pay for it later.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

If he is, I hope he goes through.......

Cheika was neither aggressive nor abusive and nor did he use foul language.

That explains why the discussion with Peyper was so short... :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

As any parent knows, if you don't enforce a threat, you pay for it later.

as does any referee !

 

[Browner]

Irrespective of the smell of this , the NZ rugby gods/press must think it was Xmas ..... The chance to go after the ARU head coach in the lead up to RWC ..... They're still salivating I'm sure.

 

[The Fat]

Interesting side note to this story.
Last night, the Blues played the Brumbies and the penalty count was 9 - 9

In the first half it was 7-1 to the Blues; in the second half it was 8-2 to the Brumbies. (SArefs)

 

[Crucial]

Interesting side note to this story.
Last night, the Blues played the Brumbies and the penalty count was 9 - 9

In the first half it was 7-1 to the Blues; in the second half it was 8-2 to the Brumbies. (SArefs)

I don't buy the 'influence' thing at all. The side with ascendency will almost always get the rub of the green and the Blues big problem this year has been letting the other team trample them in the last half.

Influence isn't the salient point though. Breach of code when on a suspended sentence and the ducking and diving away from that is the main point.

 

[Crucial]

Irrespective of the smell of this , the NZ rugby gods/press must think it was Xmas ..... The chance to go after the ARU head coach in the lead up to RWC ..... They're still salivating I'm sure.

Not really. It is only one Auckland based newspaper that is pursuing this. They heard of what happened through their contacts at the Blues and went off and did some digging.
Sanzar made the first mistake of ignoring a journo that thought he had a big story, hoping it would go away. When their hand was forced they produced a carefully worded press release and refused further comment.
Most journos won't let something like this die if they think they have broken a story.

I don't know anyone salivating at the prospect of Cheika losing his job. Larkham would take over and do a great job anyway.

The issue is the 'coverup' and bullshit Sanzar has dished out and their stupidity in setting a suspended sentence but being in a position where they don't want to enforce it because of the shit storm that would ensue if they did.