International Pacific Championship

Highlights Only
sup42 said:
Having been called to a few enquiries into serious incidents, some involving deaths, I can say with experience that people react to questioning in a wide range of ways.

What I never had to deal with, was microphone being shoved in front of me immediately following the shock of the incident.

What seems like distancing by Woolfs tone (definitely is distancing himself in those comments) could be covering his ass - or it could be that he is in shock and is upset by being asked questions while he is processing the distress - it could be his off handedness is anger at being asked stupid questions, which you can forgive someone for.

Bottom line, whatever was said or not said, something stinks. And the smell starts when Tongan trainers (allegedly) fail to pass the knock out up the chain during the warm up.

And if the Trainers are innocent? if they sounded the alarm? then the Doctor and the Coach if they were made aware should have the book thrown at them in court. They should be sued in a occupational health and safety suit.
Click to expand...

The most damning part to me is the hit in warm up and he should never have suited up after that. The point I made about having a second rower in Halasima could be used as a defence too I guess? I guess you could say we had a solid second rower waiting at 18th man that we could have replaced him with, so why wouldn’t we have sat him out if we didn’t think he was healthy to play? That is if 18th man is activated under these circumstances? Also if he was never assessed in the warm up hit, then it’s only hearsay that he wasn’t fit to play initially? The bloodshot eye almost immediately is dead giveaway though. He also passed the first test in game but failed the second but by the time he got tested in game after not being assessed in the warmup hit potentially gave him time to get some rehabilitation briefly before he got the following knocks?
 

NZWarriors.com

Remove ads
Noitall said:
Also if he was never assessed in the warm up hit, then it’s only hearsay that he wasn’t fit to play initially?
Click to expand...
It goes both ways right? as in it is only hearsay that he was fit to play.

But the reason it is not hearsay is that the hit is filmed, the head rock is significant (part of the criteria - sweat flies - also part of the assessment) and most of all the player meets the rule under Category one "fall without protecting himself" (he goes down cold and lands hard on his back k'od).

So the fact that there is video evidence by definition excludes the meaning of 'hearsay' quite literally (the word legally meaning heard not seen).
 
sup42 said:
It goes both ways right? as in it is only hearsay that he was fit to play.

But the reason it is not hearsay is that the hit is filmed, the head rock is significant (part of the criteria - sweat flies - also part of the assessment) and most of all the player meets the rule under Category one "fall without protecting himself" (he goes down cold and lands hard on his back k'od).

So the fact that there is video evidence by definition excludes the meaning of 'hearsay' quite literally (the word legally meaning heard not seen).
Click to expand...
Yeah that was me playing devils advocate, but my personal view there’s no defence, particularly with the film evidence you point out. The footage picked up by the film crew could become a big part of this because there was plenty of time for there to be an assessment and everyone up to the coach should have known what’s happened by that point and seen the footage to make a judgement. SJ was wincing at the footage and rightly asking the question even that early on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom