Armitage cited for high tackle on Patterson

First topic message reminder :

So Armitage has been cited for his high tackle on Patterson.
It was high and could easily have received a yellow card for it, so what would be the likely punishment? A one game ban?

Anything more would be a little harsh as it wasn't a red card offence for sure.

jd you dont like him then lol. Tell us how you really feel.

Pleaded guilty so he had to be banned, as it was they halved his ban. It was clearly accidental but the tackler still has to accept responsibility for the contact.

He's committed himself early and Paterson has ducked as part of the pass to get the ball away. It's high and it's a penatly but it's not really that bad. He has admitted he's guilty because he is, it's a high tackle but a reckless/dangerous tackle? I don't think so, I could understand the citing if had led to an injury but Paterson got up without seeming to notice it.

I've seen worse this world cup, the number of Irish players going high and late vs Italy for starters and some of the Pacific Islander hits were pretty brutal. Including Mr Ferris making sure he inserted his shoulder into Castro's face, which the commentary team thought was a 'great hit'. Bet he doesn't get cited.

JDandfries wrote:

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Patterson ducked just before contact!

See link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15142813.stm


One game ban for a tackle! this is rugby.

Plus a one game ban for Lawes sliding in on a player as his trying to pull out of a tackle.

Someone has it in for England

That is a great picture that, seems to show Armitage trying to take Peterson's head off, so i can only assume you were making your arguement tongue in cheek!!

Horrible man, thinks he is a Premier league footballer, badge kissing all the time etc! Can't stand him, so not gonna be a great loss, last game in WC for England next week anyway, unless of course there is a 300% improvement (which wouldn't surprise me)

For some reason when I paste the link another picture appears at the top of the article, the other picture shows Patersons kness bent as he tries to duck, not the best tackle from Armitage but not as bad as it appears, a one match ban is harsh IMO.

Armitage was cited - he admitted foul play, what other option was there than to ban him?

The only surprise is that he didn't take a swing at the citing commissioner - but there's time yet...

bit suprised he got a ban, but at least its only a 1 match ban.

This is the problem with citing - people should only receive a ban if the panel feel that the incident warranted a sending off.

If they did - then they should not cut the minimum ban, but far too often these incidents would never get a red card in a match.

But the precedent was set two years ago when Dan Carter was banned following game v Wales. That was a ridiculous decision - tackle was high deserved a penalty, and if you are harsh a yellow card. Should never have been a 1 match ban.

Ah well it gives an opportunity for teh racists at the IRB to argue over whether he should get a long ban for being balck or a short one for being English ( well playing for England)

The fact that there have been worse 'tackles' than Armitage's on Paterson is neither here nor there.

The fact that there have been worse 'tackles' than Armitage's on Paterson is neither here nor there..

Raises the question why Armitage was cited but they weren't though.

"Ah well it gives an opportunity for teh racists at the IRB to argue over whether he should get a long ban for being balck or a short one for being English ( well playing for England)"

lol are you serious- you think england get preferential treatment- i can think of at least 5 worse tackles just in the ireland v australia game- and no bans were dished out!! You are the one that sounds racist

I think its down to shirt colour not skin colour.

The English are viewed as arrogant and the IRB need no more excuse than that to knock them down it seems.

But I agree with the views of Brian Moore other players have done the same or worse and nothing has been done.

Why England?

Portnoy wrote:

JDandfries wrote:
Horrible man, thinks he is a Premier league footballer, badge kissing all the time etc! Can't stand him, so not gonna be a great loss, last game in WC for England next week anyway, unless of course there is a 300% improvement (which wouldn't surprise me)

Cripes that's a bit harsh on Scotland who were playing nearly 100% - and lost.

Well let's be honest, since Scotland have been (in most of my lifetime)totally inept at killing games off games, it was alot closer than it should have been, pick any from Wales, Ireland, SA, NZ, Australia, even France and they would have been 20 points up on 70 minutes, but alas this is scotland.

England and France have both been dreadful so far! Am I surprised, by England, not really, they have been one dimensional for ages, no matter how many Southern Hemisphere centres they bring in. By France, somewhat, they are talented but typically yellow, however still IMO too good for England, especially if England give away as many penalties as they have been!

But to the poster above - yes I really do dislike Armitage, and have done ever since he kissed the badge after scoring a try!

I have seen worse in this RWC.

Armitage's is by no way the worst of the clotheslinings handed out in this tourney.

JDandfries wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

JDandfries wrote:
Horrible man, thinks he is a Premier league footballer, badge kissing all the time etc! Can't stand him, so not gonna be a great loss, last game in WC for England next week anyway, unless of course there is a 300% improvement (which wouldn't surprise me)

Cripes that's a bit harsh on Scotland who were playing nearly 100% - and lost.

Well let's be honest, since Scotland have been (in most of my lifetime)totally inept at killing games off games, it was alot closer than it should have been, pick any from Wales, Ireland, SA, NZ, Australia, even France and they would have been 20 points up on 70 minutes, but alas this is scotland.

England and France have both been dreadful so far! Am I surprised, by England, not really, they have been one dimensional for ages, no matter how many Southern Hemisphere centres they bring in. By France, somewhat, they are talented but typically yellow, however still IMO too good for England, especially if England give away as many penalties as they have been!

But to the poster above - yes I really do dislike Armitage, and have done ever since he kissed the badge after scoring a try!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Hines

"Playing for Scotland

After winning league and cup titles with Gala RFC, he made his Test debut for Scotland in New Zealand but two serious injuries claimed nearly 18 months of his career. He became the first Scotland player to be sent off in a Test match when he was dismissed against the USA Eagles in 2002 for punching replacement hooker/flanker Dan Anderson. He was a big part of the Scotland squad for the Rugby Union World Cup in 2003.

In the Six Nations game against Wales at Murrayfield on 13 March 2005, Hines came on in the second half and helped restore some pride, but his try was disallowed for lack of grounding. He was alleged to be discontented with the Scotland coaches (Matt Williams and Willie Anderson) and declared his retirement from international rugby. However, with the firing of the previous coaching regime and the appointment of his previous club coach, Frank Hadden, as Scotland coach, Hines has returned to playing international rugby. He made his reappearance as a substitute in the 2006 win over England at Murrayfield."

Stones and greenhouses.

JDandfries wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

JDandfries wrote:
Horrible man, thinks he is a Premier league footballer, badge kissing all the time etc! Can't stand him, so not gonna be a great loss, last game in WC for England next week anyway, unless of course there is a 300% improvement (which wouldn't surprise me)

Cripes that's a bit harsh on Scotland who were playing nearly 100% - and lost.

Well let's be honest, since Scotland have been (in most of my lifetime)totally inept at killing games off games, it was alot closer than it should have been, pick any from Wales, Ireland, SA, NZ, Australia, even France and they would have been 20 points up on 70 minutes, but alas this is scotland.

England and France have both been dreadful so far! Am I surprised, by England, not really, they have been one dimensional for ages, no matter how many Southern Hemisphere centres they bring in. By France, somewhat, they are talented but typically yellow, however still IMO too good for England, especially if England give away as many penalties as they have been!

But to the poster above - yes I really do dislike Armitage, and have done ever since he kissed the badge after scoring a try!

Badge kissing is hardly a reason to dislike someone.

Its up there with the Welsh hating on Ashton for swan diving ( go watch the replay of shane williams scoring against fiji in 2007

As for England being one dimensional, yes they are. They scored 18 tries in a row from backs and when they finaly got one forom a forward it was croft on the wing. They really do need to get some better forwards.
Scotland of course are famed for tehir complete imability to score tries at all.

Or Earls at the weekend, but Ashton seems to have mastered it, Earls only scored a 7.2 compared to Ashtons 9.8 for me

formerly known as Sam wrote:

The fact that there have been worse 'tackles' than Armitage's on Paterson is neither here nor there..

Raises the question why Armitage was cited but they weren't though.

Perhaps it does, but Armitage's hit was still late and high regardless. That's my point.

They scored 18 tries in a row from backs and when they finaly got one forom a forward it was croft on the wing. They really do need to get some better forwards.

The two big games in the group (vs Argentina and vs Scotland) brought tries from lineouts (one directly and one from a further phase) following penalties won by forwards.

Perhaps it does, but Armitage's hit was still late and high regardless. That's my point..

and he accepted his guilt. However, it does seem grossly inconsistent don't you agree?

Perhaps Armitages' previous disciplanary record (rightly or wrongly) was taken into account?

Portnoy wrote:

JDandfries wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

JDandfries wrote:
Horrible man, thinks he is a Premier league footballer, badge kissing all the time etc! Can't stand him, so not gonna be a great loss, last game in WC for England next week anyway, unless of course there is a 300% improvement (which wouldn't surprise me)

Cripes that's a bit harsh on Scotland who were playing nearly 100% - and lost.

Well let's be honest, since Scotland have been (in most of my lifetime)totally inept at killing games off games, it was alot closer than it should have been, pick any from Wales, Ireland, SA, NZ, Australia, even France and they would have been 20 points up on 70 minutes, but alas this is scotland.

England and France have both been dreadful so far! Am I surprised, by England, not really, they have been one dimensional for ages, no matter how many Southern Hemisphere centres they bring in. By France, somewhat, they are talented but typically yellow, however still IMO too good for England, especially if England give away as many penalties as they have been!

But to the poster above - yes I really do dislike Armitage, and have done ever since he kissed the badge after scoring a try!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Hines

"Playing for Scotland

After winning league and cup titles with Gala RFC, he made his Test debut for Scotland in New Zealand but two serious injuries claimed nearly 18 months of his career. He became the first Scotland player to be sent off in a Test match when he was dismissed against the USA Eagles in 2002 for punching replacement hooker/flanker Dan Anderson. He was a big part of the Scotland squad for the Rugby Union World Cup in 2003.

In the Six Nations game against Wales at Murrayfield on 13 March 2005, Hines came on in the second half and helped restore some pride, but his try was disallowed for lack of grounding. He was alleged to be discontented with the Scotland coaches (Matt Williams and Willie Anderson) and declared his retirement from international rugby. However, with the firing of the previous coaching regime and the appointment of his previous club coach, Frank Hadden, as Scotland coach, Hines has returned to playing international rugby. He made his reappearance as a substitute in the 2006 win over England at Murrayfield."

Stones and greenhouses.

I guess I am missing something here?

someone posted a list of all the scottish players and where they have come from.

think it was 8-9 from the first team who are all from elsewhere.

I see, well there is a few who have been drafted in, but despite being a small nation we are hardly as frivolous at this as the English or certain other teams!

jd thats rubbish pal. We give the world a league to play competitive rugby. We may have a few players on residency etc but we have given them the chance to become the players they are!

stop talking trash you are one of the worst offenders.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Perhaps it does, but Armitage's hit was still late and high regardless. That's my point..

and he accepted his guilt. However, it does seem grossly inconsistent don't you agree?

If there have been worse late, high non-tackles for which players haven't been cited then yes, I agree with you. I say that because I haven't seen every minute of every game (and I was abroad for the first week of the tournament).

Inconsistency in dealing with citing issues is bloody annoying but does not justify the 'he got away with worse' argument. It has been judged and the sanction imposed, end of story. I have never been an Armitage fan so I don't see it as great loss.

Cueto has been re invigorated this WC and it is entirely because his place in the 22 let alone starting 15 is not nailed on. I will be expecting a big, hard working performance from him against France because he wants his position back.

I hope to see any foul play dealt with properly on the pitch and ARs doing there job helping the ref when unsighted. I can't believe the AR didn't see the incident and if he did he either felt it was OK or just didn't bother to communicate with the ref.

I have never been an Armitage fan so I don't see it as great loss.

It will be a loss because he was playing well but if that's what the citing commissioners determine a dangerous tackle to be then there will be a raft of citings after the quarter final games. It sets a very dangerous precident in my view, I'm not bothered who it is, I'm bothered by the fact it was picked up when in pretty much every rugby fans view it was a whole lot of nothing. Almost like the citing crew felt they weren't earning their money and so handed out a ban just to remind everybody they were there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoRQfRLrGuE&feature=player_embedded

There is the link, looking at that tackle it's a joke he got a ban for it imo.

He should have had a yellow card, the ban is not going to help Scotland now, maybe they should take 10 points off England which is the average when a player is yellowed. England got off lightly, no penalty and no yellow!

glamorganalun wrote:He should have had a yellow card, the ban is not going to help Scotland now, maybe they should take 10 points off England which is the average when a player is yellowed. England got off lightly, no penalty and no yellow!

take the points of and what would have happened- We would still have topped the group but still had armitage- so england would be better off!!

argenbtinba would have still been second and scotland still out.

Your suggestion is like an F1 penalty that doesnt mean anything. They have done it before to alonso - they took 20 seconds of his time for an infringment - but he still fiinshed wear he was!!! they could have given him a grid penalty next race, which is sort of like what england have got in this case

There's an acceptance of high tackles by commentators now - oh there was no malice in it. The Fijian who cut himself on Halfpenny went so high his arms missed Halfpenny's head. If Armitage is banned for a game that bloke should be banned for a month, cut or no cut.

Even Chuck Norris would cut himself on Half's head

glamorganalun wrote:He should have had a yellow card, the ban is not going to help Scotland now, maybe they should take 10 points off England which is the average when a player is yellowed. England got off lightly, no penalty and no yellow!

Its 7 points that are shipped on avergae to a yellow and high tackles arent an automatic yellow, especially accidental ones. Hes unlucky to even have been cited.

Scotland still lost despite being given lots of penalties, 1 more unlikley to have changed the game along with many other incidents.

Compared to the gouge on healy this is nothing, yet its the one attracting the criticism. But then it is England, so they should be thrown out.

That's no conspiracy you did it and you won a close match. What do you expect?

Yes with their on and off field antics England really are a credit to the nation and the game. Sooner they go the better for everyone.