Citings!

First topic message reminder :

Given the recent "inconsistencies" regarding citing's in this RWC are we on the verge of a seismic shift in our game that will cause constant disgruntlement and frustration in the future or will this eventually lead to a much "cleaner" game. At the moment I'm verging on the former and I would like to know who the commissioners are accountable to.

Well let's just say Japan have more rest days now than I'm sure they'd have wanted.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What pishes me off is that:

J Gray + R Ford = Dangerous tackle but a pure accident. Either  action in isolation would have been fine but when they were done in tandem created the dangerous tackle. - 3 week ban.

SOB = Deliberately and maliciously punches another player - 1 week ban.

The whole thing stinks.

A punch is nowhere near as dangerous as a tip tackle.

When was the last time someone was banned for more than the minimum for a punch to the body?
I just had a quick look down the first page of the European Rugby discipline page and there is only one punch dealt with afaics and it attracts a ban of...

one week.

Is the SOB finding really out of kilter?

VinceWLB wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What pishes me off is that:

J Gray + R Ford = Dangerous tackle but a pure accident. Either  action in isolation would have been fine but when they were done in tandem created the dangerous tackle. - 3 week ban.

SOB = Deliberately and maliciously punches another player - 1 week ban.

The whole thing stinks.

A punch is nowhere near as dangerous as a tip tackle.

Namibia coach punched.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TsX0kMWx7Y

Cardiff Dave wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What pishes me off is that:

J Gray + R Ford = Dangerous tackle but a pure accident. Either  action in isolation would have been fine but when they were done in tandem created the dangerous tackle. - 3 week ban.

SOB = Deliberately and maliciously punches another player - 1 week ban.

The whole thing stinks.

A punch is nowhere near as dangerous as a tip tackle.

Namibia coach punched.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TsX0kMWx7Y

Was looking at the lions fight after that. Can you imagine that happening in todays game? The citing commission would go into meltdown

Cardiff Dave wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What pishes me off is that:

J Gray + R Ford = Dangerous tackle but a pure accident. Either action in isolation would have been fine but when they were done in tandem created the dangerous tackle. - 3 week ban.

SOB = Deliberately and maliciously punches another player - 1 week ban.

The whole thing stinks.

A punch is nowhere near as dangerous as a tip tackle.

Namibia coach punched.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TsX0kMWx7Y

I see..

On the other hand a tip tackle/clear out can lead to a terribly unfortunate Owen Williams like situation..

VinceWLB wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:What pishes me off is that:

J Gray + R Ford = Dangerous tackle but a pure accident. Either  action in isolation would have been fine but when they were done in tandem created the dangerous tackle. - 3 week ban.

SOB = Deliberately and maliciously punches another player - 1 week ban.

The whole thing stinks.

A punch is nowhere near as dangerous as a tip tackle.

Namibia coach punched.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TsX0kMWx7Y

I see..

On the other hand a tip tackle/clear out can lead to a terribly unfortunate Owen Williams like situation..

Both are dangerous is my point and should be punished accordingly. SOB could've pushed away Pape like many other players would do in similar situations. He chose to give him an uppercut however. Not on.

Ah Dave, it wasn't an uppercut, and it didn't strike his head. It was a dig in the ribs. If it was the head, I would think differently because of the issue with concussion.

Munchkin wrote:Ah Dave, it wasn't an uppercut, and it didn't strike his head. It was a dig in the ribs. If it was the head, I would think differently because of the issue with concussion.

Think Mike Tindall.

MrsP wrote:When was the last time someone was banned for more than the minimum for a punch to the body?
I just had a quick look down the first page of the European Rugby discipline page and there is only one punch dealt with afaics and it attracts a ban of...

one week.

Is the SOB finding really out of kilter?

No it's not. And I'm bemused by the sudden controversy.

The key issues here for me is that from this SOB should have been sent off in the first minute. Gray and Ford should have been sent off in the first half. Both could have had profound impacts on the competition (Scotland may not have got through and
Ireland may not have toppe the pool). Is that really what the WR saying?

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Ah Dave, it wasn't an uppercut, and it didn't strike his head. It was a dig in the ribs. If it was the head, I would think differently because of the issue with concussion.

Think Mike Tindall.

Fine player. Tough as nails. You're going to have to help me on this one though

HammerofThunor wrote:The key issues here for me is that from this SOB should have been sent off in the first minute. Gray and Ford should have been sent off in  the first half. Both could have had profound impacts on the competition (Scotland may not have got through and
Ireland may not have toppe the pool). Is that really what the WR saying?

Not sure the SOB punch was spotted by the ref, or just ignored by the TMO. I don't think that should influence the panels ruling though.

HammerofThunor wrote:The key issues here for me is that from this SOB should have been sent off in the first minute. Gray and Ford should have been sent off in  the first half. Both could have had profound impacts on the competition (Scotland may not have got through and
Ireland may not have toppe the pool). Is that really what the WR saying?

Yes, we might have had to beat NZ earlier than planned! That would have been such a nuisance, and Joe would have been annoyed that his planning sequence was disrupted

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Ah Dave, it wasn't an uppercut, and it didn't strike his head. It was a dig in the ribs. If it was the head, I would think differently because of the issue with concussion.

Think Mike Tindall.

Fine player. Tough as nails. You're going to have to help me on this one though

England v Wales at HQ. Accidental btw...

"Tindall was initially thought to have suffered rib damage, but closer examination revealed bruising to the liver."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/bruised-liver-likely-to-end-tindalls-season-777722.html

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Ah Dave, it wasn't an uppercut, and it didn't strike his head. It was a dig in the ribs. If it was the head, I would think differently because of the issue with concussion.

Think Mike Tindall.

Fine player. Tough as nails. You're going to have to help me on this one though

?? Is it something about dwarves?

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Ah Dave, it wasn't an uppercut, and it didn't strike his head. It was a dig in the ribs. If it was the head, I would think differently because of the issue with concussion.

Think Mike Tindall.

Fine player. Tough as nails. You're going to have to help me on this one though

England v Wales at HQ. Accidental btw...

"Tindall was initially thought to have suffered rib damage, but closer examination revealed bruising to the liver."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/bruised-liver-likely-to-end-tindalls-season-777722.html

Thanks, Dave. Occupational hazard in rugby. I agree a punch on the body can cause a bit of damage, just not the same health risk of a tip tackle, or something resembling.
I wouldn't argue with your opinion, Dave. I can understand the argument that intentionally punching someone should carry a harsher penalty, but I'm simply judging things as they currently stand with regards rugby law. There is no inconsistency with regards to the law, but that doesn't invalidate the opinion that harsher penalties should be given. I can see the sense in it, and I agree that intent should be a factor.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Ah Dave, it wasn't an uppercut, and it didn't strike his head. It was a dig in the ribs. If it was the head, I would think differently because of the issue with concussion.

Think Mike Tindall.

Fine player. Tough as nails. You're going to have to help me on this one though

?? Is it something about dwarves?

You're asking a guy called munchkin if it's something about dwarves?

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Ah Dave, it wasn't an uppercut, and it didn't strike his head. It was a dig in the ribs. If it was the head, I would think differently because of the issue with concussion.

Think Mike Tindall.

Fine player. Tough as nails. You're going to have to help me on this one though

?? Is it something about dwarves?

Ha! Steven Ferris picked up were he left off, only on the field. Costly night out

milkyboy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Ah Dave, it wasn't an uppercut, and it didn't strike his head. It was a dig in the ribs. If it was the head, I would think differently because of the issue with concussion.

Think Mike Tindall.

Fine player. Tough as nails. You're going to have to help me on this one though

?? Is it something about dwarves?

You're asking a guy called munchkin if it's something about dwarves?

He's a cruel man

I put a lot of the controversy down to poor reporting. It may be good, it may be bad, but it's definitely sensational. Surely a bit of decent reporting would give us idea. Put the rulings in context. e.g. is WR coming down hard on dangerous play that could lead to head injuries (yes), are issues dealt with by the referee on field (i.e. penalties cards) generally referred by the citing officer (no), etc. Instead we get a comparison with the tackle on O'Driscoll in 05. Is there a more pointless comparison given that world rugby's assessment changed as a result (i.e. became harsher).