Stamping

Mathew Rees on nick Easter Friday night, deliberate or a stray boot????





https://vine.co/v/iudKAtXd7FF

At best reckless but I think deliberate stamp -= well worth a red card, length of ban depends on if the citing commissioner deems it reckless or deliberate. Nowhere near the ball

But so close to the eyeball

Matthew is not a dirty player and at the point of contact his head was in the ruck, in my opinion it was without doubt accidental. However I also believe all players should have a responsibility to avoid causing serious injuries to others. Consequently I think the red card was correct and a ban should follow.

However there is currently a distinct lack of consistency in the application of the Laws associated with foul and dangerous play. We all saw the inconsistent way these Laws were applied by the citing Comissioners during the World Cup, with English flanker Woods only being retrospectively yellow carded for a full blooded kick to the head of an opponent, and offence that in my opinion was significantly more serious than Matthews Rees. Contrast that to that Tuilagi getting banned for getting tackled by a player who got his head in the wrong position! If Tuilagi has a responsibility for avoiding injury to a player tacking with poor technique, then Wood and Rees have a responsibility to avoid causing injuries to the heads of players on the ground.

Consequently, whilst I believe that a strong message should be sent out in this instance and a significant ban imposed, Nothing will surprise me.

Seagultaf wrote:Matthew is not a dirty player and at the point of contact his head was in the ruck, in my opinion it was without doubt accidental.

He may not be a dirty play, but in my opinion it was without doubt a deliberate attempt to make contact with the player. Not his head necessarily, but Rees enters the ruck knowing a player is on the wrong side and brings his foot down in a completely unnatural direction for it to be anything other than deliberate.

Looked horrific on the first showing, thankfully it catches the eye socket and misses the actual eyeball but a long ban is in order.

Fair play to Easter too, just got back up and carried on.

The motivation of the player doesn't matter - only the action and the outcome.

So even if it was purely accidental, (and the Commission is to be consistent), Rees is facing a considerable ban.

It's reckless and dangerous and there should and most likely will be a lengthy ban. When you look at the bans given for innocuous offences last season you'd have to worry for Rees.

LondonTiger wrote:

Seagultaf wrote:Matthew is not a dirty player and at the point of contact his head was in the ruck, in my opinion it was without doubt accidental.

He may not be a dirty player, but in my opinion it was without doubt a deliberate attempt to make contact with the player. Not his head necessarily, but Rees enters the ruck knowing a player is on the wrong side and brings his foot down in a completely unnatural direction for it to be anything other than deliberate.

+1. Be interesting to see what he's looking at as he brings the foot down. That will be the deciding factor on how long his ban is.

It really doesn't look good, but if it was intentional I think he probably aimed for the shoulder. Whatever his intention, I think at least a few weeks ban.

Seagultaf wrote:Matthew is not a dirty player and at the point of contact his head was in the ruck, in my opinion it was without doubt accidental. However I also believe all players should have a responsibility to avoid causing serious injuries to others. Consequently I think the red card was correct and a ban should follow.

However there is currently a distinct lack of consistency in the application of the Laws associated with foul and dangerous play. We all saw the inconsistent way these Laws were applied by the citing Comissioners during the World Cup, with English flanker Woods only being retrospectively yellow carded for a full blooded kick to the head of an opponent, and offence that in my opinion was significantly more serious than Matthews Rees. Contrast that to that Tuilagi getting banned for getting tackled by a player who got his head in the wrong position! If Tuilagi has a responsibility for avoiding injury to a player tacking with poor technique, then Wood and Rees have a responsibility to avoid causing injuries to the heads of players on the ground.

Consequently, whilst I believe that a strong message should be sent out in this instance and a significant ban imposed, Nothing will surprise me.

You're like a broken record with this and Wood's incident wasn't even worth a penalty. Give it a rest.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Seagultaf wrote:Matthew is not a dirty player and at the point of contact his head was in the ruck, in my opinion it was without doubt accidental.

He may not be a dirty player, but in my opinion it was without doubt a deliberate attempt to make contact with the player. Not his head necessarily, but Rees enters the ruck knowing a player is on the wrong side and brings his foot down in a completely unnatural direction for it to be anything other than deliberate.

+1. Be interesting to see what he's looking at as he brings the foot down. That will be the deciding factor on how long his ban is.

The stamp really looks bad in that clip - right to the face. Might be accidental...........

I am not so sure it matters where the stamper is looking. When we enter rucks we all have a good sense where the bodies are, at least from what we see that split second before we go in. I am sure we are all the same in that we have been careful where our feet go to avoid any accidental stamping. To that point, we usually don't see any stamping on one's teammate, do we? So we all must have a sense where people are in the rucks.

These are not the good old days when we could use our boots to apply gentle persuation to the opposition to get them to roll away from the ball. But even then we still knew where people were.

I think the stamp isn't in doubt he knows he's stamping on the Quins player. If he takes a look the he definitely he knows it's a stamp on the head and then it's a very lengthy ban. If he doesn't look it's a stamp that may be argued was not aimed at the head and was merely reckless and so the ban will only be mid level.

To be honest they need to make an example of this - that could very easily have been a loss of an eye. Accidental or intentional, this needs to be stamped (sorry) out of the game immediately. I have heard of 2 incidents where a professional player has been blinded in one eye from similar incidents, including Gavin Quinnell for the Scarlets.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 12 week ban. A boot to the head can cause any number of awful injuries.

It should be a very long ban, but there's no real consistency with these sanctions. Didn't Heaslip only get a two week ban for two(!) knees to the head against NZ a few years back?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:To be honest they need to make an example of this - that could very easily have been a loss of an eye. Accidental or intentional, this needs to be stamped (sorry) out of the game immediately. I have heard of 2 incidents where a professional player has been blinded in one eye from similar incidents, including Gavin Quinnell for the Scarlets.

Agreed. Throw the book at him I say.

Just heard on the Radio (Radio Wales news), Matthew Rees has been given 7 week ban..

Seems about right for the offence...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34911559

now on BBC web site..

I was at this game, and I was absolutely fuming with Matthew Rees, I saw what he did clearly, and he was laughing as he walked off.

There is a serious culture that is all wrong with rugby union at Cardiff at the moment. There are too many big time charlies at that club, and if reports are to be believed Matthew Rees is a bit of a ring leader down there.

That club is a massive club in the rugby world and it's fans deserve better than the tripe the players are currently serving up. The sooner something is done there the better.

I say 7 weeks is not enough for what he done last week.

LordDowlais wrote:I was at this game, and I was absolutely fuming with Matthew Rees, I saw what he did clearly, and he was laughing as he walked off.

There is a serious culture that is all wrong with rugby union at Cardiff at the moment. There are too many big time charlies at that club, and if reports are to be believed Matthew Rees is a bit of a ring leader down there.

That club is a massive club in the rugby world and it's fans deserve better than the tripe the players are currently serving up. The sooner something is done there the better.

I say 7 weeks is not enough for what he done last week.

Agreed.

Something is being done I believe. I hope.

I think 7 weeks in lenient, was 12 but reduced due to pleading guilty and passed record etc. For me 12 would have been about right

bedfordwelsh wrote:I think 7 weeks in lenient, was 12 but reduced due to pleading guilty and passed record etc.  For me 12 would have been about right

Should've received the max penalty imo.

He got away very well, should have been even more imo.

LordDowlais wrote:I was at this game, and I was absolutely fuming with Matthew Rees, I saw what he did clearly, and he was laughing as he walked off.

There is a serious culture that is all wrong with rugby union at Cardiff at the moment. There are too many big time charlies at that club, and if reports are to be believed Matthew Rees is a bit of a ring leader down there.

That club is a massive club in the rugby world and it's fans deserve better than the tripe the players are currently serving up. The sooner something is done there the better.

I say 7 weeks is not enough for what he done last week.

Wasn't he the one who started the rebellion against Hammett too?

Cardiff Dave wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:I think 7 weeks in lenient, was 12 but reduced due to pleading guilty and passed record etc.  For me 12 would have been about right

Should've received the max penalty imo.

Agreed Dave.

bedfordwelsh wrote:I think 7 weeks in lenient, was 12 but reduced due to pleading guilty and passed record etc.  For me 12 would have been about right

See this is something that I have never agreed with. If he has plead guilty then that in itself is an admission of intent and should have resulted in the maximum ban. I believe that bans should only be reduced if an element of doubt remains and the player professes his innocence, not when he admits guilt.

eirebilly wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:I think 7 weeks in lenient, was 12 but reduced due to pleading guilty and passed record etc.  For me 12 would have been about right

See this is something that I have never agreed with. If he has plead guilty then that in itself is an admission of intent and should have resulted in the maximum ban. I believe that bans should only be reduced if an element of doubt remains and the player professes his innocence, not when he admits guilt.

eirebilly,

Again I agree and not just in the sporting world, even in general law courts if people plead guilty they get reduced sentence but surely as you said if you plead guilty then why you getting reduced sentence.

Its just something that annoys me Bedford, I was not saying you condone it, I just highlighted that bit in your post so sorry if you thought that . I think that he can consider himself very luck not to get over 12 weeks.

No probs mate didn't think that. Yeah I think he's quite relieved at that ban, I think 12 would have been acceptable as a minimum.

Pleading guilty does not automatically imply intent. It can be an admission of recklessness.

The reason sentences are reduced in general (life as well as rugby) is because by doing so the cost of the whole procedure is much reduced. Mainly applies to real life, but look how long the hearing for SOB took after he punched Pape. A clearcut punch - but there were a large number of lawyers called as well as expert medical witnesses.

I too dislike the concept of reducing a minimum sentence. I would much rather the set the minimum lower and then increased accordingly. In this case it was only by luck that serious damage was not done to Easter's eye. If Easter had been blinded - the offence would still be the same (stamping on a players head) just a different outcome - and I doubt we would have seen a reduction then.

Crazy system.

LordDowlais wrote:I was at this game, and I was absolutely fuming with Matthew Rees, I saw what he did clearly, and he was laughing as he walked off.

There is a serious culture that is all wrong with rugby union at Cardiff at the moment. There are too many big time charlies at that club, and if reports are to be believed Matthew Rees is a bit of a ring leader down there.

That club is a massive club in the rugby world and it's fans deserve better than the tripe the players are currently serving up. The sooner something is done there the better.

I say 7 weeks is not enough for what he done last week.

Club has declined about as far as possible. The rot needs to be cut away.

7 weeks um! handy that Xmas and the new year with the family rather than sat on a bench in the cold

There are no minimum sentences. There are simply starting points. If you take the 50% reduction is the recommended maximum then you could make a point that the minimum sentence is half the entry level. So in this case the minimum would be 6 weeks as it was high entry with a variable starting point.

The ban should have been closer to 7 months. An example should have been made of him. Easter is lucky to still have his eye.

the-goon wrote:The ban should have been closer to 7 months. An example should have been made of him. Easter is lucky to still have his eye.

Yep.

LondonTiger wrote:Pleading guilty does not automatically imply intent. It can be an admission of recklessness.

The reason sentences are reduced in general (life as well as rugby) is because by doing so the cost of the whole procedure is much reduced. Mainly applies to real life, but look how long the hearing for SOB took after he punched Pape. A clearcut punch - but there were a large number of lawyers called as well as expert medical witnesses.

I too dislike the concept of reducing a minimum sentence. I would much rather the set the minimum lower and then increased accordingly. In this case it was only by luck that serious damage was not done to Easter's eye. If Easter had been blinded - the offence would still be the same (stamping on a players head) just a different outcome -  and I doubt we would have seen a reduction then.

Crazy system.

Great comment and explanation. It seems illogical to me a punishment can be reduced below the minimum. In this case, I really don't care if he admitted he did it because we have the video evidence and know he did it. So 12 weeks is the right sanction whether he did it with intent or not.

As HoT said it is an Entry Level not a Minimum.



However to my little brain they should be the same thing.

Ban seems fair for the offence. I don't think he tried to hurt him, but he has to know where is feet are going for the safety of the other players, it's not the 90's anymore, and thankfully certainly. Hell in the 80's if you were on the wrong side of the ruck against the French they'd rip your balls off, ask Wayne Shelford! Fair play to Wayne though, he stood on the side of the pitch while the surgeon put the ball back in the sack, stitched him up while being filmed on live Tv and carried on playing!

Cyril wrote:

Seagultaf wrote:Matthew is not a dirty player and at the point of contact his head was in the ruck, in my opinion it was without doubt accidental. However I also believe all players should have a responsibility to avoid causing serious injuries to others. Consequently I think the red card was correct and a ban should follow.

However there is currently a distinct lack of consistency in the application of the Laws associated with foul and dangerous play. We all saw the inconsistent way these Laws were applied by the citing Comissioners during the World Cup, with English flanker Woods only being retrospectively yellow carded for a full blooded kick to the head of an opponent, and offence that in my opinion was significantly more serious than Matthews Rees. Contrast that to that Tuilagi getting banned for getting tackled by a player who got his head in the wrong position! If Tuilagi has a responsibility for avoiding injury to a player tacking with poor technique, then Wood and Rees have a responsibility to avoid causing injuries to the heads of players on the ground.

Consequently, whilst I believe that a strong message should be sent out in this instance and a significant ban imposed, Nothing will surprise me.

You're like a broken record with this and Wood's incident wasn't even worth a penalty. Give it a rest.

Even the biased citing commission agreed that it was foul play, retrospective yellow means that the ref should have penalised England and sin binned Wood.