Clark/Hawkins incident from todays LV cup final

First topic message reminder :

Have a look at the youtube video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d_5Vlsyekio

After the whistle has gone, When Clark gets up he bends Hawkins right arm the wrong way. It's being reported that it dislocated his arm. What are your thoughts on it, should Clark be cited and banned?

In my mind it looks deliberate and therefore should see a fairly long ban. What do you guys think?

There were some twitter comments from Andy Goode that suggested Dorian West and Richard Cockerill had words after the game with West offering to take it outside. They were reposted on the offy board, I'll see if I can copy them across later.

nathan wrote:I think there's something going on, i found this funny, no idea if it's true. From Mr Goode;

Heard today Dorian West offered Richard Cockerill out for a car park brawl after a disagreement after yesterday's LV cup final at sixways!!

In response to people asking if it's true and who would win yes our cook at Worcester heard them and Dorian West would win! He's won before!

http://twitter.com/#!/AndyGoode10/status/181778879587942400
http://twitter.com/#!/AndyGoode10/status/181790773799428096

And the jokes about Goode and the Cook have already been done too Sam!

Oh damn, I had or two...

Sorry guys.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Taken from the local paper. Sounds like wheels are in motion then.

"Meanwhile, Tigers director of rugby Richard Cockerill said the club would "trust the RFU citing system" to deal with the 21st-minute incident which saw Hawkins have his elbow hyper-extended in an incident involving Saints back-rower Calum Clark."

I'm guessing that means that they aren't officially raising but by openly saying this they're ensuring the people up top are aware and will carry it forward.

Of course the Wannenburg and Ferris incidents are comparable. Doesn't mean they're the same. However I expect that if it turns out Ferris was grapping Hartley by the face and over his mouth people will say he deserved the bite.

In the same way I expect people to want a significant ban for Hartley if it was an act of aggression.

I'm guessing that means that they aren't officially raising but by openly saying this they're ensuring the people up top are aware and will carry it forward.

That's how it read to me. Tigers have a policy of not citing the opposition as I think they are a bit old fashioned and believe things should be left on the pitch. This incident, however, seems to have really annoyed Cockerill and though he won't dismiss the policy he clearly wants it dealt with. The citing commission need to deal with it quickly and clearly as Tigers travel to Franklins Gardens in a few weeks and it could turn ugly if Clark plays in that game.

Has anything happened yet or has the citing window closed now? Would be fairly shocking if nothing official happened. Would it make Tigers rethink their non-citing policy for the future?

I think they have until 5pm today to cite, Carpe.

There's been a complete media blackout of this story outside of rugby forums, which makes me think that some thing may be happening behind the scenes.

If there were a court case on the way for example, reporting on the incident could prejudice the case and end up being called contempt of court.

True mawhis, that was speculated about a bit on Sunday on here. I know it's annoying for us not to know, but I think Notch mentioned earlier, if by us being kept in the dark, more action can actually be taken, then I'm all for it.

mawhis wrote:There's been a complete media blackout of this story outside of rugby forums, which makes me think that some thing may be happening behind the scenes.

If there were a court case on the way for example, reporting on the incident could prejudice the case and end up being called contempt of court.

A similar lack of information in the public domain happened when Gavin Quinnell lost his sight in one eye, which was then investigated as a legal matter as opposed to a rugby issue.

Its been confirmed that Hawkins arm is broken and will be out for the rest of the season.

There had better be a citing!

Nathan,

Not doubting you in the slightest but would you have a link to that?

https://twitter.com/#!/martin_crowson

He has twittered the confirmation apparently, can't access it myself here at work. To be honest if it was intentional then it is a disgrace.

sorry, as above!

He's the Leicester mercury bloke

Thanks lads!

Terrible though.

How can anyone deliberately bend another person's arm till it breaks?

I think he should never play again.

it makes me sick just thinking about it MrsP, I honesly can not fathom how someone can physically do that.

It does beggar belief doesn't it.

And then he walks away listening to the guy screaming.

Apparently the citing panel have until late afternoon on Thursday to cite a player from the game, how he hasn't already been cited is beyond me

I have to say that if action is not taken against Clark then I will lose some faith in the game as whole. The RFU Citing officer has a huge responsibility not just to Hawkins and Tigers, but to the game as whole, to ensure that he does his job correctly.

This should result in a lengthy ban, and I do mean lengthy. Clark should not be pulling on a rugby jersey before 2013 comes around.

You might want to tell that to some of the Saints fans on their forum (only some, definitely not all, but how anyone can defend that is unbelievable). As far as bans go, I don't know what the general lengths of bans are for different offences and what offence this falls under, does anyone know?

killer - ah good, glad they've got a bit longer then, was worried they'd miss the deadline, although like you can't believe he hasn't been cited already.

Ozzy - same here.

I thought most citing officers had 48 hours from kick-off.

Ozzy,

I really think you need to change that to 2023.

If that is as bad as it seems from the angle I have seen then the perpetrator should never be allowed to pull on a rugby jersey again. Do want him facing LI next season? He was in the EPS wasn't he? I certainly don't want him up against Ulster or Ireland or any other team for that matter.

Surely it is vital that rugby players have enough respect for each other to be allowed to play a potentially very dangerous game without intending to injure. If any player doesn't get that then I think they have no business being on a rugby pitch!

killer

Unfortunately you will always get a small minority of 'fans' who will defend the actions of their teams players even when there is incontrovertible evidence to show that they have commit an act which is utterly despicable.

I do not believe that these people are true rugby fans, as the good of the game supersedes club or national loyalties.

The guy deserves more than just a ban.

To be fair I will go back to my first post on this, I wouldn't be unhappy if he never plays rugby again.

rugbydreamer wrote:To be fair I will go back to my first post on this, I wouldn't be unhappy if he never plays rugby again.

I agree Dreamer, although I did have to count the negatives before I was quite sure!

I did confuse myself slightly in the writing of it!

The first 2 times I read it I thought,

,

So has the citing deadline passed? If so, then I'm afraid that the Tigers non-citing policy is potentially culpable for letting this guy get away with something that should have no place in our game. I hope they revise it quickly, if hat is the case, there's no place for the 'we don't spill the beans on others' stuff in the pro game imo

Somebody said they had till Thursday

Ah, right, Cymro, I'll hold my peace till then

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:So has the citing deadline passed? If so, then I'm afraid that the Tigers non-citing policy is potentially culpable for letting this guy get away with something that should have no place in our game. I hope they revise it quickly, if hat is the case, there's no place for the 'we don't spill the beans on others' stuff in the pro game imo

It hasn't, as mentioned before in this thread the end of the citing period is Thursday. I think it will be cited, someone emailed the RFU and got a reply saying they were looking at the whole game. I would assume they wouldn't miss it.

To be fair to the Tigers, things like this shouldn't need to the club to complain in order for it to get sorted.

I guess if he isnt cited someone will call the police.

It is professional of all involved that they are doing their best to avoid a trial by media and keeping quiet on the issue.

I'd like to echo the feeling that if this isn't cited then what exactly is the citing official looking at? Tigers shouldn't have to cite things like this. The only things that 'should' be reported by the clubs are serious incidents that are not visible in the footage. Such as biting

Could they impose a media ban when it's already been televised ? I'm just wondering why there are no reports about it when it's such a serious incident.

Cymro, think you're probably right that there may be a media ban. Disappointing if true, because in my experience not a necessity for due legal process.

I know that the Tigers shouldn't have to cite if the citing officer is doing his job, but think of Leicester Rudby Club PLC (or whatever) as a business, and it is absolutely in the interests of the owners (club members) for them to protect their assets (in this instance, a player) - time to drop the 'gentlemanly' crap and ask for this guy to be cited

I have seen this a few times and its nasty. Its intentional as far as i can see and he should be banned for some time.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Injury-Leicester-Tigers-Rob-Hawkins-angers/story-15577188-detail/story.html

and Cockerill finally wades in. Knew he'd cave in sooner or later as the media will have been asking questions and he is too up front to step around them.

Well done, Cockers - he's MrsP's friend, you know

people have been tweeting Austin Healy about it as well and he's expressed his view on it that it needs a ban yesterday, so think it's going to really start trickling out into the media properly now.

It does look nasty and has ended the players season. A real blow for Hawkins as he was trying to earn a new contract (hooker being a contentious issue at Tigers at the minute).

I wouldn't like to see the American style lawyer culture come in but if Hawkins missed out on a new contract could he sue Clark for potential loss of earnings?

formerly known as Sam wrote:It does look nasty and has ended the players season. A real blow for Hawkins as he was trying to earn a new contract (hooker being a contentious issue at Tigers at the minute).

I wouldn't like to see the American style lawyer culture come in but if Hawkins missed out on a new contract could he sue Clark for potential loss of earnings?

You know, you actually have a point there. If his club say that he had to potential to earn a new contract then he could very well sue...

Hopefully he'll get a new contract with Tigers and it won't come to that as our game doesn't need it's reputation to take a kicking in the media because of a court case. He is also a handy hooker to have around the squad as he is very mobile if a little lacking in physicality. Personally I'd have him signed up for another year.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Hopefully he'll get a new contract with Tigers and it won't come to that as our game doesn't need it's reputation to take a kicking in the media because of a court case. He is also a handy hooker to have around the squad as he is very mobile if a little lacking in physicality. Personally I'd have him signed up for another year.

How old is Rob?

28

28/29 I think.

At 28, i would hope that he would get another contract.

An RFU spokesman said the ‘citing officer has 36 hours from receipt of video to cite’, which should mean later today.

This quote is relating to Calum Clark and from a Nothampton Chronicle story about Hartley missing match with wasps:

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/northampton-saints-hartley-s-ruled-out-for-wasps-1-3646508

Not sure if they are saying teh 36 hours is up today - or the citing officer receives the video today.

At 28, i would hope that he would get another contract

It's complex. Chuter only has one more year on his contract and is now closer to 40 than 30 so it is likely he will retire at the end of next season. Hawkins is a good squad player but not really first choice material. Tom Youngs, however, could be first choice material but has seen his chances to prove that limited after a back op kept him out of action for 3 and a half months this season. The question on Cockers mind will be, does he back Youngs and Hawkins as the successors to Chuter and then promote a third choice from the academy or a lower league after Chutes retires or does he release Hawkins and then look to bring in a genuine first choice contender and bed him in during Chuter's last season as opposed to throwing him in the deep end the season after.

Personally I'd back Hawkins and Youngs to take over and look to promote Jimmy Stevens as third choice with England under 18s international Harry Thacker coming through in a couple of seasons time as well. If things got desperate we could always loan somebody off of Nottingham.