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?

Tigers have now extended Robs contract for next season regardless of the medical outcome. He could be unavailable for 5 months or indeed never play again. This wonderful gesture on the clubs part could pose hooking probs next season if Rob is forced to retire. I hope these factors are taken into account should Clark be found guilty.

Chuter and Youngs will be available most if not all the season as it's unlikely they'll play any international rugby. Jimmy Stevens the young Tigers prop and former England under 20 will also be in the squad. Loans from the Championship are easily arranged especially when there is a medical condition making room in the cap for them.

Jimmy Stevens the young Tigers prop and former England under 20 will also be in the squad

I take it he can play hooker?

I meant hooker

It's becomming one of those days!

tigerleghorn wrote:Tigers have now extended Robs contract for next season regardless of the medical outcome. He could be unavailable for 5 months or indeed never play again. This wonderful gesture on the clubs part could pose hooking probs next season if Rob is forced to retire. I hope these factors are taken into account should Clark be found guilty.

Thats really classy. Tigers have a good history of looking after their players, no doubt one of the reasons why some are willing to stick around for lower wages than they can get elsewhere. Pity for Moody he didnt think about that.

fair play to Tigers, that's a really really good gesture

If he is unable to play next season would his wages still be included in the cap? How does that work for long term injured players?

You can apply for an injury replacement if a player is injured for 3 months or more of the season. The replacement player can be on wages of a similar amount to the injured player and should play in a similar position (for example a full back could be covered by a winger).

Thanks, Sam.

wonder if Tigers will try and claim his wages from NH/Clark if Clark is found guilty?

So is today the day then ?

supposed to be, aye, Cymro.

If it's not today then I can only presume that it's been passed to the law of the land.
The evidence is clear so there is no reason to prolong things unless it has become a criminal case.

depends what time the hearing took place. if it was 3pm or so, then it's still a bit early to have heard anything.

Its very possible that it has been passed on to the police.

According to Rugbydump on twitter, the trial started an hour ago

Wow they had a long lunch so he will probably be found not guilty

Calum Clark has been given a 32 week ban.
http://www.therugbyblog.co.uk/calum-clark-receives-32-week-ban

I was hoping for 52 weeks +.
But since this is the RFU dealing with a member of the EPS its's a pretty decent outcome.

says on twitter 32 weeks for hyperextending the right arm of Hawkins.

Am surprised it's that little, but more relieved it wasn't something stupid like 12 weeks.

Be very interested to see what the report says.

I expected a far longer ban

Cymroglan wrote:I expected a far longer ban

I didn't. I was sure they would find him guilty of reckless play and only ban for 12 weeks or so. It will be interesting to read the written findings as 32 weeks suggests they felt there was some level of intention behind the actions.

Oh and Judge Jeff Blackett is a decent and fair (though perhaps overly pedantic) bloke who will give the sentence he believes fits the crime. He is not a "hanging judge" but nor is he a lackey of the RFU. (Beshocked will disagree).

If this was the start of the season and he got 32 weeks then i would of thought ok thats about right but at this stage of the season how much rugby is he actually going to miss!

3 months tops mpc I would say. Ridiculous.

I can't believe it on twitter, loads of saints fans are saying it's a disgrace that he's been banned for that long and they can't wait to see him back playing for them. Completely delusional.

mpc28 wrote:If this was the start of the season and he got 32 weeks then i would of thought ok thats about right but at this stage of the season how much rugby is he actually going to miss!

He will be banned till middle of November, so end of the season, summer tour to SA, first 8 matches or so of the AP 20123 season and the AIs. As a new member to the EPS and a Stuart Lancaster protege/favourite - he was a serious contender to feature for England.

mpc28 wrote:If this was the start of the season and he got 32 weeks then i would of thought ok thats about right but at this stage of the season how much rugby is he actually going to miss!

I was thinking the same thing.
Maybe bans should be handed out on miss X number of matches as opposed to X number of months.
For what Clark did, a 32 match ban seems more suitable

Some posts on the Saints board:

8 months!! Hope he uses that time to think seriously of what happened and hopefully comes back next season a more rounded and better player.

In all fairness that's really not that bad, considering the off season is just on the horizon. Some will say he got off lightly.

Fingers crossed that's all we hear till nov when he can play again and he comes back fighting fit, with renewed enthusiasm and after a course of psychotherapy to channel his energy in the right places!

He's a young lad and he'll come back from this......

They are not all the kind of idiots who are iots who may be currently inudating Twaitter

I think he's got of very lightly there. 32 Weeks for deliberately assaulting someone looker that is lenient

in my opinion if he has been found guilty of hyperextending another players arm to the point of breaking it then 32 weeks is far too light.

Matt Stevens, 2 year ban for a spot of recreational drug taking in his spare time.
Calum Clark, 8 months for deliberately breaks an opponents arm on the pitch.

Which deserves the 2 year ban...

Lets not generalise and say "loads of Saints fans" because of what a few idiots on the internet say. There are characters like that from every club. Clark must be feeling pretty lucky though - that should have been a year at least IMO. Shouldn't have been available for the 2012/13 season.

I said loads of saints fans on twitter, I was not generalising about Saints fans in general

So basically he has had something like a 12 match ban.

Cymroglan wrote:So basically he has had something like a 12 match ban.

Yeah your right, a 12 or 13 match ban. He pleaded guilty too. I'm not sure how owning up to breaking someone's arm only carries a 32 week ban. Would of much preferred to see a year ban.

GLove39 wrote:Matt Stevens, 2 year ban for a spot of recreational drug taking in his spare time.
Calum Clark, 8 months for deliberately breaks an opponents arm on the pitch.

Which deserves the 2 year ban...

You talk good sense.Dont let the numpties get you down .
You too have recognised that the world has gone mad.Dylan Hartley is favourite with Ladbrokes for the next Pope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Technically, Cocaine is on the banned list as a stimulant, therefore it's not just a recreational drug.

I rather read the report before making any comments on the length. However it is more than than double the time Hawkins is expected to be out for, which is what people were saying weren't they? He's going to miss the last 5-7 premiership games. Won't be involved with England over the summer (would have definitely gone). He'll then miss around 7 games from the beginning of next season and will have no chance of being involved with England in the AI.

As I said I'll have to read the reasons before making up my mind whether I think it's fair.

For me the right punishment would be to miss a full season of rugby. He has got off lightly but the saints fans quoted above have it spot on. Hopefully he wises up and comes back a better person never mind player.

i've never realised it before, but there are so many unpleasant saints fans on the official forum. (i know that doesnt count for most saint fans). About every other thread has something in it slating the Tigers and how much they hate them.

Official comment from Northampton Saints....


http://www.northamptonsaints.co.uk/news/8329.php

I can not believe that statement.

I can't believe they have used the word "unintentional".

rugbydreamer wrote:I can not believe that statement.

Agreed...!

Saints have a serious issue with players committing violent acts that appear to be condoned by the club and fans as part of the game.

Clark performed an atrocious act to a player unable to prevent Clarks actions.

I wouldn't say it's just Saints, perhaps they've been a bit unlucky they've a couple of bad eggs, but seriously, how can you appeal agains the decision after viewing that footage?

and agree with mpc, how have the panel come to the decision it was "unintentional"??

The report is going to be very interesting to read.

Hopefully it will be out sooner rather than later. I believe hartley's is due to be published tomorrow.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Hopefully it will be out sooner rather than later. I believe hartley's is due to be published tomorrow.

That will be an interesting read too.

It's been an appalling year for English rugbys darker side, and far too many of the top players involved in the un-necessary side too.

Lancaster seems to have laid down the law better. Let's hope he continues to rule with an iron fist rather than the tickle feather Johnson did.

It's been the same for Welsh rugby Maes! or it was this time last year anyways, with a couple of incidents in the last 12months or so too.

No country is an angel in this.

See Quinnell blinding incident. But this is still one of the worst things I've witnessed in the game

Firstly, this is why Tigers are regarded as a proper rugby club, that was a real touch of class to give Hawkins a contract. Secondly Saints statement is very disappointing. Being concerned and disappointed about the length of the ban is completely the wrong statement to be making. Finally, 32 weeks is not long enough and I feel the RFU have bottled it. He should have been banned for at least a year.

Based on the "apparent" verdict of an unintentional injury I see nothing wrong with the Saints' statement. If they have deemed the injury to be unintentional - ie he was reckless but not malicious then the sentence does seem long. After all reckless acts that could have led to blinding or a broken neck get much lower bans from all countries.


Would i have put out such a statement, hell no, but as the injury has effectively been deemed an accident I understand where they are coming from.

Cockerill said on ESPN that he didn't think he broke his arm on purpose (that may have been media talk).