Youngs cited

http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2011-12/rugby/story/162043.html

A truly problematical one this.

Maybe someone can repost a clip.

[ed: Here's one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF7AiDjPjsU

Well seem as Hartley just got 8 weeks for biting I think youngs will get a week because if the IRB want consistent reffing on tip tackles etc surely they must hand out consistent bans?
Also will the RFU send their legal team with youngs just like they did with Hartley to ensure any ban doesn't clash with the summer tour?

Hartley gets a third of the minimum 12 week ban knocked off his ban even though he has a bad record and admitted it.

RFU maybe useless at a fair few things but backing cowards seems to come naturally to them.

First thing, why is this one problematic Portnoy?

Second thing, it is an entry level of 12 weeks not minimum ban view. The minimum would in fact be 6 weeks as the disciplinary panel have the discretion to shorten any ban by 50% due to mitigating factors.

Like his finger fell into my mouth and I got hungry! The system is a joke and the RFU are hardly sending out a good message to parents wanting to get their children involved with rugby by backing such cowardly and thuggish acts

Ozzy3213 wrote:First thing, why is this one problematic Portnoy?

Second thing, it is an entry level of 12 weeks not minimum ban view. The minimum would in fact be 6 weeks as the disciplinary panel have the discretion to shorten any ban by 50% due to mitigating factors.

Why? Because of the provocation before and the afters after.

Why should not all foul and 'contrary to the spirit' play be somehow be balanced?

I have no problem with Ben being banned.

But I do think that there are many mitigating circumstances in this case.

And if the book is going to be thrown, then it should be thrown in more than one direction.

Portnoy

The 'provocation' was Gibson holding his leg so that he could not get away. Whilst it may be against the spirit of the game it goes on in every match and the reaction was disproportionate to the act.

Holding his leg would not be a red card offence and therefore cannot be a full citing, but could theoretically be added to the players disciplinary record as a retrospective yellow. Likewise Allinsons reaction tackling Youngs to the ground may well have justified a yellow card but would not be red, therefore would be dealt with in the same manner as the holding.

The dropping your knee into a player laying on his back on the ground and then attempting to punch him twice in the face is a clear red card offence, hence the citing.

I am not certain what is overly problematic with this one to be honest mate.


View

If your intention is to hijack a thread about Ben Youngs with some 'RFU are the epitome of what is wrong with the game' nonsense then please do not bother. If that is your opinion on the RFU and the disciplinary system as awhole, then please start an article backing your opinion up with some evidence as I am sure there are plenty who will want to discuss it.

Thirdly to Ozzy's previous points the RFU didn't ban him. Blame the Welsh/Irish/Scottish/French/Italian panel members that handed out the ban.

I can't remember but how much did Mike Phillips get in 2008 when he knee dropped an Irish player? No idea of the usually bans for this. I imagine it'll be low entry and probably get some (probably full 50%) mitigation.

HammerofThunor wrote:Thirdly to Ozzy's previous points the RFU didn't ban him. Blame the Welsh/Irish/Scottish/French/Italian panel members that handed out the ban.

I can't remember but how much did Mike Phillips get in 2008 when he knee dropped an Irish player? No idea of the usually bans for this. I imagine it'll be low entry and probably get some (probably full 50%) mitigation.

Awful behaviour by Phillips, a pre meditated act as well. Though I think he kneed the player in the chest not the face and didn't punch them afterwards. Two things that may make a difference to the length of the ban.

Interestingly, when Chris Hala'ufia was cited for nearly decapitating a Racing Metro player earlier this season, London Irish immediately banned him. Hala'ufia had broken his arm in the incident and many claimed that Irish's action in banning him was simply to try to get his ban out of the way whilst injured.

I recall from Sunday, that Youngs went off injured and was virtually carried from the field by two club officials. I suspect that he was unlikely to start against Worcester on Friday night anyway, so I would hope that in the same manner has happened with Hala'ufia, medical information on Youngs is requested and any ban begins after he is deemed fit to play again.

Youngs kneed on the chest didn't he? And the punches missed apparently (although attempts may/should result in an increased ban).

The punches were poor attempts which looked as if they missed or at best were very glancing blows to the top of the head, and yes the knee was into the chest.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Portnoy

The 'provocation' was Gibson holding his leg so that he could not get away. Whilst it may be against the spirit of the game it goes on in every match and the reaction was disproportionate to the act.

Holding his leg would not be a red card offence and therefore cannot be a full citing, but could theoretically be added to the players disciplinary record as a retrospective yellow. Likewise Allinsons reaction tackling Youngs to the ground may well have justified a yellow card but would not be red, therefore would be dealt with in the same manner as the holding.

The dropping your knee into a player laying on his back on the ground and then attempting to punch him twice in the face is a clear red card offence, hence the citing.

I am not certain what is overly problematic with this one to be honest mate.


View

If your intention is to hijack a thread about Ben Youngs with some 'RFU are the epitome of what is wrong with the game' nonsense then please do not bother. If that is your opinion on the RFU and the disciplinary system as awhole, then please start an article backing your opinion up with some evidence as I am sure there are plenty who will want to discuss it.

But isn't there a legitimate force argument here Oz?

Like in burglaries.

As I say, I have no problem with Ben being banned.

But I do have a problem with players deliberately cheating to gain an advantage getting away with it scot free.

Plus the vigilante actions of Allinson seem to provoke no rebuke.

That's why it's a problematic case.

Striking with the knee is LE - 3 weeks, ME - 8 weeks, HE - 12 weeks

Do we think LE? I do, so that's 3 weeks to start. He's got a good record (petulant at times but not dirty I don't think) and he was being held back from play so maximum reduction for 50%. So 1 or 2 weeks. Add on a week or two for the attempted punches so I reckon 2 to 4 weeks.

Portnoy, no. He should have drawn the attention of the AR who was right next to him and a penalty should have been given. Nothing more. If there is reasonable provocation then the ban can be reduced by 50%. That's it.

Kneeing a prone player in the chest and attempting to punch them in the face twice would not be legitimate force Portnoy, as I said the reaction of Youngs was disproprtionate to the act from Gibson.

I have also explained why Allinsons actions have had no rebuke.

Your issue with players cheating is one that you probably need to learn to live with mate as it goes on in every game. Never seen a tighthead binding on the arm, or an openside using his hands whilst not supporting his weight???

If a hoody had perpetrated that act on a copper he'd be banged up. Pronto. Unless he had a good brief.

If a copper did the same on a hoody, there'd be a long, considered debate in which all the circumstances were carefully examined and probably the copper would get off with a ticking off.

[ed The arm of the law is not only long - it's extremely flexible]

You've completely lost me now Portnoy.

Ozzy3213 wrote:You've completely lost me now Portnoy.

That's because you are looking at the statues Oz. Not the inherent justice.

I shall pass on the rest of this debate Portnoy, but thanks anyway.

OK Oz.

Thanks for your views and input.

Ozzy3213 wrote:The punches were poor attempts which looked as if they missed or at best were very glancing blows to the top of the head, and yes the knee was into the chest.

THese are the Articles I read on the matter.


"Youngs will have to answer a charge of striking with both knee and fist under Law 10.4 a, for which the low-end entry point is a two-week suspension."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/mar/28/leicester-ben-youngs-london-irish-gibson?newsfeed=true



"Ben Youngs, is almost certain to be cited for an incident in which he appeared to drop his knee into the face of London Irish No 8 Jamie Gibson. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9134706/London-Irish-32-Leicester-Tigers-41-match-report.html

viewtothegym wrote:Like his finger fell into my mouth and I got hungry! The system is a joke and the RFU are hardly sending out a good message to parents wanting to get their children involved with rugby by backing such cowardly and thuggish acts

what the hell, this thread isn't even about Hartley. Cut the crap!

maestegmafia wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:The punches were poor attempts which looked as if they missed or at best were very glancing blows to the top of the head, and yes the knee was into the chest.

THese are the Articles I read on the matter.


"Youngs will have to answer a charge of striking with both knee and fist under Law 10.4 a, for which the low-end entry point is a two-week suspension."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/mar/28/leicester-ben-youngs-london-irish-gibson?newsfeed=true



"Ben Youngs, is almost certain to be cited for an incident in which he appeared to drop his knee into the face of London Irish No 8 Jamie Gibson. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9134706/London-Irish-32-Leicester-Tigers-41-match-report.html

that report is wrong, i watched the game and i'm almost 100% sure it was to the chest.

EDIT: i should point out that i'd think he would get 1 -2 weeks. regardless of him being held down, he still shouldnt of reacted in that way. Although i actually agree with Barnes (god, did i just say that!) and that they need to crack down on holding players away from the action.

Likewise Allinsons reaction tackling Youngs to the ground may well have justified a yellow card but would not be red, therefore would be dealt with in the same manner as the holding.

Sales fans may feel agrieved with that stance from the citing commission. Last season they had hooker Jones red carded for running into a fight he had no business in, very similar to Allinson. In the same melee Mark Cueto was cited for making reckless contact with the eye area in a very similar manner to Allinson's right handed strike to the left side of Youngs face (which left a mark, more than can be said for Cueto's).

Me thinks this was referred by the LI coaches as opposed to the independent commissioner as apparently the LI coaches were asking Austin for a look at the footage of this and of the Manu tackle. Surely at half time in an important game that's held in the balance you'd have better things to do!

that report is wrong, i watched the game and i'm almost 100% sure it was to the chest

I've got it saved on Sky+ and it is 100% Youngs right knee onto Gibson's left breast. The Youngs punches are aimed at Gibson's head though.

The annoying thing for a Tigers fan is that the assistant ref says NOTHING until Youngs retaliates and then says "leave it", before telling the ref that Gibson caused the first offence. If that's the case then flag the bloody thing so the player knows that, otherwise you're just encouraging players to seek their own justice.

Sam

he was cited by Wade Dooley, so not sure where you are getting it was referred by the London Irish coaches.

Should also say that I do think Youngs deserves a ban for a week or two as it was retaliation and that shouldn't be condoned. Tigers have already banned him for one week so that may be ample.

I recall from Sunday, that Youngs went off injured and was virtually carried from the field by two club officials. I suspect that he was unlikely to start against Worcester on Friday night anyway, so I would hope that in the same manner has happened with Hala'ufia, medical information on Youngs is requested and any ban begins after he is deemed fit to play again.

After the game Cockerill said it was a knock to his shin and that he would be fine for the Worcester game.

he was cited by Wade Dooley, so not sure where you are getting it was referred by the London Irish coaches

Clubs can refer incidents to the citing commissioner (in this case Dooley) which can then be passed on should the commissioner agree there's potential foul play. By bringing it to his attention he almost has to cite Youngs, irritatingly Tigers don't do this, hence the debate as to whether Clarke would get picked up or not and Cockerill's "we have faith in the citing official" thing.

Sam:

You say you Skyplussed the game.

Any chance that you could get a youtube clip of the incident loaded?

I've looked on Youtube, but can't find one, maybe somebody will have posted one by now?

If Youngs is not fit to play tomorrow then a 1 match ban should be ignored by the RFU if he is found guilty, and the ban should start from the date of the hearing.

If his injury rules him out for several weeks there is no remit in the RFU regs to delay the ban until he is fit (the Hala'ufia precedent they set the ban from teh data of the hearing and ignored LIs actions - so what I am suggesting).

With Hala'ufia they delayed the hearing until he was fit though. It would be pointless if Youngs is out for 6 weeks injured, to start a 5 week ban from his hearing next week, as it would defeat the object of the ban.

Immediately after the game Cockerill stated that Youngs was just suffering from grazed shins - and it did come just after the LI pack did a little wardance on him.

Youngs was wrong, deserves to be cited and now it is up to the authorities. I do wish though that the cynical holding back (in fact all cynical play) would start to be treated properly and given yellow cards. Players would stop doing it and the game would be a better place.

Any chance that you could get a youtube clip of the incident loaded?

Sorry, as I said in the PM I'm lacking a home computer at the moment and I can't really sort video clips for youtube at work. I would have sorted out some stills or something otherwise in order to illustrate my points.

I don't think Youngs would have played if fit anyway as Cockerill is talking about rotating the squad a bit for the Worcester game so as to keep everyone on their toes and fully fit.

LondonTiger wrote:Immediately after the game Cockerill stated that Youngs was just suffering from grazed shins - and it did come just after the LI pack did a little wardance on him.

Youngs was wrong, deserves to be cited and now it is up to the authorities. I do wish though that the cynical holding back (in fact all cynical play) would start to be treated properly and given yellow cards. Players would stop doing it and the game would be a better place.

Is exactly the nub of my argument in my OP.

This is a controversial issue because the only reason why Youngs reacted was because of cynical play by Gibson (for a relatively long time in the circumstances). What else could he do? Purists would say nothing. But the denial of fair play is the issue.

And then Allison's action only reinforces the gang values of LI's intent.

Oz points at the legalistic side of stuff.
And I point at the intimidation/retribution side.

To be fair to Allinson all he saw was Youngs drop his knee onto a supine Irish player while punching him in the face. Isn't his reaction an example of the retribution that's ok? (The fact he just seemed to tackle Youngs is the reason he's not been cited).

I certainly wouldn't be against a 1 week ban for any cynical play (although where do you draw the line, it's bad enough trying to award penalties).

Youngs reaction was (imo) disproportionate to the action of Gibson. Hence why i believe that Youngs had to be cited. The provocation will be taken into account by the panel.

Of course Youngs has found out this season on a few occasions that there is no point waiting for the TJ to act and advise the ref of foul play. At the moment sides are getting away with too much cynical play (this includes Tigers) and we need more yellow cards.

Youngs reaction was (imo) disproportionate to the action of Gibson. Hence why i believe that Youngs had to be cited.

Whilst I agree his reaction was disproportionate I think it was born of frustration as the LI players were deliberatly slowing the ball down by rolling away a snail pace and then 'accidentally' bumping into Youngs as they made their way out the tackle area. How he refrained from stamping them out the way is beyond me, hence the knee and the punches were a build up of several instances but even so he chose a silly moment with the AR right there. He could have dropped the knee and claimed he was 'falling over' the fact he then throws two punches meant he was always likely to be in trouble.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Youngs reaction was (imo) disproportionate to the action of Gibson. Hence why i believe that Youngs had to be cited.

Whilst I agree his reaction was disproportionate I think it was born of frustration as the LI players were deliberatly slowing the ball down by rolling away a snail pace and then 'accidentally' bumping into Youngs as they made their way out the tackle area. How he refrained from stamping them out the way is beyond me, hence the knee and the punches were a build up of several instances but even so he chose a silly moment with the AR right there. He could have dropped the knee and claimed he was 'falling over' the fact he then throws two punches meant he was always likely to be in trouble.

And no Tigers players did the same of course, nor entered from the side of rucks. Should Allinson have started stamping on them or kneeing players in the chest?

I did say his action was disproportionate and for me no Tigers didn't play the ref anywhere near as much as they should have.

Wow, you are more one eyed than I thought. Both teams were at it all game mate.

I'd really like a clip of the whole incident. I saw it on telly but never recorded it.
Sam recorded it but his home PC is dead.

Surely someone has a record of the incident?

Wow, you are more one eyed than I thought. Both teams were at it all game mate

Things picked up in the second half but in the first we were either stand offish or plain clumsy (some stupid penalties early doors). Compared to the Saints game we were rubbish in that department, in the cup final we slowed down nearly every phase and hammered the scrum half. Allinson was barely touched and there was far too much quality ball going to the LI backs for my liking. LI successfully slowed a lot more of our ball down hence why our early scores came from a scrum and a drive over the line from close range, we couldn't get the ball to go wider.

You may not have been effective at it, but you were still doing it.

Portnoy, for your viewing pleasure...

http://www.rugbydump.com/2012/03/2455/ben-youngs-cited-for-striking-london-irishs-jamie-gibson

Ta Ozzy, Allinson's right hand around 23 seconds, shown again later around 1min 53secs though his left hand appears to be around the throat is all a bit reckless.

There's no way that's a knee to the head but a ban it most certainly will be as Ben untangles his legs before using the knee making it more retaliation then defence. How slow is the AR to raise his flag and communicate to the ref though.

You may not have been effective at it, but you were still doing it.

So they weren't slowing the ball down and impeding the scrum half then if they failed to be effective.

So because they tried to slow it down but failed you deem that to be less unsporting and against fair play than trying and succeeding?

The touch judge had a complete mare.

I see. This is where we differ in opinion, I don't see it as particularly less sporting more as a means to end but I also believe that if the ref refuses to police the game then you have to. That doesn't mean physcially damaging the opposition but it does involve letting them know that silly buggers will not be tolerated and if that means a few stud marks and the loss of some skin then so be it (note there's a massive difference between reminding someone they shouldn't be there with the boot and breaking someones ribs).

Youngs needed to make the point that he wasn't going to take being blocked or fouled off the ball anymore. Issues were raised because he went to far, there were better ways of dealing with the situation then an obvious knee drop and flailing punches.

I note that 45% of voters on this straw poll went for a ban of >4 weeks.

Is that head or heart stuff?

Aha! A clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF7AiDjPjsU

Apparently strangulation in a subsequent retaliatory is not citable.

If Youngs gets banned (which I think he should) - then why not Allison?

Its a pretty low end offence. Im surprised that both he and Alison didnt get yellowed ta the time, Im assuming the AR missed the knee drop " which was hardly the most viscous of strikes youll see)
the "swing and miss is ok"rule is a bit stupid. Youngs clearly intended to punch, thats just as bad as being capable. Julian White vs Sheridan springs to mind.

Itll be 3 weeks at most, still very bad at this time in the season

And Allison SBW?

What are your thoughts?