Youngs cited

First topic message reminder :

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

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

Is that head or heart stuff?

clear heart stuff, people dont like youngs for actions, those actions that each and every scrum half have.

Hartley got 8 weeks for biting. A disgracefully girly act that was justly dealt with, but dropping a knee on and then punching a prone player is more likely to cause significant injury to a player, so shouldn't receive a lesser punishment.

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

gelodge, that just shows how stupidly long Hartelys ban was. The entry point for biting is 12 weeks even though it was a none event,....for striking its 3 weeks. Biting someones finger could in theory sever it though, thats why its treated harshly compared to what Youngs did which was unlikely to sever his targets chest no matter how hard he dropped a knee, using all his 12 stone weight.
Most games see that level of incident happen at some point, in the grand scheme of things it really wasnt that great. Given that Tuillagi only got 5 weeks for a flurry on punches which left Ashton needing stitches its daft to suggest that this is even close to an 8 week ban. The level of offense wouldve struggled to justify a red card ( hell Tuillagi only got a yellow for his assault)
If we go on like you suggest there wil be no-one left to play in the in the premiership within a few weeks.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:gelodge, that just shows how stupidly long Hartelys ban was. The entry point for biting is 12 weeks even though it was a none event,....for striking its 3 weeks. Biting someones finger could in theory sever it though, thats why its treated harshly compared to what Youngs did which was unlikely to sever his targets chest no matter how hard he dropped a knee, using all his 12 stone weight.
Most games see that level of incident happen at some point, in the grand scheme of things it really wasnt that great. Given that Tuillagi only got 5 weeks for a flurry on punches which left Ashton needing stitches its daft to suggest that this is even close to an 8 week ban. The level of offense wouldve struggled to justify a red card ( hell Tuillagi only got a yellow for his assault)
If we go on like you suggest there wil be no-one left to play in the in the premiership within a few weeks.

Come on, the chance of severing someone's finger by biting it is remote at best, you could just as likely claim a knee to the chest could break or fracture bones in the chest and ribs.

The thing for me is that it was a prone player and that Youngs didn't have to dish out a knee and two punches to make his point. The knee in particular was well over the top (a small slide of which would have seen him connecting with the player's face). For a single punch I would have thought a week or two would suffice, but altogether it needs to be more.

Didn't Armitage get several weeks for punching a prone player last year?

English rugby fans on hear seem to have as low a regard for unnecesary violent acts as their leading players do...!

No such thing as an unnecessary violent act. Well, other than tip tackles that can cripple players such as Bradley Davies'

The knee is what he will get seriously pinged for. I can see a lengthy ban if a may be honest.

HammerofThunor wrote:No such thing as an unnecessary violent act. Well, other than tip tackles that can cripple players such as Bradley Davies'

Davies tackle was absolutely stupid he was an idiot and everyone in Wales would agree. Even if it was in a fit of pathetic retaliation.

But this current spate of hair pulling, biting, arm breaking, drink driving, etc etc etc is very poor

Isn't this a thread about Youngs?

Just asking as there are others open for Hartley and Callum and Goode and if you're into archaeology, anything up to a year ago.

Keep it relevant guys, please.

Its a serious thing and i would not be suprised to see them throw the book at youngs. Really stupid thing to do, especially going in with the knee.

Portnoy wrote:Isn't this a thread about Youngs?

Just asking as there are others open for Hartley and Callum and Goode and if you're into archaeology, anything up to a year ago.

Keep it relevant guys, please.

In deciding the possibility/suitability of the punishment, discussing how similar panels have gone for recent offences is very relevant.

gelodge wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Isn't this a thread about Youngs?

Just asking as there are others open for Hartley and Callum and Goode and if you're into archaeology, anything up to a year ago.

Keep it relevant guys, please.

In deciding the possibility/suitability of the punishment, discussing how similar panels have gone for recent offences is very relevant.

The quantity of them all within such a short time is ridiculous. They are all top England internationals too. These guys should know better. The fans should not condone it, I am not sure their new manager will. He seems to rule with a tough iron fist type management. Youngs, Clarke and Hartley did their England careers no favours with their recent behaviour.

1 week ban, will be able to play from the 5th April.

So just missed last Friday's game v Worcester.

Franklins Gardens will be a sold out bear pit.

Yes, yes it will. Hopefully Harrison will be on the bench, I really like how carm he is at the base of the rucks but how much pace he injects into the attack at the same time. His excellent kicking game is also a major boost even if he doesn't have Ben's pace and eye for a gap.

The Saints game will be massive, if we win there I think we'll finish top 2 and take the title as Quins won't stop us in that sort of form. If we get dragged into a brawl and come out with a loss I can see us missing a few players and finishing third. Travelling away to Sarries will probably see us knocked out in the semis.

formerly known as Sam wrote:1 week ban, will be able to play from the 5th April.

Where's the news posted sam?

If it is true then 62% of the v2 straw pollers are completely wrong.

3 weeks, halved because of his clean record and guilty plea and then a week taken off because Gibson was holding his leg.

Absolute joke.

FFS, this is apalling.

In reality missed 0 games, as from what I saw of him hobbling off against Irish he wouldn't have faced Worcester on Friday night anyway. Free to play again on Thursday.

As I said, it's a joke.

Ozzy3213 wrote:In reality missed 0 games, as from what I saw of him hobbling off against Irish he wouldn't have faced Worcester on Friday night anyway. Free to play again on Thursday.

As I said, it's a joke.

Getting away scot free Oz. are you referring to Youngs, Gibson or Allison?

Why is it appalling ? Why is it a joke?

Most players dont even get cited for throwing punches.

I think it's fair to say Leicester fans seem to think it's a fair ban, and everyone else thinks it's an absolute joke.

Try opening your other eye and you may see what is appalling and a joke mate.

Yet another example of the big clubs getting away with everything.

If a London Irish player had done that it would have been a 3-4 week ban, no questions asked. Its time for a Northern Hemisphere wide citing comittee to look over all citings north of the eqautor, to get some consistency and fairness.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I think it's fair to say Leicester fans seem to think it's a fair ban, and everyone else thinks it's an absolute joke.

Try opening your other eye and you may see what is appalling and a joke mate.

Dizzy.

The only people who have made a neutrally-based comment has been Staggy.

Justice-4-Allison!

Not just here Portnoy, on other threads this has been mentioned and other social media such as twitter where I am discussing it with a Leicester fan, a Gloucester fan and a Chiefs fan.

For me the correct decision would have been:

Gibson YC
Youngs RC - 4 weeks halved to 2 (because the panels punish based on how good the punch etc was - Youngs missed with "punches" and effectively kneeled on Gibson's chest)
Allinson RC - 2 week ban halved to 1.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Not just here Portnoy, on other threads this has been mentioned and other social media such as twitter where I am discussing it with a Leicester fan, a Gloucester fan and a Chiefs fan.

Where Oz? What other threads?

v2 is pretty much as far into social media as I go.

If however we were punishing based on intent - then youngs should have been 8 or 12 weeks halved to 4 or 6 and allinson 4 weeks halved to 2.

Just my opinion and rather worthless as only blackett's opinion matters.

It's pretty much bang on what I thought, except they didn't add anything for the missed punches. We never see someone cited for missed punches. As PSW said you often don't seen people cited for connected punches. The knee drop was never going to be more than lower entry. The only thing I would say is the fact Gibson was holding on should have counted in the 50%. But realistically the extra week wouldn't have done anything as Tigers have a week off.

You can bitch and moan about it being unfair but it's exactly what it should have been from the IRB Recommendations. Talk it up with them (especially about a game ban rather than week). But how do you specify 'games'? Do off games count during 6 nations? What about 'rest' weekends for EPS players or Summer tours? Not easy to define

How is it a joke? Not even a citing.

Ozzy3213 wrote:In reality missed 0 games, as from what I saw of him hobbling off against Irish he wouldn't have faced Worcester on Friday night anyway. Free to play again on Thursday.

As I said, it's a joke.

As cockers said, Youngs would of been fine to play for Worcester.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I think it's fair to say Leicester fans seem to think it's a fair ban, and everyone else thinks it's an absolute joke.

Try opening your other eye and you may see what is appalling and a joke mate.

lol, typical.

I think it's fairer to say the usual suspects who seem to hate Leicester are calling it an absolute joke and everyone else thinks it's about right.

The joke is that the LI 9 should be getting a fair amount of time off, his hands were all over Youngs face, this you fail to mention at all?

I'm a little surprised he got anything tbh, was a bit of nothing. A bit of knee into the chest when somebody is holding you down is fair kop really. I thought Allison's complete over reaction deserved something.

The missed punch holds nothing as some have mentioned earlier players don't get cited for making actual contact.

In the grand scheme of things with Goode & Fasa getting nothing and Youngs getting a week you could say Youngs got it a little harsh.

I think players more in the public eye are more likely to be cited/receive bans, than other low profile players who are guilty of the same offences.

EnglishReign wrote:I think players more in the public eye are more likely to be cited/receive bans, than other low profile players who are guilty of the same offences.

Players playing in high profile games certainly.

I think the one week ban is about right given the circumstances of this case - provocation etc. Every case should be considered on its own merit.
Youngs was out of order retaliating to the extent he did but Gibson has effectively got away with it.

If you are held by the jersey to prevent you playing you don't just sit there you swing your arm or punch the arm off. What is worse?

I am personally fed up with all the pulling, holding on and deliberate obstruction of players.
The tugging of shirts and holding on of players is often missed by officials and if so then there is no come back.
Perhaps there should be.

Jeez, I didn't see the match nor have I seen any replays. Only read what happened. Was it really a banning offense? But then, only a week? Seems weird.

If the crime is significant enough to earn a ban, then ban the guy. A week is just a rest.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I think it's fair to say Leicester fans seem to think it's a fair ban, and everyone else thinks it's an absolute joke.

Try opening your other eye and you may see what is appalling and a joke mate.

If Gibson and the Not Nots spent as much time playing rugby as they did cheating, they might not be 9th in the League. Gibson should have been yellow carded for a professional foul, as should all cheats in the game - which has been increasingly discussed amongst the punditry.

The general consensus there is that while Youngs' actions cannot be condoned, Gibson pretty much got what he deserved, and I for one was pleased that Youngs recieved a short ban. Obviously, the citing commission felt equally sympathetic.

This is the incident for Andy Good's RC last Friday.
http://www.rugbydump.com/2012/04/2471/andy-goode-red-carded-for-high-hit-against-former-team-leicester-tigers

As advises me that this is not going to be taken to the citing committee.

Londonirishollie wrote:Yet another example of the big clubs getting away with everything.

If a London Irish player had done that it would have been a 3-4 week ban, no questions asked. Its time for a Northern Hemisphere wide citing comittee to look over all citings north of the eqautor, to get some consistency and fairness.

You're right, a big club like Leicester should be rightfully agrieved that Gibson chose to cheat in order to try and gain an unfair advantage. He should have been yellow carded, so yes, 3 - 4 weeks would have been about right for the cheat.

If there had been a fight in the tunnel afterwards, Armitage could have come to Gibson's aid, fear not.

Jeez, I didn't see the match nor have I seen any replays. Only read what happened. Was it really a banning offense? But then, only a week? Seems weird.

He was given three weeks but that was halved due to previous good behaviour and then rounded down because of the mitigation (Gibson's provocation). Which is about right I suppose. Three weeks, a week per strike, is more than most players get. Particularly if they are wearing a LI shirt and come in after the whistle's gone for a good strangle and face shove.

I've just watched the clip. For Youngs only to get a week's ban for dropping his knee into the chest of a player on the ground and then twice trying to punch him, even though that player had been holding on to him, is pretty feeble.

Equo Troiano wrote:

Londonirishollie wrote:Yet another example of the big clubs getting away with everything.

If a London Irish player had done that it would have been a 3-4 week ban, no questions asked. Its time for a Northern Hemisphere wide citing comittee to look over all citings north of the eqautor, to get some consistency and fairness.

You're right, a big club like Leicester should be rightfully agrieved that Gibson chose to cheat in order to try and gain an unfair advantage. He should have been yellow carded, so yes, 3 - 4 weeks would have been about right for the cheat.

If there had been a fight in the tunnel afterwards, Armitage could have come to Gibson's aid, fear not.

Equo no need to escalate the argument, Armitage has nothing to do with Youngs' citing.

It was silly from Youngs, but such cynical play to hold him back in the first place. Deserved a smack.

Then the other lad came in, bascially threw Youngs to the floor and had his hands all over his face, is that not an indirect and dangerous retaliation?

Now to put it into perspective, I was stood in the shed and witnessed Jim Hamilton throw an unprovoked left hook into the face of the Exeter scrum-half. I waited for a certain red card, instead he was just sin binned and no further action has been taken. A similar situation is when Hamilton was the victim of punches thrown at Bath. Video evidence could easily have been used to cite all players involved, but wasn't; only two players were sin binned in the actual game.

This Youngs situation was just a daft couple of minutes, none of the three players really come out looking innocent. Just shake hands and get on with it.

biltongbek wrote:

Equo Troiano wrote:

Londonirishollie wrote:Yet another example of the big clubs getting away with everything.

If a London Irish player had done that it would have been a 3-4 week ban, no questions asked. Its time for a Northern Hemisphere wide citing comittee to look over all citings north of the eqautor, to get some consistency and fairness.

You're right, a big club like Leicester should be rightfully agrieved that Gibson chose to cheat in order to try and gain an unfair advantage. He should have been yellow carded, so yes, 3 - 4 weeks would have been about right for the cheat.

If there had been a fight in the tunnel afterwards, Armitage could have come to Gibson's aid, fear not.

Equo no need to escalate the argument, Armitage has nothing to do with Youngs' citing.

And Allison had nothing to do with Gibson v Youngs either.

Equo Troiano wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

Equo Troiano wrote:

Londonirishollie wrote:Yet another example of the big clubs getting away with everything.

If a London Irish player had done that it would have been a 3-4 week ban, no questions asked. Its time for a Northern Hemisphere wide citing comittee to look over all citings north of the eqautor, to get some consistency and fairness.

You're right, a big club like Leicester should be rightfully agrieved that Gibson chose to cheat in order to try and gain an unfair advantage. He should have been yellow carded, so yes, 3 - 4 weeks would have been about right for the cheat.

If there had been a fight in the tunnel afterwards, Armitage could have come to Gibson's aid, fear not.

Equo no need to escalate the argument, Armitage has nothing to do with Youngs' citing.

And Allison had nothing to do with Gibson v Youngs either.

Allinson was used as a comparison not to incite argument.

Ah well. Tis enough to see the Not Not fans getting all in a tiz over the incident.

Just got to laugh.

Complete non story. This isn't a ban. Youngs did nothing wrong, certainly not to the highly esteemed Jeff Blackett.

What do you guys expect?

beshocked wrote:

Complete non story. This isn't a ban. Youngs did nothing wrong, certainly not to the highly esteemed Jeff Blackett.

Whatever you think, Blackett's opinion is the only one that matters. The matter has now been dealt with.