Stowers escapes ban.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19697872

And the princess kissed a frog, and I have not seen your father since. And thats another fairy story.

Iaob

Im not surprised. I thought that it was an unlucky challenge that looked worse due to the benefits of slow motion.

Its understandable Fenby's head looks like a rugby ball. Seriously, it happened so fast the reaction was instinctive if seen he would have had a yellow card and a penalty try.

The Usual Scarlets obviously haven't caught wind of this thread yet....

I have to agree with Stag. Although it should have been a penalty try, I don't think a ban is necessary. From what I can see, Stowers was trying to use all of his momentum to force him into touch. I highly doubt he meant to catch his head.

Sometimes I wonder, for all the rugby brains in the World we cant come up with something better than "above the line of the shoulders"?

glamorganalun wrote: Seriously, it happened so fast the reaction was instinctive if seen he would have had a yellow card and a penalty try.

Yet the TMO seen it and nothing was done about it. ?

Iaob

If Denby hadn't dived it wouldn't have been considered an alleged high tackle. Correct decision IMO.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:If Denby hadn't dived it wouldn't have been considered an alleged high tackle. Correct decision IMO.

Fenby was diving for the line. However, I have to agree that it was not a high tackle, as no attempt at a tackle was made.

It does seem that even the citing commisioner has mucked the wording of the citing up.

Iaob

Ifandorbut wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:If Denby hadn't dived it wouldn't have been considered an alleged high tackle. Correct decision IMO.

Fenby was diving for the line. However, I have to agree that it was not a high tackle, as no attempt at a tackle was made.

It does seem that even the citing commisioner has mucked the wording of the citing up.

Iaob

Yes it is marginal & every situation is different. But quite often players just dive anyhow to stop a player grounding the ball over the try line. Sometimes using knees,feet whatever. Proving intent is difficult.

However, it definitely wasn't a high tackle IMO.

Casartelli wrote:The Usual Scarlets obviously haven't caught wind of this thread yet....

Too late!

Ifandorbut wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:If Denby hadn't dived it wouldn't have been considered an alleged high tackle. Correct decision IMO.

Fenby was diving for the line. However, I have to agree that it was not a high tackle, as no attempt at a tackle was made.

It does seem that even the citing commisioner has mucked the wording of the citing up.

Iaob

Being serious I can understand people saying that he was trying to dislodge the ball and a second earlier and he would have punched the ball out of Fenby's arms. However he didn't and hesmashed him in the side of the head. I do not buy the 'Fenby was diving' excuse, Stowers was also diving, if he weren't diving down too then he would never have been anywhere near Fenby's head.

That said the citing commision have had their say and Stowers did not do anything wong, whether the outcome is what you/me/we wanted/expected.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:From what I can see, Stowers was trying to use all of his momentum to force him into touch.

Yes, but all that momentum came as a swinging arm to the chops. It's stupid really that he was cited for an 'alleged high tackle', because this wasn't even close to being a tackle.

I can't believe that even got cited to be honest. Fenby should still have held on to the ball though

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:From what I can see, Stowers was trying to use all of his momentum to force him into touch.

Yes, but all that momentum came through a swinging arm to the chops. It's stupid really that he was cited for an 'alleged high tackle', because this wasn't even close to being a tackle.

Luckless the problem is what do ou class it as? It was not a punch (or strike or whatever they call it). It was an attempt and stopping Fenby scoring, so i guess tackle is the best they could use. Maybe dnagerous tackle would have been closer.

If it was someone like Delon Armitage he would have been banned.

The Ospreys always get away with foul play, why?

HERSH wrote:If it was someone like Delon Armitage he would have been banned.

The Ospreys always get away with foul play, why?

Maybe, but i think it has something to do with being an islander as opposed to being an Osprey, they don't offen get away without bans.

No maybe about it.

There was no chance of there being any other outcome. If the citing comittee had decided that an incident of foul play had taken place the WRU would have to explain why their most senior referee, despite endless slowmo replays chose to ignore it. Far easier to brush it under the carpet.

For what its worth I do not think Stowers should have been banned, it was probably accidental, but he did hit Fenby in the face so Yellow and Penalty Try was the correct result. The great embaressment for the so called professionbal game in Wales was that it was not dealt with at the time.