Hogg banned for 3 weeks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26622460

Well Hogg given 3 week ban, I guess his remorse and good discipline record spared him a worse sentence. Seeing his team get pummeled was quite enough punishment already.

He's not a dirty player but his actions were rash and stupid. I'm glad Biggar wasn't hurt but even more glad apologised to Dan, Garces and the fans who went to the game.

Hopefully a lesson learnt.

Seems fair enough, moment of madness.

As you say, he isn't a dirty player and he apologised. I probably wouldn't have minded had it been just a yellow card, but it did look similar to GBH in the replay, so I can see where the ref was coming from. That took balls too. Anyway, losing your full back was no reason for the entire team to capitulate, I've seen Scotland under a different coach put up a fight with just 13 men on the field. Something's not right.

Scotland usually play Wales with a man or two down and don't concede that many points.

3 weeks seems about right, glad he did not contest it and showed some contrition. Young and foolish, hopefully he will learn from it!

Yeah fair enough...

He's not like that normally, and it punished his team who got humped.

However heres a question.

Is it a fair system?

Keiron Brookes got banned for 6 games for a nudge on the ref. Is that worse than what Hogg did? or do we take weeks off the ban becuase he was actually red carded and his team suffered?

It was against the ref. It should be harsher surely?

The Saint wrote:As you say, he isn't a dirty player and he apologised. I probably wouldn't have minded had it been just a yellow card, but it did look similar to GBH in the replay, so I can see where the ref was coming from. That took balls too. Anyway, losing your full back was no reason for the entire team to capitulate, I've seen Scotland under a different coach put up a fight with just 13 men on the field. Something's not right.

Absolutely agree, maybe it has something to do with Johnson being incapable of picking the best players and/or specialists in every positon.

I think you have to accept that anything involving the ref is going to up the ante considerably. The way the players respect referees decisions in rugby is what marks it out against other sports. That was drummed into me when I started playing as a youngster and I hope it continues today.

You simply do not 'nudge' the ref, end of. He was lucky not to get longer!

Ok yes anything on the Ref is a no-no. I appreciate that.

However whilst it was out of character, a moment of madness Hogg did intentionally go at the player. So do you think it should have been a longer ban ,but was reduced because of the red card and his teams subsequent heavy defeat?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ok yes anything on the Ref is a no-no. I appreciate that.

However whilst it was out of character, a moment of madness Hogg did intentionally go at the player. So do you think it should have been a longer ban ,but was reduced because of the red card and his teams subsequent heavy defeat?

From the link- it had granted Hogg a "40% reduction" in his punishment to "account for mitigating factors, including the player's remorse for the incident both on the day of the match and subsequently through the media".

I'd certainly be minded to swap the Hogg-Brookes bans.

Hogg's was intentional albeit in a moment of madness, it was violent.
Brookes' was a non-violent push of a ref who unintentionally got in the way of a Leicester attack.

At the very least if Hogg got three, Brookes should have got three.
There was nothing premeditated in either but Hogg was violent, Brookes wasn't.

Remember, if Brookes had pushed a player to get at the ball, there'd have been no case to answer in all likelihood.

Ah, but did Brookes apologise to all and sundry including, importantly by all accounts, through the media??

That seems to have been the telling factor in applying the discount, rather bizarrely in my view.

Just like in a criminal court, you pretty much always get a third off a ban for pleading guilty. I am inclined to believe his contrition was genuine, he certainly gets the benefit of the doubt this time and it was good that he went in and made the appropriate apologies prior to the media ones.

3 weeks was about right for the offence. It was a late hit and he deserved to walk, but the TV replays also made it look worst than it was. It always looks worse in slow motion. Glasgow will miss him and he will have time to contemplate. Time to put this one to bed.

I suppose there has to be some punishment, but it is a little harsh to punish Hogg and especially Glasgow when he did it in a Scotland shirt. Personally, I think the fact he was red carded was punishment enough (especially as he missed fifty odd minutes or whatever), but like I say I suppose there has to be some ban after a red.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I'd certainly be minded to swap the Hogg-Brookes bans.

Hogg's was intentional albeit in a moment of madness, it was violent.
Brookes' was a non-violent push of a ref who unintentionally got in the way of a Leicester attack.

Port, he didn't simply push a ref who had unintentionally got in the way.  That's not what I saw.  I saw a ref in the way - yes.  I saw a player not consciously trying to hurt the ref - yes.  
But I did see a player use a ref by pushing him into an opposing player in a bizarre attempt to stop the player rushing through a defensive gap.  Brookes used the ref to effect a stoppage of an attacking player.  That's what I saw and that's what I would have deemed the offence.

The Saint wrote:As you say, he isn't a dirty player and he apologised. I probably wouldn't have minded had it been just a yellow card, but it did look similar to GBH in the replay, so I can see where the ref was coming from. That took balls too. Anyway, losing your full back was no reason for the entire team to capitulate, I've seen Scotland under a different coach put up a fight with just 13 men on the field. Something's not right.

What do you know about GBH?

Maybe. Fly.

I saw just a push to get the ref (or whomever) to get out of the way in an instant.

Whether he did it to gain an advantage, I clearly have no idea.
I couldn't really see malice in the moment.

Arguably, it should have been just a scrum (Tigers).

Unlike Hogg. That was imo a nanosecond decision to take a cheap shot.

Far too lenient IMO, cynical dangerous challenge mitigated afterwards by admission of guilt and it not being characteristic of the player. Then again what do i expect Calum Clarke should never have played again but will probably be playing in the RWC.

I think 3 is about as well as he could have expected -

If it had been 4 - 6 was my guess

It has marked his copy book, so he now needs to reign in his temper (which I think is a little bit thin) in the future

Hogg was pumped up for whatever reason. Just before that, he went into Williams (when he scored) with his elbow and there definitely was malice in that challenge. He obviously had it in his mind that he was going to try and rough up some of the Welsh boys. He meant to hit Biggar definitely, but I don't think he meant to connect with his face.

Saint - GBH? Have a word with yourself. Trust me, that was nothing like GBH.

One thing I haven't read here is anyone's opinion on Biggar's pig's erse somersault dive when he got hit.

Am I the only one who thought it was a bit OTT?

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Hogg was pumped up for whatever reason. Just before that, he went into Williams (when he scored) with his elbow and there definitely was malice in that challenge. He obviously had it in his mind that he was going to try and rough up some of the Welsh boys. He meant to hit Biggar definitely, but I don't think he meant to connect with his face.

Saint - GBH? Have a word with yourself. Trust me, that was nothing like GBH.

One thing I haven't read here is anyone's opinion on Biggar's pig's erse somersault dive when he got hit.

Am I the only one who thought it was a bit OTT?

What are you drinking?

Hogg ran at him, jumped at him and smashed his face with his shoulder deliberately. He is what, 15 stone or so. Biggar didn't make any dive of any sort, he was nearly knocked out.

A pathetic comment really.

I really don't understand comments like "he's not a dirty player" or "he's not that type of player" or "he doesn't do things like that". He is a dirty player. He is that type of player. He does do things like that. His copybook is blotted now, he will never be able to claim any of those things again.

Biggar's dive??? Interesting perspective.

The G and A in GBH and ABH really refer to the degree of harm caused. I don't know what damage was actually done - I'm guessing a broken jaw would probably be GBH, anything less, ABH.

doctornickolas wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Hogg was pumped up for whatever reason. Just before that, he went into Williams (when he scored) with his elbow and there definitely was malice in that challenge. He obviously had it in his mind that he was going to try and rough up some of the Welsh boys. He meant to hit Biggar definitely, but I don't think he meant to connect with his face.

Saint - GBH? Have a word with yourself. Trust me, that was nothing like GBH.

One thing I haven't read here is anyone's opinion on Biggar's pig's erse somersault dive when he got hit.

Am I the only one who thought it was a bit OTT?

What are you drinking?

Hogg ran at him, jumped at him and smashed his face with his shoulder deliberately. He is what, 15 stone or so. Biggar didn't make any dive of any sort, he was nearly knocked out.

A pathetic comment really.

How is it pathetic? Watch it again - Hogg wasn't even looking at Biggar when he hit him. Did he mean to hit him? Yes definitely but not square on the jaw. Late hits after the kick has gone happens all the time. Hogg went for it and completely feiced it up.

Bluenote - spot on. There was actual bodily harm (sore jaw requiring treatment) but it wasn't grevious i.e. broken jaw.

To be fair to Biggar, a dive is usually forward, just look at when people dive into a pool, if they were to dive backwards they would hit the paving.

Risca Rev wrote:I suppose there has to be some punishment, but it is a little harsh to punish Hogg and especially Glasgow when he did it in a Scotland shirt. Personally, I think the fact he was red carded was punishment enough (especially as he missed fifty odd minutes or whatever), but like I say I suppose there has to be some ban after a red.

I agree with this and suspensions from internationals should be kept seperate from domestic games, Glasgow have lost a player through no fault of their own and it won't directly affect Scotland as they haven't a game until the summer. If the suspension applied to international rugby it would firstly make the player think twice about their actions, as they would miss out on games and might never get another chance if the replacement player does well and secondly it might make the national coaches more averse to letting the players act recklessly.

I don't see that working, you could have bans taking place months or even years after the event, some may never take place at all. There is nothing wrong with the current system, foul play on the field gets punished very quickly and effectively. It hurts the players when they miss games for their clubs as well, these guys like to play and long bans may even effect their market value and certainly any bonuses they may be due.

The system actually works well, the players know that foul play is likely to get caught and are disciplined enough, on the whole, not to do it. For such a physical game there are actually very few sending's off and bans. I am old enough to remember what things used to be like, it used to be a complete free for all!

Not a chance did Biggar milk the contact.

This ban seems about right. He was punished on the day by getting a red card and then seeing his team taking a real beating (as a result??). Now there's some extras added as a slap on the wrist.
Overall, I'm pleased how the citing/disciplinary side of this tournament has worked. In the past, it seems that every minor transgression has been cited and led to some form of punishment against the transgressor(s). This time minor infringements have been left alone and only the nasty stuff punished, and that not too punitively.

I don't think there was anything in it to be honest, yes he caught him late and yes it knocked Biggar for 6 but I don't think that was Hoggs intention, he just wanted to rough him up a bit as you do in games.
If Biggar hadn't gone down like a sack of spuds the Ref would have just carried on maybe having a word with Hogg at the next stoppage of play.

There is a difference between a citing and punishment, and for that reason Healy should have been cited, even if he got a let off and a slap on the wrist for being careless.

Scrumpy, what did for Hogg was the replay being shown, with the jump into the jaw and Biggar's head snapping back. It was quite dramatic on the big screen. You can imagine how the crowd reacted.

BlueNote wrote: It was quite dramatic on the big screen.  You can imagine how the crowd reacted.

I'd imagine it would have been much the same as if Austin Healy were to walk out on the the MS pitch pre-game and sing GSTQ?  

No, no, it was dramatic, but not that dramatic.

Scrumpy wrote:I don't think there was anything in it to be honest, yes he caught him late and yes it knocked Biggar for 6 but I don't think that was Hoggs intention, he just wanted to rough him up a bit as you do in games. If Biggar hadn't gone down like a sack of spuds the Ref would have just carried on maybe having a word with Hogg at the next stoppage of play.

There is roughing a guy up, then there is mugging him and then what Hogg did is a level after that.

His remorse is what saved his bacon.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Hogg was pumped up for whatever reason. Just before that, he went into Williams (when he scored) with his elbow and there definitely was malice in that challenge. He obviously had it in his mind that he was going to try and rough up some of the Welsh boys. He meant to hit Biggar definitely, but I don't think he meant to connect with his face.

Saint - GBH? Have a word with yourself. Trust me, that was nothing like GBH.

One thing I haven't read here is anyone's opinion on Biggar's pig's erse somersault dive when he got hit.

Am I the only one who thought it was a bit OTT?

Suggestion box:

Tattie, ask someone to run at you, launch themselves at your chest using their shoulder to catch your chin….you should get some idea just how much Biggar did a pig's erse somersault dive.   

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:I don't think there was anything in it to be honest, yes he caught him late and yes it knocked Biggar for 6 but I don't think that was Hoggs intention, he just wanted to rough him up a bit as you do in games. If Biggar hadn't gone down like a sack of spuds the Ref would have just carried on maybe having a word with Hogg at the next stoppage of play.

There is roughing a guy up, then there is mugging him and then what Hogg did is a level after that.

His remorse is what saved his bacon.

But if he hadn't caught his chin we wouldn't even had noticed he put in a late hit, Biggar would have go up had a few words with Hogg and the game would have gone on. believe me a lot worse goes un-noticed during a game.

btw I'm not defending him (he just go it wrong), a red card and a 3 week ban is a fair result.

Perhaps it is a little ironic, one of the 2 matches Hogg will miss is the game against Biggars team the Ospreys.

I like the way people say Hogg isnt a dirty player, yet in 90 caps Mike Phillips has never managed to get himself sent off, and god knows he seems to try his best most games!

Have a look at Hogg's right knee for the Liam Williams try, he drove his right knee right into Williams after he grounded the ball, Hogg was looking for trouble long before he got sent off.

The hit on Biggar was actually 2 seconds late which is a huge amount of time in rugby.

This seems like a joke compared with I Evans getting 12 weeks to miss the whole 6N.

Think i'm in a huge minority here when I say I feel for Hogg, had he just bumped Biggar on the shoulder as intended it's a nothing penalty, or even play on, a charging defender bumping a kicker just after the ball is usual, it's letting them know you were there. I don't think there was any malice, and the replay just looks horrific (for Biggars actions as much as anything else).

Yellow card was fair in my opinion, red wasn't needed whatsoever.

Butterfingers. IMO the late hit was intentional, the hit to the jaw merely reckless. Certain yellow, always at risk of a red.

butterfingers wrote:Think i'm in a huge minority here when I say I feel for Hogg, had he just bumped Biggar on the shoulder as intended it's a nothing penalty, or even play on, a charging defender bumping a kicker just after the ball is usual, it's letting them know you were there. I don't think there was any malice, and the replay just looks horrific (for Biggars actions as much as anything else).

Yellow card was fair in my opinion, red wasn't needed whatsoever.

Rubbish. nothing else need be said.

butterfingers wrote:Think i'm in a huge minority here when I say I feel for Hogg, had he just bumped Biggar on the shoulder as intended it's a nothing penalty, or even play on, a charging defender bumping a kicker just after the ball is usual, it's letting them know you were there. I don't think there was any malice, and the replay just looks horrific (for Biggars actions as much as anything else).

Yellow card was fair in my opinion, red wasn't needed whatsoever.

It seems we are in the minority here.

TJ wrote:Butterfingers.  IMO the late hit was intentional, the hit to the jaw merely reckless.  Certain yellow, always at risk of a red.  

+1

Without the clatter on the jaw then a yellow is enough. Having seen the replay on the big screen the refs decision is understandable. Its not a cast iron red - but neither is it a wrong or unfair decision. Without the big screen replay then it wouldn't have been red. However the ref is allowed to use the big screen in instances of foul play. Late hits on the kicker happen. However Hogg made sure he clatered him. Hogg didn't aim at the head, indeed he turned his back. However he was certainly reckless in hitting Biggars head and thus by doing so turned a yellow into a possibility red. Similar collisions will happen in every game. However Tis would seem a harsh red on the surface but infact despite being a Scotland fan I think this is not unresonable. another day Hogg might have been lucky and only got a yellow but the red is not a wrong decision - just a judgement call.

Hogg should learn from this. He was too pumped up and was a card waiting to happen.

The way I look at it, is if it was somebody else's player doing it to one of your own, everybody would think red. I am surprised to still see people saying about Biggar's reaction. If you could stand up to that sort of collision, then wow fair play you must be some tough people.

Also, a five week ban, reduced to three doesn't really back up that it's a harsh red.

Nowt wrong with Biggars reaction.

Rev - my point being that although superficially it might appear harsh the reality is its a judgement call by the ref and its not possible to claim the refs judgement is wrong in this instance. It was late, high and he clattered into Biggars head.