Hughes 3 week ban

Couldn't believe Nathan Hughes got a red card, now he has a three week ban. Sometimes I despair at the way this game is heading. Unfortunate for North - but rugby carries risk. I think this is officials rallying around a young ref.

offload wrote:Couldn't believe Nathan Hughes got a red card, now he has a three week ban.  Sometimes I despair at the way this game is heading.  Unfortunate for North - but rugby carries risk.  I think this is officials rallying around a young ref.

Agreed. The panel say contact was unintentional but reckless. Hell we could say that about so many things. Surely North's concussion earlier this season when kicked in the head accidently was far more reckless?

There have been a fair few incidents I have seen over the last few years where refs/citing panel seem to have punished the injury rather than the offense (or worse no offence at all). It is worrying when there are some very dirty acts that I have seen that are either just punished with a yellow or go unpunished as there was no injury.

If we're really deeming this as reckless there's going to be an awful lot of bans coming up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If we're really deeming this as reckless there's going to be an awful lot of bans coming up.

Precisely.  If running in a straight line when trying to get across to make a cover tackle and have someone dive and collide with your shin is reckless and deserving of a red card and ban, we'll be finishing games playing 10 a side from here on in.

Related link
http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_40562,00.html

It is reckless though. What was he even doing with his feet/shins all the way over there when he had no chance of making the tackle. When this becomes legal, then so do high tackles and taking people out in the air - you won't be feeling the same about that I guess.

At what point is he supposed to stop running? If north is held up even slightly by the man making the tackle Hughes would be in a great position to stop him grounding the ball. As it is he is trying to stop as North spins into him.

Perhaps when he realises he can't make the tackle instead of running and colliding with his head? Just stupid play tbh. If he had at least attempted a tackle he likely wouldn't have been banned, concussion or not. Reckless play.

LT you've just beaten me to it

New post by LondonTiger Today at 10:22 am

As it is he is trying to stop as North spins into him.

By the disciplinary panels decision should the tackler also be banned?  After all he swings North's legs into touch and therefore North's head comes infield.  

IMO this was an accidental collision, perhaps one that was waiting to happen, but still an accident.

Saint - I think you might find yourself in a minority of one on this. Not for the first time I'm sure.

offload wrote:Saint - I think you might find yourself in a minority of one on this.  Not for the first time I'm sure.

Offload - I know. Welsh player out cold, must be okay as it's a welsh player. Anyway, I first seen the incident a few days ago. I should perhaps re-watch it, but I'd probably still think that it's reckless.

Retrospective ban for Hibbard head butting North coming up surely?!

There's a shock, opposition coach sees his own player injured and thinks the book should be thrown at the player who caused it

Almost as surprising as the Saint making this into an anti Welsh issue

I think Hughes paid the price of George North having some serious issues now with going out cold worryingly quickly when hit in that head area.  Ulster's Luke Marshall was in the same boat a while back; and that caused its own controversy as some commentators questioned the safety of him continuing in the game and others stepped up to defend the 'protocols' in place and said the player had a right to go on after following them and being passed fit to play.

I think North's most recent black out directly traces itself to the other two recent ones.  I think the ban on Hughes is harsh but I suppose expected given the need to see that player's safety is being protected.  

But really, who is being protected from whom in these affairs when innocent players must try to be competitive around and against a fellow player who seems to be having a continuing serious issue going on in terms of repetitive concussion injuries?  Perhaps North should never have been playing in the first place if better analysis was available to assess the seriousness of these multiplying concussion injuries.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Retrospective ban for Hibbard head butting North coming up surely?!

No Intension To Injure is obviously team defined when banning is the punishment.
'You didn't mean it and you are on his team - go in peace'
'You didn't mean it and you're not on his team - ban'

Grey area, but still reckless. Feel sorry for Hughes watching it back, but the officials had little option there. Like Jim Mallinder says, you have to be careful when players are scoring the try

Attwood on North was far more reckless. Still not illegal though.

This is nothing to do with it being a Welsh player knocked out, nor a Saint as I wanted them to win. As someone else said we are now sanctioning the injury rather than the offence.

This is absolutely farcical. The call was very poor at the time, but under the heat of pressure of a televised game and a baying crowd you can understand how such a mistake could happen. To ban him in the cold light of day is frankly shameful. As has been mentioned this smacks of covering the ref's mistake. It would have been far better to acknowledge the mistake but provide unwavering support to the ref. We all make mistakes in life, but it is how you deal with them that sets you apart and this decision compounds the initial mistake 10 fold. Player welfare and concussion is rightly a major issue in the game at the moment, but this incident should not be distracted by North's very unfortunate spate of injuries. If it has been intentional then a ban would be very just. This decision sets a very dangerous precedent as clearly officials' cannot make mistakes and the game is being dumbed down to an excessive extent.

Its quite simply dangerous play, if your foot comes into contact with another players head, even if its accidental, then players must accept that its likely that a red card will be issued. Hughes may or may not have intended to kick North, but the fact remains that he did, and also did not appear to make any attempt to avoid the contact.

Rugby needs to clean up its act, and head injuries are the big issue. Players must take responsibility for their actions and make sure they avoid causing head injuries. There will always be accidents, such as North's head clash with Hibbard and the injuries to Brown and Halfpenny in the 6N (although halfpenny's was probably down to poor tackling technique). But kicking a player in the head whilst they are on the floor must be stamped out and the only way to do that is to consistently punish such recklessness with a red card.

If that was reckless, goodness knows what else could be classed as that! Arguably Lawes' tackle on Plisson was far more reckless.

I am actually a bit concerned about North, a tap on the back of the head like that shouldn't knock you out. He should probably be given a long rest from the game but that seems unlikely.

This was an accident as well though seadultaf.

Bathman_in_London wrote:If that was reckless, goodness knows what else could be classed as that! Arguably Lawes' tackle on Plisson was far more reckless.

I am actually a bit concerned about North, a tap on the back of the head like that shouldn't knock you out. He should probably be given a long rest from the game but that seems unlikely.

Lawes tackle on Plisson was hard but legal and superbly timed. If it had been late he would have been yellow carded, but he wasn't so great tackle. Hughes was making no attempt to tackle and did not appear to make any attempt to avoid making contact. It might have been accidental but it was still reckless. If a player is rucking vigorously and accidentally stamps on another players head, then its a straight red. What's the difference......none?

North's season should really now be deemed over. After 3 concussions in 4 months according to the protocols he should have to spend the next 4 weeks with no training at all before starting a graduated return to training.

It is in everyone's best interests that he be sent on a long holiday.

He's being sent to a specialist LT Saints so it'll be interesting to see what happens from that and if SAints and Wales go with the recommendations if any (which I'm sure they will).

Seagultaf, so why should Hibbard get away with recklessly going into a ruck and not get sanctioned?

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's being sent to a specialist LT Saints  so it'll be interesting to see what happens from that and if SAints and Wales go with the recommendations if any (which I'm sure they will).

Seagultaf, so why should Hibbard get away with recklessly going into a ruck and not get sanctioned?

I am not sure which game you are referring to, I don't get to watch Gloucester other than highlights. Although I will say that players charging into rucks shoulder first are being penalised now quite regularly. And I agree this can be as dangerous as a kick to the head. A semi pro player in South Wales was killed in a game (broken neck) in an incident of this nature a few seasons ago. Again its all about the players taking responsibility for not acting recklessly and endangering their opponents.

Wales vs England.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wales vs England.

Sorry all I can remember about that game was Wales totally capitulating in the second half!

..when George wasn't right for much of it after Hibbard 'recklessly' knocked him out for a second time...

Why is that incident being drawn in when it isn't even similar, it was a contact situation. North was in the act of scoring a try and Hughes could do nothing about it. Anything to try and bring down welsh players.

No not bringing down welsh players responding to the idea that Hugh's has been banned due to the injury rather than the act.

And the card was wrong and the ban most definitely wrong. And for other incidents getting 3 week bans have a look at the s15 game with the boot to the head on another thread. Dilliberate intent to hurt an opponent and just 3 weeks. Should have been a lot more

It shows recklessness thats why Saint.

In truth the ban has little to do with the incident itself.

The ref made a poor decision and throughout the match allowed himself to be intimidated by Hartley and Dickson. He has been roundly criticised in the press as a result so the panel feel the need to back him up.

Seagultaf wrote:Its quite simply dangerous play, if your foot comes into contact with another players head, even if its accidental, then players must accept that its likely that a red card will be issued. Hughes may or may not have intended to kick North, but the fact remains that he did, and also did not appear to make any attempt to avoid the contact.

Rugby needs to clean up its act, and head injuries are the big issue. Players must take responsibility for their actions and make sure they avoid causing head injuries. There will always be accidents, such as North's head clash with Hibbard and the injuries to Brown and Halfpenny in the 6N (although halfpenny's was probably down to poor tackling technique). But kicking a player in the head whilst they are on the floor must be stamped out and the only way to do that is to consistently punish such recklessness with a red card.

I respect your opinion, but I could not disagree with you more on this incident.

Personally I'd rather wait to read the full report before making a judgement.

[quote="HammerofThunor"]Personally I'd rather wait to read the full report before making a judgement.[/quote
Its out. Has been since this afternoon

LondonTiger wrote:North's season should really now be deemed over. After 3 concussions in 4 months according to the protocols he should have to spend the next 4 weeks with no training at all before starting a graduated return to training.

It is in everyone's best interests that he be sent on a long holiday.

Agree 100%.
Shame for Hughes:
Poor call for the Red - the match was too much for an inexperienced referee.
Poor decision for the ban.

carpet baboon wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Personally I'd rather wait to read the full report before making a judgement.[/quote
Its out. Has been since this afternoon

Where? RFU website has moved around and it didn't appear on the Discipline search for Wasps. Do you mean the media release or the full report? Usually they're not released until after the appeal is sorted.

Will post the link when I get to work. I'm sure it was the full report. I could be mistaken, I often am.

Cheers
Edit: got it. Just seach all decisions this year, rather than Wasps and it was there.
Edit: although this is what it opened, a blank form

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/Governance/Disclipine/01/30/94/03/RFUDisciplinaryJudgment-Tuesday31March2015-NathanHughes_Neutral.pdf

Thank god for that thought I was going mad again.

Had that problem too. If your using your phone when the page opens to a blank page on the options menu click open in browser and it should download it

Not working but I'll try again later on a proper computer.

Slight aside but when did the RFU website move to EnglandRugby? Follows in the trend of WorldRugby (IRB) and RugbyEurope (FIRA-AER)

Having read that report all I can say is it is an effing whitewash.

The bit that had me scratching my head was they say he ran in upright. Imagine if at full speed he had dropped his shoulder in a tackle motion then hit north in the head? Now that would have reckless

This wasn't even a yellow, never mind a red. To recieve a ban is shocking, I worry for our game if bans are getting handed out for such minor acts.

Having read that report I'll have to coach my juniors not to risk a try saving tackle on the tryline in case they injure an opponent.

With controversial incidents like this I often ask people who hold a very minority view - i.e. the Welsh posters in this case - 'what would your view be if the situation was reversed and North had injured Hughes?'

I bet you their stance would change.

Anyway, a poll I have just seen had 84% voting the ban to be wrong