2017/18 Aviva Premiership Round Five

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 26 Sep 2017, 8:30 am

First topic message reminder :

Friday 29th September

Newcastle vs London Irish (19:45)
Worcester vs Saracens (19:45)
Sale vs Gloucester (20:00)

Saturday 30th September

Leicester vs Exeter (15:00)
Northampton vs Harlequins (15:00)

Sunday 1st October

Wasps vs Bath (15:00)

-------------------------------------------

May as well get the thread up early.

At the start of the season, London Irish might have had targeted fixtures against Newcastle but the Falcons have been in good form, so Irish will need to show their first match form to come away with anything. Worcester have shown some fight but it'd be a surprise if Saracens don't handle them comfortably. A resurgent Gloucester would fancy their chances at Sale. However, it's not clear they are resurgent, and Sale can turn up at home.

Looking forward to the game at Welford Road. Don't know if they'll all be available, or selected, but Youngs, Ford, Slade, May and Nowell could be most of the England back line. Leicester will need alot of home grit to hold off the reigning champions, who looked good at the weekend.

Unsure if Marcus Smith is clear to play at the weekend. It will hurt Quins' chances if not, and, anyway, Saints have picked themselves up very well after that disastrous opening match.

Wasps vs Bath promises a lot of attacking intent. In truth, though, both sides have flattered to deceive. Wasps had little to offer going forward last weekend, and Bath have relied on Rokodoguni to get them over the line. The injury count seems high, so we'll see who actually gets named.

by WELL-PAST-IT Sat 30 Sep 2017, 5:45 pm

As long as he channels that aggression properly great (for England), it is when he fails to control that aggression aka Ben Stokes. Although if the alternative story being pushed by Piers Morgan is correct, he maybe more hero than villain.

by Guest Sat 30 Sep 2017, 9:45 pm

Here's the Sinkler incident. Initially I thought he was just trying to wind Patterson up by taking off his scrum cap and any contact around the eye was accidental, but the more I look at it the worse it gets. It's hard to see, but if you pay close attention after he's removed the scrum cap his hands go back for a second grope directly around the eye, twice in a raking motion.

Trouble coming I reckon.

by WELL-PAST-IT Sun 01 Oct 2017, 10:12 am

I couldn't see much in it at the time, but the more you look, the uglier it gets. The hand definitely returns after the scrum cap was removed (a stupid thing to do anyway), and once it comes back it starts moving around in the area of the eyes. Couldn't see if the fingers were bent or not.

I think young Kyle is in for an enforced rest either way, if the panel think the fingers are straight and rubbing over the eye area, a few weeks, if they think they were bent and scratching/gouging, a very long time.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 01 Oct 2017, 1:47 pm

I'm not sure you can judge for certain what Sinkler's hands were doing. He might well have gouged but it's not conclusive. Not sure whether other evidence can be taken into account (like any injury to the eye).

by Welly Sun 01 Oct 2017, 1:50 pm

I mean he can get a ban for just having contact with the face now.

by Guest Sun 01 Oct 2017, 2:01 pm

I disagree RF, I think there's plenty of evidence in that video that shows Sinckler's hands go back for a grope well after the scrum cap had been removed. Can clearly see 2 occasions in which the fingers bend in a scratching motion directly at the eyes. Set the playback speed to 0.25 at 1m30s.

by nathan Sun 01 Oct 2017, 2:42 pm

I've just seen the replay on BT Sport, he's in real trouble.
Fingers clearly in the eye, I would definitely call that a gauge

by formerly known as Sam Sun 01 Oct 2017, 3:18 pm

That's a massive let off for Priestland. Soft penalty but technically correct. Can't lead with the forearm/elbow it's called a hand off after all.

The problem Quins will find is that it's nearly impossible to argue against dangerous contact with the eye area so Sinckler will cop a ban.

by nathan Sun 01 Oct 2017, 3:25 pm

But looking at it, his fingers are bent and in the eye socket, it looks like a serious gauge. He'll be getting a big ban.

by Cumbrian Sun 01 Oct 2017, 3:32 pm

Could be bad news for Sinkler, but I can' really tell what is happening from the footage. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was going for a second grab at the head gear, but why do players engage in nonsense like that in the first place? It is just so unnecessary!

by Cumbrian Sun 01 Oct 2017, 3:33 pm

I was looking forward to the Wasps vs. Bath game, but it has been a bit rubbish so far.

by nathan Sun 01 Oct 2017, 3:39 pm

Yeah been pretty rubbish, wasps seem to be having a bit of a dip in form

by Scottrf Sun 01 Oct 2017, 3:47 pm

Priestland surely taken out, they didn't even look.

by Heaf2 Sun 01 Oct 2017, 3:47 pm

Never ceases to amaze me that professionals don't understand the laws - the commentary team discussion about 'taken in' ... there was a ruck phase after that so the ball is then able to be kicked direct to touch AFAIK

by Cumbrian Sun 01 Oct 2017, 3:49 pm

That was my understanding of the law too.

Hughes going off, hope it is just a dead leg. England knackered for next month if it is anything longer term. Clifford starting with back up of...?!?

by Heaf2 Sun 01 Oct 2017, 3:52 pm

Didn't look too bad - hopefully just precautionary

by Heaf2 Sun 01 Oct 2017, 3:54 pm

Well that was a pretty dull first half ...

by SirBurger Sun 01 Oct 2017, 4:05 pm

Heaf - I thought the law was amended a few years ago so that you couldn’t kick to touch directly even if there had been a ruck or rucks previously.

by Heaf2 Sun 01 Oct 2017, 4:12 pm

Hadn't heard that and I'm sure I've seen loads of times when the ball has been taken back in and then after additional phases has been kicked to touch - but I'm not 100% sure so will keep an eye out ...

by Heaf2 Sun 01 Oct 2017, 4:17 pm

When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

Seems to cover it ...

by Heaf2 Sun 01 Oct 2017, 4:59 pm

I was hoping for a more entertaining match than that ...

by Heaf2 Sun 01 Oct 2017, 5:00 pm

Ozzy3213 wrote:
Bathite wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:Wins for Sarries, Sale, Tigers, Saints and Bath.

Bath? We've lost st home to falcons and you're predicting will be the second team in a few years to beat wasp at home? Interesting optimism

Nothing to do with optimism Bathite. Both teams are off the back of defeats, two in Wasps case. Both have injuries and will be relying on some fringe players to get the job done, but Wasps have more pressure on them being at home and not wanting to go to three losses on the bounce. Especially with fringe players, that pressure can lead to more mistakes. This will be close, but I just feel that Blackadder will have addressed some of Bath's issues from last week better than Young will have Wasps.

Good call Ozzy ...

by Scottrf Sun 01 Oct 2017, 5:10 pm

So top of the league Very Happy

by Sgt_Pooly Sun 01 Oct 2017, 6:44 pm

Scottrf wrote:So top of the league

Yea, we're 2nd.....no big deal Yahoo

by Bathite Sun 01 Oct 2017, 6:57 pm

Heaf2 wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:
Bathite wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:Wins for Sarries, Sale, Tigers, Saints and Bath.

Bath? We've lost st home to falcons and you're predicting will be the second team in a few years to beat wasp at home? Interesting optimism

Nothing to do with optimism Bathite. Both teams are off the back of defeats, two in Wasps case. Both have injuries and will be relying on some fringe players to get the job done, but Wasps have more pressure on them being at home and not wanting to go to three losses on the bounce. Especially with fringe players, that pressure can lead to more mistakes. This will be close, but I just feel that Blackadder will have addressed some of Bath's issues from last week better than Young will have Wasps.

Good call Ozzy ...

Yep, absolutely nailed it and i'm pretyt happy to be wrong!

Really poor from Wasps today I thought. It reminded me of watching us versus Saracens a few seasons back, just waves of possession, but no breaking through the defence and poor execution.

Bath weren't much better to be honest, but I was really impressed with our defensive effort. Really good shifts from Obano, Clark, Ewels, Mercer, which is fantastic news as they are all young English talent.

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 02 Oct 2017, 1:33 am

Sinckler cited.

Sinckler must appear before a Rugby Football Union disciplinary panel in Bristol on Tuesday evening.

by Geordie Mon 02 Oct 2017, 10:58 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
Scottrf wrote:So top of the league

Yea, we're 2nd.....no big deal

We are indeed...yet I still think we aren't playing that well. Yes we're showing top grit, graft and determination and a strong defence (bar the 20 mins at the end on Friday - which I think was more we thought it was in the bag) however we have set the world alight offensively bar time v Bath.

We can play a lot better (ive SEEN us play a lot better)...but the critical thing is we are so ruthless now with our chances. We get a chance...we score. That's the big switch this season.

Im over the moon with the way the season is going...but I think once we get a bit more consistent offensively...we'll look another step up again.

by geoff999rugby Tue 03 Oct 2017, 12:21 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:Sinckler cited.

Sinckler must appear before a Rugby Football Union disciplinary panel in Bristol on Tuesday evening.

Saw it on BT - really doesn't look good for him.

He will be very very lucky if is not considered contact with the eye - if so it will be north of 12 weeks

by Scottrf Tue 03 Oct 2017, 12:25 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:Sinckler cited.

Sinckler must appear before a Rugby Football Union disciplinary panel in Bristol on Tuesday evening.

Saw it on BT - really doesn't look good for him.

He will be very very lucky if is not considered contact with the eye - if so it will be north of 12 weeks

You would think so. Ashton got 10, and that just looked clumsy. Sinckler I'm not sure what he was trying to do, but seems deliberate.

by formerly known as Sam Tue 03 Oct 2017, 1:37 pm

Scottrf wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:Sinckler cited.

Sinckler must appear before a Rugby Football Union disciplinary panel in Bristol on Tuesday evening.

Saw it on BT - really doesn't look good for him.

He will be very very lucky if is not considered contact with the eye - if so it will be north of 12 weeks

You would think so. Ashton got 10, and that just looked clumsy. Sinckler I'm not sure what he was trying to do, but seems deliberate.

Ashton had plenty of previous which counted massively against him. Sinckler is a hot head but he's not had much in the way of bans previously, unless I've missed them.

by geoff999rugby Tue 03 Oct 2017, 1:59 pm

But contact with the eye now has a minimum of 12 weeks

I don't think that was the case when Ashton was banned.

BT commentators suggested the offence has been split into 2.

Contact with the face - minimum of 4 weeks
Contact with the eye - minimum of 12 weeks

by geoff999rugby Wed 04 Oct 2017, 8:40 am

So much for the above

Either the disciplinary board has ignored the guidelines or Austin Healy doesn't know what he is talking about - you decide

by yappysnap Wed 04 Oct 2017, 8:55 am

So 7 weeks for Synkler.

Personally I think he's pretty lucky there, but I haven't read the ins and outs of the case.

by Scottrf Wed 04 Oct 2017, 8:58 am

geoff999rugby wrote:So much for the above

Either the disciplinary board has ignored the guidelines or Austin Healy doesn't know what he is talking about - you decide

I guess they decided that they couldn't tell whether contact was with eyes or face.

by Welly Wed 04 Oct 2017, 9:08 am

He pleaded guilty to contact with the eyes and was found to have made contact with the eyes. no couldn't tell the difference.

The panel also ruled that “due to the absence of injury” to Paterson a low-end entry point for the sanction, which is 12 weeks for making contact with the eye, was sufficient. It was reduced to seven, however, because of mitigating factors, including Sinckler’s guilty plea, his conduct during the hearing and the fact he showed remorse. Chris Ashton was banned for 10 weeks for a similar offence last year.

by Scottrf Wed 04 Oct 2017, 9:09 am

Welly wrote: He pleaded guilty to contact with the eyes and was found to have made contact with the eyes. no couldn't tell the difference.

by **Ozzy3213** Wed 04 Oct 2017, 9:41 am

Apparently he took his own biscuits so got 5 weeks knocked off.

by Scottrf Fri 06 Oct 2017, 9:55 am

Full judgement.

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/Governance/Disclipine/01/32/63/28/SincklerHarlequinsJudgementOct17_English.pdf

by Sponsored content