England vs Ireland Stamp

[Mike Whittaker]

The message it sends out to young players is all wrong! One of the unacceptable consequences of the professional game.

 

[crossref]

The message it sends out to young players is all wrong! One of the unacceptable consequences of the professional game.

the message it sends to adult players is wrong !

 

[Toby Warren]

Mid range feels about right (It was nasty but not Top End in my view). Once again the reduction for mitigation (as yet unknown?) makes the ban look light

 

[Chogan]

Mid range feels about right (It was nasty but not Top End in my view). Once again the reduction for mitigation (as yet unknown?) makes the ban look light

Toby,
Mitigation will be the usual ones. I'm sorry etc... and no priors.

To those saying three weeks is a joke. I'd have to say it's not. It is consistent with what many predicted and that seems to be all we ask for when they get it entirely wrong. The system needs a good shake, we all know this.
I wouldn't mind seeing the thoughts on the U20s 7 week ban.
A lot of people get pretty hot when it's their own man on the receiving end and very quiet when it's the other way round.

 

[Loïc]

Grande Bretagne?

Hum, Grande Bretagne = UK
Maybe you meant Bretagne (Bretany)?

Anyway, he is from Le Béarn :

 

[Phil E]

Hum, Grande Bretagne = UK
Maybe you meant Bretagne (Bretany)?

Maybe it was a joke :wink:

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't mind seeing the thoughts on the U20s 7 week ban.

Too short. That was a very nasty and deliberate spear IMO.

 

[Chogan]

Too short. That was a very nasty and deliberate spear IMO.

Agreed Phil E,
They classed it as mid range which is bizarre. Not sure what to put on it though. The fact they are U20s holds a lot of weight I feel, but that should be classed as a mitigating factor from a top end classification.

 

[Loïc]

Maybe it was a joke :wink:

Except Mounty Python, i can't understand British humour ^^

 

[Account Deleted]

Sorry but both bans were nonsense I expected those sort of figure true. but that is only because the evidence that the system is broken is there for all to see. Rugby will slip into a football like mess unless we ramp up the bans. Entry points should be minimums with no mitigation for saying sorry or bringing hob knobs to go with the cup of tea.

I recently heard of a ban at lower levels following a code of conduct offence where a coach has been banned. The week after the ban the said coach was playing for his team. The relevant Union has confirmed that the ban only applies to coaching and not playing. All bans only apply to the capacity withing a club that the person was exercising at the time.

The system is rotten. I said so a few weeks ago on here and was told I was not right. Well this weekends bans support my stance.

 

[Phil E]

Agreed Phil E,
They classed it as mid range which is bizarre.

Makes you wonder what you have to do, to be a top end offence?

 

[didds]

*blows out cheeks*...


didds

- - - Updated - - -

I am totally in agreement with Simon S (and Robbie). Nothing in law to prevent Kearney's reach to touch. It was immediate and it was a legal option.

I'lll add the caveat that it is "immediate" if "immediate" means after two seconds after going to ground duiring which time an oppo player attempts to play the ball from "his side, the defender flops his torso down onto the ball and the oppo player then tries to play the ball from the "defendrs" side whilst remaining on his feet in a legal position.

If that is "immediate" then I agree.


didds

 

[Dixie]

3 weeks, is a joke

But isn't this in fact just two weeks? I may have missed the point that the Officials made:

the stamp should be categorised as a mid range offence in terms of seriousness, which carries a sanction of five weeks. The Committee allowed the maximum two weeks of mitigation, but, in imposing a suspension of three weeks, recognised that the player would not have played for his province this weekend is that the suspension will end at midnight on Sunday 10 March 2013.

Now, this offence took place in Round 2 of the 6N on 10 Feb. On that day, he earned a three week ban. The officials recognised that for one of those weeks (the rest weekend) he would not have played rugby anyway. Now to me, it looks as though they have ignored that week for the purposes of the ban - perfectly proper. But there is another rest weekend in the period of the ban - between Rounds 3 and 4. That has NOT been ignored. So CH's next realistic three games of rugby would have been 6N games against Scotland, France and Italy. As a result of his 3-week ban, he misses just two of those, returning to play against Italy on March 16th. :chin:

 

[crossref]

*blows out cheeks*...


didds

- - - Updated - - -



I'lll add the caveat that it is "immediate" if "immediate" means after two seconds after going to ground duiring which time an oppo player attempts to play the ball from "his side, the defender flops his torso down onto the ball and the oppo player then tries to play the ball from the "defendrs" side whilst remaining on his feet in a legal position.

If that is "immediate" then I agree.


didds

if it isn't immediate then presumably the referee has already either blown for a PK , or signalled advantage for PK offence.
then when he plays it intro touch, no advantage, back to the PK

 

[Pedro]

I think Tipuric got three weeks for his stamp so at least it is consistant.
In my opinion it is consistantly wrong, but you can't argue with the consistant in this case.

 

[Chogan]

Dixie,
That's one way of interpreting it. Here is the other side stating how this three week ban is in fact a 4 week one. http://brendanfanningrugby.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/healy-lumbered-with-extra-helpings/

I think Tipuric got three weeks for his stamp so at least it is consistant.
In my opinion it is consistantly wrong, but you can't argue with the consistant in this case.

I hadn't heard any citing for Tipuric never mind a ban. Thought they ignored the boot to Sexton's face. Two sides to every coin etc...

 

[Pedro]

Sorry, I was talking about his (Tipuric's) ban for his stamp back in December when he was playing for the Ospreys for a very similar incident.

 

[Chogan]

Ospreys or Wales?
I was thinking of this one

 

[Pedro]

Ospreys or Wales?

My bad, I was thinking of that one too :redface:

 

[Pedro]

You can look at the length of the ban in anyway you like, at the end of the day it's a 2 Match ban.
Should it be more? I'm not in a position to judge but IMHO I think a message needs to get sent to players (young and old), Coaches and Referee's that this isn't acceptable in our game, and 2 matches is not going to achieve that.

 

[OB..]

You can look at the length of the ban in anyway you like, at the end of the day it's a 2 Match ban.
Should it be more? I'm not in a position to judge but IMHO I think a message needs to get sent to players (young and old), Coaches and Referee's that this isn't acceptable in our game, and 2 matches is not going to achieve that.

We keep going round this argument without getting any clear resolution. It is often claimed that a ban should apply to whatever competition it was earned in, but that simply does not work. Suppose the ban came from the last match in this year's 6N? Or in the RWC final?

It is traditional for players not to represent club/province in a 6N bye week, but is this case it is mandatory.

No, I don't have a perfect solution, because I don't think there is one. The main cause of concern seems to be the almost automatic application of certain mitigating factors, Perhaps that is where we should look first for reform.