Sentence is passed on Mr Grewcock

[beckett50]

Seems a bit harsh at first glance, until you read that his past transgressions were taken into consideration.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/my_club/bath/8486288.stm

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

If it's based on his previous I'm surprised it's only 7 weeks.

Is there a thicker professional player than DG? I can't think of one.

 

[OB..]

It was assessed as mid-range, and then a couple of weeks were added because of his past record. That makes sense to me.

It was an extraordinarily stupid thing to do.

 

[Phil E]

Video of incident HERE

 

[OB..]

Over on Planet-Rugby there is a thread that to my mind is quite extraordinary: there are people actually supporting what Grewcock did and claiming Ferris was the one at fault.

Here is a sample
[quote title=gtaaf wrote on Fri, 29 January 2010 11:35][quote title=Quote:]
I see so much lax reffing ruining the breakdown (combined with 100 different interpretations) that I can totally understand players getting frustrated.[/quote]

100%.

Its not like the refs have managed to handle the void that the ban on rucking has created. Not even close.

Ferris got what he deserved, Grewcock did not. That's the story here.[/quote]

 

[FlipFlop]

I don't believe that Grewcock didn't get what he deserved, but I do agree that Ferris should have been PK'ed for what he did. DG was dumb in how out in teh open his offence was (another game that day had somethign similar, but more hidden and no reaction from ref). Ferris was deliberately trying to prevent DG from moving around. I think Ferris got what he deserved from DG, and DG deserved what he got. (not justifying what DG did).

I understand where the posters are coming from - when was the last time you saw a player off their feet being penalised for holding onto a player on their feet? Of trying to hold a guard back etc?

Yes players shouldn't take the law into their own hands (hence I agree with the result to DG). But I understand the sentiment.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

In the video, am I the only one who sees the Ulster player, #7, not releasing and not rolling away?

PK to Bath at the start, perhaps no problems thereafter

This does not excuse Grewcock, however.

 

[Davet]

I refer to my comments earlier, such a reaction from a player is often a reflection on the referee being too slow to control the initial flashpoint.

Of course it doesn't excuse it, but it does mean that referees must take responsibility for their inaction.

I anticipate a reaction, but would appreciate a reasoned one...

 

[andyscott]

I refer to my comments earlier, such a reaction from a player is often a reflection on the referee being too slow to control the initial flashpoint.

Of course it doesn't excuse it, but it does mean that referees must take responsibility for their inaction.

I anticipate a reaction, but would appreciate a reasoned one...

Sorry I disagree, players have to take responsibility for themselves, end of story IMO.

Thats like the press wanting to blame social services for a murdered child instead of blaming the people that did it.

 

[FlipFlop]

I disagree.

The ref can be "blamed" for failing to act in accordance with the Law, which MIGHT have prevented the action of DG.

Ferris can be "blamed" for the initial illegal act.

DG can be "blamed" for taking the law into his own hands.

The ref is responsible for his inaction. Ferris is responsible for his actions and DG is responsible for his action. But the three are connected.

The question is - should one be allowed to shift the balme for their actions onto another? I say no. It might help to explain their actions, but it does not mitigate their actions.

(Andy example - Child Services can be blamed for failing to take action, but they can't be blamed for the death)

Just because 1 person takes the balme for their own actions, doesn't mean that otehrs who were invovled should not take some responsibilty for their own failings (ref should be responsible for not PK the first infringement, Ferris for not releasing etc). It does not excuse the actions of those who acted as a result of these though. That is their look out (i.e. DG is responsible for his own actions)

 

[OB..]

I think Ferris got what he deserved from DG.

Not in my book. It was a ludicrous over-reaction.

Yes, Ferris was behaving illegally and that would have merited a PK (but not a card). However Grewcock's response fully justifies reversing any penalty.

It is perfectly possible to argue that all three got something wrong but there can surely be no doubr at all that Grewcock's action was totally unacceptable.

 

[Greg Collins]

I refer to my comments earlier, such a reaction from a player is often a reflection on the referee being too slow to control the initial flashpoint.

Of course it doesn't excuse it, but it does mean that referees must take responsibility for their inaction.

I anticipate a reaction, but would appreciate a reasoned one...

I had cause to reflect on this pov in my game on Wednesday. Someone used a boot on hands hanging on to the ball. I was too slow to blow.

 

[FlipFlop]

It is perfectly possible to argue that all three got something wrong but there can surely be no doubr at all that Grewcock's action was totally unacceptable.

I think that was my arguement - all three got something wrong. I have never said DGs action was acceptable. I have agreed with the ban, and said he deserved it. I fully agree that DG is responsible for HIS actions.

All I said was that the ref has to be responsible for HIS actions (or inaction).
Ferris has to be responsible for HIS actions.
DG has to be responsible for HIS actions.

Ferris committed a crime. Ref missed it, or failed to penalise it. DG punished Ferris (way over top). Ref saw DG taking law into own hands. Ref punished DG. Disc committee punished DG.

(Side Question - what should DG have done in this situation? His options and mobility were being illegally hindered by Ferris. Ref is not penalising it. What are his options? )

 

[Phil E]

I think that was my arguement - all three got something wrong. I have never said DGs action was acceptable. I have agreed with the ban, and said he deserved it. I fully agree that DG is responsible for HIS actions.

All I said was that the ref has to be responsible for HIS actions (or inaction).
Ferris has to be responsible for HIS actions.
DG has to be responsible for HIS actions.

Ferris committed a crime. Ref missed it, or failed to penalise it. DG punished Ferris (way over top). Ref saw DG taking law into own hands. Ref punished DG. Disc committee punished DG.

(Side Question - what should DG have done in this situation? His options and mobility were being illegally hindered by Ferris. Ref is not penalising it. What are his options? )

Ferris's actions could be seen as not material?
The ball was already won and at the back of the ruck when it happened.
Just because the ref didn't blow, doesn't mean he missed it.
Ref's of all people should know that!

Classic case of player sees something, assumes ref hasn't, takes law into his own hands (or feet). :nono:

 

[dave_clark]

i guess that accepting that an opposition player has got away with something isn't an option at those levels...

 

[OB..]

Ferris committed a crime. Ref missed it, or failed to penalise it.

It was not a cardable offence, so all the referee could do would be to have a word with Ferris as he reversed the penalty (if he had had time to say "advantage" first).

(Side Question - what should DG have done in this situation? His options and mobility were being illegally hindered by Ferris. Ref is not penalising it. What are his options? )

Attempt to pull his foot away from Ferris, hoping that this would attract the attention of the referee or AR.