Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by KavKav
I very rarely have a bet but I thought that odds of even money for ‘no grand slam’ seemed to be particularly good value this year.
Yeaaaaa, result!
Out of curiosity, which bit of the red card decision didn’t you agree with? He led with a shoulder and made no attempt to wrap his arms around the player in the tackle.
Do you disagree with the refs decision or the rules defining a tackle?
I very rarely have a bet but I thought that odds of even money for ‘no grand slam’ seemed to be particularly good value this year.
Yeaaaaa, result!
I dislike the inconsistency. The fact that Manu had a bandage was the result of a head first tackle by one of the Welsh forwards in the first half, which didn’t even draw a penalty. Neither did the punches thrown at Etoji when we was face down in the mud. If the rules was introduce for players safety then something is wrong.
In respect to the tackle. Manu was looking at the space where he thought North would be, but because Slade had already slowed him and North was already going down, North was simply not in the space, hence lots of mitigation. May be is should have been a penalty but nothing more. Certainly not a red card.
All I want in a referee is consistency. The only consistency we seem to be getting is inconsistency.
On the topic of North, I was amazed that given his history he was even on the pitch given he was laid out in the first half.
Anyway, England deserved the win and the better team won on the day. 3 wins on the bounce against Wales is not to be sniffed at.
Well done to Scotland. Great win against a good French team, even if they did try to butcher it last 10 minutes.
All nicely set up for the final games (assuming they are played). If England can do a big job on Italy then the Championship is theirs.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
You’ve got your tongue firmly in your cheek right ? Did you not notice that France played 1/4 of the first half a man down and the whole of the second half a man down plus they lost their best player early in the first half. I thought Scotland were woeful (at home !) England, Ireland or Wales would have put 40 points on France in the same circumstances. All just a matter of opinion of course.
There was a time when the ref's decisions in rugby were only challenged by the fans after a few beers. Now the English coach thinks voicing his opinion after the game is right.
I hope he is sanctioned. He has a big mouth and has already taken flak for his comments but the ref should be off limits.
BTW, boxing is a no-no too, although it wasn't when I played. Mohamed Haouas has glorious French specialists to look up to, like Gérard Cholley or Michel Palmié. But it was a different era.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Slightly harsh on Tuilagi but was a card in my eyes and at 73 mins it didn’t matter which colour. Can’t lead with the shoulder, mitigating circumstances or not.
Ben Youngs has said he and tuilagi don’t have any complaints so....
Parkes was lucky to get away with his though. Probably deserved a yellow.
Plenty of niggly stuff from both teams and I can’t believe what Marler did.
I know he’s the joker but that was too far and I’m impressed AWJ didn’t lamp him.
Enjoyed the game today. France doing French things
You lead with the shoulder and don’t wrap your arms then it’s red. To say otherwise suggests either stupidity, ignorance of the rules or a combination of the two.
Today’s game at Murrayfield was so typically French. They have a young exciting team starting to do great things and within 30 minutes they had shown more indiscipline than in their first 2 games combined. Very fortunate to escape a second red. Thoroughly pumped by a decent enough Scotland side that Brian Moore accurately observed “finally played for a full 80 mins”.
England grand slam almost certain now and with back to back wins I’m sure Scotland will actually relish a chance to go to Cardiff and attempt to secure 2nd spot.
I like your enthusiasm but you may have to wait another year
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
“Stupidity, ignorance or a combination of the two” vs “England Grand Slam almost certainly back on”.
He shoots, and scores
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Oh dear.
Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk
Suppose it didn’t matter with how late on the red card was.. would have been very harsh early on in the game ..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not harsh, it would have been just as correct whenever it happened.
Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk
If England get the Grand Slam I'll show my a**e in Westgate Street.
Ye schoolboy error on my part. Of course I meant the championship. Either way it’s a stick on. Ignorance and stupidity regarding denial that it was a red card remains valid.“Stupidity, ignorance or a combination of the two” vs “England Grand Slam almost certainly back on”.
He shoots, and scores
Ye schoolboy error on my part. Of course I meant the championship. Either way it’s a stick on. Ignorance and stupidity regarding denial that it was a red card remains valid.
Indeed, however someone asked me for my opinion. Which I gave.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
No, I thought Scotland were pretty good value before the sending off, plus they were able to exploit the man advantage.
Where Scotland failed was in the final 20 minutes. To many wrong decisions, to many penalties, to many mistakes, which ultimately cost them a bonus point. However France are a good team, so beating them represents a decent result.
BTW I am not sure that either England, Ireland and definitely not Wales, would have put 40 points on a 14 man France.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ha England 3 points better than Wales so I don’t know how you figure “definitely not Wales”
Interesting that red card for Tuilagi
He was committed at a distance and at a perfectly respectable height (you can see on the TV footage that he is comfortably below the height of the ribcage of the standing touch judge from one angle, which is waist height for North if standing). The pre-impact photos show North already has a knee on the ground before the hit, the other knee is near the deck, he is leaning into the oncoming impact from Tuilagi, reducing his head height even more.
Tuilagi's only mistake is the lack of wrap with the right arm.
If that right arm were out (his hand about 10 inches from where it was, outside North's own arm which he was extending for the hand off) it would have been a perfeclty fair tackle attempt as North's much reduced height would have acted as the mitigating circumstance.
Tuilagi has every right to attempt a try-saving tackle there, North's momentum could have taken him over the line.
It is very hard to see how one hand being such a small margin to one side makes the difference from no foul to a red card.
Which is why I think it is a penalty, possibly a yellow, not a red.
The reason no-one was complaining was that it made no difference. If that happened in minute 5, not 75, with everything wtill to play for, and England not 3 scores ahead, I guarantee there would have been more complaints from the players.
The phrase "leading with the shoulder" is not a helpful one in discussions about this. Every perfect tackle technique involves the main impact with the shoulder. We coach it all the time. The tackle impact uses the shoulder.
The only issue here is the lack of wrap, and that is the thing to concentrate on.
I watched the England game in France. which meant the Ref mike was not audible, but I thought he Ref had an appalling game. There was almost no signalling of advantage, and no signalling of the offence. He should have had some stronger words with Farrell, who was dangerously headless. He totally missed Itoje being taken out off the ball (as did the video Ref), and although Marler on Jones was reckless, it was also hilarious (we spotted it live) and Alun Wyn looked a little petulant for going on about it in the press conference.
Eddie should make Itoje captain immediately. Farrell is too headless and too far away to be a useful captain. As Dallaglio has recently pointed out, the captain simply has to be in the pack now, to be close enough to have the Ref's ear when all the contentious stuff is happening at the breakdown.
Well done Scotland, although I think the main difference was that France collectively forgot all the defensive improvement they had so far made this season with Edwards. Massive doglegs opened up huge gaps that Scotland for once had the composure to use.
Dave
ps - just compare Parkes' tackle made on Tuilagi - it is much worse in terms of height and lack of mitigation than Tuilagi's on North. Much worse. But no sanction whatsoever, presumably because there was an attempt to wrap? No consistency.
Last edited by sweets; 9th March 2020 at 11:55. Reason: add ps
All games have been postponed. Possibly until end of October
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
The Telegraph says:
12:28pm
Update from the meeting between the government and sporting bodies:
Rugby Football Union chief executive Bill Sweeney spoke to media as he left the meeting with other governing bodies and broadcasters in London.
He said there was "no medical rationale" for cancelling matches or playing them behind closed doors as things stood.
"It was a very good meeting - the start of dialogue together," he said.
"There was no medical rationale for cancelling events or (playing them) behind closed doors yet, but clearly it is a moving situation so we'll keep talking and go from there."
Asked whether the Wales versus Scotland Six Nations match would go ahead this weekend, Sweeney added: "I think it looks good, I don't see any reason why that would not proceed.
"The basic message coming out of today is let's not panic, let's monitor the situation and carry on as normal."
Sweeney also faced questions over when the Italy versus England game, which had been due to take place on Saturday, would now be played.
"We are working on that right now. We are working with the Six Nations and the Italian federation and we'll find a date that works for both teams," he said.
Agreed, but big enough to accept my mistake.Fighting talk from the man who doesn't even know what week it is.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Simply because Wales lost to France, lost to Ireland and were 17 points down against England, until England were reduced to 13 men.
i do however think that a 15 man Wales will beat a 15 man Scotland in Cardiff, but it should be a good one.
Last edited by Andyg; 9th March 2020 at 16:27.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Two extremely tough away fixtures lost narrowly and one narrow loss at home. The Ireland and France games were both ones that could have easily gone the other way with a bit of rub of the green in Wales’s favour. The England game was beyond Wales but do you really expect to lose to anyone at HQ ? If England can’t control their discipline better it’s any wonder you spaffed a much bigger winning margin up the wall another 5 minutes and it would have been squeaky bum time.
If you say so.
It will still be an interesting game in Cardiff assuming it still goes ahead.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
great synopsis on many points.
Are you sure? The RBS Six Nations website shows the Wales v Scotland match as still on at the moment.
It was announced on the beeb. They may have extrapolated.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Lawes not guilty
Tuilagi four weeks
Marler ten weeks
Looks about right, Marler is a disgrace.
Haouas 3 weeks
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Wales - Scotland off now
For what appears to have been the worst offence.
Joe Marler is a top bloke, a larger than life character, and very funny. His "interaction" with Alun-Wyn appears to have been a case of Joe having a laugh, which has backfired on him. The two of them have been on Lions tours together, and know each other well, which is probably an unfortunate phrase in the circumstances. There was certainly no malice intended, but rules are rules.
At least there's no prospect of him being required by England during his 10-week ban - Eddie Jones persuaded Joe to postpone his retirement plans because he's one of the best props that England have had in recent years, and a great team man. His presence, and mastery of the "black arts" of the front row were an important factor in England's World Cup performance.
David Flatman, one of the better commentator/summarisers was full of praise for Tuilagi's performance against Wales, describing him as "an absolute wrecking ball, undefendable". In the absence of Billy Vunipola England were short of a big ball-carrier, and Manu was immense. The tackle on North was unfortunate, because North had already had his momentum slowed by Henry Slade, and Manu was coming in hot, and couldn't change his trajectory. I think that, because of his history, referees are subconsciously somewhat protective towards North, as they wouldn't want anything serious happening to him "on their watch".
England are a far better side with Joe Marler and Manu Tuilagi than without. Luckily, they won't need them in the next few weeks. If we play Italy, which seems very unlikely, Ellis Genge and either Henry Slade or Jonathan Joseph will be available. On the other hand, Harlequins and Leicester both need them badly, which is a shame, although Leicester will be spared the risk of relegation, and probably just as well, as Jonny May will be out for a while with a fractured cheekbone.
It's a tough game. But the bans handed out somehow seem inappropriate, with the player who punched an opposing player at a ruck given the shortest ban. Which doesn't make sense.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
Well said. My thoughts entirely.....
Ditto. 3 weeks for throwing a right hook (that connected) vs 4 weeks for very slightly mistimed tackle.
As for Marler’s 10 weeks - absolute joke!
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Totally agree, harsh bans that seem disproportionate.
It's funny but when it's the local who's handed the lightest ban it never occurred that it could be seen as biased from the other side of the Channel.
In this case, France apparently argued that Nick Haining had previously touch the French prop in the eyes area. France had requested him to be cited and he wasn't. So possibly a deal was struck.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
It seems very odd to me that Marler is banned because of Wynn Jones' tackle.
Do you have a link?
BTW It’s not bias. It’s a desire for consistency and common sense. The French No3 threw a punch which hit the side of the players head. If the Welsh player had moved slightly it could have connected with the eye socket very bad, it could have broken his jaw, very bad, caused concussion, alas very bad. It was also very bad because he showed actual intent to do damage. So actually worse than Manu tackle or any number of tip tackles which typically get a 7 week ban, because they are often not undertaken with intent.
If the RFU really want to reduce this sort of behaviour then it should be penalised correctly. They also need to work out offences which are dangerous and accidental and those which are just dangerous and thuggish. Your mans actions fail into the second category. Not biased, just exactly what it was.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The link I have is in French, as somehow it didn’t receive much attention in the press here. Therefore nothing was said of what lead to the punch.
Do not misunderstand my position: a punch was a normal thing in my days, it is unacceptable now.
However when a player suddenly punches another, you have to look at what happened beforehand, and what the ref didn’t see.
He is a young, inexperienced player and didn’t handle the provocation, something Jones handled perfectly.
Tuilagi, on the other hand, was not provoked but went into a tackle without wrapping his hands. It is deliberate. What was probably not deliberate is that he made contact with North’s head. That illustrates the consequences of a deliberate illegal action can have even without the intent.
I wasn’t a fly on the wall during the hearings so do not know what motivated the sentences. Either they are always balanced and all is good, or they’re not and I believe France and Italy have quite a few more chips to cash in before the balance is restored.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Hilarious
Thats convenient, but OK. Odd considering the bastions of the free press (the BBC, Guardian, etc failed to mention it), just as it is that you are focusing on Manu tackle which is open to opinions, rather than the French No3 whose actions aren’t - and you accuse others of bias
However in an effort to educate, https://www.ruck.co.uk/watch-footage...-manu-tuilagi/. You should also have another a look at Manu height, head position. Most importantly look at Manu right arm and Norths left hand. Perhaps this is why it looked like a possible no arms tackle - because North was push Manu’s arm away.
Now compare this with Parkes tackle on Manu earlier in the match.
It’s also interesting you are now suggesting considering mitigating foul play by investigating what happened before the event. A new and novel departure. I haven’t heard you suggest this before. Does that mean that the penalty Farrell gave away in the first half for pushing a player should be over turned because he was kicked in the face the moments that preceded it? Perhaps you failed to spot that.
Finally it’s great to hear that young and experienced plays should expect a lesser sentence for deliberate violent foul actions, than seasoned players involved in “accidental” foul play. I wasn’t aware that the rules were applied depending on age, experience, previous caps, time spend playing in the national squad - but then why should have I, because they don’t.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nothing convenient about this, apart from your usual selective understanding. Please show me any English press which analysed the incident. I couldn’t find any. You may be able to use google to translate this: https://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actuali...maines/1118674Thats convenient, but OK. Odd considering the bastions of the free press (the BBC, Guardian, etc failed to mention it), just as it is that you are focusing on Manu tackle which is open to opinions, rather than the French No3 whose actions aren’t - and you accuse others of bias
For the rest I cannot really be bothered. It seemed to me Tuilagi’s tackle was a red when I saw North’s head swing back. The slow motion showed confirmed it to me but again my opinion is worth nothing. It did confirm it to the ref who gave a red card. Apparently the hearing found it convincing enough to give a reasonably mild ban. The rest doesn’t bother me, although I wonder how smug Marler feels now, since he seemed quite please with himself after the Jones incident. Of all 3 citations I would happily agree it was the least dangerous of all 3, yet he got by far the heaviest punishment. Just how things go.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Add Six Nations to the 'crown jewels'
The Six Nations should be added to the government’s list of “crown jewels” to ensure it remains on free-to-air television according to the digital, culture, media and sport committee.
The DCMS has made the request because the Six Nations Council had not given a clear answer as to whether it had held discussions with the government over moving the competition from category B to A, which would guarantee it remained free-to-air...
There are problems with the current interpretstion of the laws in regard to these tackles.
The aim is to protect the players from head impacts. This was explicitly made clear in bringing in the new tackle area rules and offence definitions.
Tuilagi's tackle was low, but made impact to the head due to reducing height.
The lact of wrap was poor but has no bearing on the impact to the head. If he had wrapped his arm round North, it would have been a mitiagted tackle and no offence - even though there was head impact.
So, as I explained before, it seems that the position of the arm, which has no bearing on the head impact, makes the difference, now including a ban.
Now look at Parkes' earlier tackle on Tuilagi.
It was at full height, with the top of Parkes' head impacting directly onto the fornt quarter of Tuilagi's head. No drop in height from either player, no mitigation whatsoever.
But because he wrapped with arms, he was not even cited, despite this tackle having a greater impact on the head of the tackled player.
It makes no sense at all.
And the direct comparison between a 10 week ban for Marler's tickle, with a clear smile on his face and no injury, compared to 3 weeks for an all-out punch to the head, is a total joke.
Indefensible
For those interested the google translation. VVVVVV
Firstly the claim that he had been hit in the head prior to throwing the punch is unsubstantiated. No evidence at all except the word of the guilty party,
Secondly if Haining was guilty then why wasn’t he cited by the French / The ref and why wasn’t he asked to attend.
Finally Revenge is NOT a valid excuse, especially when it’s carried out on someone else.
Piss poor argument I’m afraid.
Expelled shortly before half-time for a punch in the face of flanker Jamie Ritchie Sunday during the defeat in Scotland (17-28), Mohamed Haouas was tried this Wednesday by the disciplinary committee of the Six Nations Tournament, at London. The right pillar of the MHR, sanctioned for three weeks, is doing very well. According to the texts, Haouas risked a suspension ranging from 2 to 52 weeks.The management of the XV of France intended to highlight the fact that his pillar, before his gesture, had been hit in the face, and perhaps in the eye area, by Scottish number 8 Nick Haining. In addition, we also learned, from a British source, that Nick Haining, despite the citation issued by French management, did not appear before the jury and will therefore be able to officiate this weekend against Wales.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
It's not a direct comparison though, is it?
Law 9 deals with Foul Play. Marler wasn't charged under Law 9.11 to 9.26 which deals with Dangerous Play, unlike Tuilagi & Haouas.
He was cited under Law 9.27 Misconduct, which states, 'A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship.' He's not been banned for the force of his 'tickle', he's been banned for an act of Foul Play that's (in that age-old phrase) 'brought the game into disrepute'.
BTW, Ugo Monye in the Guardian doesn't seem to understand the difference either.
'It’s important for me to acknowledge that I’ve known Joe for nearly 20 years, but my overriding view of the matter is that I don’t have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. In this day and age it seems that you either have to be outraged by what Joe did or laud him. There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground any more. The social media age that we live in means you have to be at one extreme or another but with regards to this incident I’m somewhere in between. I’m not applauding Joe and I’m not patting him on the back for it.
He’s terrific bloke, a unique character and a hugely unique sense of humour. Loads of people have appreciated that and lauded him for it but times he can overstep the mark and get it wrong. In that situation he’s got it wrong but was there any malice? Any intent to hurt or harm Alun Wyn Jones? Absolutely not. In his mind he’s being playful, childish, petulant – whatever you want to call it. He’s brought a spark to a rugby world that is forever getting sanitised but that’s not to condone in any way what he did.'
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...without-malice
______
Jim.
Another, more detailed:
https://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/6-nat...52/story.shtml
At the end of the day it’s water under the bridge: it’s done and no screaming or toy throwing will change anything.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I think that is a very naiive position.
Both (in fact all) are bans handed down to international players playing in the same competition, and whose offences occured on the same day.
All were considered after the fact in light of all the evidence to hand, rather than in the heat of the game.
All such sanctions are intended to make an example of the perpetrator, punish them individually, and in the context of their team, and also discourage further incidents of a similar nature.
They are totally comparable, even if governed under differing laws of the game.
If it could be only one, which would you prefer to be expunged from the game?
Some misguided and inappropriate gamesmanship that has no potential to injur or harm
or
A player losing their temper totally and lashing out with a powerful punch to the jaw, a punch 100% intended to injure?
Surely the latter. And yet the sentence is more than 3 times harsher for the former offence. It makes no sense whatsoever.
True, but having translated the article, all I can say is that it’s utter cobblers. Poor old Momo targeted by the pesky Scots causing him to punch someone in the face. Boo hoo. No mention that these were exactly the same tactics employed by France (and every other nation). It reads like an excuse and it’s a very poor one.Another, more detailed:
https://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/6-nat...52/story.shtml
At the end of the day it’s water under the bridge: it’s done and no screaming or toy throwing will change anything.
The fact remains that he got a 3 week ban for punching someone in the face, where as Marler got 10 for having a bit of a laugh at the expense of Jones.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The offences aren't comparable because one action was premeditated & one wasn't.
Marler didn't want to injure or harm: he wanted to provoke a (likely physical) reaction from AWJ which would lead to a yellow or red card. He must have thought about doing it before he did. He must have considered that he would get away with it should AWJ (or others) react. Why else touch his opponent's genitals during a break in the game? What other possible (non-sexual) reason would there be? He got a low-end twelve weeks, reduced to nine because of mitigation & remorse, but then had a week added because of his recent disciplinary record.
Haouas struck out during a stramash involving both teams. No premeditation, he just lost his head, presumably defending his team-mate. He got six weeks, reduced to three for mitigating circumstances & his youth.
As for which offence I would prefer to be expunged: you'll never rid the game of a player striking another. It's the nature of contact sport that it will occur. As to 'misguided & inappropriate gamesmanship' of the type that Marler was sanctioned for: the sooner it's removed from the game the better.
Last edited by jwg663; 15th March 2020 at 16:15.
______
Jim.
It can be easily expunged, just stop picking him, he’s the only player thick enough to think it’s amusing, what is he six years old or a professional sportsman ? complete sledge.
Posting Permissions
