Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
The SRU report sounds like we may appeal.
Not a terrible course of action.
Not a terrible course of action.
RWC QF 4 AUS v SCO (Twickenham) 19th Oct 0200 AEDT
- Thread starter jollyswagman
- Start date
- Status
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
Nothing to lose
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
Has anyone seen video footage of the Scottish incidents? I didn't see it live.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Not really: SOB = striking, no real danger to the guy he struck so at the lower end of the foul play spectrum. Ford + Gray = dangerous tackle, potentially catastrophic to guy on the receiving end so somewhat further up the spectrum.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
One incident, two guys involved hence heard together. Pretty much they grabbed a leg each & rolled him out've a ruck, he landed badly (neck ~45 degrees to shoulders). Highlander35 posted the vid: page 9, post #165. IMO 3 weeks isn't excessive.
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
A no brainer. Sure to appeal. Players being cited or not on the opinion of one man has to end, it should be done by a panel of 5/7/9 who cover every round of games.
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
Can't agree, the Scottish lads dealt with the fella independently and should not have been judged together. I don't want Scotland to win anything but that is a poor decision from the Independent Australian Citing commissioner to refer the incident.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Re:- Ford V Gray incident. That is just terrible technique from them. There is no doubt in it really. The mechanics of the situation contributed for sure as Samoa 7 (Lam?) has his weight brace forward into the contact, but Gray & Ford chose to attack the legs and didn't force him back, but took the "easy" option and forced him to ground essentially dumping him on his head. I don't know what the grounds of the Scottish appeal could be.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Really? In contact together each lift a leg and each is still in contact with Lam? when his head impacts the ground.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
As did pocock & giteau. I reckon all 3 will be given the week off to heal. Right move.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Yes but the Independent English Judicial Officer could've thrown the citing out or given them a one week ban instead. But didn't. Kinda suggests he thought there was something in it, dunnit?
Also if it's just Ford or just Gray in the clean out there's probably little or no risk/ harm to Lam but them acting together (or at least simultaneously) causes the risk/ harm therefore they have to be judged together IMO (but not necessarily punished the same).
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
When was the last time a citing was thrown out? A player is cited or not, if he is cited he pleads guilty, says sorry and takes his ban. It takes four or five hours so the legal teams can charge by the hour and then have a bloody good dinner. It is disgraceful and the Scots should challenge it to bollix, especially relative to Pocock, Carter etc who weren't cited at all, on the whim of citing commissioners, whose decision can't be challenged.
the plastic paddy
John Solomon (38)
Not even close to being as bad as another double team spearing that went uncited years ago.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
The worst bit about it that we've already lost a lock and a hooker. A halfback, a winger, a backrower, a loosehead, that would have been fine.
But having lost McInally a week before the tournament and Gilchrist after the first 2 games, the suspensions really hurt.
But having lost McInally a week before the tournament and Gilchrist after the first 2 games, the suspensions really hurt.
This is the crux of it. If only one of them did what they did, it's a pretty normal cleanout and the Samoan player just gets rolled over and there is nothing dangerous about it.
When they both do it, there is nowhere for the Samoan player to go except up and over onto his head.
It was dangerous and I don't think there is any surprise they've been suspended.
I agree that the process needs to change. The decision by the citing commissioner is easily the most important. They should have a panel looking at potential citings rather than a single person.
Relatively, the judiciary officer is working within some pretty narrow guidelines and the outcome from this point is likely to be fairly similar regardless.
In this situation I certainly think the two Scottish players should have been cited. Their actions were pretty obviously within the scope of a dangerous lifting tackle.
It's pointless referring back to that. Everyone acknowledges that was a horrendous incident that should have received a long suspension. If it happened today it almost certainly would do.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Anyway, thank God we've not got Barnes. He's a good ref, but always has "poor" games with us,
jollyswagman
Ron Walden (29)
Hey BH......does this mean Quade can get a run? 
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Pretty sure Ford & Gray defended the charge. And again, IJO can impose any sanction (including none) he sees fit. Can't really see any basis for an appeal & citing someone else's non-citing won't work cos it's irrelevant (but Pocock's possibly would be if SOB were to appeal).
Was wondering when that'd be dragged out........
OK, two reasons Umaga & Mealamu weren't cited:
1. What they did met the definition of a clean out as it was then written. Lots of people thought it was bonkers & that someone was gonna get seriously hurt but in terms of the Laws as they then existed, TU & KM were within there rights to remove BOD from the ruck in the manner they did.
2. What they weren't entitled to do, obviously, was drop BOD on his head/ neck. This only happened cos the idiot AR started screaming "2 Black let him go, let him go" & waving his flag around. Hence KM let him go & instead of BOD landing on his back he ended up on his head/ neck. Had the matter gone to a hearing the AB would've called the AR as a witness. As much as anything IRB bailed on a citing to save themselves the embarrassment of their official being culpable for the injury to BOD.
Note also that in 2005 there was no such thing as a lifting tackle in Law & there's still no such thing as a spear tackle.
- Status