• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

RWC QF 4 AUS v SCO (Twickenham) 19th Oct 0200 AEDT

Status
Not open for further replies.

jollyswagman

Ron Walden (29)
......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.

Seriously WO?......The AR is to blame? :confused:
 

Joeleee

Ted Fahey (11)
I think getting a combined six week ban is a bit rough for that. What's done is done though, and I can't see them getting a reduction on appeal.

I do think however, that players need to be treated more harshly on the field, and the off field punishments should be reduced. I disagree with the "but the games will be ruined" line, as I think it's fair to say that this game has been ruined by Scotland losing two starters. Potentially missing a game or two in the judiciary lottery might make attempting these tackles worth it, but an on field yellow or red will really make players think twice.

PS, obviously this shouldn't be started right now, but I would like to see harsher on field penalties in the long run.
 

Highlander35

Steve Williams (59)
If we pull a ridiculous upset it would be better. If we don't, having Jonny and Ross playing for Glasgow and Edinburgh sooner will be better, especially for Edinburgh, as we should be ok with Peterson and Naka available after this week.
 

Cardiffblue

Jim Lenehan (48)
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.

I suppose so but from a public interest perspective it's totally screwed the QF and yes it was potentially dangerous but it wasn't intentional, just inept
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I suppose so but from a public interest perspective it's totally screwed the QF and yes it was potentially dangerous but it wasn't intentional, just inept

The sentence needs to be based on the potential seriousness if the injury not the interests of the public.

If the Samoan player was crippled due to this action, then I doubt you would be saying 3 weeks is harsh. That he wasn't was his good luck in this instance.
 

Cardiffblue

Jim Lenehan (48)
The sentence needs to be based on the potential seriousness if the injury not the interests of the public.

If the Samoan player was crippled due to this action, then I doubt you would be saying 3 weeks is harsh. That he wasn't was his good luck in this instance.

I don't want to debate this cos it's really beyond the control of any of us, but I think public interest certainly influenced the SOB outcome and I'm happy it did, otherwise the potential semi would be a farce. The decision on the two Scots should've taken intent into account and the outcome for the player. These two guys are not malicious thugs. Banning them will not make them do anything different next time. The tip was accidental
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
I don't want to debate this cos it's really beyond the control of any of us, but I think public interest certainly influenced the SOB outcome and I'm happy it did, otherwise the potential semi would be a farce. The decision on the two Scots should've taken intent into account and the outcome for the player. These two guys are not malicious thugs. Banning them will not make them do anything different next time. The tip was accidental
They almost certainly did take that into account (we will have to wait for the written statement).

You don't get mitigating weeks off and a low end charge if there's any malicious intent.

Still dangerous, careless and worthy of the ban they got. Also consistent with what we have seen for similar "tip tackles" this year.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I don't want to debate this cos it's really beyond the control of any of us, but I think public interest certainly influenced the SOB outcome and I'm happy it did, otherwise the potential semi would be a farce. The decision on the two Scots should've taken intent into account and the outcome for the player. These two guys are not malicious thugs.


It's about dangerous play. A punch to the stomach is going to be at the low end of a striking suspension and with a guilty plea is always likely to be one week.

Lifting tackles are far more dangerous and World Rugby treats them as such. There's a reason they add the (in my view ridiculous) deterrent weeks to the suspension.

As with all lifting tackles, there isn't intent to tip the player onto their head because they know they can't do that because they will be suspended. The intent is to lift the player off the ground and that is when the situation becomes dangerous and hard to control.
 

Cardiffblue

Jim Lenehan (48)
It's about dangerous play. A punch to the stomach is going to be at the low end of a striking suspension and with a guilty plea is always likely to be one week.

Lifting tackles are far more dangerous and World Rugby treats them as such. There's a reason they add the (in my view ridiculous) deterrent weeks to the suspension.

As with all lifting tackles, there isn't intent to tip the player onto their head because they know they can't do that because they will be suspended. The intent is to lift the player off the ground and that is when the situation becomes dangerous and hard to control.
You and Strewth are undoubtedly right it just sucks in terms of the QF. Scotland are certainly the weakest of the qualifiers and in with minor chance of a major upset one day. Now they have almost none. As long as you guys don't crow too much about the magnificent Australian win next week then life goes on
 

BDA

Jim Lenehan (48)
I don't know the Scottish team very well. How does the loss of Ford and Gray affect them and how do the replacements compare?
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I don't know the Scottish team very well. How does the loss of Ford and Gray affect them and how do the replacements compare?


They're both big losses because they already have injuries in those positions.

In regards to Ross Ford, it now means that instead of playing their 1st and 3rd hookers they now have their 3rd and 4th.

In relation to Jonny Gray, they'd already lost Gilchrist so they've got their 4th best lock starting next to Richie Gray and a essentially a backrower as the new reserve lock.
 

Highlander35

Steve Williams (59)
Fraser is ahead of McInally in terms of hooker stocks BH.

McInally was getting the bench spot prior to the WC because both Browny and Ford are 80 minute players, and McInally was an international Blindside before switching to Hooker in 2013.

He split his time between hooker and blindside about 70-30 last season for Edinburgh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top