General Rugby Discussion

Hagz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

For those who said things like ruining a game. Not a hope. And who cares. Should red cards not be given when deserved?

Well I'm of the opinion that reds should be reserved for situations of malice or extreme recklessness because of the effect red cards have in the sport of rugby. If there's any shred of doubt I'd always prefer the officials to give yellow instead. But I'm well aware that that is not a popular opinion.

errlloyd

I don't think your definition is wrong Hagz, I'd says it was pretty extremely reckless though?

CatFromHue

Hagz wrote: »

Well I'm of the opinion that reds should be reserved for situations of malice or extreme recklessness because of the effect red cards have in the sport of rugby. If there's any shred of doubt I'd always prefer the officials to give yellow instead. But I'm well aware that that is not a popular opinion.

Is what happened not extreme recklessness or malice, I mean he did knee/kick a guy on the head

The Lost Sheep

Hagz wrote: »

Well I'm of the opinion that reds should be reserved for situations of malice or extreme recklessness because of the effect red cards have in the sport of rugby. If there's any shred of doubt I'd always prefer the officials to give yellow instead. But I'm well aware that that is not a popular opinion.

I completely disagree with that. It was reckless. He didn't need to do what he did.
It was dangerous play. There wasn't any way it wasn't a red. It was stupid and needless. Is what happened here not extreme recklessness?

Hagz

No I don't think it was extremely reckless, clearly on my own with that though.

I've always felt that 9 times out of 10 the red card is disproportionate to the crime in rugby. Unless the offending team has racked up a huge lead or unless there's only a quarter of the game to go, the red card will very likely result in a loss. Should the Wasps have been punished with a defeat because of that moment of recklessness from Nathan Hughes? I've always championed for a system whereby the player is not allowed return but after 10 minutes a substitution can be brought on.

Morf

Hagz wrote: »

No I don't think it was extremely reckless, clearly on my own with that though.

I've always felt that 9 times out of 10 the red card is disproportionate to the crime in rugby. Unless the offending team has racked up a huge lead or unless there's only a quarter of the game to go, the red card will very likely result in a loss. Should the Wasps have been punished with a defeat because of that moment of recklessness from Nathan Hughes? I've always championed for a system whereby the player is not allowed return but after 10 minutes a substitution can be brought on.

There needs to be a deterrent to the kinds of reckless or violent behaviour suggested. I don't think what you're advocating is enough of one. It shouldn't be just a personal punishment ie suspension/fine. There should be a team punishment to put the onus on the team as a unit to maintain the safety of the opposing team (and their own during lineouts for example) within the laws of the game.

cunnifferous

Worry for George North's health at this stage. You see it with boxers that the more they knocked out the easier it is the subsequent time for them to be knocked out. Seems like the brain is getting more damaged and can sustain less impact each time.

total former

Just watched it there, that's a red card every time, hefty suspension too. Good refereeing.

The Lost Sheep

Hagz wrote: »

No I don't think it was extremely reckless, clearly on my own with that though.

I've always felt that 9 times out of 10 the red card is disproportionate to the crime in rugby. Unless the offending team has racked up a huge lead or unless there's only a quarter of the game to go, the red card will very likely result in a loss. Should the Wasps have been punished with a defeat because of that moment of recklessness from Nathan Hughes? I've always championed for a system whereby the player is not allowed return but after 10 minutes a substitution can be brought on.

And I totally disagree with that. A team who get a red card in a lot of cases deserve to be sufficiently punished and what you suggest isn't good enough. The consequences of what happens to a team in relation to result/outcome a game because a player decides to commit an offence outside of the laws of the game is irrelevant.
Wasps weren't punished with defeat because Hughes acted recklessly.
That system you propose is open to abuse and would be worse for the sport

Bridge93

Apparently England’s fourth choice scrum-half told number five to pipe down last night
http://jrnl.ie/2018573

Dickson is a bit of twat but this is gas.

Hagz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

That system you propose is open to abuse and would be worse for the sport

Just out of interest, how could it be abused?

thomond2006

Hagz wrote: »

Just out of interest, how could it be abused?

I suppose 'characters' like Delon Armitage or Liam Williams would be handing out more cheap shots if they aren't harshly punished?

Hagz

thomond2006 wrote: »

I suppose 'characters' like Delon Armitage or Liam Williams would be handing out more cheap shots if they aren't harshly punished?

But citing and bans would still apply and they still wouldn't be allowed return to the field.

I just think there's something wrong with the system when a team is resigned to a loss because an individual does something dangerous accidentally. If there's intent, fair enough.

The Lost Sheep

Hagz wrote: »

Just out of interest, how could it be abused?

Players could still hand out cheap shots, take punishment themselves but team isn't punished.

Hagz wrote: »

But citing and bans would still apply and they still wouldn't be allowed return to the field.

I just think there's something wrong with the system when a team is resigned to a loss because an individual does something dangerous accidentally. If there's intent, fair enough.

Citing and Bans would apply but team isn't punished for act.
A team isn't resigned to a loss with a red card. I think your system is completely open to more foul play being committed etc and just doesn't help the sport

Morf

Hagz wrote: »

But citing and bans would still apply and they still wouldn't be allowed return to the field.

I just think there's something wrong with the system when a team is resigned to a loss because an individual does something dangerous accidentally. If there's intent, fair enough.

Safety of the players is paramount. Not the spectacle of the game.

12 v 15 and a tonking is very very very much preferable to a serious and possibly preventable injury.

Hagz

Morf wrote: »

Safety of the players is paramount. Not the spectacle of the game.

12 v 15 and a tonking is very very very much preferable to a serious and possibly preventable injury.

Of course safety of the players is paramount, I never said anything to the contrary or suggested anything that would put players in further harms way. The idea that players would be more inclined to intentionally harm another player if they new it wouldn't affect the outcome of the game as much is an obscure suggestion. Red cards don't deter unintentional actions. Unintentional actions weren't intended, and so therefore any precedent set down or consequences aren't considered in the first place. Does that mean unintentional acts of dangerous play should go unpunished? No, of course not. But in a physical and dangerous sport such as rugby, an incident of accidental dangerous play shouldn't decide the outcome of the match. At this stage I've said my piece though. I don't have anything else to contribute on the matter.

errlloyd

I get what Hagz is saying, the proportionality is a bit mental. How many of us have seen a team winning after getting a first half red card? It basically guarantees the other team a win - which is hilariously harsh in some cases. Chances are it cost Ulster a H/Cup final, and Wales a WC final. Now that is definitely disproportional to the offenses committed by Payne and Warburton.

That said, I do believe the fundamental difference between a red and yellow card is that a red card is meant to punish the team, and a yellow punish a player. Punishing the team is important, because it is way more effective than punishing players. So I don't think ten minutes and replaced is a good enough punishment. I think 20 minutes and replaced perhaps would be a better balance?

sydthebeat

I don't believe in unintentional actions.

Players have a duty of care to other players and have to amend their actions as such. If they do not, I don't believe they can claim "not intentional" as an excuse.

awec

The thing about this case for me is there is no legal move that you can claim just went wrong or was mistimed. What was he doing with his feet?

First time I'd seen the incident, that is a red all day long for me. It's similar enough to the Luke Marshall one the other week imo, I think they both went for the ball but in a fairly wreckless and quite frankly idiotic manner.

I think the ref has it absolutely right also and the TMO is trying to steer him away from a red when he suggests watching it in real time again. That isn't what the TMO is there for surely?

molloyjh

errlloyd wrote: »

I get what Hagz is saying, the proportionality is a bit mental. How many of us have seen a team winning after getting a first half red card? It basically guarantees the other team a win - which is hilariously harsh in some cases. Chances are it cost Ulster a H/Cup final, and Wales a WC final. Now that is definitely disproportional to the offenses committed by Payne and Warburton.

That said, I do believe the fundamental difference between a red and yellow card is that a red card is meant to punish the team, and a yellow punish a player. Punishing the team is important, because it is way more effective than punishing players. So I don't think ten minutes and replaced is a good enough punishment. I think 20 minutes and replaced perhaps would be a better balance?

I can't agree with this. In this particular case NH lost Warburton for the full game and you're saying that Wasps shouldn't have to deal with any match long consequences despite their man committing the offence when NH have to when it was their man that was injured? That's just wrong.

If a teams out-half and place kicker have a total mare that almost guarantees a loss as well. Should we start compensating for that? This is a team sport. What one player does affects the team. That's the way of it. The team has to carry the can for the actions of the individuals there-in. And if there's any way that will ensure we minimise this kind of thing it's by enforcing that.

Did North play on out of interest? I really hope not.

Buer

No, went off straight after. Should probably be stood down for the season at this point but I doubt he will be.

thomond2006

Speaking of injured players, Manu Tuilagi has been ruled out for the rest of the season. Idle speculation but could his career be in jeopardy? He's had a lot of injuries and only turns 24 in May.

thomond2006

thomond2006 wrote: »

Speaking of injured players, Manu Tuilagi has been ruled out for the rest of the season. Idle speculation but could his career be in jeopardy? He's had a lot of injuries and only turns 24 in May.

God, seems to be one thing after another with him.

I don't think it's fair to talk about his career. He's had a bicep, pectoral and now groin problem so they seem unrelated. He's a savage player, hope to see him back playing ASAP.

Tox56

Buer wrote: »

No, went off straight after. Should probably be stood down for the season at this point but I doubt he will be.

Can't believe I saw something to the effect of 'We will do everything we can for George's safety but he should be ok to play next week'

WTF?! I agree he should get the sexton treatment

molloyjh

Tox56 wrote: »

Can't believe I saw something to the effect of 'We will do everything we can for George's safety but he should be ok to play next week'

WTF?! I agree he should get the sexton treatment

The World Rugby concussion advisor has said he shouldn't play again this season. If NH ignore that expect an inquiry. I'd guess they won't and he'll get the Sexton treatment as well. It's not worth their while doing otherwise.

CatFromHue

Bad news, after losing to Bath today, London Welsh have been officially relegated.

They're 25 points behind Newcastle with only 4 games to go

bilston

CatFromHue wrote: »

Bad news, after losing to Bath today, London Welsh have been officially relegated.

They're 25 points behind Newcastle with only 4 games to go

Not sure I would call it bad news. They and the Premiership are better off without each other.

bilston

Tox56 wrote: »

Can't believe I saw something to the effect of 'We will do everything we can for George's safety but he should be ok to play next week'

WTF?! I agree he should get the sexton treatment

Madness if true. North at the very least should be taking a few weeks off and preferably the rest of the season. I'm not suggesting Northampton don't have his best interests at heart but he is their star player who they are undoubtedly paying a very large salary to so you can't help but be a bit cynical about it.

That said all that didn't stop Racing resting Sexton...or was that a Top 14 ruling?

molloyjh

bilston wrote: »

Madness if true. North at the very least should be taking a few weeks off and preferably the rest of the season. I'm not suggesting Northampton don't have his best interests at heart but he is their star player who they are undoubtedly paying a very large salary to so you can't help but be a bit cynical about it.

That said all that didn't stop Racing resting Sexton...or was that a Top 14 ruling?

That was a Top14 thing.

thomond2006

Gael Fickou out for 2-3 months. There was a suggestion it could have been worse meaning no RWC.

CatFromHue

bilston wrote: »

Madness if true. North at the very least should be taking a few weeks off and preferably the rest of the season. I'm not suggesting Northampton don't have his best interests at heart but he is their star player who they are undoubtedly paying a very large salary to so you can't help but be a bit cynical about it.

That said all that didn't stop Racing resting Sexton...or was that a Top 14 ruling?

I thought Racing sent him to a specialist who recommended the extended break.

total former

CatFromHue wrote: »

I thought Racing sent him to a specialist who recommended the extended break.

No mandatory thing for top 14.

The Lost Sheep

CatFromHue wrote: »

I thought Racing sent him to a specialist who recommended the extended break.

No there is a concussion protocol that was put in place by World Rugby and the LNR (Ligue Nationale de Rugby); the protocol states that after suffering four instances of concussion in a year, a player must observe an obligatory stand-down period of 12 weeks.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/irish/2014/1219/668021-four-concussions-cause-sexton-medical-ban/

French docs then had to clear JS to play after 12 weeks were up

Tox56

bilston wrote: »

Madness if true. North at the very least should be taking a few weeks off and preferably the rest of the season. I'm not suggesting Northampton don't have his best interests at heart but he is their star player who they are undoubtedly paying a very large salary to so you can't help but be a bit cynical about it.

That said all that didn't stop Racing resting Sexton...or was that a Top 14 ruling?

The quote was from Mallinder

"He clearly took a bang straight to the head but he came round and he sat up in the changing room and managed to have a little sing-song.
"We'll look after him and hopefully he'll be okay next weekend."

In fairness it was straight after the game and it could have just been a throwaway comment, still thought it was a stupid thing to say considering how many bad head knocks hes taken recently

irishbucsfan

Mallinder says a lot of stupid things, but that's probably one of the reasons he's a rugby coach rather than a qualified doctor.

I'm sure North will have been tested for symptoms already. If he's asymptomatic then that's great.

Buer

Seems to be more under the radar but Mike Brown was removed from Quins duty prior to the weekend too when symptoms of his concussion reoccurred. He's gone on holiday to get away for a few days.

Clearlier

Only getting around to seeing the George North incident in full now and what shocked me the most was how easily he was knocked out. Whatever the argument about whether it was intentional or not he had clearly decelerated quite a bit by the time that he hit North and to my untrained eye it's not the kind of knock to the head that I'd expect to see someone knocked out by. The time that POC got BOD in the head was a proper hit to the head. This was a much lighter blow and it makes me wonder whether he has actually recovered from the knocks to the head over the 6 nations.

total former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Mallinder says a lot of stupid things, but that's probably one of the reasons he's a rugby coach rather than a qualified doctor.

I'm sure North will have been tested for symptoms already. If he's asymptomatic then that's great.

In fairness all he said was "hopefully" he'd be fit. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Morf

Clearlier wrote: »

Only getting around to seeing the George North incident in full now and what shocked me the most was how easily he was knocked out. Whatever the argument about whether it was intentional or not he had clearly decelerated quite a bit by the time that he hit North and to my untrained eye it's not the kind of knock to the head that I'd expect to see someone knocked out by. The time that POC got BOD in the head was a proper hit to the head. This was a much lighter blow and it makes me wonder whether he has actually recovered from the knocks to the head over the 6 nations.

It's fairly well documented that sufferers of one or more concussion injuries can be far more susceptible to further concussion injuries. Look up the Shontayne Hape article for a vivid illustration of this.

CatFromHue

I thought the whack North got would be enough to knock anyone out whether they'd a history of concussion or not.

Actually I'm kinda surprised he didn't end up with a broken jaw

Tox56

total former wrote: »

In fairness all he said was "hopefully" he'd be fit. I don't see anything wrong with that.

It would be like saying that about a player with a broken leg though, as in given his history it should just be obvious/a formality that he's not playing again for a few weeks at the least. I'm not blaming mallinder personally as much as it shows up a lot of the attitude regarding concussion still in the game

Clearlier

Morf wrote: »

It's fairly well documented that sufferers of one or more concussion injuries can be far more susceptible to further concussion injuries. Look up the Shontayne Hape article for a vivid illustration of this.

It is (Jackman talks about it too in his book) and I wondered if it affected BOD towards the end of his career. He seemed to pick up concussions a bit too easily even allowing for the greater size and power of the players he was facing compared to earlier in his career.

CatFromHue wrote: »

I thought the whack North got would be enough to knock anyone out whether they'd a history of concussion or not.

Actually I'm kinda surprised he didn't end up with a broken jaw

I'd agree except for the deceleration of Hughes just before he hit him. For my money (although I don't think that it's objectively provable either way) it was intentional and the intent was to scare him not to do any serious damage. I saw it as a cheap shot similar to that of Liam Williams on Paddy Jackson in last years 6 nations but with the added maliciousness of targeting the head of someone with a recent history of concussion.

total former

Tox56 wrote: »

It would be like saying that about a player with a broken leg though, as in given his history it should just be obvious/a formality that he's not playing again for a few weeks at the least. I'm not blaming mallinder personally as much as it shows up a lot of the attitude regarding concussion still in the game

Yeah you're right. Mick Kearney said something similar about Rory Best soon after the Italy game this season, that he would be OK for France, and it didn't sit well with me at all.

razorblunt

Buer wrote: »

Seems to be more under the radar but Mike Brown was removed from Quins duty prior to the weekend too when symptoms of his concussion reoccurred. He's gone on holiday to get away for a few days.

I was wondering why he wasn't there but showed up on the Tour de Flats, Land Rover event.

.ak

Haha gas.

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/03/brilliant-act-of-cheating-from-leandro.html?m=1

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

Haha gas.

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/03/brilliant-act-of-cheating-from-leandro.html?m=1

How is that not a card?

.ak

Well I don't know about red card, but it's unsporting anyway so atleast a penalty. Very funny though.

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

Well I don't know about red card, but it's unsporting anyway so atleast a penalty. Very funny though.

Funny but also totally moronic. He knew what he was doing and that it would be caught on camera, if not by the officials.