Lions v New Zealand, 2nd Test, 1/7 8.35AM

Buer

I think even if a penalty was given he'd be in a better place. The fact that a guy was concussed and there was no sanction regardless of how soft the incident is does not bode well.

Hearing at 9am this morning so we'll know soon. SBW outcome due shortly too. His hearing started at 6am.

long_b

long_b wrote: »

Why does he wrao but then back off?
EDIT: point being made that he was trying to dislodge the ball.

Will make ****e of the last test as a contest if he's suspended.

Would his history come into it as a mitigating factor?
EDIT : He was also suspended during WC

This is SOB, the man who famously played 79:30 of a test against France when he should have been off for a swinging arm trying to decapitate the defenceless Pape. His history won't help.

In all seriousness, I didn't think there was much in it, but it was a swinging arm that resulted in a player being concussed, so who knows.

It's not even a swinging arm ffs it's a completely natural motion for a guy trying to latch onto the ball to hold the player up. There's no wind up.

He's going to be banned. The Lions have very little chance without him.

Shane Fierce Tinder

Shane Fierce Tinder wrote: »

It's not even a swinging arm ffs it's a completely natural motion for a guy trying to latch onto the ball to hold the player up. There's no wind up.

He's going to be banned. The Lions have very little chance without him.

If he is banned, he would have to be gutted. He would have missed possibly the 2 most important matches of his international career in the last couple of years due to suspension.

The Rape of Lucretia

He's gotta get a ban for that for me. It's in the range of lack if care rather than malicious intent, unlike the Pape case, and those ones can seem harsh. But the reality is swinging arm to head and concussion. No reprieve.

The Rape of Lucretia

Buer wrote: »

I honestly won't be shocked if he does get suspended as bans can be something of a lottery but

I thought they were pretty consistent really - within their own rules, and it with the rules themselves, and in addition, changing rules and guidelines, that we spectators sometimes find ourselves disagreeing. But that is because we differ with the authorities on what should and should not be sanctioned, or our in our guess before the judgement of what it will be. But to be fair, I dont think they are a lottery.

swiwi_

He shouldn't get a ban for that. In his favour is that we clearly see Naholo giving him what is known in the trade as a "camel bite".

But seriously that is a bit of a nothing and I hope SOB is available.

Burkie1203

Buer wrote: »

I think even if a penalty was given he'd be in a better place. The fact that a guy was concussed and there was no sanction regardless of how soft the incident is does not bode well.

Hearing at 9am this morning so we'll know soon. SBW outcome due shortly too. His hearing started at 6am.

Israel Dagg gave Stander a concussion last November and there was zero citing.

WR need to get some level of consistency going with this.

Buer

The Rape of Lucretia wrote:

I thought they were pretty consistent really - within their own rules, and it with the rules themselves, and in addition, changing rules and guidelines, that we spectators sometimes find ourselves disagreeing. But that is because we differ with the authorities on what should and should not be sanctioned, or our in our guess before the judgement of what it will be. But to be fair, I dont think they are a lottery.

There is a huge degree of inconsistency in what is cited and what relative bans are handed out. There is a disparity between hemispheres, countries and competitions.

For example, there was as much force and recklessness in Conor Murray's high tackle yesterday as there was in SOB's effort. Both a lot of nothing but Naholo was hugely unfortunate that he ended up concussed from such an innocuous incident.

The fact is there was one Lions action that genuinely should 100% be cited from yesterday and it has been completely overlooked.

How a commissioner can the Vunipola clear out less worthy of sanction is bewildering.

Sonny Bill gets 4 weeks

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/881418049647026177

Buer

Basil3 wrote:

Sonny Bill gets 4 weeks

Roughly what I expected. Can have no complaints and, if Watson failed his HIA, he'd have been looking at a few more weeks.

DDC1990

I expect a ban for SOB with the duty of care to players coming more and more to the fore. I think he was completely blind as to where his hand was going in and was really unlucky, but he's caught Naholo with enough force to knock him out.

I expect a 1 week ban after all is said and done.

Massive loss if he is gone. He's been the outstanding player on tour IMO.

.ak

Christ If SOB gets banned for that I'll be incensed. He's trying to hold the player up, aiming for the ball, he can't see the wingers head from that angle, he doesn't get a latch so it doesn't turn into a maul he disengages. Not a swinging arm at all. Not a red card.

If anything what he does to Retallik (neck roll) a moment later is worse!

.ak

.ak wrote: »

Christ I'd SOB gets banned for that I'll be incensed. He's trying to hold the player up, aiming for the ball, he can't see the wingers head from that angle, he doesn't get a latch so it doesn't turn into a maul he disengages. Not a swinging arm at all. Not a red card.

If anything what he does to Retallik (neck roll) a moment later is worse!

I really don't think he was trying to hold him up. He was going for a rip, but in reality, can he reach in past the other lions player and get a rip in? It was an extremely low percentage play, which wasn't really needed. Very unlucky, but wouldn't be surprised if he gets a ban due it not being a first offence.

.ak

Basil3 wrote: »

I really don't think he was trying to hold him up. He was going for a rip, but in reality, can he reach in past the other lions player and get a rip in? It was an extremely low percentage play, which wasn't really needed. Very unlucky, but wouldn't be surprised if he gets a ban due it not being a first offence.

For me he's trying to hold him up, it's a restart and one player is already trying to hold him up, based on SOBs body position (bent knees, straight back) he's trying to latch under the ball and hold him up to slow the ball down. He's not made a successful latch tho and I don't think he can see the players head so I really can't see how that's citable.

What Mako did was worse imo.

Richard Hillman

Hope SBW either clears off back to Rugby League, takes up boxing full-time or just gets brought somewhere to sort his head out. His mental issues have been glossed over for very long time.

Buer

I think he's absolutely trying to hold him up. Doesn't matter what he was trying to do though.

FrancieBrady

He's in there a long time, how long does it take?

Jump_In_Jack

Buer wrote: »

I think he's absolutely trying to hold him up. Doesn't matter what he was trying to do though.

He struck Naholo there, can see it clearly in the clip, 100% deserves a ban.
No attempt to "hold up", rather it was a strike to try to dislodge the ball and accidentally though recklessly resulted in a strike to the head.
Have to protect the players, don't want to see this type of foul go unpunished or it will creep into every maul.
The suspensions handed out are a lottery but unfortunately this should get minimum 2 weeks.

Stander to 6, Warburton to 7, any one of POM/Haskell/Tipuric on the bench.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He's in there a long time, how long does it take?

The record (set by Sean O'Brien) is set at 9 hours over two days.

Many of the numbers above are made up.

long_b

4 week ban received.
Odd that it's the same as SBW

Roger Hassenforder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_EqU1qxf_Q

Was there contact with Noholo and 23 (?) knee after O'Brien shoved him out of the way?

radharc

long_b wrote: »

4 week ban received.
Odd that it's the same as SBW

Source?

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_EqU1qxf_Q

Was there contact with Noholo and 23 (?) knee after O'Brien shoved him out of the way?

I suspect that may have been the damaging impact.

Buer

radharc wrote:

Source?

None. No way that hearing is done, dusted and press release in under two hours.

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I suspect that may have been the damaging impact.

23 knee definitely met resistance from something coming forward

irishman86

ThisRegard wrote: »

One was a straight out red with the replay shown over and over. The other was not picked up by the ref during play, no replay that I remember, but suspected by a poster or two.

So no, not funny at all.

Like you said suspected by a poster or two but never further than that, the definition of something being kept quiet

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

23 knee definitely met resistance from something coming forward

Certainly throws the source of the injury into doubt for me. But I ain't on the judging panel.

FrancieBrady

Buer wrote: »

None. No way that hearing is done, dusted and press release in under two hours.

Murray tweeted further details about SBW ban, maybe that is what confused the poster.

irishman86

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Hope SBW either clears off back to Rugby League, takes up boxing full-time or just gets brought somewhere to sort his head out. His mental issues have been glossed over for very long time.

You havent a clue buddy, mental issuses because he does a dangerous tackle :rolleyes:

Buer

irishman86 wrote:

Like you said suspected by a poster or two but never further than that, the definition of something being kept quiet

You must not have received the PM from the mods about the cover up. You've gone and ruined it now.

Omerta.

ongarite

Long time since citing hearing began, that's usually a bad sign?

Buer

Completely normal amount of time so far. It's a proper hearing in front of legal professionals and World Rugby appointees. Statements, presentation of evidence/footage, witnesses (if applicable), defences, deliberation etc.

Roger Hassenforder

ongarite wrote: »

Long time since citing hearing began, that's usually a bad sign?

John Langford is weighing up his distaste for anything Leinster related against anything New Zealand related!

Clareman

ongarite wrote: »

Long time since citing hearing began, that's usually a bad sign?

I wouldn't read much into it, SBW probably pleaded guilty and accepted the 4 weeks cause it's a nothing ban so that was done quickly. SoB will be arguing that he did nothing wrong which will mean a discussion, then if it's decided he did something wrong a penalty will be decided, if it's decided that it was a sending off offence it'll be decided if a ban is warranted. I think every decision can be appealed immediately also.

Buer

Worth pointing out that the match commentators were incorrect, Hansen advised that Naholo passed the HIA and was kept off purely as a precaution.

long_b

radharc wrote: »

Source?

Murray Kinsella @Murray_Kinsella
·
1h
SBW's ban had an entry point of six weeks, but two shaved off for 'early admission, his disciplinary record, good character and remorse'.

FrancieBrady

long_b wrote: »

Murray Kinsella @Murray_Kinsella
·
1h
SBW's ban had an entry point of six weeks, but two shaved off for 'early admission, his disciplinary record, good character and remorse'.

SBW is Sonny Boy Williams

irishbucsfan

If SOB gets a ban I'll go mad. Agree with .ak that what Vunipola did was worse, and what Cane did last week was even worse than both

ScissorPaperRock

long_b wrote: »

Murray Kinsella @Murray_Kinsella
·
1h
SBW's ban had an entry point of six weeks, but two shaved off for 'early admission, his disciplinary record, good character and remorse'.

?

Not SOB.

Clareman

I've Sky Sports News on in the background here to get news ASAP, everything seems to be BREAKING NEWS, the latest was about a cricket match yesterday and hte ticket tape at the bottom of the screen is about a Bournemouth midfielder signing a 4 year contract.

long_b

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SBW is Sonny Boy Williams

**Hides keyboard, cries**
Oops, misread! Sorry!

thebaz

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Hope SBW either clears off back to Rugby League, takes up boxing full-time or just gets brought somewhere to sort his head out. His mental issues have been glossed over for very long time.

wow , what a nasty derogatory statement - do you know anything about the man ??
had a wild time in his younger days - doesn't drink anymore , and that takes courage - he is a super athlete, stupid mistake yesterday , any way I'm moving on .

Hopefully SOB is not cited either, terribly unlucky if he is .

Erik Shin

thebaz wrote: »

wow , what a nasty derogatory statement - do you know anything about the man ??
had a wild time in his younger days - doesn't drink anymore , and that takes courage - he is a super athlete, stupid mistake yesterday , any way I'm moving on .

Hopefully SOB is not cited either, terribly unlucky if he is .

SOB has been cited...its his innocence or guilt they are deciding at the moment

BBDBB

#FreetheLions1

Peregrine

ongarite wrote: »

Long time since citing hearing began, that's usually a bad sign?

SOB citings always go on for hours. It takes several hours for 10 bouncers and an elephant to tie SOB down to a chair for the hearing.

FrancieBrady

long_b wrote: »

**Hides keyboard, cries**
Oops, misread! Sorry!

Get thee to a coffee pot!

Jump_In_Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SBW is Sonny Boy Williams

Bill

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SBW is Sonny Boy Williams

You're as bad!

Sonny Bill Williams

Had anyone had their coffee yet

BBDBB

Peregrine wrote: »

SOB citings always go on for hours. It takes several hours for 10 bouncers and an elephant to tie SOB down to a chair for the hearing.

The first 2 hours are for the tranquilliser dart to wear off