NH club rugby
-
Haha, how stupid can you be?
Wales and Ospreys hooker Scott Baldwin misses game after being bitten by a lion
Coach Steve Tandy had no sympathy for his player, suggesting Baldwin had ignored instruction and attempted to pet the animal. "There was an incident with a lion, but in fairness it was nothing to do with the lion," he said in a press conference, which was uploaded to YouTube. "He did bite Scott but when you put your hand in a fence where there is a lion, then you will get bitten. "It was pretty stupid on Scott's behalf and he is pretty lucky. It was a good environment and we were told how far back to stand. "I don't know what sort of wildlife show Scott has been watching where you can pat a lion on the head as if it's a kitten." -
@stargazer said in NH club rugby:
Haha, how stupid can you be?
Wales and Ospreys hooker Scott Baldwin misses game after being bitten by a lion
Coach Steve Tandy had no sympathy for his player, suggesting Baldwin had ignored instruction and attempted to pet the animal. "There was an incident with a lion, but in fairness it was nothing to do with the lion," he said in a press conference, which was uploaded to YouTube. "He did bite Scott but when you put your hand in a fence where there is a lion, then you will get bitten. "It was pretty stupid on Scott's behalf and he is pretty lucky. It was a good environment and we were told how far back to stand. "I don't know what sort of wildlife show Scott has been watching where you can pat a lion on the head as if it's a kitten."Perhaps he didn't want to be part of the first Welsh club team to get thrashed in SA.
Better to be bitten by a Lion than mauled by a Cheetah.
Nah, he's just dumb.
-
-
-
@tim From the video, it's pretty damning. Some (particularly English supporters) suggest at worst he only went for the scrum cap, but to believe that from the footage means you've never played rugby. You know where your hands are in relation to someone's face.
He's a dirty fluffybunny and should be banned for six months. I get the feeling he'll have two weeks off, at most.
-
@antipodean he's a knob...wasn't he the one that earnt the penalty for jumping into a tackle and then had to be restrained by his team mates?
-
@antipodean why is he even trying to rip the scrum cap off? That's weird.
-
@bones said in NH club rugby:
@antipodean why is he even trying to rip the scrum cap off? That's weird.
Yeah, I'd guess to try and force a reaction. Last week Marler tore off Haskell's scrum cap (not in the same league as the Sinckler incident mind), Haskell reacted and got yellowed. Marler didn't even cop a penalty.
-
@taniwharugby said in NH club rugby:
@antipodean he's a knob...wasn't he the one that earnt the penalty for jumping into a tackle and then had to be restrained by his team mates?
Pretty sure he was at the centre of the post game fracas after the second test too.
-
Took me a while to find the evidence in that replay so guess you can't really blame the ref at the ground. 1.51 and 1.52 though you can clearly see the fingers go to the eye area then curl in.
if I was to give him the benefit of the doubt it would be that he misjudged going for a grab on the headgear. It's going to lead to a ban though. Even if accidental contact with the eyes his only excuse was that he was trying to rile the player anyway.
Send him down. -
He pleaded guilty and got seven weeks.
-
Eye Gouging should be an instant life ban
As for pleading guilty...if you can't resist the urge to hunt out the eyes and possibly blind another work "colleague" during a game of rugby, then you can fuck off... for ever.
Felt the same way in 92 when Loe had a go at a teammate's brother (at least the 9 month ban was slightly acceptable)
Never understood the leniency for an act designed to seriously incapacitate another player
-
I have never been comfortable with the whole leniency for pleading guilty thing. Slightly different if there wasn't intention and straight after the accident you apologise and admit to an accidental transgression, but he and his coach denied any offence until the evidence looked too strong and the jumped in with a guilty plea to mitigate the ban.
If he knew he was guilty and wanted mitigation he should have fessed up at the time and taken a RC. -
@crucial I have some sympathy for your view although I would say that it is quite possible to be in the middle of a maul, pushing and pulling and to not be aware of quite where your hands are (not saying this is so in Sinckler's case). You then feel that you've done nothing wrong and then see evidence to the contrary. The coach though, in this case, would have seen exactly the same footage in game and really ought to have been a bit more realistic.
-
@catogrande said in NH club rugby:
@crucial I have some sympathy for your view although I would say that it is quite possible to be in the middle of a maul, pushing and pulling and to not be aware of quite where your hands are (not saying this is so in Sinckler's case). You then feel that you've done nothing wrong and then see evidence to the contrary. The coach though, in this case, would have seen exactly the same footage in game and really ought to have been a bit more realistic.
Yeah, I get that, and I haven't seen the full wording but from the comments I have seen the judiciary were looking to mitigate as far as they could under the rules. Providing a late guilty plea provides them with that ability.
Conversely players are encouraged to plead guilty for something defendable because the punishment is less if they lose. You especially see that in the weeks leading up to the finals. Plead guilty, cop 2 weeks, be available for finals. -
RFU Disciplinary verdict: Kyle Sinckler
KYLE SINCKLER OF HARLEQUINS APPEARED BEFORE AN RFU DISCIPLINARY PANEL THIS EVENING. The Harlequins prop was cited by Independent Citing Commissioner Chris Catling for allegedly making contact with the eye and/or eye area of Northampton Saints’ Michael Paterson, contrary to law 10.4(m). The incident occurred in the second half of the match Northampton v Harlequins on Saturday 30 September 2017. Sinckler accepted the charge of contact with the eye and was given a seven week suspension by the independent panel. He is free to play again on the 21 November 2017 The Chairman of the panel Dan White said: “The panel heard evidence from the player as to his actions. They found that it was an intentional action but that due to the absence of injury it merited a low end entry point. “The player has not got a clear record because of a suspension in 2015 and so the panel could not give full mitigation. The player will therefore be suspended for seven weeks and is free to play again on the 21 November 2017” The RFU disciplinary panel comprised of Dan White (chairman) with Chris Skaife and Jamie Corsi. In response to the sanction Harlequins Director of Rugby John Kingston commented: “Despite Kyle’s unfair public reputation he actually has a very good on-field disciplinary record. “There is no doubt in my mind that this incident was accidental, but both myself, and as a club we fully accept the importance of player welfare and believe wholeheartedly that there is no place for any players’ hand ever to be around the eye area of an opponent. “We therefore accept the sanction and will be working with the whole squad around improving our discipline over the coming matches.” Kyle added: “I accept the outcome of the hearing and wanted to go on record to say I am sorry that I have let my team mates down, but more importantly I feel terrible that anyone would think I would deliberately gouge an opponent. That was never my intention – it was a genuine mistake and an act of recklessness on my part. “I will spend the next seven weeks working hard on my fitness and rugby to ensure that when I am able to get back on the field I am fit and ready to do so and make the best possible contribution to Quins.” -
@stargazer To me that's odd. To find it an intentional act and then to look at mitigating circumstances due to lack of effect is just nuts.
-
@catogrande The lack of effect (absence of injury) isn't used as a mitigating factor; it determines the entry point. That's quite normal. Compare it to the criminal offence of assault where the punishment is also different depending on whether the assault lead to serious injury or death, or not.
The mitigating factor is that Sinkler accepted the charge.
-
@stargazer Ah right. I see the difference but still seems odd to me. In an ideal (for Cato) world the entry point would be non-negotiable - an intentional act gets X sanction. Actual damage done? Then it increases accordingly.
However. Judiciary.
-
@stargazer said in NH club rugby:
The mitigating factor is that Sinkler accepted the charge.
That's one of my greatest irritances at the process in rugby; that lawyers have inserted themselves in the process and the "judiciary" accepts these idiotic arguments:
"He accepts he was guilty and he's apologised on Twitter"
"Oh well then, it's only half as bad, the punishment for your act is much less"Ahh, no. You deliberately attacked the eyes of a player with absolutely no provocation. Take a year off arsehole.
