Brumbies v Chiefs

broughie

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bbarcs" data-cid="569558" data-time="1459655565">
<div>
I'd have Pocock banned for life if I could... 
I just don't think he did it on purpose. 
That and most of the Brumbies remaining games are against NZ/Australasian opponents.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
He had a hold of his neck for 10 seconds at least including while the maul was collapsing which is extremely dangerous. As someone else said intent is not the issue. He should be banned for his stupidity just like any tip tackle where the neck is compromised. You just don't do it ffs.

mariner4life

Watching the replay now. Shit the Chiefs are good. They are just strangling the brumbies

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="569511" data-time="1459635397">
<div>
Well, someone has to be favourites. If it isn't the Chiefs, then who? Crusaders and Highlanders do both look good. The only problem is if you don't top your conference then you probably have to go on a trip to South Africa.
</div>
</blockquote>
Currently, Chiefs are in hot form. But they have scrum issues. And the season is long, with a break for the June internationals. Can they sustain this form at the end of the season, when it counts?
 
I think it's brave to pick anyone as a Super Rugby winner this far out, dat's all I'm saying.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="569593" data-time="1459663113">
<div>
Currently, Chiefs are in hot form. But they have scrum issues. And the season is long, with a break for the June internationals. Can they sustain this form at the end of the season, when it counts?
 
I think it's brave to pick anyone as a Super Rugby winner this far out, dat's all I'm saying.
</div>
</blockquote>
Considering the Crusaders are generally always picked as favourites before a ball is kicked it's not really that brave - and the favourite tends to change as the season progresses anyway.

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569596" data-time="1459663475">
Considering the Crusaders are generally always picked as favourites before a ball is kicked it's not really that brave - and the favourite tends to change as the season progresses anyway.</blockquote>
 
Even the most in-bred and one-eyed of crusaders supporters weren't picking them as pre-season favourites I reckon. 
As an aside I wouldn't write off the Brumbies either, the game was actually reasonably close just dazzling Chiefs attack made the score blow-out. 
Think pocock deserves a week or 2 off.

Crucial

A week or two? 
I wonder what the story would be today if Leitch suffered a neck injury or worse? It was quite on the cards with what happened

ploughboy

4 to 8 for me.he latched on for 10 secs.not just a stray shoulder or even cheap shot.went on for to long for him not to know that he was choking him

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569600" data-time="1459666212">
A week or two? 
I wonder what the story would be today if Leitch suffered a neck injury or worse? It was quite on the cards with what happened</blockquote>
 
Let's not exaggerate. You can quote this back at me if he gets more than 2 weeks and I will humbly acknowledge the error of my judgement.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="569603" data-time="1459667630">
Let's not exaggerate. You can quote this back at me if he gets more than 2 weeks and I will humbly acknowledge the error of my judgement.</blockquote>
What am I exaggerating? That was one of the more dangerous things you can do on a rugby field IMO. 
A boot to the face may cause a bit of blood., a scar and maybe a concussion. What Pocockwomble did could have crippled. 
A don't think it should be downplayed at all. 
Now your sentence may be closer to what is actually handed down, but that is the judiciary for you. Your comment was "he deserves......"

taniwharugby

spear tackles often result in no one getting injured, but the potential for damage/injury is why they are almost always a YC offence.
 
Someone with Pococks arm strength could do some serious damage, and given how Leitch was 'tapping out' it was quite obvious it was distressing for him...Pocock could argue he didnt know why he was getting 'hit' but no way could he not know he had his arm round someones neck! 
 
Deserves 2 weeks minimum, but wouldnt surprise me if he gets off scott free, cos a tree fell in the forest and no one was there to hear it!

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569604" data-time="1459668296">
What am I exaggerating? That was one of the more dangerous things you can do on a rugby field IMO.</blockquote>
 
Exactly. In your subjective opinion. We will see if the judiciary agree that Leitch was risking a crippling injury and Pocock gets a lengthy ban. I'd be surprised but if he does I won't mind saying I downplayed it too much.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="569612" data-time="1459670926">Exactly. In your subjective opinion. We will see if the judiciary agree that Leitch was risking a crippling injury and Pocock gets a lengthy ban. I'd be surprised but if he does I won't mind saying I downplayed it too much.</blockquote>
 
You seem to be confusing what the judiciary hands out with what someone deserves. They rarely equate.

Rancid Schnitzel

Interestingly enough I was talking to a couple of Pocock fanboyz today and they were a wee bit distressed by this. 
He'll probably argue that children in Zimbabwe will die if he gets suspended and will therefore get off scot-free.

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569615" data-time="1459671513">
You seem to be confusing what the judiciary hands out with what someone deserves. They rarely equate.</blockquote>
 
No I feel he deserves 1 to 2 weeks. You feel he deserves more. I wouldn't suggest that what I feel has more value. It's all subjective. 
The only absolute is what the judiciary hands down. Even if we don't agree with the ruling, which is not uncommon.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="569631" data-time="1459674305">No I feel he deserves 1 to 2 weeks. You feel he deserves more. I wouldn't suggest that what I feel has more value. It's all subjective. 
The only absolute is what the judiciary hands down. Even if we don't agree with the ruling, which is not uncommon.</blockquote>
 
I'm curious then as to why you feel he deserves only 1-2 weeks.

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569637" data-time="1459676953">
<div>
I'm curious then as to why you feel he deserves only 1-2 weeks.
</div>
</blockquote>
Because I feel grabbing someone round the neck like that is in the neck-roll etc category, but a bit more severe. A neck roll gets somewhere from a simple penalty to a YC. By definition Pocock should have got a red card since he was cited (meets threshold for red card). He's been cited under 10.4 (e): Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play; and 10.4 (m): Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. Low entry seems to be 2 weeks for the first offence and 4 weeks for the 2nd offence. Hence 2 weeks.
 
I don't personally think it's a mid-range or high-end offence, but if this is considered the case, the ban risks being longer of course.
 
I'm actually interested now to see if I've grossly downplayed this, in which I'll need to take a hard at my judgement...

WillieTheWaiter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="569647" data-time="1459682233">
<div>
Because I feel grabbing someone round the neck like that is in the neck-roll etc category, but a bit more severe. A neck roll gets somewhere from a simple penalty to a YC. By definition Pocock should have got a red card since he was cited (meets threshold for red card). He's been cited under 10.4 (e): Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play; and 10.4 (m): Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. Low entry seems to be 2 weeks for the first offence and 4 weeks for the 2nd offence. Hence 2 weeks.
 
I don't personally think it's a mid-range or high-end offence, but if this is considered the case, the ban risks being longer of course.
 
I'm actually interested now to see if I've grossly downplayed this, in which I'll need to take a hard at my judgement...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
he was fcuking strangling someone who was trapped and couldn't do anything else about it. and kept going as the maul collapsed.
 
Must have been fcuking horrible for Leitch, would have felt like it was going on for a long time.
 
Deliberate strangulation of someone is right up there with eye gouging - the fact he kept going with it and it was a deliberate act has me thinking there's no way it's a low end offence.
 
Don't get disgusted by too much that goes on on a rugby field - but that was nothing but filth on somone that couldn't do sh it about it.

SammyC

Reminds me of that thug Tialata strangling McCaw at the bottom of a ruck a few years back.
 
He wasn't even cited if I recall correctly.

Milk

There was something really unsettling about watching Leitch desperately trying to tap out

Tim

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="569720" data-time="1459730222">
<div>
Reminds me of that thug Tialata strangling McCaw at the bottom of a ruck a few years back.
 
He wasn't even cited if I recall correctly.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
One of our great forum moments was when a poster's wife saw Tialata at the airport shortly after and inadvertently (and loudly) blurted out "It's that dick who tried to strangle Richie!"

The Silver Fern

Brumbies v Chiefs