Article: The Original Rugby Championship - Six Nations 2016
-
<p>Aaand Tomas Francis gets 8 weeks. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'd love to know the stream of logic that goes through the minds of the judiciary. 12 weeks is the starting sanction. Ashton gets 10 but starts out at 12 plus one for previous, less three for mitigating circus or some such bollocks. Now Francis gets 8. How does that work? Surely it would follow that he would get the same (ish) as Ashton? Not that I think it's deserving, it's just I don't follow.</p> -
Yes, unfathomable.
-
<p>Both likely to have had a starting point of 12 weeks for a low end offence. Guessing Francis may have pleaded guilty or had less previous. Or both</p>
-
Don't bring logic into this. Given the previous arcane decisions of the citing committee it's as likely to have been that they use some kind of Sorting Hat.
-
<p>The key element in all of this...did the player apologise on twitter?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That is always worth a couple of weeks reduction.</p> -
<img src="http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/16/03/15/51f2420644df2d924f0dfdb36342f5b4.jpg" alt="51f2420644df2d924f0dfdb36342f5b4.jpg"><br><br>
IRB juridicial officer digging suspensions from the official IRB surprise-lottery-box -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="564746" data-time="1458038693">
<div>
<p>We wanted proper tours rather than the crap that had been served up to us with development tours etc.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>And how has that worked out in reality?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Steve Tew still isn't happy and is making noises about not committing to another schedule until some other things are worked out.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The development touring squad complaint was a bit hit and miss and had largely stopped well before 2012-2019 schedule. Did the tests generally get full houses when they were played? </p> -
<p>Marler gets off the striking an opponent charge without sanction. Did not warrant a red card so nothing further. Seems about right to me. Also no further action on the Gyppo slur. Apology given and accepted. Enough done.Time to move on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Shame really i was looking forward to seeing someone else play - perhaps Matt Mullan as well as Vunipola.</p> -
<p>I don't understand how deliberately throwing a forearm into the face of a prone opponent can not be a red card.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>How can it be considered the same as a badly effected but legitimately attempted tackle?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="565118" data-time="1458170999">
<div>
<p>I don't understand how deliberately throwing a forearm into the face of a prone opponent can not be a red card.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>How can it be considered the same as a badly effected but legitimately attempted tackle?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Ask McCaws face and Hartley's elbow.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="565042" data-time="1458157810">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Steve Tew still isn't happy and is making noises about not committing to another schedule until some other things are worked out.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Is this about revenue sharing again?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Do te RFU make more money from an ABs game than other games? They all sell out don't they? If they raise the prices for the ABs then Tew has a point to argue.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="565118" data-time="1458170999"><p>I don't understand how deliberately throwing a forearm into the face of a prone opponent can not be a red card.<br>
<br>
How can it be considered the same as a badly effected but legitimately attempted tackle?</p></blockquote>
<br>
I think if the ref had seen it, he would have got a yellow. So as Cato says, nothing further warranted (assuming I understand Regulation 17 correctly. Which is not a given, by any means) -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="565042" data-time="1458157810"><p>And how has that worked out in reality?<br> <br>Steve Tew still isn't happy and is making noises about not committing to another schedule until some other things are worked out.<br> <br>The development touring squad complaint was a bit hit and miss and had largely stopped well before 2012-2019 schedule. Did the tests generally get full houses when they were played?</p></blockquote><br>Well just the period 2008-2011 the only team that won in New Zealand was France. And they were also the only ones not to get pumped by a double digit points difference in every game. Contrast that with Ireland coming within 30 secs of a draw in 2012 and England coming within six and two points of victory on consecutive weekends in 2014. So while not competitive in every match, certainly more competitive at some point in the tours than the old one stop itinerary.<br> <br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Disgusted of TW" data-cid="565139" data-time="1458178047"><p>I think if the ref had seen it, he would have got a yellow.</p></blockquote><br>Again; how is it not a red?
-
<p>I'd guess Antipodean, that it was not considered a red because it was nothing much more than a tap and it was also part of a pile up over the line during a try attempt. There was no wind up of the arm/elbow, no swinging into collision, it really was something and nothing. For sure I've seen lesser offences get worse sanction but I do think that in many cases we are in danger of emasculating the game. This to me is a case in point. Was it within the laws? No. Did it make any material difference? No. Was anyone hurt or likely to get hurt? No. OK Move on, perhaps a penalty at most for Marler being a twat.</p>
-
<p>I guess I'm the sort of person who thinks this shit should be rubbed out of the game rather than having subjective calls about whether someone was likely to get hurt.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="565256" data-time="1458221911">
<div>
<p>I guess I'm the sort of person who thinks this shit should be rubbed out of the game rather than having subjective calls about whether someone was likely to get hurt.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah I pretty much agree, although it's low level, it's pretty dirty and uncalled for. At least it was cited however, so that should at least count towards future citations and at least be a deterrent in that regard?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="565257" data-time="1458223167">
<div>
<p>Yeah I pretty much agree, although it's low level, it's pretty dirty and uncalled for. At least it was cited however, so that should at least count towards future citations and at least be a deterrent in that regard?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I wouldn't count on anything in relation to the judiciary mate!</p> -
<p>The Gypsy Boy story seems to have legs. The 6N judiciary had a look at it, decided it was a heat of the moment thing and noted that Marler had apologised as soon as he really could, which Lee accepted. The WRU have now expressed 'surprise' at the decision. World rugby have decided to demand that 6N Rugby explains its decision and the whole thing just gets bigger and bigger. The only person to come out of this with any dignity is Samson Lee. Accepted the apology and has since kept his mouth shut. To be fair Gatland tried to play a straight bat but has since had to retract his comments due, I expect, to political pressure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>FFS move on. Lee has.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="565305" data-time="1458251469">
<div>
<p>FFS move on. Lee has.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Well of course the gypsy has...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="565305" data-time="1458251469">
<div>
<p>The Gypsy Boy story seems to have legs. The 6N judiciary had a look at it, decided it was a heat of the moment thing and noted that Marler had apologised as soon as he really could, which Lee accepted. The WRU have now expressed 'surprise' at the decision. World rugby have decided to demand that 6N Rugby explains its decision and the whole thing just gets bigger and bigger. The only person to come out of this with any dignity is Samson Lee. Accepted the apology and has since kept his mouth shut. To be fair Gatland tried to play a straight bat but has since had to retract his comments due, I expect, to political pressure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>FFS move on. Lee has.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The WRU comment was issued in response to them being asked to provide statements about their position on racism in the game by the Welsh press. Just like everyone else it was an attempt to avoid being dragged into the "was it racism" argument. After all, it was a surprising decision given the guidance on verbal abuse and if the WRU wanted to sidestep the question and put the focus elsewhere then so be it. Also, if you read Gatland's retraction all he is really saying is that he's sorry he used the word "banter" but otherwise wants to move on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Eddie Jones' baiting of the WRU on this was and is naive. I can see he's trying to deflect attention off his player but he's only keeping the story alive. </p>
