Brumbies v Chiefs
-
<p>spear tackles often result in no one getting injured, but the potential for damage/injury is why they are almost always a YC offence.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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! </p>
<p> </p>
<p>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! </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569604" data-time="1459668296"><p>
What am I exaggerating? That was one of the more dangerous things you can do on a rugby field IMO.</p></blockquote>
<br>
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 class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="569612" data-time="1459670926"><p>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.</p></blockquote>
<br>
You seem to be confusing what the judiciary hands out with what someone deserves. They rarely equate. -
Interestingly enough I was talking to a couple of Pocock fanboyz today and they were a wee bit distressed by this. <br><br>
He'll probably argue that children in Zimbabwe will die if he gets suspended and will therefore get off scot-free. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569615" data-time="1459671513"><p>
You seem to be confusing what the judiciary hands out with what someone deserves. They rarely equate.</p></blockquote>
<br>
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. <br><br>
The only absolute is what the judiciary hands down. Even if we don't agree with the ruling, which is not uncommon. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="569631" data-time="1459674305"><p>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. <br><br>
The only absolute is what the judiciary hands down. Even if we don't agree with the ruling, which is not uncommon.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I'm curious then as to why you feel he deserves only 1-2 weeks. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569637" data-time="1459676953">
<div>
<p>I'm curious then as to why you feel he deserves only 1-2 weeks.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="569647" data-time="1459682233">
<div>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>he was fcuking strangling someone who was trapped and couldn't do anything else about it. and kept going as the maul collapsed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Must have been fcuking horrible for Leitch, would have felt like it was going on for a long time.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="569720" data-time="1459730222">
<div>
<p>Reminds me of that thug Tialata strangling McCaw at the bottom of a ruck a few years back.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He wasn't even cited if I recall correctly.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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!"</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="569720" data-time="1459730222">
<div>
<p>Reminds me of that thug Tialata strangling McCaw at the bottom of a ruck a few years back.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He wasn't even cited if I recall correctly.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Except it also had an added element of danger aside from the choking. Being in a collapsing and twisting maul while someone has their arm tight around your neck must be scary.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Pocock also appears to go for the neck area deliberately. When he first joins the maul he binds with his left arm. When the Chiefs get low and get a shove on he wraps his right arm around Leitch's neck and starts applying pressure. He can't claim he didn't know what he was doing as there is no other part of the body that his arm could go around like that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I hope they throw the book at him. (but they won't)</p> -
<p>Pocock gets 3 weeks, meaning 2 games.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/'>http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/</a></p> -
<p>That's rubbish if a bye week is part of your ban. Nonu got one week and it was a bye and did'nt he have to miss the next game?</p>
-
<p>Hmmm. Not certain whether I can claim a moral victory here. It's 3 weeks, but if I twist it it's 2 weeks (2 games), which is what I predicted...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Haven't seen the ruling, but I suspect 4 weeks entry, with 1 week taken off for wearing a suit, saying sorry, hugging trees, pleading guilty etc.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Edit: here is the ruling "With respect to sanction I deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point of 2 weeks. I then added one week for aggravation due to the need to deter this type of dangerous foul play. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the player’s early plea, his good character, his genuine remorse and his excellent disciplinary record I reduced the suspension to a period of two weeks.â€</p> -
That's so fucking weak. I'm fucking sick of these external factors changing bans. Strangle someone? Should be 4 weeks whether you are a neck-tattooed bogan fuckwit, or a quiet tree hugging social activist.<br><br>
Genuine remorse? Fuck off. If they thought he could get off the story would have been different (like when he dropped the knee in the world cup).<br><br>
If he was from samoa he would have got a million years
