RugbyRebels

Meant the second bit but the chip is nice too

Sutherland was sent off today. Don't know why as just seen his name with a red beside it.

Big D wrote:Sutherland was sent off today. Don't know why as just seen his name with a red beside it.

Head on head in the tackle.
Once I finally got a clear view of it, it was red all day, every day - but don't expect any length on the ban

Which Tyler wrote:

Big D wrote:Sutherland was sent off today. Don't know why as just seen his name with a red beside it.

Head on head in the tackle.
Once I finally got a clear view of it, it was red all day, every day - but don't expect any length on the ban

Should be OK for the 6N then

Call me cynical...and plenty do.
Would we be surprised if he was out until the day after the England game but the Genge Gouge gets nothing or a "rest" until the week before?

af73 wrote:Call me cynical...and plenty do.
Would we be surprised if he was out until the day after the England game but the Genge Gouge gets nothing or a "rest" until the week before?

Certainly wouldn’t be. I actually want Genge to play in the match.

Does anyone have a link to either offence? My googling skills are failing me.

Sutherland tackle is right at the beginning of the game.

https://www.bt.com/sport/watch/video/cl ... r-warriors

It was a big head-on collision, and a fair red, but I feel for him a bit as the carrier shifts from a right-shoulder tackle to a left and he just isn't quick enough adjust. No malice but clumsy and obviously dangerous. This feels like one of those incidents a red card is punishment enough but there seems to be a trend now that a ban must follow, regardless of whether the it is punished at the time.

Sutherland gets red carded. 4 weeks till England.

I reckon it could be 3 weeks but could be 4

whatisthejava wrote:Sutherland gets red carded. 4 weeks till England.

I reckon it could be 3 weeks but could be 4

norm for head on head seems to be 6 weeks. Max discount is 50%, so 3. BUT there seems to be a ruling in some, not sure if its all competitions, that if the player signs up for some online "training" then a further week can be discounted. Stupid I know but SUtherland has a good record so the 50% is a no brainer if he pleads guilty as charged, as would signig up to a few hours online.

It looks a tight call for the card, but if he challenges then decision its shit or bust

septic 9 wrote:It looks a tight call for the card

It really isn't.

Which Tyler wrote:

septic 9 wrote:It looks a tight call for the card

It really isn't.

to be clear I accept that the law as currently interpreted means a red card is neither an incorrect nor unreasonable call. I can also see another ref on another day deciding otherwise -Stuart clearly changes his angle last minute and there is no "targetting "of the head or intent.
It is a case of if you go high or highish, this is the risk you run

septic 9 wrote: I can also see another ref on another day deciding otherwise

Only in a "ref makes mistake... shocker" moment.
It's a red card all day every day, and has been for a 1/2 seasons.

I think you're also seeing far more of a change in direction from Stuart than actually exists. CMK even asks that question, and then answers it almost immediately. Sutherland starts high, and goes higher, there is not material change of height or direction from the ball carrier. There is no reason under current protocols to see the incident and not issue a red card.

I still expect a low entry ban with full 50% off



A] Tackle is high
B] There is head on head contact
C] Degree of danger is high - Tackler is attempting an active/dominant tackle, Tackler is accelerating into contact, Tackler completes the tackle. Aggravated by tackler has clear line of sight and time before the tackle. Tackler did not try to lower his height (quite the opposite, he rises into contact), Ball carrier does not drop his height, Tackler is not unsighted, Tackle is not reactionary.

Sutherland accepted foul play but not red card, citing the ate movement of Stuart. Panel disagreed.
6 wks reduced to 3, and another week off for doing the online course. Available for 6N opening game if needed, and for Worcs week before

Which Tyler wrote:

septic 9 wrote: I can also see another ref on another day deciding otherwise

Only in a "ref makes mistake... shocker" moment.
It's a red card all day every day, and has been for a 1/2 seasons.

yes they do. So do disc panels

Zebo got a red card (could have 2 red cards IMHO) but no ban. Go figure

septic 9 wrote:Sutherland accepted foul play but not red card, citing the ate movement of Stuart. Panel disagreed.
6 wks reduced to 3, and another week off for doing the online course. Available for 6N opening game if needed, and for Worcs week before

Fair outcome but a little confused by the process. I thought Fagerson got an increased ban for having the temerity to suggest that his (admitted) foul play against Wales last year shouldn't have been a red.

Cameo wrote:

septic 9 wrote:Sutherland accepted foul play but not red card, citing the ate movement of Stuart. Panel disagreed.
6 wks reduced to 3, and another week off for doing the online course. Available for 6N opening game if needed, and for Worcs week before

Fair outcome but a little confused by the process. I thought Fagerson got an increased ban for having the temerity to suggest that his (admitted) foul play against Wales last year shouldn't have been a red.

Fagerson didn't get the full mitigation. He still got time off his ban.

Big D wrote:

Cameo wrote:

septic 9 wrote:Sutherland accepted foul play but not red card, citing the ate movement of Stuart. Panel disagreed.
6 wks reduced to 3, and another week off for doing the online course. Available for 6N opening game if needed, and for Worcs week before

Fair outcome but a little confused by the process. I thought Fagerson got an increased ban for having the temerity to suggest that his (admitted) foul play against Wales last year shouldn't have been a red.

Fagerson didn't get the full mitigation. He still got time off his ban.

yep both in same charge, both admitted foul play both thought red not justified and challenged that

One gets 6 weeks reduced to 4, the other gets 6 weeks reduced to 2

THe extra week for doung a couple of hour online "training" is nonsense of course. PLayers are tasked to make dominant "tackles" and drive the opponent back. That is why high hits happen. I'd much rather the authorities did something like ban tackles above the nipple line, and fine coaches/teams having most pens awarded against them for these.

septic 9 wrote:

Big D wrote:

Cameo wrote:
Fair outcome but a little confused by the process. I thought Fagerson got an increased ban for having the temerity to suggest that his (admitted) foul play against Wales last year shouldn't have been a red.

Fagerson didn't get the full mitigation. He still got time off his ban.

yep both in same charge, both admitted foul play both thought red not justified and challenged that

One gets 6 weeks reduced to 4, the other gets 6 weeks reduced to 2

THe extra week for doung a couple of hour online "training" is nonsense of course. PLayers are tasked to make dominant "tackles" and drive the opponent back. That is why high hits happen. I'd much rather the authorities did something like ban tackles above the nipple line, and fine coaches/teams having most pens awarded against them for these.

I had to quit my playing days early but went straight onto the rugby club committee so this must have been about 6 or 7 years ago when I was 29/30 but often on the SRU disciplinary reports there would be a sanction of "SOS". That stood for "Sending of Sufficient". I would like to see that brought back because some of the red cards are unlucky rather than malicious and a matter of split second timing. I think the Sutherland red would be close to saying that actually the red card was enough punishment.

Big D wrote:

septic 9 wrote:

Big D wrote:
Fagerson didn't get the full mitigation. He still got time off his ban.

yep both in same charge, both admitted foul play both thought red not justified and challenged that

One gets 6 weeks reduced to 4, the other gets 6 weeks reduced to 2

THe extra week for doung a couple of hour online "training" is nonsense of course. PLayers are tasked to make dominant "tackles" and drive the opponent back. That is why high hits happen. I'd much rather the authorities did something like ban tackles above the nipple line, and fine coaches/teams having most pens awarded against them for these.

I had to quit my playing days early but went straight onto the rugby club committee so this must have been about 6 or 7 years ago when I was 29/30 but often on the SRU disciplinary reports there would be a sanction of "SOS". That stood for "Sending of Sufficient". I would like to see that brought back because some of the red cards are unlucky rather than malicious and a matter of split second timing. I think the Sutherland red would be close to saying that actually the red card was enough punishment.

Yeah - not a bad idea especially where the red has happened early in a match. It should at least be taken into account that you and your team have already faced a punishment (compared to someone sent off in the past few minutes).

Hogg looks leaner than he has for a while and looking like he's enjoying his rugby.

Jones, Steele (and Adamson) get a chance to start against Castres this evening for Quins.

Well they've all been pretty terrible. Jones has just scored one of the funniest tries I've ever seen though. He looks like he's going to make a linebreak every time he touches the ball and then gets turned over.

Jesus, they were all bad but Adamson the worst of the lot.

Ewan Ashman doing his best to help Glasgow by scoring a try v Ospreys. Just!

Redpath starts at 12 for Bath against Jones at 13 for Quins.

If he can handle Esterhuizen opposite him I think chuck him in for the 6 nations.