RugbyRebels

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51806678

Parkes not cited then? Lucky guy.

Lawes deservedly cited - should have been a red - although there's a few Welsh lucky not to be before the beak as well, not least the ones who flipped Curry onto his head.

I find Jones's call for Marler's citing to be slightly bemusing - he does remember that he was shoving his forearms into people's chests and preparing to escalate a fight at the time Marler gave him a tickle, right?

Puja

So, is that an accurate assessment in the calm post-match review, that England have three players before the disciplinary panel and Wales none? It seems a trifle one-sided perhaps.

That is, frankly, ridiculous. But it does highlight the fact WR only care about their skin and not actually about player welfare. Some terrible things went on at ruck time. Not least the Parkes example, but AWJ, too.

Probably not helped by Jones calling the ref a cheat.

The Lawes tackle was bad, shoulder to the head IIRC. Parkes is fortunate.

I've got no problem with players being cited for suspected foul play, but lets make it consistent, shall we? A couple of Welsh players could easily have been put in the dock and it was extraordinary that Ryan didn't get a tap on the shoulder for his antics in the previous game.

Oakboy wrote:So, is that an accurate assessment in the calm post-match review, that England have three players before the disciplinary panel and Wales none? It seems a trifle one-sided perhaps.

Dors, you should read the ramblings of some bloke (i think) called Ger Gilroy......


"England are being refereed differently from everyone else," alleged Gilroy, "this is a proper thing.

"There is a license granted to the English rugby team that used to be granted to the All Blacks and I wonder if all of this is built into the atmosphere within which they operate."

Crucially, with so many England fans online opting to defend their team, it was suggested that Jones' words unleashed something far more brutal in the minds of some fans: "Little England is waving its red and white flag going, 'Ya, ya!' - this is how Brexit happens."

.... makes out that England are as toxic as Scotland's away kit

Keep us out of your diddling antics.

p/d wrote:

Oakboy wrote:So, is that an accurate assessment in the calm post-match review, that England have three players before the disciplinary panel and Wales none? It seems a trifle one-sided perhaps.

Dors, you should read the ramblings of some bloke (i think) called Ger Gilroy......


"England are being refereed differently from everyone else," alleged Gilroy, "this is a proper thing.

"There is a license granted to the English rugby team that used to be granted to the All Blacks and I wonder if all of this is built into the atmosphere within which they operate."

Crucially, with so many England fans online opting to defend their team, it was suggested that Jones' words unleashed something far more brutal in the minds of some fans: "Little England is waving its red and white flag going, 'Ya, ya!' - this is how Brexit happens."

.... makes out that England are as toxic as Scotland's away kit

I suppose we have suffered in the past from NZ offside cheating to the extent that we cannot whinge now IF we are the worst culprits. I have to say that Jones mouthing off after the game, together with Farrell's antics during it, leaves our 'most-hated' status as pretty indefensible.

Ugo Monye reckons Marler might have played his last game for England, as he could retire again.

Tbh, while I don’t think he’s a horrible bloke by any means, all this nonsense is a bit tiresome. Wouldn’t be the worst thing to see England move on from him.

AGree. He's not a mean spirited bloke and if I had the choice of a tadger tickle or a head stamp I'd go the tickle. But, as you say, the nonsense gets tiring and detracts from the many positives for England.

SCW calling for England to adopt a ‘no dickheads’ policy. Can’t argue with that.

Sandydragon wrote:SCW calling for England to adopt a ‘no dickheads’ policy. Can’t argue with that.

You wouldn't have found Clive picking penalty risks like White or Grewcock

Timbo wrote:Ugo Monye reckons Marler might have played his last game for England, as he could retire again.

Tbh, while I don’t think he’s a horrible bloke by any means, all this nonsense is a bit tiresome. Wouldn’t be the worst thing to see England move on from him.

I still haven't actually seen the incident, and whilst I think Marler has largely been great since returning for England (I felt a weight was lifted just by having spoken about his issues) it might just be too much of a distraction wondering if his heart is really in it or when he may do something else insane.

Though if Monye is saying that, I imagine he's done now. What a way to go out, eh?

fivepointer wrote:I've got no problem with players being cited for suspected foul play, but lets make it consistent, shall we? A couple of Welsh players could easily have been put in the dock and it was extraordinary that Ryan didn't get a tap on the shoulder for his antics in the previous game.

This.

It makes no sense at all.

No issue with either citing tbh. Marler is just a massive twat to try something like that with cameras everywhere these days. I've heard worse stories of what has happened in a ruck, but that is going back to a different era. There may well be stuff that still happens away from the camera lens these days, but to be so blatant about it?!? What an utter tool. This isn't the 70s anymore. I think he'll be out for a year and I'll be surprised if it's any less in this current climate.

For some reason the citing official has ignored Parkes' hit on Tuilagi, as well as Liam Williams' tip of Curry and the instances from the Ireland match.

I'm all for player welfare, but lets have a level playing field.

One thing I would say (largely because I am in a different timezone and have nothing else to comment on) is that the threshold for citing is a red card offence. Personally I don't see Parkes' as falling into that category although the tip may have (depending on how he landed).

Ruck offences I agree but until they are taken seriously by referees it is a jump to being cited for them. Personally I think something like the tackle technique warning might work as it would seem more constructive than handing out random big bans now. E.g. if you are seen on video entering using your body as a missile, you get a warning and some education. If you do it again, you get a one game ban. Any more and the punishments escalate (or you can only play with a tmo delegated purely to look at you).

Cameo wrote:One thing I would say (largely because I am in a different timezone and have nothing else to comment on) is that the threshold for citing is a red card offence. Personally I don't see Parkes' as falling into that category although the tip may have (depending on how he landed).

Ruck offences I agree but until they are taken seriously by referees it is a jump to being cited for them. Personally I think something like the tackle technique warning might work as it would seem more constructive than handing out random big bans now. E.g. if you are seen on video entering using your body as a missile, you get a warning and some education. If you do it again, you get a one game ban. Any more and the punishments escalate (or you can only play with a tmo delegated purely to look at you).

're the Parkes tackle, the criteria is quite clear since all the fuss about Farrell v SA, contact to the head neck area with force (as Parkes clearly was) is a red card. There is no mitigation for wrapping arms and certainly Tuilagi didn't change height (unlike North where Slades tackle dropped the height considerably)

I'm really not sure where I stand on this one. But it won't be alongside the internet hard-men looking to show how toxicly masculine they are.

On the one hand, it was clearly intended as a joke; and was clearly the equivalent of a friendly punch on the arm, as opposed to the Tyson-Roundhouse that some are equating it to.
On the other hand, it wasn't funny, but was badly misjudged.
It's technically sexual assault in the post #MeToo era, even though it wasn't for the purpose of sexual gratification, degradation or control.
Finally, this happened in a televised match, with dozens of cameras; and the rugby worlds second most prestigious event.

Those "mitigations" also end up not mattering one jot. "It's just a joke" "intent" "purpose" only matter if everyone involved thinks of it that way - otherwise it's bullying / assault.

He absolutely deserves a ban - for sheer dumb stupidity if nothing else. I simply don't know how much of a ban "feels" right. 12 weeks seems unproportionately harsh for something that so clearly WAS intended in jest. On the other hand, sexual assault is a erm... dodgy area to jest in, whilst rugby laws don't really differentiate between "done in jest" and "done with malicious intent".
It could viably be seen as anything from "a joke between Lions team mates" to "sexual assault". One requires a slap on the wrist for misjudging the timing / publicity; the other deserves a custodial sentence and his name on a register. Neither seems "right"

Ultimately, I guess I'll judge my outrage by AWJ's reaction

Which Tyler wrote:He absolutely deserves a ban - for sheer dumb stupidity if nothing else.

What did Tuilagi get for jumping off the ferry?

Oakboy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:He absolutely deserves a ban - for sheer dumb stupidity if nothing else.

What did Tuilagi get for jumping off the ferry?

Couple of stunned fish?

Which Tyler wrote:I'm really not sure where I stand on this one. But it won't be alongside the internet hard-men looking to show how toxicly masculine they are.

On the one hand, it was clearly intended as a joke; and was clearly the equivalent of a friendly punch on the arm, as opposed to the Tyson-Roundhouse that some are equating it to.
On the other hand, it wasn't funny, but was badly misjudged.
It's technically sexual assault in the post #MeToo era, even though it wasn't for the purpose of sexual gratification, degradation or control.
Finally, this happened in a televised match, with dozens of cameras; and the rugby worlds second most prestigious event.

Those "mitigations" also end up not mattering one jot. "It's just a joke" "intent" "purpose" only matter if everyone involved thinks of it that way - otherwise it's bullying / assault.

He absolutely deserves a ban - for sheer dumb stupidity if nothing else. I simply don't know how much of a ban "feels" right. 12 weeks seems unproportionately harsh for something that so clearly WAS intended in jest. On the other hand, sexual assault is a erm... dodgy area to jest in, whilst rugby laws don't really differentiate between "done in jest" and "done with malicious intent".
It could viably be seen as anything from "a joke between Lions team mates" to "sexual assault". One requires a slap on the wrist for misjudging the timing / publicity; the other deserves a custodial sentence and his name on a register. Neither seems "right"

Ultimately, I guess I'll judge my outrage by AWJ's reaction

Broadly agree with this. It’s a bit like slapping someone in the head when they have conceded a penalty, a deliberate attempt to get a reaction. I hate those cases and would like to see penalty reversed for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

But this was an unwanted touch of genitalia and whilst it probably was meant to be light hearted his actions must be shown to be wrong otherwise what example does that set. 12 weeks feels very disproportionate, but a couple of weeks rest and a public admission that he has been a bit of a prat, which thus far he seems not to recognise, would probably be fair.

Oakboy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:He absolutely deserves a ban - for sheer dumb stupidity if nothing else.

What did Tuilagi get for jumping off the ferry?

I miss the days when they had a ferry at matches.

Danno wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:He absolutely deserves a ban - for sheer dumb stupidity if nothing else.

What did Tuilagi get for jumping off the ferry?

I miss the days when they had a ferry at matches.

Come to Tewkesbury - it's what we call the stands

Sandydragon wrote: Broadly agree with this. It’s a bit like slapping someone in the head when they have conceded a penalty, a deliberate attempt to get a reaction. I hate those cases and would like to see penalty reversed for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

But this was an unwanted touch of genitalia and whilst it probably was meant to be light hearted his actions must be shown to be wrong otherwise what example does that set. 12 weeks feels very disproportionate, but a couple of weeks rest and a public admission that he has been a bit of a prat, which thus far he seems not to recognise, would probably be fair.

I'm sort of okay with that and yet to address this and not some of the dangerous play feels... questionable, uncomfortable even.

Which Tyler wrote:I'm really not sure where I stand on this one. But it won't be alongside the internet hard-men looking to show how toxicly masculine they are.

On the one hand, it was clearly intended as a joke; and was clearly the equivalent of a friendly punch on the arm, as opposed to the Tyson-Roundhouse that some are equating it to.
On the other hand, it wasn't funny, but was badly misjudged.
It's technically sexual assault in the post #MeToo era, even though it wasn't for the purpose of sexual gratification, degradation or control.
Finally, this happened in a televised match, with dozens of cameras; and the rugby worlds second most prestigious event.

Those "mitigations" also end up not mattering one jot. "It's just a joke" "intent" "purpose" only matter if everyone involved thinks of it that way - otherwise it's bullying / assault.

He absolutely deserves a ban - for sheer dumb stupidity if nothing else. I simply don't know how much of a ban "feels" right. 12 weeks seems unproportionately harsh for something that so clearly WAS intended in jest. On the other hand, sexual assault is a erm... dodgy area to jest in, whilst rugby laws don't really differentiate between "done in jest" and "done with malicious intent".
It could viably be seen as anything from "a joke between Lions team mates" to "sexual assault". One requires a slap on the wrist for misjudging the timing / publicity; the other deserves a custodial sentence and his name on a register. Neither seems "right"

Ultimately, I guess I'll judge my outrage by AWJ's reaction

On reflection, I probably agree with what you've just said there. "It's just a joke" "intent" "purpose" only matter if everyone involved thinks of it that way - otherwise it's bullying / assault." is the right tack to take.

Puja