General Rugby Discussion

The Lost Sheep

Synode wrote: »

We can't just accept that these things can happen and he'll slip through the cracks. The rules need to be changed so that a disciplinary review is possible after every match

But that isn't going to happen. The rules wont change so there is disciplinary reviews after every game. It just isn't feasible.

Synode wrote: »

Then he gets off as there's no clear evidence. But in cases such as this one where there is clear evidence of serious foul play then there should be an avenue to review it.

The club game has a discipline system that can look at these incidents if its deemed that its warranted but this case clearly as no sanction is being awarded it wasn't deemed to be worthy of punishment

Synode

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But that isn't going to happen. The rules wont change so there is disciplinary reviews after every game. It just isn't feasible.

The club game has a discipline system that can look at these incidents if its deemed that its warranted but this case clearly as no sanction is being awarded it wasn't deemed to be worthy of punishment

I think most people agree that lifting someone (in a vulnerable position) off the ground and throwing them back down is worthy of punishment greater than a yellow card.

The powers that be should recognise that refs and assistants can get the punishment wrong during the game. And in such cases, where clear evidence exists that they got it wrong, they should have the ability to review the punishment.

The Lost Sheep

Synode wrote: »

I think most people agree that lifting someone (in a vulnerable position) off the ground and throwing them back down is worthy of punishment greater than a yellow card.

The powers that be should recognise that refs and assistants can get the punishment wrong during the game. And in such cases, where clear evidence exists that they got it wrong, they should have the ability to review the punishment.

There is a review and there is a citing period. This incident clearly was felt by the ref to be only a yellow and I would agree. He picked him up and when he threw him down the player didn't land on head or neck he landed on his back. A yellow card is perfectly acceptable to me.

irishbucsfan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

There is a review and there is a citing period. This incident clearly was felt by the ref to be only a yellow and I would agree. He picked him up and when he threw him down the player didn't land on head or neck he landed on his back. A yellow card is perfectly acceptable to me.

What? It's not a tackle though. He's attacking him off the ball after the fact.

The Lost Sheep

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What? It's not a tackle though. He's attacking him off the ball after the fact.

I know its not but the mitigating circumstances around them both being involved and that when he picked him up he didn't land on neck would lead to yellow in thinking of tj/ref... I assume

Buer

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

There is a review and there is a citing period. This incident clearly was felt by the ref to be only a yellow and I would agree. He picked him up and when he threw him down the player didn't land on head or neck he landed on his back. A yellow card is perfectly acceptable to me.

He landed on his upper back and left in an ambulance. He gets to his feet and crumples back down a few seconds after, in clear pain related to his neck.

It was an violent incident off the ball that was extremely dangerous. He threw the player to the ground with no control.

I'm aghast that a referee could look at that footage and think "Grand, that deserves the same punishment as hands in the ruck near the try line".

CMOTDibbler

FellasFellas wrote: »

You do know we're playing rugby? Foul play and these kind of things are part of the game unfortunately. It doesn't make Kiripati a coward by any sense of the word; he may be thick and evidently dim by what he did but I've met him before, he's a very nice man, obviously one of the toughest operators around as well but this was very poor from him. Nobody takes to the rugby pitch expecting to be taken out in the air when jumping for a ball but it happens.

Lord knows why you'd bring up the "we're playing rugby' trope. It's meaningless in this context. Even you agree he probably should have got red. Once you're in red card territory, you're way outside the laws of the game and it isn't rugby any more.

You render somebody defenceless by using your strength and then deliberately injure them once they've been made defenceless. That's pretty cowardly imo. None of what he did is part of the game. Collisions while jumping for the ball are part of the game. There's usually nothing deliberate about those kinds of situations and it's mostly accidental or clumsy or both.

Anyhow, nothing is going to happen and I'm not blaming the officials, because we can't know how much of the incident the AR actually saw and was able to recount to the ref.

Interested Observer

Surprised to see people don't think it's a red. The landing on your back thing doesn't apply here, that's in a tackle when the player is up in the air. This was one player lifting another, in no tackle situation, and driving him into the ground. You can't argue it was mistimed or you were competing for the ball. It's just straight up foul play.

CMOTDibbler

Interested Observer wrote: »

Surprised to see people don't think it's a red. The landing on your back thing doesn't apply here, that's in a tackle when the player is up in the air. This was one player lifting another, in no tackle situation, and driving him into the ground. You can't argue it was mistimed or you were competing for the ball. It's just straight up foul play.

From the clips, it's not very clear but it seems to me that he landed at least head and back if not head first.

On the way down|Impact
|

sydthebeat

FellasFellas wrote: »

Premeditated? Are you for real?.

premediated doesnt mean "before the game"... it simply means he decided to lift him off the ground before he did it.. its obviously not an accidental lift like say a one leg tackle lift.

and not only was the lift premeditated, but the decision to throw him to the ground certainly was.

nehe milner skudder

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Bollocks. Of course it's cowardly. It isn't UFC, Best was defenceless; nobody takes to a rugby pitch with the expectation of being lifted up and thrown to the ground off the ball and unprovoked. Only a coward takes that kind of cheap shot.

you keep using the word coward. I'm not sure that it means what you think it means.

CMOTDibbler

nehe milner skudder wrote: »

you keep using the word coward. I'm not sure that it means what you think it means.

I could say the same :pac:

The Lost Sheep

Buer wrote: »

He landed on his upper back and left in an ambulance. He gets to his feet and crumples back down a few seconds after, in clear pain related to his neck.

It was an violent incident off the ball that was extremely dangerous. He threw the player to the ground with no control.

I'm aghast that a referee could look at that footage and think "Grand, that deserves the same punishment as hands in the ruck near the try line".

Im saying this is what I think the refs on the day decided. It was late off the ball and dangerous but I can see why only a yellow was awarded. Yes you could go with a red and while I think a yellow may sufficed I could agree with a yellow as well.
Your last sentence in the inverted commas is nonsense though. As all foul play, regardless of what it is, is a red card if that's the case

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Anyhow, nothing is going to happen and I'm not blaming the officials, because we can't know how much of the incident the AR actually saw and was able to recount to the ref.

This is the main thing. This then goes back to how the AR saw the incident and more importantly how they reported and phrased what they saw to the referee.

molloyjh

sydthebeat wrote: »

premediated doesnt mean "before the game"... it simply means he decided to lift him off the ground before he did it.. its obviously not an accidental lift like say a one leg tackle lift.

and not only was the lift premeditated, but the decision to throw him to the ground certainly was.

No there's still a difference between a deliberate act and a premeditated one. Premeditation means that it was planned in advance of it happening, meaning he had decided to do that before getting involved in the incident at all. I don't think that's the case. It was a deliberate act, not a premeditated one.

However it was still a deliberate act of violent and dangerous play. Whatever about the laws relating to the incident, if parents are watching guys all but getting away with that behaviour then they are going to be far less inclined to let their kids on a rugby pitch. Best deserved far better from the officials and the citing commissioner and it's very disappointing that no more has come of the incident.

CMOTDibbler

molloyjh wrote: »

No there's still a difference between a deliberate act and a premeditated one. Premeditation means that it was planned in advance of it happening, meaning he had decided to do that before getting involved in the incident at all. I don't think that's the case. It was a deliberate act, not a premeditated one.

However it was still a deliberate act of violent and dangerous play. Whatever about the laws relating to the incident, if parents are watching guys all but getting away with that behaviour then they are going to be far less inclined to let their kids on a rugby pitch. Best deserved far better from the officials and the citing commissioner and it's very disappointing that no more has come of the incident.

There would be no citing commissioner at that game. It's down to the officials on the pitch to make the call. They would have had very little to go on. What the AR saw and how he described it would have been the only available source for the ref to make his decision.

If he'd got a red, then he'd be in front of a tribunal and they'd be able to look at the video and adjudicate on any further punishment.

The Lost Sheep

molloyjh wrote: »

No there's still a difference between a deliberate act and a premeditated one. Premeditation means that it was planned in advance of it happening, meaning he had decided to do that before getting involved in the incident at all. I don't think that's the case. It was a deliberate act, not a premeditated one.

However it was still a deliberate act of violent and dangerous play. Whatever about the laws relating to the incident, if parents are watching guys all but getting away with that behaviour then they are going to be far less inclined to let their kids on a rugby pitch. Best deserved far better from the officials and the citing commissioner and it's very disappointing that no more has come of the incident.

But incident will only have went to a citing commis if the players club asked for it. There wont be a citing commissioner going through each game like pros.

molloyjh

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But incident will only have went to a citing commis if the players club asked for it. There wont be a citing commissioner going through each game like pros.

Sorry, I thought it went to the citing commissioner and nothing further came of it. Either way the point stands. A guy sent to hospital by a deliberate, off the ball and dangerous act should equate to more than a yellow card.

nehe milner skudder

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I could say the same :pac:

but you'd be wrong. and the dictionary would verify that i am right.

coward
ˈkaʊəd/Submit
noun
1.
a person who is contemptibly lacking in the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
"they had run away—the cowards!"
synonyms: weakling, milksop, namby-pamby, mouse; More
antonyms: hero
adjective
adjective: coward
1.
literary
excessively afraid of danger or pain.
2.
HERALDRY
(of an animal) depicted with the tail between the hind legs.




he certainly carried out step one with aplomb.

FellasFellas

sydthebeat wrote: »

premediated doesnt mean "before the game"... it simply means he decided to lift him off the ground before he did it.. its obviously not an accidental lift like say a one leg tackle lift.

and not only was the lift premeditated, but the decision to throw him to the ground certainly was.

Premeditated most certainly does mean preplanned, deliberate is what he did once he got himself into the action of lifting him. As far as I'm concerned, it would have been a straight red in the game if he came down with him in some sort of sidewalk slam manouevre.

Interested Observer wrote: »

Surprised to see people don't think it's a red. The landing on your back thing doesn't apply here, that's in a tackle when the player is up in the air. This was one player lifting another, in no tackle situation, and driving him into the ground. You can't argue it was mistimed or you were competing for the ball. It's just straight up foul play.

I'm struggling to see as to where you see him driving him into the ground? He lifts him and drops him, simple as.

CMOTDibbler

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry, I thought it went to the citing commissioner and nothing further came of it. Either way the point stands. A guy sent to hospital by a deliberate, off the ball and dangerous act should equate to more than a yellow card.

Yeah, basically YCs are done and dusted after the game and can't be revisited. RCs can.

Anyhow, apparently Mark Best has recovered and is fine now, so that's good to hear.

nehe milner skudder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCYQNlx1rA4

this is throwing a player.

molloyjh

FellasFellas wrote: »

He lifts him and drops him, simple as.

He did in his hoop "drop" him. He threw him to the ground. You really need to watch that video again. Look at the arms after picking him up.

http://www.independent.ie/videos/sport/watch-moment-ulster-centre-is-bodyslammed-in-totally-unprovoked-incident-during-a-club-rugby-match-and-is-rushed-to-hospital-35276207.html#play

Synode

FellasFellas wrote: »

I'm struggling to see as to where you see him driving him into the ground? He lifts him and drops him, simple as.

There's a clear pushing down motion after he lifts him. He doesn't just lift and let go. He lifts and forces downwards

CMOTDibbler

nehe milner skudder wrote: »

but you'd be wrong. and the dictionary would verify that i am right.

coward
ˈkaʊəd/Submit
noun
1.
a person who is contemptibly lacking in the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
"they had run away—the cowards!"
synonyms: weakling, milksop, namby-pamby, mouse; More
antonyms: hero
adjective
adjective: coward
1.
literary
excessively afraid of danger or pain.
2.
HERALDRY
(of an animal) depicted with the tail between the hind legs.




he certainly carried out step one with aplomb.

You took all that time to look up the meaning of coward? Clearly not too au fait with the English language.

There are far more meanings than you found on the online dictionary. But since you like to look things up, here's a usage from dictionary.com:

"a cowardly attack on a weak, defenceless man"

Does that square with your knowledge of the English language? If in doubt, refer to any or all condemnations of IRA or other paramilitary attacks on civilians for further clarification.

Since you seem to be a literal kind of guy, I hasten to add that I'm not equating this with IRA or other paramilitary attacks.

The simple TL:DR version is that it was a cheap shot. Much the same as hitting someone in the back. Because you know you'll get your shot in first, there's no danger of coming to grief in the process. Ergo cowardly.

Buer

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Im saying this is what I think the refs on the day decided. It was late off the ball and dangerous but I can see why only a yellow was awarded. Yes you could go with a red and while I think a yellow may sufficed I could agree with a yellow as well.
Your last sentence in the inverted commas is nonsense though. As all foul play, regardless of what it is, is a red card if that's the case

That's all fair enough but not how your first post read at all.

On the basis of the incident at the time, I can understand the yellow. He doesn't have the benefit of eyes in the back of his head or a TMO.

On the basis of the footage, however, it's an undoubted red card.

Buer

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But incident will only have went to a citing commis if the players club asked for it. There wont be a citing commissioner going through each game like pros.

Ballymena sent footage to the IRFU according to the Belfast Telegraph.

CMOTDibbler

Buer wrote: »

Ballymena sent footage to the IRFU according to the Belfast Telegraph.

Shock horror! TLS was wrong!

It needed to be red for it to go to post match discipline. It wasn't, so nothing could be done. Now I could be wrong too, but the Ballymena boys said this in the BT, so I'll go with them.

Interested Observer

FellasFellas wrote: »

I'm struggling to see as to where you see him driving him into the ground? He lifts him and drops him, simple as.

Are you for real?

Bridge93

The defence of this guy because he's awful sound off the pitch is pathetic. Take off the rose tinted glasses and see the act for the thuggery it is

PTH2009

Picked up a new DVD called Beyond the tryline

Looking forward to watching it

https://youtu.be/dhsnPuD5uWA