Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Rugby Discussion

Options
1…259260262264265…334

Comments

  • Options
    #7832
    Lake1989
    Site Banned Posts: 377 ✭✭Lake1989


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    Looks like it was considered a mid-range offence and a bit above entry level. Possibly an extra week added for previous.

    was given 5 weeks, with two added for previous record and 1 taken off for pleading guilty [how could plead not guilty to video evidence????? ]


  • Options
    #7833
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    Looks like it was considered a mid-range offence and a bit above entry level. Possibly an extra week added for previous.

    Two weeks added for his record, one removed for his guilty plea according to twitter machine.


  • Options
    #7834
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    So that's 60 weeks suspended during his career? Could he make three digits? :pac:


  • Options
    #7835
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Lake1989 wrote: »
    was given 5 weeks, with two added for previous record and 1 taken off for pleading guilty [how could plead not guilty to video evidence????? ]

    He could very easily have pled not guilty to striking and argued it was an attempted tackle. I don't believe it but they could have argued that.


  • Options
    #7836
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    He could very easily have pled not guilty to striking and argued it was an attempted tackle. I don't believe it but they could have argued that.
    Risky though. That's an automatic extra week (assuming that the one week reduction for pleading guilty is reversed) and possibly more.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7837
    LuckyGent88
    Registered Users Posts: 14,150 ✭✭✭✭LuckyGent88


    Lenient ban imo. I'm sick of this getting a week off just for pleading guilty. That's just nonsense.

    Convenient he is back just in time for England duty so hopefully SOB can have a crack at him on the 18th of March.

    Think James Davies is after getting 3 weeks for his swearing and gesture. That becomes a bit of a joke when you consider a violent and reckless swinging arm to the head gets you only 6 weeks


  • Options
    #7838
    swiwi_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,491 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    LuckyGent88 wrote: »

    Think James Davies is after getting 3 weeks for his swearing and gesture. That becomes a bit of a joke when you consider a violent and reckless swinging arm to the head gets you only 6 weeks

    I think respect for match officials is paramount in rugby. It's one of many things that makes rugby not soccer. No problem with a 3 week ban myself.

    And 6 weeks for Hartley is exactly what was predicted by several posters. Maybe a tad on the lenient side.


  • Options
    #7839
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LuckyGent88 wrote: »
    Lenient ban imo. I'm sick of this getting a week off just for pleading guilty. That's just nonsense.

    Convenient he is back just in time for England duty so hopefully SOB can have a crack at him on the 18th of March.

    Think James Davies is after getting 3 weeks for his swearing and gesture. That becomes a bit of a joke when you consider a violent and reckless swinging arm to the head gets you only 6 weeks

    Well the target in the Davies instance was the ref. It's like punching a Garda or a bloke outside the pub. One is dealt with far more harshly as a strong deterrent.

    With regards to pleading guilty, it saves a good deal of time and in some cases a fair amount of expense so in all legal circles it is taken into account. I think there may be a point where benefit of the doubt shouldn't apply and the usual "good conduct at hearing, pleading guilty" can't be used to reduce the ban.

    I agree, 6 weeks is light. I felt that all the ingredients for a strong ban were present. The strike was intentional, it was high and it connected with the head. It resulted with the player leaving the field to be assessed for concussion.

    I find it particularly odd that sanctions for high tackles, shoulders connecting with heads etc are drawing fairly light sanctions and yet World Rugby release a strong new edict today regarding this form of dangerous play.

    It appears that they want it to stop, but aren't prepared to make examples of people. Either that, or those whom have come up for sanction thus far haven't been the 'right' ones to make examples of.


  • Options
    #7840
    LuckyGent88
    Registered Users Posts: 14,150 ✭✭✭✭LuckyGent88


    swiwi_ wrote: »
    I think respect for match officials is paramount in rugby. It's one of many things that makes rugby not soccer. No problem with a 3 week ban myself.

    And 6 weeks for Hartley is exactly what was predicted by several posters. Maybe a tad on the lenient side.

    I have no problem with the ban for Davies. My issue is with the length of that ban for that offence compared to the length of ban for hartleys offence.


  • Options
    #7841
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    LuckyGent88 wrote: »
    Lenient ban imo. I'm sick of this getting a week off just for pleading guilty. That's just nonsense.

    There has to be some incentive to plead guilty, otherwise every hearing would turn into a circus, no matter how clear-cut the offence.

    Cf: O'Brien, Sean


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7842
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    LuckyGent88 wrote: »
    I have no problem with the ban for Davies. My issue is with the length of that ban for that offence compared to the length of ban for hartleys offence.
    Well look at the ban that Hartley got for swearing at Wayne Barnes then. A good bit higher than he got today and far higher than Davies. There's a premium for attacking refs and another premium for being Dylan Hartley. :)

    Pascal Pape got ten weeks for kneeing Jamie Heaslip in the back. In relative terms, his offence was a good deal worse than Hartley's. Most of the striking offences get somewhere between one and five weeks.


  • Options
    #7843
    Bazzo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    Well look at the ban that Hartley got for swearing at Wayne Barnes then. A good bit higher than he got today and far higher than Davies. There's a premium for attacking refs and another premium for being Dylan Hartley. :)

    Pascal Pape got ten weeks for kneeing Jamie Heaslip in the back. In relative terms, his offence was a good deal worse than Hartley's. Most of the striking offences get somewhere between one and five weeks.

    The premium for being Dylan Hartley is because of his disciplinary record, and nothing else. He has nobody but himself to blame and I have less than no sympathy for him.


  • Options
    #7844
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Bazzo wrote: »
    The premium for being Dylan Hartley is because of his disciplinary record, and nothing else. He has nobody but himself to blame and I have less than no sympathy for him.
    Did you think I was being sympathetic? :eek:

    My intention was to say what you said above, but in fewer words. Brevity is the soul of misunderstanding methinks. ;)


  • Options
    #7845
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Speaking of Papé, the FFR have appointed him to EPCR it seems. Maybe attempting to add a touch of dramatic flair to proceedings.


  • Options
    #7846
    nehe milner skudder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭nehe milner skudder


    more rules to make the refs the centre of attention.

    i despair.


  • Options
    #7847
    Johngoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Johngoose


    What do you think Leinster will win by at weekend?


  • Options
    #7848
    Bazzo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    Johngoose wrote: »
    What do you think Leinster will win by at weekend?

    Johnny you're like that fella who's always in the pub beside the Ladbrokes in town looking for tips off the patrons no matter what time of day you go in at :pac:


  • Options
    #7849
    Lake1989
    Site Banned Posts: 377 ✭✭Lake1989


    Johngoose wrote: »
    What do you think Leinster will win by at weekend?


    Need to see the teams on friday. Bookies dont put up much until they know the teams.


  • Options
    #7850
    TeoReid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 365 ✭✭TeoReid


    Johngoose wrote: »
    What do you think Leinster will win by at weekend?

    a million nil


  • Options
    #7851
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    Johngoose wrote: »
    What do you think Leinster will win by at weekend?

    The bookies think it will be 16 points.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7852
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    It's been a funny year of lessons learned. I felt that the beating of the All Blacks was a result off the back of the loss in 2013. It would have been easy for us to try and defend in the final quarter, but we won that by going on the attack and playing through the 80 minutes.

    I feel the same about this weekend. Northampton have a lot of quality in that side and they could show up with the bit between the teeth this weekend. I just feel that we'll be wise to the backlash this time and hopefully we come away with the win.

    I'm hopeful Munster can make short work of Leicester and we'll be on the cusp of having two sides in the quarters. I'd absolutely love Connacht and Ulster to come away with wins this weekend but I think they both have the tougher tasks. A win from either would be a good turnaround and certainly both sides have the capacity to do it. Ulster travelling to Clermont though has to be the highest wall to climb.


  • Options
    #7853
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    6 weeks for Hartley.

    So around what we were expecting really

    Not surprised, but honestly, no reduction for a twitter apology or a nice suit?! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #7854
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Not surprised, but honestly, no reduction for a twitter apology or a nice suit?! :rolleyes:

    I believe he got 5 weeks + 2 for bad record and - 1 for pleading guilty.


  • Options
    #7855
    Johngoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Johngoose


    Bazzo wrote: »
    Johnny you're like that fella who's always in the pub beside the Ladbrokes in town looking for tips off the patrons no matter what time of day you go in at :pac:

    Haha I know sorry.;-)


  • Options
    #7856
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    I see awec has David Nucifora as his profile pic.

    I await to see news of his new Lifetime Contract as IRFU performance director.


  • Options
    #7857
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,505 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    I see awec has David Nucifora as his profile pic.

    I await to see news of his new Lifetime Contract as IRFU performance director.
    Ulster's problems are of Ulster's own making, but Nucifora is the bad guy for making them lie in the bed they shat on. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #7858
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    I see awec has David Nucifora as his profile pic.

    I await to see news of his new Lifetime Contract as IRFU performance director.

    I had a chuckle at the "Nucifora out" avatar alright but found myself wondering, do the majority see him as a net positive or net negative?

    Certainly the foreign player limitations were there before Nucifora and he seems to be responsible for enforcing them more strictly than what was done before (a job someone with no provincial ties is uniquely qualified to do in my opinion).

    I wonder are we shooting the messenger a bit with Nucifora. George Hook had an article at the start of the year that Schmidt and Nucifora had been handed the keys to the IRFU and held too much power. Yet here we are a year later with provinces back competitive in Europe and unprecedented depth in the national squad along with wins over all three top southern hemisphere teams.

    Now by all accounts George's article was more an attack on Joe at the time and his axe here is well and truly ground at this stage. But Nucifora is probably the more long term placeholder for Ireland and likely to be around long after Joe moves on.

    I personally think we badly needed someone like Nucifora to come in and bring impartiality to the development structure that the IRFU had decided on. I think he is like the Garda that pulls you over for speeding. You are annoyed at him but he is performing an important duty for the greater good.

    So, Nucifora good or Nucifora bad?


  • Options
    #7859
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Nucifora will never get anything but criticism. That's the nature of his job. When the provinces do well we will be told it is in spite of him, when they fail we will be told it is because of him.


  • Options
    #7860
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,659 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Nucifora will never get anything but criticism. That's the nature of his job. When the provinces do well we will be told it is in spite of him, when they fail we will be told it is because of him.

    The opposite, more like.

    When things go right: "IRFU are brilliant, Nucifora outstanding. Schmidt and Nucifora are fixing Irish rugby."

    When things go wrong: "Nothing to do with the IRFU. All your fault.".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7861
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    awec wrote: »
    The opposite, more like.

    When things go right: "IRFU are brilliant, Nucifora outstanding. Schmidt and Nucifora are fixing Irish rugby."

    When things go wrong: "Nothing to do with the IRFU. All your fault.".

    Except you do very little but moan about him. Also check the Munster thread from recent days. Or media personalities like George Hook. What you say would be fine if it was actually happening.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement