General Rugby Discussion II

sydthebeat

Former Former wrote: »

It's striking how many of the ills of Super Rugby are shared by the Pro14.

Please say Wales are the Australia of the pro 14

Losty Dublin

It's not just the Southern nations who are skint. USW Rugby are again tethering towards bankruptcy with reported debts of over $4 million, excluding cash owed to South Africa, Wales and World Rugby.

https://www.usa.rugby/2019/11/letter-to-the-membership-on-2019-financials/

awec

My own vague, wishy-washy opinion on all this is that in the next decade there will be a radical transformation of professional rugby union in terms of how the game is run, who runs it, where the money comes from and how the money is spent.

And by radical, I mean none of the current club competitions will exist in their current form any more.

The current model just seems unsustainable to me. Ultimately I think unions (including the Pro14 unions) are going to have their wings clipped, with the English and French clubs driving for big changes in the NH especially.

Yeah_Right

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

do more to get islanders sides and or players involved? Look to USA? Team based in Hawaii. Maybe another on west coast?

The Pacific Islands are a problem. Everyone wants to do more for them because the players are freaks. The talent that comes from the PIs is unbelievable and I think all rugby people want to see more of them on the field.

The problem is money. They bring none to the table. Setting up pro teams in the islands and having them play in Super Rugby would be a huge expense. Then there is the issue of corruption. Until the governing bodies in the PI unions are completely overhauled and the greedy, corrupt pricks involved are kicked out, no one is going to want to put money into them.

Bazzo

https://twitter.com/whalaholo/status/1199318401275060225?s=19

Seems like Halaholo has been getting some flak for being selected for Wales. Not sure what he means about them "getting their wish" though? Will he be removing himself from consideration?

ClanofLams

Bazzo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/whalaholo/status/1199318401275060225?s=19

Seems like Halaholo has been getting some flak for being selected for Wales. Not sure what he means about them "getting their wish" though? Will he be removing himself from consideration?

Damaged his knee, won’t play again this season so presume he just means they got their wish in the short term.

Squidgy Black

Bazzo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/whalaholo/status/1199318401275060225?s=19

Seems like Halaholo has been getting some flak for being selected for Wales. Not sure what he means about them "getting their wish" though? Will he be removing himself from consideration?

He went for surgery I believe, out for 9 months, there's been a replacement called up.

The getting their wish is because he got injured after the callup, and the whole 9 months to get better is saying they've got that time period to get used to him being in the squad before he returns I guess.

The Lost Sheep

Yeah_Right wrote: »

The Pacific Islands are a problem. Everyone wants to do more for them because the players are freaks. The talent that comes from the PIs is unbelievable and I think all rugby people want to see more of them on the field.

The problem is money. They bring none to the table. Setting up pro teams in the islands and having them play in Super Rugby would be a huge expense. Then there is the issue of corruption. Until the governing bodies in the PI unions are completely overhauled and the greedy, corrupt pricks involved are kicked out, no one is going to want to put money into them.

should look at creating teams for islander players but not base it entirely in the islands. Look to Hawaii and use that as base for Pacific islander team and then play some home games in fiji/Tonga. I know issues with unions and corruption etc. That's why have to look at Hawaii and links to america

Clegg

Haloholo is injured and out for the rest of the season afaik.

realhorrorshow

Bouragarit getting 6 weeks for gouging is shocking.

FACECUTTR

realhorrorshow wrote: »

Bouragarit getting 6 weeks for gouging is shocking.

6 months would be more like it.

prawnsambo

realhorrorshow wrote: »

Bouragarit getting 6 weeks for gouging is shocking.

I don't think he gouged, just hand over the eye area to pull the head back and then copped on and let go. That's how I saw it at the time (and it was replayed a number of times) anyway. Definitely ban-worthy, but at the bottom end of that sort of offence.

Squidgy Black

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think he gouged, just hand over the eye area to pull the head back and then copped on and let go. That's how I saw it at the time (and it was replayed a number of times) anyway. Definitely ban-worthy, but at the bottom end of that sort of offence.

I'm sorry but it was a definite attempt at a gouge

https://twitter.com/CianTracey1/status/1199753352663519237?s=19

It's a disgrace that such a lenient punishment was given.

prawnsambo

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I'm sorry but it was a definite attempt at a gouge

https://twitter.com/CianTracey1/status/1199753352663519237?s=19

It's a disgrace that such a lenient punishment was given.

Just not seeing it. His fingers don't appear to curl and he pulled at his head. Fingers were definitely close to or on the eye area, but a gouge requires a good deal of finger bend which you would see clearly. Haven't read the report, did they say it was a gouge or just 'contact with the eye area'?

Edit: I don't think they ever refer to a gouge per se. Just 'contact with the eye area'. But they also consider aggravating factors which (from other decisions) seems to mean actual injury caused. Here's the pertinent section in the report:

It was decided that the offence was at the top end of World Rugby’s sanctions for contact with the eye area, however, it was also decided that there was no reason to consider a sanction greater than the minimum entry point of 12 weeks.

There were no aggravating factors, and taking into account the player’s guilty plea, clear disciplinary record and timely expression of remorse, the Committee reduced the sanction by the maximum of 50% before imposing a six-week suspension.

Under World Rugby’s Sanctions for Foul Play, Law 9.12 relating to contact with the eye area carries the following sanction entry points – Low End: 4 weeks; Mid-range: 8 weeks; Top end: 12 to 52 weeks.

DelBoy Trotter

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think he gouged, just hand over the eye area to pull the head back and then copped on and let go. That's how I saw it at the time (and it was replayed a number of times) anyway. Definitely ban-worthy, but at the bottom end of that sort of offence.

That's how I saw it at the moment, and I haven't changed my mind on it. Clumsy and stupid move, but not an attempt at an eye gouge

stephen_n

prawnsambo wrote: »

Just not seeing it. His fingers don't appear to curl and he pulled at his head. Fingers were definitely close to or on the eye area, but a gouge requires a good deal of finger bend which you would see clearly. Haven't read the report, did they say it was a gouge or just 'contact with the eye area'?

Edit: I don't think they ever refer to a gouge per se. Just 'contact with the eye area'. But they also consider aggravating factors which (from other decisions) seems to mean actual injury caused. Here's the pertinent section in the report:



Under World Rugby’s Sanctions for Foul Play, Law 9.12 relating to contact with the eye area carries the following sanction entry points – Low End: 4 weeks; Mid-range: 8 weeks; Top end: 12 to 52 weeks.

He knew exactly where his hand was, he was looking at where he placed them. There was nothing accidental about that contact. So what you’re saying is if he doesn’t hook his finger in and extract an eyeball, sure it’s all good. That was the clearest case of deliberate eye gouging you are ever likely to see. Should be a minimum ban of 24 weeks for deliberate eye gouging, no matter how nice your suit is.

prawnsambo

stephen_n wrote: »

He knew exactly where his hand was, he was looking at where he placed them. There was nothing accidental about that contact. So what you’re saying is if he doesn’t hook his finger in and extract an eyeball, sure it’s all good. That was the clearest case of deliberate eye gouging you are ever likely to see. Should be a minimum ban of 24 weeks for deliberate eye gouging, no matter how nice your suit is.

Since I never said it was accidental, I can't really see how you're disagreeing with me. He definitely grabbed him around the eye area. Like that's not even up for discussion. Since that's the offence (as I posted), he's guilty as charged. And they never call it an eye gouge. That's also clear in the laws. As I quoted. And finally they looked at aggravating factors: e.g. injury to the player concerned and found none. That's the decision tree and that's how it was arrived at.

Interested Observer

prawnsambo wrote: »

Since I never said it was accidental, I can't really see how you're disagreeing with me. He definitely grabbed him around the eye area. Like that's not even up for discussion. Since that's the offence (as I posted), he's guilty as charged. And they never call it an eye gouge. That's also clear in the laws. As I quoted. And finally they looked at aggravating factors: e.g. injury to the player concerned and found none. That's the decision tree and that's how it was arrived at.

They never call it an eye gouge. What laws have you quoted that make anything clear? This ban is an absolute joke.

aloooof

prawnsambo wrote: »

Since I never said it was accidental, I can't really see how you're disagreeing with me. He definitely grabbed him around the eye area. Like that's not even up for discussion. Since that's the offence (as I posted), he's guilty as charged. And they never call it an eye gouge. That's also clear in the laws. As I quoted. And finally they looked at aggravating factors: e.g. injury to the player concerned and found none. That's the decision tree and that's how it was arrived at.

Personally think this is a flaw in the decision making process. It looks at the outcome rather than the action.

prawnsambo

Interested Observer wrote: »

They never call it an eye gouge. What laws have you quoted that make anything clear? This ban is an absolute joke.

Yes, they never call it an eye gouge. Are you making a statement (that I've already made) or have you missed the fact that that's what stephen_n said and what I was addressing?


If you'd read my earlier post (just a couple of posts up) where I put the description of the offence in the laws in quotes, you'd know where I quoted it.

prawnsambo

aloooof wrote: »

Personally think this is a flaw in the decision making process. It looks at the outcome rather than the action.

They do the same with head injuries from tackles or ruck clearouts etc. I suspect that it's an alternative to trying to establish intent, which is a futile exercise in mind reading. It's easier to impute intent with eye contact incidents where there is actual injury caused, be it scratches, bruises or damage to the eye itself. That's the kind of aggravating factor that allows them to impose a lengthy ban.

stephen_n

prawnsambo wrote: »

Just not seeing it. His fingers don't appear to curl and he pulled at his head. Fingers were definitely close to or on the eye area, but a gouge requires a good deal of finger bend which you would see clearly. Haven't read the report, did they say it was a gouge or just 'contact with the eye area'?

Edit: I don't think they ever refer to a gouge per se. Just 'contact with the eye area'. But they also consider aggravating factors which (from other decisions) seems to mean actual injury caused. Here's the pertinent section in the report:



Under World Rugby’s Sanctions for Foul Play, Law 9.12 relating to contact with the eye area carries the following sanction entry points – Low End: 4 weeks; Mid-range: 8 weeks; Top end: 12 to 52 weeks.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Since I never said it was accidental, I can't really see how you're disagreeing with me. He definitely grabbed him around the eye area. Like that's not even up for discussion. Since that's the offence (as I posted), he's guilty as charged. And they never call it an eye gouge. That's also clear in the laws. As I quoted. And finally they looked at aggravating factors: e.g. injury to the player concerned and found none. That's the decision tree and that's how it was arrived at.

to me these posts are completely at odds with each other. Gouging is not a technical term, it’s a general term for sticking your fingers in someone eye. The law is more technical and explicit. He reached around while looking at the player and stuck his fingers in his eyes. It wasn’t accidental contact with the eye area, it was sticking his fingers in another players eyes.

sydthebeat

Racing beaten at home today by bordeaux

Buer

sydthebeat wrote: »

Racing beaten at home today by bordeaux

Collapsed in final quarter. 27-17 ahead after 54mins.

jr86

Leicester and Wasps well beaten again. Both look hopeless

Hard to see both (or maybe even either) getting beyond 30 points, I don't think Sarries have all that much to worry about tbh

Shefwedfan

jr86 wrote: »

Leicester and Wasps well beaten again. Both look hopeless

Hard to see both (or maybe even either) getting beyond 30 points, I don't think Sarries have all that much to worry about tbh

Leicester are on a downward spiral now a few season

Haven’t seen much of wasps, they have a strong squad so strange they are so poor

RugbyLover123

I know he’s had a lot of personal problems but anytime I’ve seen Tom Youngs over the last few seasons he’s been very poor. Serious drop off in quality from where he used to be as England starting hooker and a test lion.

Clegg

Leicester's drop off has been coming for years. They tipped along well enough in the Premiership, but their European performances have been dire for much longer than that.

sydthebeat

Kimmages latest pop-shot at rugby in today's sindo is utterly bizarre.

Its a castigation of rugby books, singularly Joe Schmidts, without actually any critique of it (them)

And then it's a transcript of the latest five live rugby pod where Danny care, ugo monya and Chris Ashton have a bit of a light hearted chat about rugby books, and kimmages name comes up ... So reading I assume the only reason kimmage transcribes this conversation is to answer any charge in the exchange.. But no... Nothing.

I hope he didn't get paid for this drivel because if he was doing a plagerism check on it it would fail miserably.

Its quite an embarrassing piece by him, zero rate journalism, and I'm surprised the editor allowed that to be published actually

razorblunt

Sad but the editor doesn’t care, you’re talking about it, someone reading your post might go look for it, job done.