Wasps V Glos Sat 3:00

[Raggs]

It is strange, Blsckett seemed to have it sussed a few games ago, good brand of rugby, scoring freely. Not really sure what has changed so rapidly.

Discipline is a big part. Just like England, if we stopped with the silly penalties, we'd be back to winning most games. There's also a few key players still missing, albeit slightly fewer now (which is probably why we looked better than we had).

Everyone is missing key players though. What we have had exposed is a lack of depth, but also the compete lack of brain power in the majority of our squad, and any sensible plan on competing other than "get Jack to do it"

I agree that every squad is missing a lot, but a lot of them haven't dug so deep as to require multiple loan signings from the championship for players who're immediately on the bench the following week. That has an impact because you also struggle in training.

We do now rely on a lot of youngsters in places though (scrum half for instance), which can be problematic. Jack Willis is of course a big safety blanket, but not really different to the sort of thing provided by any star player (Radradra, Faf, Ford etc), we miss him of course, but it's not that we cannot win games without him. A lot of our play against Irish and Glaws looked very positive in places, incisive attack that made good yards, same with tigers. But you are always going to struggle to win a game when you're hitting 15+ penalties. It costs you possession and territory repeatedly.

Just as when Dai went, I don't think we're far off, but something does need to change. How the coaching team get the players to cut out stupid penalties though is a tough one, especially when you can't easily drop a player, because you don't have the depth due to absent players.

[Peej]

The Irish game where we didn't score a point in the second half? That incisive attack? And I should bloody hope you can look incisive in attack against a team when you're a player up. You still have to win the game though.

[Gloskarlos]

Well, another feather in the cap of ridiculous sanction. 4 week ban for Thorley , mitigated only slightly, as he and the club contested the red as he washed pushed off balance going into the 'tackle'

compare with other far more intentional and aggressive situations that have resulted in a lesser ban I give up trying to work out how consistency reigns.

[Raggs]

Well, another feather in the cap of ridiculous sanction. 4 week ban for Thorley , mitigated only slightly, as he and the club contested the red as he washed pushed off balance going into the 'tackle'

compare with other far more intentional and aggressive situations that have resulted in a lesser ban I give up trying to work out how consistency reigns.

As soon as you don't plead guilty, you lose most of the chance you have of getting the full 50% off.

[Gloskarlos]

Which is a ridiculous notion in itself. Always plead guilty regardless. He would have got a further week back had he done so. I still consider a 3 week ban beyond harsh. The red ought to be enough on it's own.

[Banquo]

Which is a ridiculous notion in itself. Always plead guilty regardless. He would have got a further week back had he done so. I still consider a 3 week ban beyond harsh. The red ought to be enough on it's own.

agreed.

[Digby]

I don't think we're far off, but something does need to change. How the coaching team get the players to cut out stupid penalties though is a tough one, especially when you can't easily drop a player, because you don't have the depth due to absent players.

This I think is much harder at club level than international. The players are contracted, and they're there rather than desperate to be there.

And harder again for Wasps because you can't just include some youth players to freshen things up and add some enthusiasm given how sparse senior cover already is. Really interested to see how they go in this period because it was easy when they were pushing on and playing some nice pretty rugby, well not easy, but nothing like this hard

[Raggs]

Which is a ridiculous notion in itself. Always plead guilty regardless. He would have got a further week back had he done so. I still consider a 3 week ban beyond harsh. The red ought to be enough on it's own.

Couple of things. If there was no reason not to plead Not Guilty, everyone would give it a go, and everyone's time would be wasted. He got 1 extra week.

On top of that, Thorley's tackle type is 6x more likely to cause injury than Hepetema's. And yet you feel it shouldn't be treated as badly?

[Raggs]

Oh, and pleading not guilty means you aren't sorry for your actions (you may be sorry for the consequences, but not the actions you took). Why should someone who's not sorry for their actions get the same amount of time reduced for someone who is?

[Gloskarlos]

Everyone pleading guilty by default is better? it just means they aren't being genuine to me. If that's the case there should be no plea allowed, level the playing field completely. I was being sarcastic when i said 'always plead guilty regardless - which may not have come across (should have done the rolling eyes smiley)

The issue is that these things are being judged on outcome rather than intent. I think there needs to be a factor of both taken into consideration. Thorley has stated himself that he was pushed in the back as he went in which had an impact on his ability to get lower.

[Raggs]

Everyone pleading guilty by default is better? it just means they aren't being genuine to me. If that's the case there should be no plea allowed, level the playing field completely. I was being sarcastic when i said 'always plead guilty regardless - which may not have come across (should have done the rolling eyes smiley)

The issue is that these things are being judged on outcome rather than intent. I think there needs to be a factor of both taken into consideration. Thorley has stated himself that he was pushed in the back as he went in which had an impact on his ability to get lower.

Not everyone pleading guilty is better, but at least they're saying they're sorry and they know their actions were wrong. As opposed to saying they don't feel they're actions were wrong.

Head to head clashes are 6x more dangerous than shoulder to head. If we want to get serious about protecting players, then this is the sort of tackle that needs to be stamped out. If they wanted to really make a stand, they could have easily started at 12 weeks, as a high end, due to the far more dangerous nature of it.

[Gloskarlos]

I feel like i'm making a different point.

It was completely clear Thorley had no intention of hitting the wasps players head, it was accidental, he was off balance, and had been shoved from behind. TMO at the time concurred.

Compare with swinging forearms, or a shoulder charge into a static head at the top of a ruck, or someone flying in behind with a closed fist to a neck. All outcomes are the same - head injuries that the game is rightfully trying to eradicate. Each of these however should not be treated equally in my view at all.

Saying sorry is not the same at all. Doubtless all people who go in front of the panel are sorry they have caused injury.

[fivepointer]

4 weeks strikes me as very harsh.

[Raggs]

I feel like i'm making a different point.

It was completely clear Thorley had no intention of hitting the wasps players head, it was accidental, he was off balance, and had been shoved from behind. TMO at the time concurred.

Compare with swinging forearms, or a shoulder charge into a static head at the top of a ruck, or someone flying in behind with a closed fist to a neck. All outcomes are the same - head injuries that the game is rightfully trying to eradicate. Each of these however should not be treated equally in my view at all.

Saying sorry is not the same at all. Doubtless all people who go in front of the panel are sorry they have caused injury.

I'm really not seeing a shove from behind to be honest.

Again, sorry for the consequence, not for the action. There's a difference.

I'm sure he didn't intend to hit the players head with his, but his tackle choice made it a likely outcome, it was reckless, caused head to head contact.

I believe contact with the head can basically be 3, 6 or 12+ weeks entry points. His entry point was the mid level, which is what we mostly see, and he got 2 weeks off despite claiming not guilty. Looks like he did alright to me, and got the maximum amount of time off that the panel could offer without a guilty plea.

[fivepointer]

just seen Hepetema gets a 3 week ban.

So a guy gets 4 weeks for clumsy, completely accidental high challenge, while another gets a week less for a blatant high hit into a players head with absolutely no mitigation.

Come on panellists, you have to do better than this.

[Raggs]

just seen Hepetema gets a 3 week ban.

So a guy gets 4 weeks for clumsy, completely accidental high challenge, while another gets a week less for a blatant high hit into a players head with absolutely no mitigation.

Come on panellists, you have to do better than this.

?

So a guy making no effort to bend, with no obvious mitigation, does an upright tackle (most risky), leading to a head to head collision (6x more dangerous than shoulder to head), pleads not guilty, and still gets the same entry point as someone who hits with the shoulder on a player who's already falling from a tackle?

Hepetema got a red because the the falling action of the tackled player is effectively offset by the fact he's putting the shoulder in, which would be a yellow card even if he hit the chest. Mid level entry point of 6 weeks, apologises for his actions, guilty plea and clean record, 3 weeks makes sense.

Given the far more dangerous nature of a head to head clash from an upright tackle, I think the panel could have pushed for a 12 week entry point for Thorley.

[fivepointer]

Looking at the 2 incidents I'd say Hepetema's challenge was far more calculated, dangerous and malicious. There was no mitigation at the time - the player being hit is not falling - and Hepetema makes no effort to adjust his height. Its a bad challenge which deserved a far greater penalty.

[Peej]

I think there's an issue here of careless versus reckless? Yet that doesn't seem to be reflected in the punishment process

[Raggs]

Looking at the 2 incidents I'd say Hepetema's challenge was far more calculated, dangerous and malicious. There was no mitigation at the time - the player being hit is not falling - and Hepetema makes no effort to adjust his height. Its a bad challenge which deserved a far greater penalty.

You'd be wrong in terms of dangerous. Calculated is meaningless, it's impossible to determine intent in the vast majority of cases, and even if the intent wasn't there, it doesn't mean it's better. Malicious is really looking into intent. You have to look at outcome, because you cannot determine what's inside someones head in these circumstances.

The player being hit definitely goes down, not enough for it to be mitigation from a red card (and the panel clearly don't argue this, otherwise they'd have removed the red card), but he does dip a bit, he is effected by the tackle. I don't think Hepetema is innocent, I'm not arguing that.

You have to start from the entry points. Both were determined to be mid level, if you want to argue one should have been high/low you're going to need to do better than thinking Thorley's is less dangerous, when we have evidence showing that head to head is 6x more dangerous than shoulder to head.

Once both are at 6 weeks, we have one pleading guilty, one pleading not guilty. One admitting that his actions were foul play, another saying they weren't. Both then have clean records upto this point I believe. Maximum reduction is 3 weeks. I don't see why it's confusing as to how Hepetema got the full 3 weeks, and Thorley only got 2 weeks.

Running upright and high speed into another upright player may not always cause head to head, but it's reckless, and when it does cause head to head, that recklessness has had consequences that are extremely dangerous.

[Digby]

So you're saying it's because Thorley is black?

[Which Tyler]

I'm with Raggs here (now).
First few times we saw this I was as upset as the Glos fans here, but it's been like this all season - starting with the opening weekend (which is the Bath one I was thinking of) where Ewels is carded for a perfectly legal tackle that result in a clash of heads post-contact

Since then, we've had how many cards, of both colours, for head contact, including 5 reds in 1 weekend just a few weeks ago.

This is NOT a one-off it's part of an ongoing clamp-down. For the last 5 months it's been clear, you have to bend at the waist when putting in a tackle. If you dont, you're at fault if there's any contact with the head - even if that contact isn't part of the tackle (which mitigated Ewels down from abrednto a yellow - I suspect it might not now it's been reinforced).


As for sentencing. If you say you did nothing wrong, and the panel disagree, you're never going to get full dispensation.

[fivepointer]

Looking at the 2 incidents I'd say Hepetema's challenge was far more calculated, dangerous and malicious. There was no mitigation at the time - the player being hit is not falling - and Hepetema makes no effort to adjust his height. Its a bad challenge which deserved a far greater penalty.

You'd be wrong in terms of dangerous. Calculated is meaningless, it's impossible to determine intent in the vast majority of cases, and even if the intent wasn't there, it doesn't mean it's better. Malicious is really looking into intent. You have to look at outcome, because you cannot determine what's inside someones head in these circumstances.

The player being hit definitely goes down, not enough for it to be mitigation from a red card (and the panel clearly don't argue this, otherwise they'd have removed the red card), but he does dip a bit, he is effected by the tackle. I don't think Hepetema is innocent, I'm not arguing that.

You have to start from the entry points. Both were determined to be mid level, if you want to argue one should have been high/low you're going to need to do better than thinking Thorley's is less dangerous, when we have evidence showing that head to head is 6x more dangerous than shoulder to head.

Once both are at 6 weeks, we have one pleading guilty, one pleading not guilty. One admitting that his actions were foul play, another saying they weren't. Both then have clean records upto this point I believe. Maximum reduction is 3 weeks. I don't see why it's confusing as to how Hepetema got the full 3 weeks, and Thorley only got 2 weeks.

Running upright and high speed into another upright player may not always cause head to head, but it's reckless, and when it does cause head to head, that recklessness has had consequences that are extremely dangerous.

Is Hepetema intending to hit the ball carrier? Plainly he is. Thats intent. Is he looking to hit him high with the shoulder? I'd say yes given he had plenty of time to adjust. So we can rule out this being in any way an accidental collision. Hepetema does nothing to get himself into a position to affect a legal challenge despite the opportunity to do so.

Do I think Thorley deserved red? Yes I do. For me it was obviously accidental but clearly all players have to display care and he got himself into a bad position and entered the contact clumsily. There may have been a slight nudge from behind but its not clear that it was a decisive intervention. The red was right.

My gripe is the panel failing to distinguish between a challenge that, though clumsy, was plainly accidental, and one that was very clearly not an accident. The former is part and parcel of the game and will likely always be with us such is the nature of the game. The latter is something we all want to see removed.

How you plead shouldnt enter into it. The judgment should be made based on the facts presented.

[Digby]

How you plead should enter into it. Though there are valid concerns some people are just going along to get along when pleading guilty.

[Gloskarlos]

Agree with 5P

I'm not arguing Thorley didn't deserve a red, far from it, absolutely this needs to be refereed/coached out, so I agree with your point WT.

There should be in my honest view, an element of the hearing procedure that takes into account accidents, clumsiness and downright thuggery. This is what is missing for me.

[Which Tyler]

There should be in my honest view, an element of the hearing procedure that takes into account accidents, clumsiness and downright thuggery. This is what is missing for me.

And I agree with that, but it should be in the mitigation part of sentencing, and carry more weight than delayed remorse and apology, but less weight that admitting it happened.



But then, I've long held that 50% mitigation should the exception, not the rule.

I'd have something like 10% reduction for each of
Mitigating factors on-pitch
Immediate apology / remorse on pitch
Guilty plea with apology and remorse
Clean record
Obviously accidental

Equally the opposite of these factors should all increase the sentence by at least as much