RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:
Lavanini's a bit of a thug sometimes - he is a good player, but not one I'd swap for any of our four second rows.

Puja

Is Lavanini the scrote that tried to dislocate Hughes's knee by an off-the-ball tackle from the side? If so, he should still be banned.

I don't recall whether that was him, but it doesn't sound drastically off-brand. I am told that he's calmed down a bit in recent years, which is why I'm not as annoyed about him joining Leicester.

Puja

I think he’s exactly what you need at Leicester....amongst a few other things! He could be a great signing.

Raggs wrote:Yes he did. Hughes was at the back of a long maul. Lavanini just came right round the side charged and hit him in the side of the knee. Not sure he even got carded.

I'm now more annoyed about him joining Leicester after being reminded of that. One of the dirtiest things I've seen on a rugby pitch.

Mellsblue wrote:I think he’s exactly what you need at Leicester....amongst a few other things! He could be a great signing.

You're not wrong in terms of quality and overall style of play, but I hope the reports of him having cut that kind of stuff the f*ck out are correct, cause I don't want this kind of thing happening in a Leicester shirt. Quite apart from the cards and the bans, I don't want the above associated with us.

We'll have to wait and see how he behaves.

Puja

The act of a real arsehole.

There's not many players out there who look to seriously injure the opposition. Batter them, bruise them, break a rib if you can hit them hard enough legally, but that's a career ender carried out in cold blood.

It annoys me from a sheer rugby perspective as well, even without the GBH. England have a fast paced maul going, so instead of making even a token effort to deal with it legally, he just comes round the back and cuts it down, taking the bet that the immediate penalty is less dangerous than the ongoing maul.

In my world, that's a yellow card for a cynical penalty every day, let alone the assault on an unprotected knee.

Puja

Puja wrote:It annoys me from a sheer rugby perspective as well, even without the GBH. England have a fast paced maul going, so instead of making even a token effort to deal with it legally, he just comes round the back and cuts it down, taking the bet that the immediate penalty is less dangerous than the ongoing maul.

In my world, that's a yellow card for a cynical penalty every day, let alone the assault on an unprotected knee.

Puja

How can it not be red, Puja? A deliberate act of thuggery where the intention cannot be other than to injure drastically must be given the highest sanction or the game has no future. A lesser physical specimen than Hughes might have been put out of a career. There was not a tiny smidgeon of 'accidental' in the act. It is on a par with the BOD incident. For both, rugby officialdom should hang its collective head in shame.

It's a team game, argentina are one of the most intense teams out there. They are greater than the sum of their parts. Against england they will be motivated on another level. We can match them but I wouldn't rule out a load of yellow/red cards and the game taking a crazy direction.

We need to maintain our discipline.

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:It annoys me from a sheer rugby perspective as well, even without the GBH. England have a fast paced maul going, so instead of making even a token effort to deal with it legally, he just comes round the back and cuts it down, taking the bet that the immediate penalty is less dangerous than the ongoing maul.

In my world, that's a yellow card for a cynical penalty every day, let alone the assault on an unprotected knee.

Puja

How can it not be red, Puja? A deliberate act of thuggery where the intention cannot be other than to injure drastically must be given the highest sanction or the game has no future. A lesser physical specimen than Hughes might have been put out of a career. There was not a tiny smidgeon of 'accidental' in the act. It is on a par with the BOD incident. For both, rugby officialdom should hang its collective head in shame.

I suspect Puja thinks it is a red, the yellow card comment only pertained to the cynical ending of the maul and didn't speak to the foul play

twitchy wrote:It's a team game, argentina are one of the most intense teams out there. They are greater than the sum of their parts. Against england they will be motivated on another level. We can match them but I wouldn't rule out a load of yellow/red cards and the game taking a crazy direction.

We need to maintain our discipline.

I certainly agree that we need to better. In most games I fear a cumulative yellow from conceding too many penalties. So many are just acts of brainlessness, often from reportedly intelligent individuals like Itoje.

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:It annoys me from a sheer rugby perspective as well, even without the GBH. England have a fast paced maul going, so instead of making even a token effort to deal with it legally, he just comes round the back and cuts it down, taking the bet that the immediate penalty is less dangerous than the ongoing maul.

In my world, that's a yellow card for a cynical penalty every day, let alone the assault on an unprotected knee.

Puja

How can it not be red, Puja? A deliberate act of thuggery where the intention cannot be other than to injure drastically must be given the highest sanction or the game has no future. A lesser physical specimen than Hughes might have been put out of a career. There was not a tiny smidgeon of 'accidental' in the act. It is on a par with the BOD incident. For both, rugby officialdom should hang its collective head in shame.

I suspect Puja thinks it is a red, the yellow card comment only pertained to the cynical ending of the maul and didn't speak to the foul play

As above - it's a yellow just for the cynical play, with the GBH deserving a straight red and a 6 month+ ban.

Puja

lots of players get tackled at the knees, and from the side. Manu was put out indeed in just such fashion, so it'd be hard perhaps to do much, other than wait for rugby to say you can't target the knees, a position which seems obvious but we've been waiting for a long, long time with nothing actually happening

Digby wrote:lots of players get tackled at the knees, and from the side. Manu was put out indeed in just such fashion, so it'd be hard perhaps to do much, other than wait for rugby to say you can't target the knees, a position which seems obvious but we've been waiting for a long, long time with nothing actually happening

There's a big difference between tackling at the knees and deliberately launching yourself at the side of someone's knees when they are unprepared and bound into a maul.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:lots of players get tackled at the knees, and from the side. Manu was put out indeed in just such fashion, so it'd be hard perhaps to do much, other than wait for rugby to say you can't target the knees, a position which seems obvious but we've been waiting for a long, long time with nothing actually happening

There's a big difference between tackling at the knees and deliberately launching yourself at the side of someone's knees when they are unprepared and bound into a maul.

Puja

I don't recall Manu being prepared, and he was badly injured. If it's a violent thuggish act that holds for me whether it's a tackle, ruck or maul situation, and I think it is

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:lots of players get tackled at the knees, and from the side. Manu was put out indeed in just such fashion, so it'd be hard perhaps to do much, other than wait for rugby to say you can't target the knees, a position which seems obvious but we've been waiting for a long, long time with nothing actually happening

There's a big difference between tackling at the knees and deliberately launching yourself at the side of someone's knees when they are unprepared and bound into a maul.

Puja

I don't recall Manu being prepared, and he was badly injured. If it's a violent thuggish act that holds for me whether it's a tackle, ruck or maul situation, and I think it is

While I don't remember Manu's incident, if it was open play then he was in a situation where he could reasonably expect to be tackled, and you could argue that a fluid situation meant the tackler wasn't deliberately aiming for a knee, but just to bring him down.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
There's a big difference between tackling at the knees and deliberately launching yourself at the side of someone's knees when they are unprepared and bound into a maul.

Puja

I don't recall Manu being prepared, and he was badly injured. If it's a violent thuggish act that holds for me whether it's a tackle, ruck or maul situation, and I think it is

While I don't remember Manu's incident, if it was open play then he was in a situation where he could reasonably expect to be tackled, and you could argue that a fluid situation meant the tackler wasn't deliberately aiming for a knee, but just to bring him down.

Puja

It was Sarries what did it, a team that try to disguise themselves as WT's much beloved black dogs. For me there's just so much in the knee that can break it seems daft to allow them to be attacked

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't recall Manu being prepared, and he was badly injured. If it's a violent thuggish act that holds for me whether it's a tackle, ruck or maul situation, and I think it is

While I don't remember Manu's incident, if it was open play then he was in a situation where he could reasonably expect to be tackled, and you could argue that a fluid situation meant the tackler wasn't deliberately aiming for a knee, but just to bring him down.

Puja

It was Sarries what did it, a team that try to disguise themselves as WT's much beloved black dogs. For me there's just so much in the knee that can break it seems daft to allow them to be attacked

You're not wrong, but hard to legislate and to play with that rule though. Do you rule out any contact with the knees at all? Or just direct shoulder contact? What's the line if a bit of shoulder hits the lower part of the quad?

Puja

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't recall Manu being prepared, and he was badly injured. If it's a violent thuggish act that holds for me whether it's a tackle, ruck or maul situation, and I think it is

While I don't remember Manu's incident, if it was open play then he was in a situation where he could reasonably expect to be tackled, and you could argue that a fluid situation meant the tackler wasn't deliberately aiming for a knee, but just to bring him down.

Puja

It was Sarries what did it, a team that try to disguise themselves as WT's much beloved black dogs. For me there's just so much in the knee that can break it seems daft to allow them to be attacked

I only vaguely remember that, but wasn't it a straight up rugby accident?

Think we should safeguard the ankle as well. Tap tackles need to be dealt with.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
While I don't remember Manu's incident, if it was open play then he was in a situation where he could reasonably expect to be tackled, and you could argue that a fluid situation meant the tackler wasn't deliberately aiming for a knee, but just to bring him down.

Puja

It was Sarries what did it, a team that try to disguise themselves as WT's much beloved black dogs. For me there's just so much in the knee that can break it seems daft to allow them to be attacked

I only vaguely remember that, but wasn't it a straight up rugby accident?

Yes it was an accident, actually even with the laws changed as I'd like to above the knees and below the armpit with allowances for tackles that start above the knee and slide down and tap tackles the Manu one would still be an unfortunate tangle. But if we want the incident on Hughes to be worse than cynical play then I think we'd have to say that method of putting a player down isn't acceptable in a tackle, and not just unacceptable where a tackle isn't reasonably expected.

p/d wrote:Think we should safeguard the ankle as well. Tap tackles need to be dealt with.

Only if tackler is wearing a white shellsuit

Tap tackles are fine as ankle isn't going to be have the foot planted, and if it were a tap isn't going to do anything. But some of the massive chop tackles below the knee give me pause for concern both for players' knees and ankles. I am biased as I've failed to walk off the pitch owing to a foot being left pointing in the wrong direction, sadly Cipriani quickly moved to take the attention with his own very similar ankle incident, and I feel sure the media were on the verge of covering my story

p/d wrote:Think we should safeguard the ankle as well. Tap tackles need to be dealt with.

More like collar bones. Some ba5tard ankle tapped me at a sevens tournament at KIngs Worcester, and I broke my collar bone, thereby missing the Rosslyn Park sevens. Not that it still (r)ankles.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
While I don't remember Manu's incident, if it was open play then he was in a situation where he could reasonably expect to be tackled, and you could argue that a fluid situation meant the tackler wasn't deliberately aiming for a knee, but just to bring him down.

Puja

It was Sarries what did it, a team that try to disguise themselves as WT's much beloved black dogs. For me there's just so much in the knee that can break it seems daft to allow them to be attacked

I only vaguely remember that, but wasn't it a straight up rugby accident?

Manu was a straight accident where one of the tacklers just landed on the back of his knee. Complete and utter accident.

My issue with Lavanini's fuckwittery was that instead of cheating by rushing up and sealing off the ball, or swimming up the side knowing what he's doing

He just decides that enough is enough and he's board of watching it trundle on - and smashes Hughes - not only is this a complete cheapshot and horrific in itself - he also smashes the knee, something that can easily get fwcked

Well hopefully we see none of that from him tomorrow.

Even putting everything else to one side, they need to beat us to qualify so they will be going all out.

They are without doubt a dangerous opponent but as long as we’re not wildly off our game, we should win.

We just need to keep out of any emotional BS or niggle and play to our strengths. If we do that, we will be fine.

Do we really need to spell it out in law what Lavanini did by bringing in no knee tackles? Or should a panel just look at it and use common sense to ban the fekker for straightforward horrendous thuggery?

Ouch btw Diggers.....

Beasties wrote:Do we really need to spell it out in law what Lavanini did by bringing in no knee tackles? Or should a panel just look at it and use common sense to ban the fekker for straightforward horrendous thuggery?

Ouch btw Diggers.....

Yes, else all you've reasonably got is him cynically killing the maul imo if in other instances that's a legal tackle


Edit - and actually it didn't hurt too much, I've had paper cuts that hurt more. The ankle getting reset did cause a slight grimace I'll admit