RugbyRebels

I don't know if I'm being naive or just biased*, I just struggle to feel he was going for the eyes rather than just generally trying to rough him (in a totally reckless, idiotic way).

I have no problem with the ban, and wouldn't have if it were the full term to be honest. He needs to have a real look at how he makes himself an effective player, I've no idea what he thought he would contribute to the team by doing this.

*I consider Sinkler more twat than cunt, a word reserved for Hartley/Clark etc.

I think he should sit down with Jason Leonard and listen very carefully . He'll now be a marked man by props and refs .

Discreet Hooker wrote:I think he should sit down with Jason Leonard and listen very carefully . He'll now be a marked man by props and refs .

I'm pretty sure we only pay Adam Jones so he can hang around and try to keep Sinkler in check.

I don't really understand why the ban isn't 5-7 weeks longer. But it's hardly the first time I look at what's happened and then be unable to equate that with the length of a ban

Mikey Brown wrote:

Discreet Hooker wrote:I think he should sit down with Jason Leonard and listen very carefully . He'll now be a marked man by props and refs .

I'm pretty sure we only pay Adam Jones so he can hang around and try to keep Sinkler in check.

He's got 7 weeks to buy JL a drink . Might be a good conversation .

Numbers wrote:Looked reasonably conclusive to me:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/ ... resize=600

I'm not sure why Patterson would have claimed it if it hadn't been true, plus there was the look of pain on his face.

This is a part of rugby where there should be no mitigation imo.

I'm not sure I buy the whole not intentional in this case either. It looks pretty intentional to me.

The corollary of "no injury makes no difference" is "injury makes no difference" and that if someone were to lose an eye from a gouge the perpetrator should not be punished more severely.

bitts wrote:

Numbers wrote:Looked reasonably conclusive to me:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/ ... resize=600

I'm not sure why Patterson would have claimed it if it hadn't been true, plus there was the look of pain on his face.

This is a part of rugby where there should be no mitigation imo.

I'm not sure I buy the whole not intentional in this case either. It looks pretty intentional to me.

I think what was being said was the action isn't one the player intended to carry out in advance, and by dint of if not being premeditated we could (perhaps even should) take this to be an unintentional act occurring in the heat of the moment. Which I don't know is an argument a lot of people would buy, the game must expect players to control themselves even when angry/upset and thus Sinckler's actions were very much intentional

Digby wrote:

bitts wrote:

Numbers wrote:Looked reasonably conclusive to me:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/ ... resize=600

I'm not sure why Patterson would have claimed it if it hadn't been true, plus there was the look of pain on his face.

This is a part of rugby where there should be no mitigation imo.

I'm not sure I buy the whole not intentional in this case either. It looks pretty intentional to me.

I think what was being said was the action isn't one the player intended to carry out in advance, and by dint of if not being premeditated we could (perhaps even should) take this to be an unintentional act occurring in the heat of the moment. Which I don't know is an argument a lot of people would buy, the game must expect players to control themselves even when angry/upset and thus Sinckler's actions were very much intentional

If that's the case can anything be considered premeditated on a rugby field. He intentionally grasped at a players face, in the area of the eyes, with the apparent intention to cause harm.

How that doesn't result in a fairly huge ban I do not know.

If he were french I'm pretty confident a lot more people wiuld be up in arms about this.

bitts wrote:

Digby wrote:

bitts wrote:
I'm not sure I buy the whole not intentional in this case either. It looks pretty intentional to me.

I think what was being said was the action isn't one the player intended to carry out in advance, and by dint of if not being premeditated we could (perhaps even should) take this to be an unintentional act occurring in the heat of the moment. Which I don't know is an argument a lot of people would buy, the game must expect players to control themselves even when angry/upset and thus Sinckler's actions were very much intentional

If that's the case can anything be considered premeditated on a rugby field. He intentionally grasped at a players face, in the area of the eyes, with the apparent intention to cause harm.

How that doesn't result in a fairly huge ban I do not know.

If he were french I'm pretty confident a lot more people wiuld be up in arms about this.

I'm happy to conclude Sinckler's actions were not premeditated, I'm not happy to accept just because they were not premeditated means they were unintentional. His acts were deliberate even if in the moment he'd lost his control/composure.

And I'd agree he's gotten off rather lightly with his ban, I was expecting another 5 weeks tbh. And I think there's scope to revise the guidelines on this sort of action so it results in a longer ban, though obviously that wouldn't apply to Kyle.