Page 3 of 3
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:52 pm
by FKAS
oldbackrow wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 1:17 pm
My first reaction to a 'choke hold' (which I'm not sure it was TBH) would be to go for the arms.
Or try and stand up and wave your arms about to make it blindingly obvious to the referee.
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:42 pm
by Danno
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 12:10 pm
Danno wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 2:07 am
Aye sorry, I wasn't being clear enough. For me it's (b). No room for leniency on certain offences regardless of intent.
So the ban for intentionally doing it should be far more (no problem with that) or just the same?
I don’t understand this thinking of making manslaughter the same as murder. Or just disregarding intent entirely because he’s a typical dirty Saffa.
Intent should stack on more, not mitigate if it's absent imo
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 10:40 pm
by p/d
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 10:17 pm
Danno wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 4:37 pm
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 10, 2025 4:15 pm
So… definitely intentionally going for the eyes then.
It makes sense that some things are beyond the pale. If you take the risk of an open hand at a face then you meet the thin skull principle. Personally I don’t think reductions for gouging, punching etc are warranted
Yes. Intentionally going for another players eyes is beyond the pale. I’m just confused by the absolute certainty that this is what he was doing. My instinct when someone has me in a headlock would be to grab their face and shove them off me.
Clearly I’m too biased in Glasgow’s favour, not that I particularly like Venter as a player.
With you on this one MB
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 12:27 pm
by switchskier
Didn't see the game and only just saw the clip. Would have had no issue if it had been a full 12 game ban for Venter regardless.
My question is, why isn't Cole also being cited for putting him in a headlock?
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 12:51 pm
by FKAS
switchskier wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 12:27 pm
Didn't see the game and only just saw the clip. Would have had no issue if it had been a full 12 game ban for Venter regardless.
My question is, why isn't Cole also being cited for putting him in a headlock?
It's not really a headlock. Yes his arm is around the back of his head but he's not being choked. He's just holding him in to the ruck it's a penalty only offence. Needs to a red card to be cited.
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 2:11 pm
by Mikey Brown
That’s some curious logic/semantics.
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 2:50 pm
by FKAS
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 2:11 pm
That’s some curious logic/semantics.
Not really, Cole is playing silly buggers. Wind up merchant antics, Venter sacks him in the maul and Cole holds him on the ground. Venter decides to go for Cole's eyes. He could have quite easily tried to stand up and then when pulled back down waved his arms to alert the ref and possibly save his side from conceding a try. He went with thuggery instead.
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 3:36 pm
by Mikey Brown
The goalposts keep moving so much in this conversation it’s kind of futile.
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 5:46 pm
by switchskier
FKAS wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 2:50 pm
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 2:11 pm
That’s some curious logic/semantics.
Not really, Cole is playing silly buggers. Wind up merchant antics, Venter sacks him in the maul and Cole holds him on the ground. Venter decides to go for Cole's eyes. He could have quite easily tried to stand up and then when pulled back down waved his arms to alert the ref and possibly save his side from conceding a try. He went with thuggery instead.
So you're saying that Cole intentionally wrapped his arm around another players neck but it's ok because he didn't squeeze very hard?
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 5:48 pm
by FKAS
switchskier wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 5:46 pm
FKAS wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 2:50 pm
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 2:11 pm
That’s some curious logic/semantics.
Not really, Cole is playing silly buggers. Wind up merchant antics, Venter sacks him in the maul and Cole holds him on the ground. Venter decides to go for Cole's eyes. He could have quite easily tried to stand up and then when pulled back down waved his arms to alert the ref and possibly save his side from conceding a try. He went with thuggery instead.
So you're saying that Cole intentionally wrapped his arm around another players neck but it's ok because he didn't squeeze very hard?
No I'm saying he wrapped it around the back of the guys head and effectively gave him a cuddle to stop him interfering with the scrum half playing the ball. Holding players in isn't exactly new is it. Standard penalty offence if the ref catches you.
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 9:12 pm
by Donny osmond
FKAS wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 5:48 pm
switchskier wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 5:46 pm
FKAS wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 2:50 pm
Not really, Cole is playing silly buggers. Wind up merchant antics, Venter sacks him in the maul and Cole holds him on the ground. Venter decides to go for Cole's eyes. He could have quite easily tried to stand up and then when pulled back down waved his arms to alert the ref and possibly save his side from conceding a try. He went with thuggery instead.
So you're saying that Cole intentionally wrapped his arm around another players neck but it's ok because he didn't squeeze very hard?
No I'm saying he wrapped it around the back of the guys head and effectively gave him a cuddle to stop him interfering with the scrum half playing the ball. Holding players in isn't exactly new is it. Standard penalty offence if the ref catches you.
Deliberate penalty action when opposition are in a try scoring situation... so you think it's a card and a penalty try then?
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2025 9:21 pm
by oldbackrow
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 9:12 pm
FKAS wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 5:48 pm
switchskier wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 5:46 pm
So you're saying that Cole intentionally wrapped his arm around another players neck but it's ok because he didn't squeeze very hard?
No I'm saying he wrapped it around the back of the guys head and effectively gave him a cuddle to stop him interfering with the scrum half playing the ball. Holding players in isn't exactly new is it. Standard penalty offence if the ref catches you.
Deliberate penalty action when opposition are in a try scoring situation... so you think it's a card and a penalty try then?
As Leicester are on Glasgows line, why would it be a penalty try to Glasgow? When a maul gets sacked/collapsed as that was, keeping hold of the opponent you have hold of happens all the time. How anyone sees what Cole does as a 'chokehold' is totally beyond me!
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 4:28 am
by Donny osmond
fair point, sorry got my wires crossed.
Edit: still a chokehold tho
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 9:27 am
by oldbackrow
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Mon Apr 14, 2025 4:28 am
fair point, sorry got my wires crossed.
Edit: still a chokehold tho
I'm not a Leicester or Dan Cole fan, but very difficult to choke someone who you are face to face with, with one arm around the back of the neck, the other arm under your body!
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 12:34 pm
by Puja
switchskier wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 12:27 pm
Didn't see the game and only just saw the clip. Would have had no issue if it had been a full 12 game ban for Venter regardless.
My question is, why isn't Cole also being cited for putting him in a headlock?
You think Cole's actions are red-card-worthy?
Puja
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 1:26 pm
by switchskier
Puja wrote: ↑Mon Apr 14, 2025 12:34 pm
switchskier wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 12:27 pm
Didn't see the game and only just saw the clip. Would have had no issue if it had been a full 12 game ban for Venter regardless.
My question is, why isn't Cole also being cited for putting him in a headlock?
You think Cole's actions are red-card-worthy?
Puja
Either we're serious about no head and neck contact or we're not. It's not the same as a big tackle in open space but there's still a lot of moving forces in that situation and therefore there's risk. What the laws say I have no idea but I imagine it can be argued either way.
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 4:25 pm
by Mellsblue
Peak RR, gents. Thank you.
Re: Glasgow v Tigers
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2025 5:15 pm
by oldbackrow
Puja wrote: ↑Mon Apr 14, 2025 12:34 pm
switchskier wrote: ↑Sun Apr 13, 2025 12:27 pm
Didn't see the game and only just saw the clip. Would have had no issue if it had been a full 12 game ban for Venter regardless.
My question is, why isn't Cole also being cited for putting him in a headlock?
You think Cole's actions are red-card-worthy?
Puja
Not in the slightest and doubt that, even if the ref saw it as a penalty offence (and I can't find which law it would be against) very much doubt it would even be a yellow.
