RugbyRebels

jimKRFC wrote:Seems to be some cherry picking on Martin's performance here. I seem to recall Hughes sticking him (think it was him) on his ass quite regularly.

Shows the power of fan bias I suppose...

I really don't recall a single occasion of that and I was watching Martin specifically. There were three lanky dark haired men with scruffy beards and dark scrum caps playing for Leicester that day, so you maybe saw Wells or Henderson?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:So who was the lad who looked a lot like Hughes who couldn't win contact playing for England? Didn't cut the mustard starting or off the bench, went by the name of Hughes if that helps

And no, Martin is not like Itoje was. I'd be thrilled if he does follow his career path from now on, but whilst I was sure Itoje would be a test success I'm nothing like as convinced when it comes to Martin, which tbh would be the norm, it's not like I looked at Tom Curry X years ago and thought yep, nailed on England starter, indeed had you asked me X years ago I'd have picked Ben as the more likely brother to forge a test career

You're probably thinking of the same guy, Hughes, who regularly did win contact playing for England when he was paying attention, but far too often carried in a lackadaisical fashion and got knocked backwards.

Puja

He was powderpuff for England, which given he's a decent player simply shows there's still a big old gap between decent and test level

Tom Youngs punishment for swearing at Tempest in the aftermath of the game is a one week ban with another week suspended but he has to take the community referee course and officiate two age grade games inside the next season. Which I think is a great punishment. Very inventive.

The punishment is probably lighter than expected and thanks to the testimony by Tempest who stated that Tom had made contact with him after the match but before the citing to apologise for his words after the match. Tempest had accepted the apology and considered the matter case closed before the citing had come up and didn't think Young's comments were required to be part of his match report following the apology. He understood that emotions were high at the end of the game.

Some young players are going to be able to say they've been officiated by a former Lions and England player. I wonder if it should be included in more disciplinary punishments, would certainly help with the ref shortages in the club game if professionals were forced to take the ref programme and officiate when they get sent off.

That's brilliant

FKAS wrote:Tom Youngs punishment for swearing at Tempest in the aftermath of the game is a one week ban with another week suspended but he has to take the community referee course and officiate two age grade games inside the next season. Which I think is a great punishment. Very inventive.

The punishment is probably lighter than expected and thanks to the testimony by Tempest who stated that Tom had made contact with him after the match but before the citing to apologise for his words after the match. Tempest had accepted the apology and considered the matter case closed before the citing had come up and didn't think Young's comments were required to be part of his match report following the apology. He understood that emotions were high at the end of the game.

Some young players are going to be able to say they've been officiated by a former Lions and England player. I wonder if it should be included in more disciplinary punishments, would certainly help with the ref shortages in the club game if professionals were forced to take the ref programme and officiate when they get sent off.

Hmm. I'm in favour of the inventive punishment, but think the ban should still have been longer, especially after what Sinckler got. All disrespect of the referee needs a punitive sanction, no matter how "understandable" emotions may be.

I've never once said anything regrettable to a ref because my rugby playing father drilled into me that, a) no ref, no game and b) you can never gain anything from saying anything, only lose. And I've had some shocking decisions given against me in my time.

Puja

Youngs was way out of line and should have got a similar ban to the one that Sinckler got. A private apology doesnt really cut it. His behaviour at the time was unacceptable.

I like the idea of asking players to take a game or two on the whistle. Would do them good.

2 weeks ban with 2 weeks suspended pending the referee course and games + good behaviour IMO would've made more sense.

Puja wrote:

FKAS wrote:Tom Youngs punishment for swearing at Tempest in the aftermath of the game is a one week ban with another week suspended but he has to take the community referee course and officiate two age grade games inside the next season. Which I think is a great punishment. Very inventive.

The punishment is probably lighter than expected and thanks to the testimony by Tempest who stated that Tom had made contact with him after the match but before the citing to apologise for his words after the match. Tempest had accepted the apology and considered the matter case closed before the citing had come up and didn't think Young's comments were required to be part of his match report following the apology. He understood that emotions were high at the end of the game.

Some young players are going to be able to say they've been officiated by a former Lions and England player. I wonder if it should be included in more disciplinary punishments, would certainly help with the ref shortages in the club game if professionals were forced to take the ref programme and officiate when they get sent off.

Hmm. I'm in favour of the inventive punishment, but think the ban should still have been longer, especially after what Sinckler got. All disrespect of the referee needs a punitive sanction, no matter how "understandable" emotions may be.

I've never once said anything regrettable to a ref because my rugby playing father drilled into me that, a) no ref, no game and b) you can never gain anything from saying anything, only lose. And I've had some shocking decisions given against me in my time.

Puja

Didn't Sinckler plead not guilty? Youngs pleading guilty and having already reached out to the ref to apologise before being cited shows contrition which is what they like to see.

He's a lucky boy I thought he'd have got a longer ban but I very much like that they've made him take on reffing. Actually I think they should have made him take the whistle for more games. I'd love to see him go into officiating post playing.

A decision that smacks of who you are and if the administrators like your reputation being more important than the actual offence you've committed.

https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/7c/7 ... tJan21.pdf

Sounded like sinckler might have gotten a 1 week ban if he accepted that it was a red card offence

or no ban if he was white

Digby wrote:or no ban if he was white

Do you think someone like Marler or Dan Du Preez would have incurred a lesser ban than Sinckler?

Digby wrote:or no ban if he was white

Perhaps he simply should admitted it should have been a red rather than not meriting a yellow. As has been the case in other disciplinary processes around European rugby, to get the full discount you need to apologise and accept the incident was a red. He didn't and I would assume Youngs did.

I don't know Leon Lloyd personally but doubt he'd bring race into determining a ban.

16th man wrote:A decision that smacks of who you are and if the administrators like your reputation being more important than the actual offence you've committed.

In what way?
Youngs gets 2 weeks, with 1 week suspended for pleading guilty and on condition of referee training.
Sinckler gets 2 weeks, with 0 reduced for pleading not guilty.

Digby wrote:or no ban if he was white

Comment is beneath you Digby

chris1850 wrote:

Digby wrote:or no ban if he was white

Comment is beneath you Digby

Well that simply isn't true. Either that it's beneath me or they didn't initially really louse this up before having to move to correct because even it it wasn't it certainly allowed the accusation

Big D wrote:

Digby wrote:or no ban if he was white

Perhaps he simply should admitted it should have been a red rather than not meriting a yellow. As has been the case in other disciplinary processes around European rugby, to get the full discount you need to apologise and accept the incident was a red. He didn't and I would assume Youngs did.

I don't know Leon Lloyd personally but doubt he'd bring race into determining a ban.

It took them quite a while to even get Youngs into a hearing. I suppose they could observe it's not the only recent hearing that was substantially delayed, but that it took so long isn't a good look, at minimum.

I don't fwiw think rugby is especially racist, more like there are lots of racist people in society and thus in rugby. Whether getting Youngs and Sinckler into a hearing was even remotely influenced by race I've no idea, but it's a chance to take the piss so they deserve to be mocked, not mocking when there's piss taking to be done stands in stark contrast to the real values of rugby

chris1850 wrote:

Digby wrote:or no ban if he was white

Comment is beneath you Digby

You’ve clearly not been on this forum long enough.

Mellsblue wrote:

chris1850 wrote:

Digby wrote:or no ban if he was white

Comment is beneath you Digby

You’ve clearly not been on this forum long enough.

Possibly not. I have no longstanding preconceptions about Digby or his views. However, to insuate that Sincklers or Youngs skin colour has influenced the length of their respective bans is ridiculous. There is no evidence whatsoever for such a comment.

Those who find a racist reason for decisions, when there is absolutely no evidence of it, simply stir the pot unnecessarily and do more harm to the anti-racism cause.

chris1850 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

chris1850 wrote:
Comment is beneath you Digby

You’ve clearly not been on this forum long enough.

Possibly not. I have no longstanding preconceptions about Digby or his views. However, to insuate that Sincklers or Youngs skin colour has influenced the length of their respective bans is ridiculous. There is no evidence whatsoever for such a comment.

Those who find a racist reason for decisions, when there is absolutely no evidence of it, simply stir the pot unnecessarily and do more harm to the anti-racism cause.

Would talking to the people who do the disciplinary procedures count? Asking for a friend.

That notwithstanding I remain happy to take the piss, if their procedures are so inept it's easy to stir they've got the piss taking coming and they fully deserve it

Mellsblue wrote:http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2021/06/22/rf ... nctioning/

Thanks for sharing that, hadn't realised that Youngs and Sinckler had been cited under different laws. Shame really because I think Youngs punishment is far more fitting and should be more widely applied but can't be under the law which Sinckler was cited. Sinckler going on a ref course and reffing community games would have also been better for player and community.