RugbyRebels

f or alleged ' gouging' against Saints on Saturday . He readily admits removing his opponents scrum cap and which was subject to a penalty . The video however doesn't look good for Sinclair . Expect a lengthy ban if found guilty .

No need for it. Not sure what his disciplinary record is but to me this isn't a low entry point offence but I would be far harder on them. He went back for a second "grab", whether an intentional "grab" or otherwise. There was no need, he had already removed Patersons scrum cap so was in control of his hands.

Assuming good disciplinary history I'd go mid-range of 18 weeks with 2 off for previous record. They'll go LE of 12 weeks with 2 off for good behaviour, but no time off for no guilty plea.

Just sheer, unadulterated idiocy. Didn't even accomplish anything. Deserves a big ban and a chance to think about his life.

Puja

PS. Edited the topic title as it bugs me when his name's misspelled.

There’s no absolute evidence of a gouge. Yes his hands are in Paterson’s face, but what exactly they’re doing there is impossible to say from the video. Lesser charge of ‘hands in the eye area’ for me (or whatever it’s called). Don’t know what the entry point is for that? Maybe whatever number of weeks are for medium entry minus 2 weeks for decent previous behaviour and good biscuits.

Puja wrote:Just sheer, unadulterated idiocy. Didn't even accomplish anything. Deserves a big ban and a chance to think about his life.

Puja

PS. Edited the topic title as it bugs me when his name's misspelled.

I was just wondering how he managed to get it right in the title, yet spell it wrong in the first post.

I've said it already, but yes, he's an idiot. Nearly threw away the Wasps game with 4 penalties within about a minute of taking the field, he's had something like this coming to be honest.

Probably not the reaction E Jones was looking for after his admission from the training squad.

Mellsblue wrote:Probably not the reaction E Jones was looking for after his admission from the training squad.

what did he admit to????!!!! we need to be told...

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Probably not the reaction E Jones was looking for after his admission from the training squad.

what did he admit to????!!!! we need to be told...

Ha. I admit to having omitted to check my spelling prior to posting.

The saddest part of this is that Eddie bracketed him with JJ as one of the Lions he omitted. Please tell me JJ is brighter than Sinckler appears to be.

Oakboy wrote:The saddest part of this is that Eddie bracketed him with JJ as one of the Lions he omitted. Please tell me JJ is brighter than Sinckler appears to be.

You need reassuring that a centre is brighter than a prop?
Really?
We don't need to know the individuals to know that that's true.

Which Tyler wrote:

Oakboy wrote:The saddest part of this is that Eddie bracketed him with JJ as one of the Lions he omitted. Please tell me JJ is brighter than Sinckler appears to be.

You need reassuring that a centre is brighter than a prop?
Really?
We don't need to know the individuals to know that that's true.

Agreed generally. But, why was JJ categorised as superfluous? Did he screw the NZRU chairman's daughter? Why bracket him with Sinckler?

Oakboy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Oakboy wrote:The saddest part of this is that Eddie bracketed him with JJ as one of the Lions he omitted. Please tell me JJ is brighter than Sinckler appears to be.

You need reassuring that a centre is brighter than a prop?
Really?
We don't need to know the individuals to know that that's true.

Agreed generally. But, why was JJ categorised as superfluous? Did he screw the NZRU chairman's daughter? Why bracket him with Sinckler?

Broad strokes? Both dropped (from a ‘training squad’) but for different reasons.

Discreet Hooker wrote:f or alleged ' gouging' against Saints on Saturday . He readily admits removing his opponents scrum cap and which was subject to a penalty . The video however doesn't look good for Sinckler* . Expect a lengthy ban if found guilty .

* Sinkler is back . . .

Good that the referee had his eyes open in the Saints Quins game. Post match they've been issued 2 citing commissioners warnings for Care and Merrick, and arguably Sinckler should have seen red.

7 weeks for Sinckler. He has apologised to his team mates, but offered no apology to Paterson

Adam_P wrote:7 weeks for Sinckler. He has apologised to his team mates, but offered to apology to Paterson

Not quite sure how they've arrived at 7 weeks. Surely they can't have given him any deduction for previous good behaviour?!

Rules him very neatly out of the AIs, which I guess might be a good thing long term - he could do with a proper break to make sure he's not ground down too young.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Adam_P wrote:7 weeks for Sinckler. He has apologised to his team mates, but offered to apology to Paterson

Not quite sure how they've arrived at 7 weeks. Surely they can't have given him any deduction for previous good behaviour?!

Rules him very neatly out of the AIs, which I guess might be a good thing long term - he could do with a proper break to make sure he's not ground down too young.

Puja

Or Genged as it is to become known by the RWC.

Pleading guilty maybe earned him some time off?

Bloody stupid thing to do. Players should know by now that they have to keep hands away from faces.

Disappointed he wont feature in the AI's.

Pretty sure even with dodgy video footage , the players are strongly advised to go ' guilty ' .

Bit of a prat anyway .

Funny how Kingston said after the game that he unequivocally didn't do it. Along with his comments alluding to Dave Ward's shiner being as a result of foul play by Northampton (it wasn't, he just got carried into by Harrison), he's made himself look a bit of a tit.

I'm not sure I agree with the panel's comments that the ban was shorter due to the absence of injury, surely it's all about intent. It's just luck that an injury is/isn't caused. Seems all the more stupid when you consider how long Ashton got, which I think we can all agree was stupid, but definitely accidental contact with the eye area during contact, whereas Sinckler was intentionally putting his hand there for no good reason.

[Edit] Quite humorously, autocorrect changed 'Dave Ward's shiner' to 'Dave Ward's whiner'.

The footage was pretty clear though, he ripped the head guard, then his hand went back into the face, fingers aimed towards the face, around the eyes.

I don't think he's a gouger, but once that goes to the citing board, a guilty plea is the only worthwhile option. He can hardly deny that his hands were around the eye area.

Adam_P wrote:Funny how Kingston said after the game that he unequivocally didn't do it. Along with his comments alluding to Dave Ward's shiner being as a result of foul play by Northampton (it wasn't, he just got carried into by Harrison), he's made himself look a bit of a tit.

I'm not sure I agree with the panel's comments that the ban was shorter due to the absence of injury, surely it's all about intent. It's just luck that an injury is/isn't caused. Seems all the more stupid when you consider how long Ashton got, which I think we can all agree was stupid, but definitely accidental contact with the eye area during contact, whereas Sinckler was intentionally putting his hand there for no good reason.

[Edit] Quite humorously, autocorrect changed 'Dave Ward's shiner' to 'Dave Ward's whiner'.

Agreed that is ridiculous for the board to take that into account when it can be largely due to luck.

I don't think that Sinckler is a gouger however he had no good reason to put his hand back there. Very lucky to only be sat down for 7 weeks.

One of these days I'm just going to walk away from the game I love as a spectator because of how inconsistent and unjust this system is. It's only two weeks more than the initial bans given to Jonny Gray and Ross Ford for a nothing tackle in the last RWC (appreciate they were over-turned but that's beyond the point).

Sick.

16th man wrote: Or Genged as it is to become known by the RWC.

Who are the RWC?

Though Genge has been beaten to the punch there by Catt, who was beaten by Corbisiero, who was beaten by Woodman, who started the whole thing.
And that's just narrowing the search down to Capped English LHPs that I can think of off the top of my head!

Don't make me break out my 2000 word essay again!


As for the gouging - it was never a gouge, but absolutely was contact with the eye area.
What wouldn't Genge have a good record? To memory, he gets penalised a lot; but isn't this his first trip to the disciplinary board?
Comparison to Ashton who pleaded not guilty, showed no remorse and had a much poorer record in terms of previous bans. Ashton gave them no reasons to reduce his ban; Sinkler gave them every reason - the only surprise is that he didn't get the full 50% off.

I absolutely agree that the lack of injury is entirely irrelevant to anything.

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.