How long for this hit you think?

[Biffer]

He didn't try to wrap, he did wrap with both arms.

There's only one real difference between this hit and the desecration that Courtney Lawes did to Plisson and that is that one hit was late after a kick and one hit was late after a pass. From a law point of view, both are/were legal. Just lots of force and a large weight offset.

Completely missing the point. The wrapping isn’t relevant here. What’s relevant is the tackle was reckless.

Whether another tackle wa correctly penalised isn’t relevant either.

It looked reckless because it was so dominant. The only illegal bit about it was that it was late.

The flying leap was reckless. It was reckless because he put himself in a fairly high position where he was no longer in control of what he was doing. The reckless nature of his action only resulted in a late hit, but it could have been worse - if the player hadn’t been in the air for the kick it might have been head high and the tackler would have been unable to do anything to stop the hit. So reckless and potentially dangerous. But you’re never going to accept that so I won’t bother replying to you further.

[Kawazaki]

Completely missing the point. The wrapping isn’t relevant here. What’s relevant is the tackle was reckless.

Whether another tackle wa correctly penalised isn’t relevant either.

It looked reckless because it was so dominant. The only illegal bit about it was that it was late.

The flying leap was reckless. It was reckless because he put himself in a fairly high position where he was no longer in control of what he was doing. The reckless nature of his action only resulted in a late hit, but it could have been worse - if the player hadn’t been in the air for the kick it might have been head high and the tackler would have been unable to do anything to stop the hit. So reckless and potentially dangerous. But you’re never going to accept that so I won’t bother replying to you further.

You don't deal with different opinions well do you.

[Slick]

It was a shit tackle. But forwards - loose forwards especially - are measured on metrics such as the dominant tackle. We're talking here about maybe 25 cm lower and a fraction of a second earlier. If he had achieved that the tackle would be viral for all the "right reasons". I believe it was ill-judged but not malicious. A dangerous tackle deserving a red-card and maybe an 8 week ban. Its extra hysteria here because everyone's default reaction is "dim Saffa", remember Gary Pagel etc. The reality is that these tackles are equally glorified and condemned by rugby followers. Brian Lima would have a very short career if he played today but is mythologized as a cult hero as the "Chiropractor".

Ban him for a while, apply the laws consistently and the game will be better for it.

How do you function with that chip?

No chip. There were comments about dim Saffas and Gary Pagel earlier in the thread.

Fair enough, hadn’t seen that

[Torquemada 1420]

He didn't try to wrap, he did wrap with both arms.

There's only one real difference between this hit and the desecration that Courtney Lawes did to Plisson and that is that one hit was late after a kick and one hit was late after a pass. From a law point of view, both are/were legal. Just lots of force and a large weight offset.

Always thought that was a late hit. Whatever, Plisson lost his bottle and it ended his career anyway.

[Kawazaki]

Always thought that was a late hit. Whatever, Plisson lost his bottle and it ended his career anyway.

Really?

That's a great shame. It was a fairly horrific tackle mind.

[Ymx]

Completely missing the point. The wrapping isn’t relevant here. What’s relevant is the tackle was reckless.

Whether another tackle wa correctly penalised isn’t relevant either.

It looked reckless because it was so dominant. The only illegal bit about it was that it was late.

The flying leap was reckless. It was reckless because he put himself in a fairly high position where he was no longer in control of what he was doing. The reckless nature of his action only resulted in a late hit, but it could have been worse - if the player hadn’t been in the air for the kick it might have been head high and the tackler would have been unable to do anything to stop the hit. So reckless and potentially dangerous. But you’re never going to accept that so I won’t bother replying to you further.

Could have been …
If the player hadn’t been …
Might have been …
Would have been …
Potentially dangerous …

Not really that strong/suitable evidence as a basis for decision making on foul play and deciding on red cards.

[sockwithaticket]

Always thought that was a late hit. Whatever, Plisson lost his bottle and it ended his career anyway.

Really?

That's a great shame. It was a fairly horrific tackle mind.

You've got to allow for some of Torq's hyperbole, his form never returned to warranting a national call up. Plisson's still playing, currently with La Rochelle.

[Torquemada 1420]

Always thought that was a late hit. Whatever, Plisson lost his bottle and it ended his career anyway.

Really?

That's a great shame. It was a fairly horrific tackle mind.

He was mentally f**ked after that. Was never the same player.

[Torquemada 1420]

Always thought that was a late hit. Whatever, Plisson lost his bottle and it ended his career anyway.

Really?

That's a great shame. It was a fairly horrific tackle mind.

You've got to allow for some of Torq's hyperbole, his form never returned to warranting a national call up. Plisson's still playing, currently with La Rochelle.

That's really what I said. Even at club level, he became bit part. Pity is he was one of the best passers of a ball of both hands that I can recall at 10 in France.

[Ymx]

After it, Nigel Owens led the calls for a lengthy suspension to be handed out.
Whether a 12-week ban for Ryno Pieterse, the man who put in the X-certificate tackle, will satisfy all remains to be seen.

But that is the sanction handed to the Castres’ 23-year-old lock after an incident that saw him dangerously launch himself at Begles-Bordeaux scrum-half Maxime Lucu in the league clash on September 18 .

Pieterse was given a 24-week entry point at his hearing with the suspension being trimmed by 50 percent because of extenuating circumstances.

A French National League (NRL) disciplinary panel found him responsible for "dangerous play and more particularly tackling, charging, pulling, pushing or grabbing an opponent whose feet are not touching the ground".

The NRL statement continued: “Given the elements of the case and the high level of dangerousness of the action, the disciplinary and rules commission decided to set the entry point for the sanction at 24 weeks — a higher level than the disciplinary scale of the NRL.

[robmatic]

Got 12 weeks, fair enough .

Yeah, on the one hand you can argue that he was unfortunate that the guy had jumped in the air, but if he'd stayed on the ground that was an absolute missile of a head height tackle, so it's reckless/dangerous any way you look at it.

[Torquemada 1420]

It was a dangerous act with a total disregard for another player's safety. It should have seen a much longer ban.

[Tichtheid]

It was a dangerous act with a total disregard for another player's safety. It should have seen a much longer ban.

They decided it was worth a 24 week ban because of the severity of the offence, then gave him a 50% discount because he hadn't done it before.

The system is a nonsense, it wasn't marginal, it was a reckless tackle with no thought for the safety of the opponent in mind, quite the reverse in fact.

They pay lip service to player safety, but they always back down on it.

[Torquemada 1420]

It was a dangerous act with a total disregard for another player's safety. It should have seen a much longer ban.

They decided it was worth a 24 week ban because of the severity of the offence, then gave him a 50% discount because he hadn't done it before.

The system is a nonsense, it wasn't marginal, it was a reckless tackle with no thought for the safety of the opponent in mind, quite the reverse in fact.

They pay lip service to player safety, but they always back down on it.

Agree entirely.

[JM2K6]

A three month ban even with the discount applied is pretty huge. I don't know what people were expecting?

[Tichtheid]

A three month ban even with the discount applied is pretty huge. I don't know what people were expecting?

Expecting? Nothing, more hoping that player safety concerns would be matched in sanctions with the rhetoric the authorities come out with.

They are full of shit on the issue, they obviously don’t care too much about it.

[Torquemada 1420]

A three month ban even with the discount applied is pretty huge. I don't know what people were expecting?

Expecting? Nothing, more hoping that player safety concerns would be matched in sanctions with the rhetoric the authorities come out with.

They are full of shit on the issue, they obviously don’t care too much about it.

Where I am. They had a chance here to make a stand but hid behind the book.

[Kawazaki]

A three month ban even with the discount applied is pretty huge. I don't know what people were expecting?

Agreed, the optics weren't good but it wasn't a Callum* moment.




* Incidentally, Mr Clarke is now a 'Player Well-Being' officer for Saracens.

[Slick]

A three month ban even with the discount applied is pretty huge. I don't know what people were expecting?

I agree. I wasn’t expecting that long to be honest even though it was a pretty horrendous tackle

[Tichtheid]

A three month ban even with the discount applied is pretty huge. I don't know what people were expecting?

I agree. I wasn’t expecting that long to be honest even though it was a pretty horrendous tackle

Do you think the ban is too long or do you think the system isn't banning that kind of action for long enough?

[Slick]

A three month ban even with the discount applied is pretty huge. I don't know what people were expecting?

I agree. I wasn’t expecting that long to be honest even though it was a pretty horrendous tackle

Do you think the ban is too long or do you think the system isn't banning that kind of action for long enough?

I agree with you as well that the whole system is a nonsense. To say it’s worth 24 weeks but because he hasn’t done it before we won’t give him that, is just idiotic.

That aside, In this particular case, and going on past bannings for really dangerous tackles in the air etc which have been given a lot less, I was surprised at 12 weeks. 3 months is a long time out of a season

[JM2K6]

A three month ban even with the discount applied is pretty huge. I don't know what people were expecting?

Expecting? Nothing, more hoping that player safety concerns would be matched in sanctions with the rhetoric the authorities come out with.

They are full of shit on the issue, they obviously don’t care too much about it.

But giving him an even longer ban would've been wildly out of kilter with the process. I've seen bad head high shoulder charges get a lot less than 3 months.

[Ymx]

Indeed.

It was reckless, but these things are supposed to be adjudicated on actual fact. Not could haves. He didn’t hit the guy high.

The only thing he did technically wrong was tackling off feet, and late.

So 24 weeks is on the extremely high end of the spectrum for this. It was ultimately judged and influenced by social media outrage.

[BnM]

Given my level of oooofff in response that's worth the max ban available for that offence not resulting in an injury.

[Biffer]

Indeed.

It was reckless, but these things are supposed to be adjudicated on actual fact. Not could haves. He didn’t hit the guy high.

The only thing he did technically wrong was tackling off feet, and late.

So 24 weeks is on the extremely high end of the spectrum for this. It was ultimately judged and influenced by social media outrage.

You know that the reckless bit itself is against the laws regardless of outcome, yeah?

[Ymx]

Indeed.

It was reckless, but these things are supposed to be adjudicated on actual fact. Not could haves. He didn’t hit the guy high.

The only thing he did technically wrong was tackling off feet, and late.

So 24 weeks is on the extremely high end of the spectrum for this. It was ultimately judged and influenced by social media outrage.

You know that the reckless bit itself is against the laws regardless of outcome, yeah?

Yes, that’s why I mentioned it prior to the outcome part. Perhaps badly worded.

[Biffer]

Indeed.

It was reckless, but these things are supposed to be adjudicated on actual fact. Not could haves. He didn’t hit the guy high.

The only thing he did technically wrong was tackling off feet, and late.

So 24 weeks is on the extremely high end of the spectrum for this. It was ultimately judged and influenced by social media outrage.

You know that the reckless bit itself is against the laws regardless of outcome, yeah?

Yes, that’s why I mentioned it prior to the outcome part. Perhaps badly worded.

Ah, right, ok.

I think the ban is about right, but I’d have liked them to structure it differently. I would have given him 10 or 12 weeks for the late hit on a kicker, and then would have handed him the same again for the reckless tackle, before putting the reductions on. I would have liked to see the reckless bit severely punished as for me it was the primary offence; it’s one of the most reckless tackles I’ve seen. Put his own and his opponents safety down to pure luck by relinquishing any control of the tackle due to launching himself from distance.

[Ymx]

Late hits happen to kickers in almost every game, and most with just a pen. But you want 10-12 weeks?

Although I don’t disagree about the reckless component of it, but not your time scale. It was one of the more reckless acts I’ve seen.

[Ymx]

Well perhaps not as bad as this



For a 1 week ban.

[Biffer]

Well perhaps not as bad as this



For a 1 week ban.

ThAts not reckless, it’s entirely deliberate! Should have had a few months off imo.

[Uncle fester]

Well perhaps not as bad as this



For a 1 week ban.

Weird whataboutery.

[Ymx]

There’s nothing weird or whataboutery whatsoever.

We were talking about this in relation to other offences. Even worse ones (as I’d highlighted). And whether 24 weeks reduced was or was not excessive.

[Grandpa]

There’s nothing weird or whataboutery whatsoever.

We were talking about this in relation to other offences. Even worse ones (as I’d highlighted). And whether 24 weeks reduced was or was not excessive.

Can you find a worse tackle on video? I can't remember seeing one...

[Tichtheid]

A three month ban even with the discount applied is pretty huge. I don't know what people were expecting?

Expecting? Nothing, more hoping that player safety concerns would be matched in sanctions with the rhetoric the authorities come out with.

They are full of shit on the issue, they obviously don’t care too much about it.

But giving him an even longer ban would've been wildly out of kilter with the process. I've seen bad head high shoulder charges get a lot less than 3 months.

Like I say, the authorities don't take player safety seriously, they are all talk.