2023 Six Nations

[CM11]

It's a little strange to be saying that the HEC is the answer when Munster were going on epic runs and Ireland were still shit. Leinster ended up producing a rare group of talent with an excellent pathway and Irish rugby put everything into that translating to the national team - it's not rocket science.

Between 2005 and 2012, Munster and Leinster won 5 of the available 7 HEC titles between them. During that period, Wales won 3 Grand Slams and a further 6N title in 2013. They also smashed Ireland in the 2011 world cup quarter final. In 2007, Ireland didn't get get out of their pool. In 2018, Ireland won a grand slam while Leinster won the HEC - hooray, some correlation! Ireland then got absolutely killed at the world cup - losing to Japan in the weakest group then getting annihilated by the All Blacks in the QF.

Wales have continually shown that European club rugby is not even important as a driver of international success. And there's more than a strong whiff of hyperbole and revisionism about some of the claims being made about the greatness of Irish rugby & where success was bred (ampersand just for you)

Ireland weren't shit, we were inconsistent without pushing through to more consistency. We top the all time table for wins in the six nations. We just didn't get them all in the same year to have more slams! There's only been a couple of six nations where we've been outside the top 3. Wales have loads. They'd regularly follow up a GS year with a bottom of the table run of games. From 2000-end 2009 Wales had a 47% win rate, we had a 65% win rate.

But yes, Wales are infuriating in their ability to go on a run of games despite previously shit form. And we're infuriating in the opposite direction.

[dkm57]

10s not so sure - there’s Costelow, not quite proved himself it yet. Also Will Read at Dragons could come through. All pretty inexperienced atm.

I think he's showing promise, but I think he illustrated a reason why the failure of the regions is, & has, hurt the National side long term.

Years, & years ago, BOD & others said that the HEC was important because it was a level above the leagues, & closer to International level than the week in, week out games.

I think Irelands improvement can be linked to the regular participation in the HEC, of the Provinces, & then they got into a virtuous cycle, where players wanted to play in those HEC games, & pushed themselves into contention for those games, & thus got seen by the National coach.

For Wales, they're basically relying on players in the Premiership etc, because the ones who stay in Wales are never tested at that next level, & how the hell do you pick players for International level rugby, when all you have to go on is their league performances ?

Welsh teams do experience European rugby, they just don’t get very far in it. It’s a bit chicken and egg/success breeds success. I always come back to the late 2010sin these debates - I don’t know whether the talent that would be at its peak now wasn’t there or whether WG wasn’t bothered about developing it.

That's the thing though. National coaches in the modern game are transient and they are expected to produce instant results.

I don't think their remit allows time to develop players for the future, that needs to be the responsibility of others. I think the Irish have it right with their province Academies and hopefully the Scottish Super6 will do the same job, we're already starting to see some benefit to the pro teams and U20's. Unfortunately the border blazers put us in a very deep shithole from which we are only now beginning to climb out.

[CM11]

With regards to Wales, I would have said they're underachieving from their starting point while Ireland have overacheived. In that Wales had a more professional club setup coming into the pro era and a stronger innate base of both players and support but couldn't streamline into a cohesive system that worked for everyone.

Ireland got incredibly lucky but the overall point is not necessarily 'do what we do' but that if the tier below international and international aren't working in harmony then the system isn't sustainable.

It's really a question for the Welsh fans though. Would they trade a GS or two for more overall success in Welsh rugby? Obviously in the here and now it's shite but it's not exactly like we haven't been here before with Wales and it picks up again at international level and all is forgiven. Is it worth having the regions trundling along, just about helping out but seeming like more of a nuisance than help to the WRU?

[CM11]

I think he's showing promise, but I think he illustrated a reason why the failure of the regions is, & has, hurt the National side long term.

Years, & years ago, BOD & others said that the HEC was important because it was a level above the leagues, & closer to International level than the week in, week out games.

I think Irelands improvement can be linked to the regular participation in the HEC, of the Provinces, & then they got into a virtuous cycle, where players wanted to play in those HEC games, & pushed themselves into contention for those games, & thus got seen by the National coach.

For Wales, they're basically relying on players in the Premiership etc, because the ones who stay in Wales are never tested at that next level, & how the hell do you pick players for International level rugby, when all you have to go on is their league performances ?

Welsh teams do experience European rugby, they just don’t get very far in it. It’s a bit chicken and egg/success breeds success. I always come back to the late 2010sin these debates - I don’t know whether the talent that would be at its peak now wasn’t there or whether WG wasn’t bothered about developing it.

That's the thing though. National coaches in the modern game are transient and they are expected to produce instant results.

I don't think their remit allows time to develop players for the future, that needs to be the responsibility of others. I think the Irish have it right with their province Academies and hopefully the Scottish Super6 will do the same job, we're already starting to see some benefit to the pro teams and U20's. Unfortunately the border blazers put us in a very deep shithole from which we are only now beginning to climb out.

Back when we had practically no FHs, EOS got in trouble for saying it wasn't his job to develop players. And he was right. It's not the job of international coaches to develop players. Not from ground up anyway. Players will always get spurts in development when part of national camps but they need to be at a certain level first and that's the job of the tiers below. Ireland, Italy and, on your word, Scotland seem to be doing some great work at underage level. Wales have seriously regressed there while England and France seem to be stagnant (meaning we've caught up and overtaken them).

[sockwithaticket]

It's a little strange to be saying that the HEC is the answer when Munster were going on epic runs and Ireland were still shit. Leinster ended up producing a rare group of talent with an excellent pathway and Irish rugby put everything into that translating to the national team - it's not rocket science.

Between 2005 and 2012, Munster and Leinster won 5 of the available 7 HEC titles between them. During that period, Wales won 3 Grand Slams and a further 6N title in 2013. They also smashed Ireland in the 2011 world cup quarter final. In 2007, Ireland didn't get get out of their pool. In 2018, Ireland won a grand slam while Leinster won the HEC - hooray, some correlation! Ireland then got absolutely killed at the world cup - losing to Japan in the weakest group then getting annihilated by the All Blacks in the QF.

Wales have continually shown that European club rugby is not even important as a driver of international success. And there's more than a strong whiff of hyperbole and revisionism about some of the claims being made about the greatness of Irish rugby & where success was bred (ampersand just for you)

Ireland weren't shit, we were inconsistent without pushing through to more consistency. We top the all time table for wins in the six nations. We just didn't get them all in the same year to have more slams! There's only been a couple of six nations where we've been outside the top 3. Wales have loads. They'd regularly follow up a GS year with a bottom of the table run of games. From 2000-end 2009 Wales had a 47% win rate, we had a 65% win rate.

But yes, Wales are infuriating in their ability to go on a run of games despite previously shit form. And we're infuriating in the opposite direction.

Some will tell you that win rate means shit. Lancaster is often lamented for 'not winning anything', but he delivered an 80% win rate in the 6N, which I would definitely take over Wales' boom and bust approach.

[CM11]

Win rate is not everything, I agree with that. But in the same way England weren't shit under Lancaster, we weren't shit in the 00s, even if we had only one GS to show for it. We only lost to Scotland once in that decade, the year we beat England and France and would have had a GS otherwise. We were a try away from another GS in 07. We only lost to Wales three times, once in 2000 and then their two GS years. We beat England in 6/10 matches. France in 4/10. Just couldn't line them up in the same years until 2009.

[JM2K6]

It's a little strange to be saying that the HEC is the answer when Munster were going on epic runs and Ireland were still shit. Leinster ended up producing a rare group of talent with an excellent pathway and Irish rugby put everything into that translating to the national team - it's not rocket science.

Between 2005 and 2012, Munster and Leinster won 5 of the available 7 HEC titles between them. During that period, Wales won 3 Grand Slams and a further 6N title in 2013. They also smashed Ireland in the 2011 world cup quarter final. In 2007, Ireland didn't get get out of their pool. In 2018, Ireland won a grand slam while Leinster won the HEC - hooray, some correlation! Ireland then got absolutely killed at the world cup - losing to Japan in the weakest group then getting annihilated by the All Blacks in the QF.

Wales have continually shown that European club rugby is not even important as a driver of international success. And there's more than a strong whiff of hyperbole and revisionism about some of the claims being made about the greatness of Irish rugby & where success was bred (ampersand just for you)

Ireland weren't shit, we were inconsistent without pushing through to more consistency. We top the all time table for wins in the six nations. We just didn't get them all in the same year to have more slams! There's only been a couple of six nations where we've been outside the top 3. Wales have loads. They'd regularly follow up a GS year with a bottom of the table run of games. From 2000-end 2009 Wales had a 47% win rate, we had a 65% win rate.

But yes, Wales are infuriating in their ability to go on a run of games despite previously shit form. And we're infuriating in the opposite direction.

Well, given how poor the 6N standard was in general, I'm comfortable in saying Ireland were shit. This was a Wales side repeatedly losing to the SH teams after all - and that's before you try and compare those Ireland teams with the current bestest-best side.

That time period in question overlaps with some of England's lowest points. France were decent but, well, French. Italy were absolute shite. Scotland were mediocre. Ireland had a handful of really excellent players like POC, ROG, D'Arcy, Bowe, and BOD, some guys rated in Ireland and not at all outside of Ireland, but also a _lot_ of worthy triers and a smattering of guys who probably would struggle to get international caps elsewhere. Things obviously improved into the 2010s, but that was quite some time after the Irish had made European club rugby their own fiefdom with their provincial sides.

Note, I'm not saying they were properly dreadful, but they weren't good. They picked up some wins at home against SH sides in a way that Wales couldn't (which says more about Wales than anything else - even England and Scotland were capable of this) but they also suffered some absolute maulings and got humiliated at world cups (I remember Georgia's 'B' team nearly winning!).

Ireland's dominance of the European club competition absolutely did not translate to being anything other than a largely mediocre side on the international stage, with a few high points and several low ones.

[JM2K6]

Win rate is not everything, I agree with that. But in the same way England weren't shit under Lancaster, we weren't shit in the 00s, even if we had only one GS to show for it. We only lost to Scotland once in that decade, the year we beat England and France and would have had a GS otherwise. We were a try away from another GS in 07. We only lost to Wales three times, once in 2000 and then their two GS years. We beat England in 6/10 matches. France in 4/10. Just couldn't line them up in the same years until 2009.

Congrats on a 60% winning record against the worst England teams of the professional era, and a losing record against a not particularly good France side?

When you look at how dominant Irish sides were in the HEC, it's not really a lot to brag about.

[fishfoodie]

Win rate is not everything, I agree with that. But in the same way England weren't shit under Lancaster, we weren't shit in the 00s, even if we had only one GS to show for it. We only lost to Scotland once in that decade, the year we beat England and France and would have had a GS otherwise. We were a try away from another GS in 07. We only lost to Wales three times, once in 2000 and then their two GS years. We beat England in 6/10 matches. France in 4/10. Just couldn't line them up in the same years until 2009.

"Maddeningly inconsistent", a phrase that I think a good few Scottish fans would have used these last few years, but it's maddening because they see quality players in their side, but they can't quite put a string of performances together.

The plan for Scotland has to be that they do what Ireland have, done* & move up to the next level, where they are shaking those monkeys off their backs, winning SH tours, beating teams they haven't beaten before etc, etc.

* Maybe

[CM11]

Win rate is not everything, I agree with that. But in the same way England weren't shit under Lancaster, we weren't shit in the 00s, even if we had only one GS to show for it. We only lost to Scotland once in that decade, the year we beat England and France and would have had a GS otherwise. We were a try away from another GS in 07. We only lost to Wales three times, once in 2000 and then their two GS years. We beat England in 6/10 matches. France in 4/10. Just couldn't line them up in the same years until 2009.

Congrats on a 60% winning record against the worst England teams of the professional era, and a losing record against a not particularly good France side?

When you look at how dominant Irish sides were in the HEC, it's not really a lot to brag about.

Someone piss in your cornflakes this morning?

Are we really making it a black and white thing? Ireland weren't shit in the 00s. That doesn't equate to 'we were brilliant', it just means we weren't shit. Your only argument seems to be that everyone else was shit so that means we can't say we were any good? A 65% win rate from where we were in the 90s isn't half bad. If you're looking for when we really were shit, that's it.

For us the HEC has been important on many levels and has facilitated the structures in place today. It has brought in lots of extra revenue giving us the ability to retain players. From a playing perspective it was more important in the past than now. I think the structures we have in place and the addition of the SA sides along with the weakening of the HEC means it's a lot less relevant than it was.

It is fair to say that Wales having fewer teams didn't affect their six nations chances recently enough and Italy have grown despite not having teams in it for the last few years. Happy to call it a less relevant factor these days. Which is a pity, frankly.

[JM2K6]

Win rate is not everything, I agree with that. But in the same way England weren't shit under Lancaster, we weren't shit in the 00s, even if we had only one GS to show for it. We only lost to Scotland once in that decade, the year we beat England and France and would have had a GS otherwise. We were a try away from another GS in 07. We only lost to Wales three times, once in 2000 and then their two GS years. We beat England in 6/10 matches. France in 4/10. Just couldn't line them up in the same years until 2009.

Congrats on a 60% winning record against the worst England teams of the professional era, and a losing record against a not particularly good France side?

When you look at how dominant Irish sides were in the HEC, it's not really a lot to brag about.

Someone piss in your cornflakes this morning?

Are we really making it a black and white thing? Ireland weren't shit in the 00s. That doesn't equate to 'we were brilliant', it just means we weren't shit. Your only argument seems to be that everyone else was shit so that means we can't say we were any good? A 65% win rate from where we were in the 90s isn't half bad. If you're looking for when we really were shit, that's it.

For us the HEC has been important on many levels and has facilitated the structures in place today. It has brought in lots of extra revenue giving us the ability to retain players. From a playing perspective it was more important in the past than now. I think the structures we have in place and the addition of the SA sides along with the weakening of the HEC means it's a lot less relevant than it was.

It is fair to say that Wales having fewer teams didn't affect their six nations chances recently enough and Italy have grown despite not having teams in it for the last few years. Happy to call it a less relevant factor these days. Which is a pity, frankly.

And England in the 00s weren't as bad as England in the 80s - doesn't mean we weren't shit.

The point is that if there was any correlation between European performances and international success, Ireland would've been something other than the mediocre team they were during the 00s. Ireland and Irish fans' relationship with the European cup tournaments is laudable in many ways, but it's a bit of strange (d)ipso facto reasoning that points the finger at European competition for Ireland's current levels, what with Irish sides having dominated during a period where Ireland were repeatedly scraping past Italy, losing to Argentina, getting embarrassed by Georgia, getting the occasional hiding from the top teams, etc. I'm not saying Ireland didn't also have some peaks at this time but there were some pretty deep lows in there, particularly on the biggest stage.

We can argue the relative merits of Ireland in the mid-to-late 00s until the cows come home, but the fact remains that the Irish have a "special" relationship with European club rugby and this is another attempt to shoehorn in the narrative that it's the best thing ever and definitely the reason why they're so good now. It's a really blinkered perspective and one that can only be put forward if you deliberately ignore all the counter examples. Ireland's success is fairly obviously the result of an excellent pathway that works incredibly well for Leinster in particular, the way that the national side morphed to become very Leinster in style and selection thanks to Schmidt, and how the rest of Irish rugby is deliberately geared to maintain that coherence of selection and playing style. It's the closest thing to a Kiwi setup outside of NZ. Leinster is producing players who are starring on their European debuts; one would suggest that their lack of European experience isn't a handbrake on their development. If you removed European rugby forever, this would still be a system that would put Ireland ahead of most other nations (including England, before anyone starts).

This is ultimately a question of the Irish taking their own experience of rugby and trying to translate it to everyone else, along with a bit of revisionism about the importance of the European competitions. I appreciate it's not you making the most blinkered arguments, but hey.

[JM2K6]

Apologies, I know you have professional interest in keeping wrong posts as short as possible.

[JM2K6]

same

[CM11]

Sorry JMK, I completely disagree that our improvement wasn't linked to the HEC.

I don't agree we were 'mediocre'.

And I don't see why you think saying our performances were intrinsically linked to the HEC means that we have to win the six nations every year.

The only period where we didn't get any real gain from decent HEC performances was under Kidney when he made a balls of selection, ignoring that anytime we played well was with Reddan and Sexton, picking an inexperienced Murray and a past it ROG for that ill fated WC QF. Previously we came close to a GS when Munster were making finals in 00/02, again close to GS in 07 and finally GS in 09. Leinster's success in 11 and 12 translated into two championships and finally their 2018 win saw us GS and win a series in Aus.

But winning one and not the other isn't the point, the point is that our success at HEC level has meant the lows were short and we were able to sustain a certain amount of consistency. Hence having more wins than anyone else in the 6N.

[Tichtheid]

I would think the Heineken Cup would have a fair amount to do with success at international level, especially so in Ireland where the show is run centrally, rather than in England or France where the clubs are so powerful, however it's not the only factor.

Wales had real talent in the coaching set up in Gatland and Edwards, wasn't Deccie in charge of Ireland when BOD and the rest were playing? It's not solely about the players. Gats and Edwards made up a lot for the state of the regional game in Wales.

Also, and I really can't be arsed going back and looking, but the fixture list in the 6N varies year by year, for example we have England and France away this year, back in the 80s and 90's I was always of the opinion that these odd numbered years were our more difficult ones, playing away at the Arms park and Lansdowne wasn't as formidable a prospect as in Paris or London back then, I presume there are easier years for each team just the same - as I say I can't be arsed looking but did the slams happen in the years where the teams were at home to the strongest opponents?

[Biffer]

This is fun to watch

[CM11]

Wales slammed in 05/08/12/19 so two of each. Ireland slammed in 09/18. One of each and have our championship wins one of each too. Historically Wales have 7 even years and 5 odd years for their slams.

[inactionman]

I would think the Heineken Cup would have a fair amount to do with success at international level, especially so in Ireland where the show is run centrally, rather than in England or France where the clubs are so powerful, however it's not the only factor.

Wales had real talent in the coaching set up in Gatland and Edwards, wasn't Deccie in charge of Ireland when BOD and the rest were playing? It's not solely about the players. Gats and Edwards made up a lot for the state of the regional game in Wales.

Also, and I really can't be arsed going back and looking, but the fixture list in the 6N varies year by year, for example we have England and France away this year, back in the 80s and 90's I was always of the opinion that these odd numbered years were our more difficult ones, playing away at the Arms park and Lansdowne wasn't as formidable a prospect as in Paris or London back then, I presume there are easier years for each team just the same - as I say I can't be arsed looking but did the slams happen in the years where the teams were at home to the strongest opponents?

Definitely true for England - we'll have either all the Blues at home or all the Blues away, and when Wales and Ireland tended to be our bogeymen it was definitely harder with the Blues home (i.e. Wales and Ireland away) years.

It's a bit different now, Scotland are pains in arses, France are strong and Wales have imploded.

[JM2K6]

Sorry JMK, I completely disagree that our improvement wasn't linked to the HEC.

I don't agree we were 'mediocre'.

And I don't see why you think saying our performances were intrinsically linked to the HEC means that we have to win the six nations every year.

The only period where we didn't get any real gain from decent HEC performances was under Kidney when he made a balls of selection, ignoring that anytime we played well was with Reddan and Sexton, picking an inexperienced Murray and a past it ROG for that ill fated WC QF. Previously we came close to a GS when Munster were making finals in 00/02, again close to GS in 07 and finally GS in 09. Leinster's success in 11 and 12 translated into two championships and finally their 2018 win saw us GS and win a series in Aus.

But winning one and not the other isn't the point, the point is that our success at HEC level has meant the lows were short and we were able to sustain a certain amount of consistency. Hence having more wins than anyone else in the 6N.

I'm not buying hypothetical alternate history where Grand Slams might have been won at the same time as ignoring coin-toss wins against sides like Italy, not least because the same is true for everyone who wasn't getting hammered every week. I'm also not prepared to concentrate only on the 6N when people are well aware of the down sides of English & French club rugby and how it impacted player fitness, availability, and preparation [not an excuse - it's our own fault], while at the same time ignoring two world cups and a lot of tours.

But just as importantly, that "more 6N wins than anyone else" statistic is irrelevant for the time period I'm talking about. Over the same 7 year period where Irish sides were THE dominant force in European club rugby, they had 26 wins. Same as Wales, fewer than France. 3 more than shithouse England during a period largely agreed to be the worst in England's professional history. Scotland and Italy managed 9 and 6 respectively, also throwing some context on the standard at the time.

It's a sideshow. And it's basically irrelevant to Wales (and Scotland), because every country has a unique association with rugby, with player development, with other sports, and with the financial challenges involved in creating a successful, sustainable pathway. The fact that Ireland were marginally better (in the 6N) than a legendarily rubbish English setup and the same as boom-or-bust Wales with their dreadful lack of European success, while at the same time dominating European club rugby, doesn't point to a strong correlation. There's certainly no evidence that it is the answer to anyone else's problems, and it's just the Irish fascination with that tournament that leads to those conclusions being drawn.

[CM11]

If you're using 06-12 as you're time period we had Kidney as coach for most of that period. Let's not go there on this thread.

Also, that was the period Wales had the most relative success in the HEC too, btw.

And either way, the point wasn't about HEC success but HEC gametime and how to rate players if they're not playing against the best sides in the tier below international level. I have already conceded that might not be fully relevant anymore, if it ever was for others.

[GogLais]

It's really a question for the Welsh fans though. Would they trade a GS or two for more overall success in Welsh rugby? Obviously in the here and now it's shite but it's not exactly like we haven't been here before with Wales and it picks up again at international level and all is forgiven. Is it worth having the regions trundling along, just about helping out but seeming like more of a nuisance than help to the WRU?

I’d happily trade a GS for a Scarlets HEC win.

[JM2K6]

If you're using 06-12 as you're time period we had Kidney as coach for most of that period. Let's not go there on this thread.

Also, that was the period Wales had the most relative success in the HEC too, btw.

And either way, the point wasn't about HEC success but HEC gametime and how to rate players if they're not playing against the best sides in the tier below international level. I have already conceded that might not be fully relevant anymore, if it ever was for others.

Surely the amount of HEC game time is related to success?

[CM11]

It's really a question for the Welsh fans though. Would they trade a GS or two for more overall success in Welsh rugby? Obviously in the here and now it's shite but it's not exactly like we haven't been here before with Wales and it picks up again at international level and all is forgiven. Is it worth having the regions trundling along, just about helping out but seeming like more of a nuisance than help to the WRU?

I’d happily trade a GS for a Scarlets HEC win.

[CM11]

If you're using 06-12 as you're time period we had Kidney as coach for most of that period. Let's not go there on this thread.

Also, that was the period Wales had the most relative success in the HEC too, btw.

And either way, the point wasn't about HEC success but HEC gametime and how to rate players if they're not playing against the best sides in the tier below international level. I have already conceded that might not be fully relevant anymore, if it ever was for others.

Surely the amount of HEC game time is related to success?

Again, the original point made wasn't about success but about how you select players without ever seeing them in the top tier of games below international level. It's a trickier prospect.

But, also, Wales did have plenty of knockout HEC rugby in the 00s so an extra game or two from one or other Irish team was only going to go so far.

[fishfoodie]

Isn't coincidence wonderful ?



We certainly aren't perfect, & while our structures work to a point, we still lose guys, & aren't getting as much out of the AIL, & that means that the game isn't serving guys who just want to play in those many levels below Pro.

More work to do !!!

[Tichtheid]

Mohamed Haouas was handed a four week ban for the red card on Sunday, his third red card since 2020 and second in the 6N

[Biffer]

Mohamed Haouas was handed a four week ban for the red card on Sunday, his third red card since 2020 and second in the 6N

How does someone with that disciplinary record get time taken off his ban? What a fucking joke.

[weegie01]

Mohamed Haouas was handed a four week ban for the red card on Sunday, his third red card since 2020 and second in the 6N

How does someone with that disciplinary record get time taken off his ban? What a fucking joke.

They started at the minimum of 6 weeks, and reduced it due to ''the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse'.

I do not understand why this started at the minimum, nor why the above applied to a serial offender. And he can lose one of those weeks by going to tackle school.

[Tichtheid]

Any word on Gilchrist yet?

[sockwithaticket]

Mohamed Haouas was handed a four week ban for the red card on Sunday, his third red card since 2020 and second in the 6N

How does someone with that disciplinary record get time taken off his ban? What a fucking joke.

They started at the minimum of 6 weeks, and reduced it due to ''the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse'.

I do not understand why this started at the minimum, nor why the above applied to a serial offender. And he can lose one of those weeks by going to tackle school.

We've seen with other judgements that they don't consider repeat offender in the way that fans do. For example, Farrell's recent ban was his third for a high tackle, but the judgement mentioned that they discounted the one from 2016 given the time that had elapsed. Personally, I think that if you committed the same offence in 2016, 2020 and 2022 then that shows no growth from the player over a long period and that absolutely should be part of any sanction consideration, but disciplinary panels obviously disagree.

Houas didn't even commit the same offence as last time.

[Tichtheid]

How does someone with that disciplinary record get time taken off his ban? What a fucking joke.

They started at the minimum of 6 weeks, and reduced it due to ''the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse'.

I do not understand why this started at the minimum, nor why the above applied to a serial offender. And he can lose one of those weeks by going to tackle school.

We've seen with other judgements that they don't consider repeat offender in the way that fans do. For example, Farrell's recent ban was his third for a high tackle, but the judgement mentioned that they discounted the one from 2016 given the time that had elapsed. Personally, I think that if you committed the same offence in 2016, 2020 and 2022 then that shows no growth from the player over a long period and that absolutely should be part of any sanction consideration, but disciplinary panels obviously disagree.

Houas didn't even commit the same offence as last time.

There is a guy on the Glasgow forum who researches an incredible amount of rugby stats, he also writes for various online publications. This is what he says

"Mohamed Haouas:

1st half red card for France v Scotland, 8th March 2020 - punching.
3-week ban. Games missed - 0 (Covid)

1st half red card for Montpellier v Lyon, 30th April 2022 - no arms charge.
1-week ban. Games missed - 1

1st half red card for France v Scotland, 26th February 2023 - dangerous tackle.
4-week ban, reduced by 1 week if coaching intervention completed. Games missed - most likely 3.

So a player with 3 red cards in the space of less than 3 years will have received a total punishment of 4 games missed."


The rugby authorities dress this up as a legal process and bestow on it a huge amount of gravitas, but as far as I'm aware criminal courts take previous convictions into account as aggravating factors, so I think the pretendy seriousness and self aggrandising of the rugby hearings are actually quite laughable.

The press release on Haouas;
(there are ) "no aggravating factors and accepted mitigating factors including the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse"

[sockwithaticket]

They started at the minimum of 6 weeks, and reduced it due to ''the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse'.

I do not understand why this started at the minimum, nor why the above applied to a serial offender. And he can lose one of those weeks by going to tackle school.

We've seen with other judgements that they don't consider repeat offender in the way that fans do. For example, Farrell's recent ban was his third for a high tackle, but the judgement mentioned that they discounted the one from 2016 given the time that had elapsed. Personally, I think that if you committed the same offence in 2016, 2020 and 2022 then that shows no growth from the player over a long period and that absolutely should be part of any sanction consideration, but disciplinary panels obviously disagree.

Houas didn't even commit the same offence as last time.

There is a guy on the Glasgow forum who researches an incredible amount of rugby stats, he also writes for various online publications. This is what he says

"Mohamed Haouas:

1st half red card for France v Scotland, 8th March 2020 - punching.
3-week ban. Games missed - 0 (Covid)

1st half red card for Montpellier v Lyon, 30th April 2022 - no arms charge.
1-week ban. Games missed - 1

1st half red card for France v Scotland, 26th February 2023 - dangerous tackle.
4-week ban, reduced by 1 week if coaching intervention completed. Games missed - most likely 3.

So a player with 3 red cards in the space of less than 3 years will have received a total punishment of 4 games missed."


The rugby authorities dress this up as a legal process and bestow on it a huge amount of gravitas, but as far as I'm aware criminal courts take previous convictions into account as aggravating factors, so I think the pretendy seriousness and self aggrandising of the rugby hearings are actually quite laughable.


The press release on Haouas;
(there are ) "no aggravating factors and accepted mitigating factors including the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse"

Fully agreed. Quite why there are lawyers involved I've no idea, other than at the outset of establishing procedure someone saw it as a good way to throw business in the direction of a mate's firm.

We've probably posted about this before, but the whole thing needs ripping up. You shouldn't get weeks off for admitting guilt and managing to behave, the totality of a previous record is important, what's deemed low and middle range seems completely arbitrary etc.

[Jock42]

Mohamed Haouas was handed a four week ban for the red card on Sunday, his third red card since 2020 and second in the 6N

4 weeks for rapping the nut on some cunt. Absolute joke.

[SaintK]

We've probably posted about this before, but the whole thing needs ripping up. You shouldn't get weeks off for admitting guilt and managing to behave, the totality of a previous record is important, what's deemed low and middle range seems completely arbitrary etc.

Agree entirely
It's farcical!

[Slick]

Mohamed Haouas was handed a four week ban for the red card on Sunday, his third red card since 2020 and second in the 6N

4 weeks for rapping the nut on some cunt. Absolute joke.

Well done on the most Scottish post of the week

[inactionman]

I'm happy that there's some recognition and mitigation of remorse and acceptance of liability, perhaps better expressed that bans can be increased if the transgressor clearly does not accept they've transgressed, but agree entirely that there should be a closer scrutiny of past behaviour. The mitigations for claimed remorse seem pretty hollow when they've been up before the beak on this sort of thing before.

If they were truly remorseful and accept their behaviour was not acceptable, then they shouldn't do it again. If they're charged for the same/similar offence again in reasonably short order, you operate on the basis that it's reckless or intentional and consider it as aggravating. That's surely a better assessment, rather than a few empty words which are clearly spoken in an attempt to gain mitigation.

[Ymx]

This is fun to watch

Really?? My eyes are bleeding.

We have hit the critical mass for fusion, with 2 highly argumentative types going at each other.

[Ovals]

We've probably posted about this before, but the whole thing needs ripping up. You shouldn't get weeks off for admitting guilt and managing to behave, the totality of a previous record is important, what's deemed low and middle range seems completely arbitrary etc.

Agree entirely
It's farcical!

And, a 3 week ban has very little effect - it just gives the player an enforced rest - he'll probably still end up playing the same amount of games, in a season, that he would have without a ban.

[CM11]

Tbf, he will miss international games, which isn't meaningless (English players get around 20k/game, French players are probably on similar?) and may have screwed up his international career given his past history and the risk of playing him in a WC knockout.

[Yr Alban]

They started at the minimum of 6 weeks, and reduced it due to ''the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse'.

I do not understand why this started at the minimum, nor why the above applied to a serial offender. And he can lose one of those weeks by going to tackle school.

We've seen with other judgements that they don't consider repeat offender in the way that fans do. For example, Farrell's recent ban was his third for a high tackle, but the judgement mentioned that they discounted the one from 2016 given the time that had elapsed. Personally, I think that if you committed the same offence in 2016, 2020 and 2022 then that shows no growth from the player over a long period and that absolutely should be part of any sanction consideration, but disciplinary panels obviously disagree.

Houas didn't even commit the same offence as last time.

There is a guy on the Glasgow forum who researches an incredible amount of rugby stats, he also writes for various online publications. This is what he says

"Mohamed Haouas:

1st half red card for France v Scotland, 8th March 2020 - punching.
3-week ban. Games missed - 0 (Covid)

1st half red card for Montpellier v Lyon, 30th April 2022 - no arms charge.
1-week ban. Games missed - 1

1st half red card for France v Scotland, 26th February 2023 - dangerous tackle.
4-week ban, reduced by 1 week if coaching intervention completed. Games missed - most likely 3.

So a player with 3 red cards in the space of less than 3 years will have received a total punishment of 4 games missed."


The rugby authorities dress this up as a legal process and bestow on it a huge amount of gravitas, but as far as I'm aware criminal courts take previous convictions into account as aggravating factors, so I think the pretendy seriousness and self aggrandising of the rugby hearings are actually quite laughable.

The press release on Haouas;
(there are ) "no aggravating factors and accepted mitigating factors including the player’s early acknowledgement that the incident warranted a red card; the lack of intent and premeditation and clearly expressed remorse"

As I said to him on Twitter, it’s particularly ridiculous in view of the fact that two of his three red cards have been for actual violent conduct (punching Ritchie in the face and the recent flying headbutt) and not technical reds given for head contact.