More of rugby's inconsistencies

[Torquemada 1420]

The sort of stuff that just makes the game confusing and subject to derision.

1) Bundee Aki.
Gets a 4 match ban. It's very clear that it's matches and so he will miss games for Connacht.

2) Paul Willemse
Gets a 2 week ban. Which, presumably, means if Montpellier has no game next week, he misses 1 match.

Setting aside that to me even if that meant missing 2 games, this is manifestly unfair that he gets off lighter for a pre-mediated act of recklessness whereas Akhi's was the unfortunate consequence of trying to play the game. How did we get into 2 different metrics for punishments in the same comp FFS?

The whole notion of time bans at this end of the scale, is they result in inconsistencies and abuse. In Akhi's case, the comp where he committed the offence will not be affected (assuming he is ever selected for a 6N game again) whereas he'll be out of Pro14 (and Challenge?).

[Kawazaki]

Eh?

Willemse had no idea his hand was near the eye-area.

And Aki has been red carded for the exact same offence before.

[Torquemada 1420]

Eh?

Willemse had no idea his hand was near the eye-area.

And Aki has been red carded for the exact same offence before.

That wasn't the central point here which is why are some penalties quantified in matches and others in weeks?

But, FWIW, I don't believe Willemse had no idea once he had got a grasp with his hand: WTF did he think he was holding?

[GogLais]

Eh?

Willemse had no idea his hand was near the eye-area.

I really don't get this defence. If you put your hand round the top of someone's face the odds are pretty high there'll be an eye there somewhere. I'm not getting into intent or severity but arguing he couldn't expect to be near WJ's eye isn't a good defence imo.

[GogLais]

The sort of stuff that just makes the game confusing and subject to derision.

1) Bundee Aki.
Gets a 4 match ban. It's very clear that it's matches and so he will miss games for Connacht.

2) Paul Willemse
Gets a 2 week ban. Which, presumably, means if Montpellier has no game next week, he misses 1 match.

Setting aside that to me even if that meant missing 2 games, this is manifestly unfair that he gets off lighter for a pre-mediated act of recklessness whereas Akhi's was the unfortunate consequence of trying to play the game. How did we get into 2 different metrics for punishments in the same comp FFS?

The whole notion of time bans at this end of the scale, is they result in inconsistencies and abuse. In Akhi's case, the comp where he committed the offence will not be affected (assuming he is ever selected for a 6N game again) whereas he'll be out of Pro14 (and Challenge?).

He's banned for two matches according to Rugby World.

[laurent]

Eh?

Willemse had no idea his hand was near the eye-area.

I really don't get this defence. If you put your hand round the top of someone's face the odds are pretty high there'll be an eye there somewhere. I'm not getting into intent or severity but arguing he couldn't expect to be near WJ's eye is pretty weak.

They argued it was accidental (I believe the same) the judges agreed; this is pretty much a first.

[Lobby]

Talking of eye gouges, has Mateo Carreras been cited for his gouging in the game against Wasps?

[PornDog]

It was accidental contact with the eye area certainly, but it was a deliberate act of foul play.

I don't know what to make of it all to be honest. Yes they do need to stamp out major contacts with the head and yes tacklers do need to go lower. However when carriers stick their head down and charge like a bull I really think its unfair to put the entire responsibility on the tackler. Then you have absolute scumbags that deliberately hitch up their knee just as they enter contact in the hope of clocking the tackler!

[Raggs]

Talking of eye gouges, has Mateo Carreras been cited for his gouging in the game against Wasps?

Yes, and he's only been accused (at the moment) with contact with the eyes (so no chance of the lesser charge of Eye Area).

[Sandstorm]

What’s worse: eye damage or brain damage?

Until around 2018 it was always considered to be the former.....

[sorCrer]

It was accidental contact with the eye area certainly, but it was a deliberate act of foul play.

I don't know what to make of it all to be honest. Yes they do need to stamp out major contacts with the head and yes tacklers do need to go lower. However when carriers stick their head down and charge like a bull I really think its unfair to put the entire responsibility on the tackler. Then you have absolute scumbags that deliberately hitch up their knee just as they enter contact in the hope of clocking the tackler!

And ball carriers into the tackle seem to be going lower and lower into contact.