NPR

I'd say 8 - 10 weeks, but who knows. Disciplinary verdicts are often completely out of whack with what you'd expect.

sockwithaticket wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:12 am I'd say 8 - 10 weeks, but who knows. Disciplinary verdicts are often completely out of whack with what you'd expect.

Agreed, I'd expect him to see a fairly lengthy ban.

Mind you, if you look at the replies to Andy Goode's tweet, there are plenty of idiots of the 'rugby's gone soft' variety claiming there was nothing wrong with the hit, and that it wasn't even a penalty!

Did he actually hit his head? Looked chest height, but just a tiny bit late.

Ymx wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:21 am Did he actually hit his head? Looked chest height, but just a tiny bit late.

Apart from late, in the air and landing on his shoulder, I’m with you..:

I hadn't listened to it with sound, but Poite trying to mollify everyone by just shouting red card over and over is kind of funny. Also the dumb prick had to have it pointed out to him by one of his own players that he'd been sent off even with Poite having waved the card at him.

Ymx wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:21 am Did he actually hit his head? Looked chest height, but just a tiny bit late.

In addition to the elements Slick noted, reckless is going to be a key word here. He launches himself in a way that takes any control out of the situation, not completely clocking the Bordeaux player in the head is entirely luck rather than judgement. As it is he rides up over the shoulders after the intial impact, not to head level admittedly. However late + high + in the air + reckless can definitely = red card.

Slick wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:58 am

Ymx wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:21 am Did he actually hit his head? Looked chest height, but just a tiny bit late.

Apart from late, in the air and landing on his shoulder, I’m with you..:

I did say a tiny late. But I guess launching off feet is another. Landing on shoulder is irrelevant, unless he was picked up.

But no direct collision with head, so I’d say yellow, no weeks.

It’s French so probably 6-8 weeks.

Now this one is a red.

I'm normally one of those who goes red more than not, but it's an odd one.

He's in the air, but that's because he's kicked it, not because he's jumping to take a kick etc. It's barely late, the tackler was committed I reckon, especially as I play with a guy who likes to fake kick and step.

The guy is in the air, but had he been stood upright, his head would have been around the same height. I'm not sure if it rides up.

If it rides up, then red no worries whatsoever. If not, I don't think there's much in it to be honest.

ASMO wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:06 am

Typical dim Safa.

Not been a great few weeks for Fre rugby with Demba Bamba suffering racist abuse after the Pau game and Ludo Radosavljevic being banned for Provence for 6 months for calling Christian Ambadiang (Nevers) a "Banana Eater" and threatening to burn him. Frankly, this one should have been a life ban and ditto for Pieterse.

I think it’ll probably be judged under the ‘players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others’. Top end of that is listed as 10+ weeks with a maximum of 52. Or they might use ‘A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball’, which has the same guidelines, but they’d then have the opportunity to add on additional ban under the reckless category, so could do something like 10 weeks for the late hit, then a discount for first offence giving him 5, but then add on 10 for the reckless. Or something along those lines.

sockwithaticket wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:13 am Also the dumb prick had to have it pointed out to him by one of his own players that he'd been sent off even with Poite having waved the card at him.

Actually, I think Combezou was basically just telling him to get off out of embarrassment.

{EDIT} Combezou has commented: "It was a youthful error. He thought he was in the MMA (Mixed Martial Arts). He will surely be sanctioned, have to pay his debt and move on."

Claiming you're committed to the tackle when you then still need to leap off both feet after the ball is kicked to make that contact is gong to be tricky unless the hearing panel hate 9s on principle.

Whether the player is in their air I don't know, you might get a mix of thinking on that front. The Lions tour in 2017 established something of a new standard when the Lions got a penalty for one of the NZ front row tackling Kyle Sinckler in the air, and that when it was Sinckler who jumped to take a pass (from Murray?) when there wasn't really any need for a hop, skip or a jump, so if that's in the air why isn't this? Probably this would skew more to people thinking the defender is entitled to make the tackle, but it's not obvious how all refs would officiate it if Sinckler was deemed to be in the air and due protection for that.

But really you're never going to get away with that tackle on the grounds of conduct becoming. The tackle is the means of holding a player and bringing them to ground, and a flying shoulder charge isn't anywhere close to that.

sockwithaticket wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:13 am I hadn't listened to it with sound, but Poite trying to mollify everyone by just shouting red card over and over is kind of funny. Also the dumb prick had to have it pointed out to him by one of his own players that he'd been sent off even with Poite having waved the card at him.

Ymx wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:21 am Did he actually hit his head? Looked chest height, but just a tiny bit late.

In addition to the elements Slick noted, reckless is going to be a key word here. He launches himself in a way that takes any control out of the situation, not completely clocking the Bordeaux player in the head is entirely luck rather than judgement. As it is he rides up over the shoulders after the intial impact, not to head level admittedly. However late + high + in the air + reckless can definitely = red card.

Nothing worse for a ref than having to dish out extra cards because of "extras" after a scumbag act.

It looked worse because he was off his feet when he dived into him. Very unorthodox tackle technique. But all he's actually guilty of is a late tackle at the end of the day - it wasn't high, just late. Much of the fuss being made is because of the melee afterwards.

Shouldn't be a ban longer than 3 weeks but I daresay it'll be longer for reasons totally unconnected with the tackle itself.

How are the police not involved? That was an obscene tackle... jumping and diving into someone like that?

Life ban minimum.... prison sentence if any sanity left in the world.

Grandpa wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:04 pm How are the police not involved? That was an obscene tackle... jumping and diving into someone like that?

Life ban minimum.... prison sentence if any sanity left in the world.

In France? 8 weeks

Anyone got a source that isn't blocked? I don't even know names to search for it myself but it sounds intriguing.

Kawazaki wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:07 pm It looked worse because he was off his feet when he dived into him. Very unorthodox tackle technique. But all he's actually guilty of is a late tackle at the end of the day - it wasn't high, just late. Much of the fuss being made is because of the melee afterwards.

Shouldn't be a ban longer than 3 weeks but I daresay it'll be longer for reasons totally unconnected with the tackle itself.

It was late, but it was also very dangerous, particularly as the guy was in the air. Lots of people seem to be grasping for technical reasons for it not being that bad, but we still have laws and sanctions against dangerous play and this was.

I'd say 12+ weeks but he'll get 6-8.

Enzedder wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:21 am Anyone got a source that isn't blocked? I don't even know names to search for it myself but it sounds intriguing.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/db313fff3c4 ... a39e67.gif

Horrific to watch the first time, but it actually looks worse than it is. Just an awful technique that was a bit late.

Kawazaki wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:07 pm It looked worse because he was off his feet when he dived into him. Very unorthodox tackle technique. But all he's actually guilty of is a late tackle at the end of the day - it wasn't high, just late. Much of the fuss being made is because of the melee afterwards.

Shouldn't be a ban longer than 3 weeks but I daresay it'll be longer for reasons totally unconnected with the tackle itself.

Are you serious? I am struggling to think of a more reckless action since Pagel danced all over Tordo's face: and that was a very long time ago in an entirely different climate. I'd support UBB if they considered taking action for assault.

assfly wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:48 am Horrific to watch the first time, but it actually looks worse than it is. Just an awful technique that was a bit late.

I think once you commit to the high flying shoulder charge you're going to end up in trouble.

He's a good two metres away from the kicker when the ball leaves the kicker's foot. He launches himself off his feet at the kicker with his head down and shoulder aimed at the player.

The kicker is in the air as he gets hit.

That was an intent to hurt, it wasn't an intent at a dominant collision or tackle, he knew what he was doing.

In what I call the good old days in France that would have resulted in a 30 player plus subs brawl with dozens of the crowd getting in on it, probably the ref getting decked, the opposition team bus getting smashed up.*

The game's gone soft etc


*I played in such games in France.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:51 am

Kawazaki wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:07 pm It looked worse because he was off his feet when he dived into him. Very unorthodox tackle technique. But all he's actually guilty of is a late tackle at the end of the day - it wasn't high, just late. Much of the fuss being made is because of the melee afterwards.

Shouldn't be a ban longer than 3 weeks but I daresay it'll be longer for reasons totally unconnected with the tackle itself.

Are you serious? I am struggling to think of a more reckless action since Pagel danced all over Tordo's face: and that was a very long time ago in an entirely different climate. I'd support UBB if they considered taking action for assault.

He's marginally late, he's not high and he wrapped both arms. It looks bad because there's a significant weight offset between them and he's launched himself at speed into the smaller player who is not braced for impact. There's no law either about leaving the ground to make a tackle. Conversely, there is is a law against the ball carrier leaving the ground going into a tackler.

robmatic wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:38 am

assfly wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:48 am Horrific to watch the first time, but it actually looks worse than it is. Just an awful technique that was a bit late.

I think once you commit to the high flying shoulder charge you're going to end up in trouble.

That isn't what happened though, not even close.

People talking about it being marginally late, or shoulder high, or he tried to wrap, or whatever are missing the fundamental point that it was reckless and potentially dangerous. It doesn't have to be a head high shoulder hit to be reckless. If you don't understand that then you've not being paying attentive n over the last ten or twenty years.

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.

Lawes v Plisson - World Rugby Law 9:18 - "A player must not lift an opponent off the ground and drop or drive that player so that their head and/or upper body make contact with the ground."


Pieterse v Lucu - World Rugby Law 9:11- "Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others" (also applies above)
9:13 - "A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously" (could also apply above)
9:14 - "A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball."
9:17 - "A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground"

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/9

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:00 pm 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 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.

FalseBayFC wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:59 pm 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?

That Lawes tackle is earlier than this one.

Ball was away early enough from the kicker that the tackler had time to avoid hitting him if he wanted to.

Biffer wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:37 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:00 pm 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.

sockwithaticket wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:08 pm That Lawes tackle is earlier than this one.

Ball was away early enough from the kicker that the tackler had time to avoid hitting him if he wanted to.

Sure, I've got no problem with that assessment. Technically though, the tackle's lateness was the only illegal thing about it, although admittedly it looked weird due to the flying leap, but leaping into a tackle is not an illegal act, in fact outside backs do it all the time.

A certain lock flying late into a particular fly half in 2002 was a straight ref. Almost 20 years later we have to expect players to be a generation wiser and an order of magnitude more careful.

Otherwise it’s time to ride the bike for the dumb Saffer for many months.

Slick wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:07 pm

FalseBayFC wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:59 pm 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.

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:44 pm A certain lock flying late into a particular fly half in 2002 was a straight ref. Almost 20 years later we have to expect players to be a generation wiser and an order of magnitude more careful.

Otherwise it’s time to ride the bike for the dumb Saffer for many months.

That wasn't a red tbf. Yellow certainly not never a red.

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:52 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:51 am

Kawazaki wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:07 pm It looked worse because he was off his feet when he dived into him. Very unorthodox tackle technique. But all he's actually guilty of is a late tackle at the end of the day - it wasn't high, just late. Much of the fuss being made is because of the melee afterwards.

Shouldn't be a ban longer than 3 weeks but I daresay it'll be longer for reasons totally unconnected with the tackle itself.

Are you serious? I am struggling to think of a more reckless action since Pagel danced all over Tordo's face: and that was a very long time ago in an entirely different climate. I'd support UBB if they considered taking action for assault.

He's marginally late, he's not high and he wrapped both arms. It looks bad because there's a significant weight offset between them and he's launched himself at speed into the smaller player who is not braced for impact. There's no law either about leaving the ground to make a tackle. Conversely, there is is a law against the ball carrier leaving the ground going into a tackler.

The Lions series draw wants a word