I go with PostTiger and Daily on this one. I don't think that the intent was there from Jonny and that he should have been cited. I think Goodey's effort was worse and he will be punished, unfortunately for us. He did also trip someone else and has been at least a bit reckless in recent times.
I detect quite a bit of antiWilkoism at the moment on here. Its a little ironic as not so long ago some folks were quite happy to see him come here!!
That said, there does seem to be inconsistency in the citing procedure in many cases and in the sentences if you like given. Its time the system was looked into and amended.
Intent would only come into play when looking at the length of any ban (should there be one). It should not be used in detemining if there was a dangerous/reckless tackle in the first place.
Inconsitency? Multiple standards more like. Load of cr*p clser to it!! The discuplinary bodies and the refs are bring the game into toyl disrepute.
Head butts and straight arm tackles are OK??? Really???
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
dailywaffle wrote:
I agree. Trying to equate Goode's (clearly) high tackle with Jonny's effort is just pointless. The Welsh boys that I have spoken to don't have a problem with Jonny's tackle, other than to observe (quite correctly) that he's actually in danger of breaking his own wrist or arm when trying to dislodge the ball whilst putting in that type of hit. Wasn't D'Arcy's injury from a similar effort?
1. The fact that Johnny is a nice guy with only love in his heart hs nothing to do with whether or not he should be cited. Though it may have a bearing on the sentence.
2. Also irrelavant is the fact the welsh public, team, coach and player himself had no problem with it.
3. The fact is the tackle was dangerous and against the rules and like other offences, tackling a player in the air, pulling a line out jumper down etc lack of intent should not be a defence.
Nobody does these things to seriously hurt somebody but there is always a chance that they might and so we have rules to prevent them.
1. The 'nice guy with love in his heart' crack is indicative of some of the less rational observations on here about Jonny. Of course, his excellent disciplinary record would have been taken into account had a citing occurred.
2. As far as the actual citing process is concerned, I agree. However, I do find it interesting that the injured parties and their supporters have said that it was not a citing offence.
3. The tackle was clearly an attempt at dislodging the ball. Had JT not ducked into it then I honestly believe that this thread would not exist. This type of tackle is not uncommon, and a citing was never that likely. It is certainly not a tackling technique that I would want to see coached, involving some significant risk to the tackler (e.g. Gordon D'Arcy).
Maybe a debate on the legitimacy of this type of ball stripping tackle is needed, but such a debate should be held outside of the context of Jonny, head butts, Andy Goode, 'double standards' and the general paranoia that evidences itself on this thread. All IMO, of course.
I think everyone is taking this way out of context- my coaches at rugby have always said "if you want to take someone big down, you aim between the belly and sternum". Jonny did exactly this, and the fact that his arm swang round is not a point to get him cited- it's actually making the tackle legal, as he is trying to ensure he is getting his arms around him.
The only problem was that JT actually bent down into the tackle, and therefore knocked himself out. A similar tackle (with the swinging arm) where no-one was injured was BO'D on a french player (not sure who he was) in RWC 2007. O'Driscoll hits him chest height with a straight arm, then swings his other arm round to make the tackle legal. It was a huge hit, which would have been what Jonny was aiming for had Jonathan Thomas not ducked into it.
Blazers are blazers which ever committee they sit on!
My whole point is what is good for one is good for another.
Everyone appeared to have the view that Johnny wilkinson is untouchable, hence the no citing.
What has happened is only a reflection of real life.
Johnny Wilkinson committed a dangerous high tackle and should have been cited.
Whether his eyes were shut or there was no intent doesnt really matter. 8 million viewers saw it and I for one think it was worthy (juding on Goodeys citing)of being cited. All the mitigation could have been given when considering punishment.
The poor recipitent of the blow was unconsious even before he hit the ground.
My whole point was that there was no citing because Johnning Wilkinson is Johnny Wilkinson - purely that.
You can't really compare punches and headbutts off the ball to a possible dangerous tackle during play.
Punches and Headbutts off the ball are clearly intended only to injure a player and should be dealt with harshly. Henderson should have at least been called upon to defend his actions officaly.
People are saying that JW gets away with because he's JW. These are the same people who are calling for JW to be dropped and who believe he shouldn't be playing for England. Personally I've not been a JW fan since 2002 as I feel the injuries have blunted his game and an alterative should be found but that is besides the point here. I feel that the only reason this is creating so much who-hah is because it's JW. The tendancy of the 'JW should be cited' posters to disregard anyone with a differing pont of view as JW fans is getting a little annoying truth be told as is the fact that he's been cleared of any wrong doing by an independant citing officer and yet that is also dismissed as being 'because he's JW'.
When looking at a possible dangerous tackle, the citing officer will look at:
Body positions: JW is crouched down low, early, and ready to make a tackle so clearly not aiming high. Thomas has also adopted a low body position leading with his head, with his upper body almost parallel to the ground which makes it very likely that any tackle aimed at his chest area when stood will strike the head/neck area.
Intent: for a player to be judged as intending to cause injury they will be looking to hit a target like the head or neck and therefore will be looking at their target to take aim on these small areas (Flannery as an example). JW has clearly turned his head to the side away from Thomas as he moves to make the tackle. In the previous post some have said that JW looking away does not excuse a missed tackle, likening it to crashing a car while not looking. True both things are silly but there is a difference between crashing a car because you're not looking at the road to protect yourself and deliberatly aiming your car and slamming into someone crossing the road. It's called intent. One is an accident, the other is GBH.
The so called 'swinging / straight arm' which people are complaining about is simply silly. There is no rule stating that you cannot make contact with a player with your arm held straight or even swinging into the player provided you are attempting to make a legal tackle ie: wrapping your other arm around the player also and aimed below the shoulders which JW clearly attempts to do and can be seen on the BBC reply on the link (shame it hasn't got the slo-mo on they had from the side on view in the match, it's much clearer).
