Ben Youngs - citing

[sam16111986]

Sam he has to be cited first before any potential punishment and that as we all know is not a given and more likely than not he will not be.

Well yes citings must come before bans but it was more a comment on whether the citing officials have moved on from their old favourite "his hands were on the guys face and near his eyes, so ban" to the new favourite dangerous tackles.

[jgriffin]

So now instead of the guy on the deck (Gibson) deservedly attracting a penalty - which is normal - we are going to get citings for a bit of sorting out (BY) and not for attacks off the ball (Allinson)? This scenario, if confirmed, further illustrates the ludicrous nature of RU that started with the scrum fiasco, the breakdown fiasco, the bans without evidence fiasco, the Heineken Cup qulaification rubbis, the plummeting standards of reffing fiasco, the old blocking fiasco....it just goes on and on.

[Soggypitch]

I have to agree with you jgriffin as does our old mate Barnesey!!!

see http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/ ... 40,00.html

sorry i don't know how to do links like you technocrats but if you copy and paste the above into your browser it will work, alternatively look at the sky sports rugby union web site.

[sapajo]

I have to agree with you jgriffin as does our old mate Barnesey!!!

see http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/ ... 40,00.html

sorry i don't know how to do links like you technocrats but if you copy and paste the above into your browser it will work, alternatively look at the sky sports rugby union web site.

A very sensible and highly pertinent post by Barnes who has avoided the pitfall of the majority of reporters to make a mountain out of a mole hill and castigate BY (should have not reacted the way he did) but instead to his credit he exposed the real issue that gave rise to this situation which is the persistent off the ball serial cheating that repeatedly goes unpunished. Ben Youngs has been at the receiving end of being held back off the ball in a lot of games this season (a certain scottish international a prime example) and its clear that it is a cynical opposition tactic and its very sad that Ben finally lost his rag and bingo their cheating has reaped its rewards.

That said I noticed not one sky pundit has ever uttered a single breath about the Calum Clarke incident despite the fact that it took place during their televised LV final! Contrast that with their collective rounding on Manu post the Ashton incident. Fishy and double standards me thinks

[Qbec]

I agree sapajo with all the points you make, But I have to say i have never heard/read an acticle by SB before that has made sense before has he been hit over the head been ill or something else the mans sticking up for a Tiger player is he aware of that.

This totally unheard of from him let alone Sky, Well done Barnesey long may it last.

[Smurphswillgetya]

Totally agree with the sentiments expressed by Barnes but in the real world it is the player that reacts who often gets punished. Ashton is a snide off the ball cheap shot player so could we argue Manu just reacted to the provacation throughout the game and therefore should not have been punished for his punches. In the game this season it was a build up of niggle from Ashton which led to the punch up.

[agoodetiger]

On the basis that is the one retaliating that gets punished, why isn't Allinson being cited - only a few mentions of his attack on BY! (Not condoning what BY did by the way).

[MJ Chairman]

You obviously missed Sky's live Saints v Insects game where both Greenwood and Morris said that Clarke had over stepped the mark and should be banned or at least the length of time Hawkins is out of the game.

[sapajo]

You obviously missed Sky's live Saints v Insects game where both Greenwood and Morris said that Clarke had over stepped the mark and should be banned or at least the length of time Hawkins is out of the game.

I watched it live but I cannot recall any such comment from either Greenwood or Morris.

[Bill W (2)]

The citing officer is now a far more powerful official than the referee (who is no longer the sole arbiter of fact) or his assistants or indeed the TMO.

Whilst the ref (his assistants and indeed the TMO) can influence the outcome of one match, either by what they see or what they fail to see (and what they leave to the citing officer to see) the citing officers make far more citings on incidents where the ref (or his assistants) have seen and punished an offence - in the citing officers opinion too leniently, than either unseen incidents or red card referrals to the Disciplinary Panel. Thus the Citing Officer (rather than the referee and his assistants) influence the outcome of several matches (players usually being banned following citings).

This IMHO refs should be strongly encouraged to punish offences adequately (with a red card leading to a disciplinary) and Citing Offices to shy away from citing offences that have been dealt with by the referee.

Again, IMHO, the standard of refereeing has declined considerably since Citing Officers have been able to cite offences that have been seen and punished by the referee. Refs "hide" under the cloak of the citing officer and issue yellow cards (or no cards) when red cards are justified (as the subsequent citings and disciplinary panels findings ) show.

End of rant.

[Tyzot]

Sapajo,

The comment about Clarke was in the pre match build up, they discussed it as reported, whilst they were stood on the pitch.

I recall the comment was that Clarke had stepped a long way over the mark and deserved a long ban.

[Bill W (2)]

Sapajo,

The comment about Clarke was in the pre match build up, they discussed it as reported, whilst they were stood on the pitch.

I recall the comment was that Clarke had stepped a long way over the mark and deserved a long ban.

But how long is long enough? Life? 4 years? 2 years? 12 weeks?

Pour encourogez les autres?

[Isambard]

I thought this thread was about Ben.

[Bill W (2)]

I thought this thread was about Ben.

And so it is.

The incident was seen by the match officials who took no action.

The Citing Officer, in his infinite wisdom, may choose to cite either player (somewhat randomly you might think) as a result of which whoever he chooses will not be available for his club for a number of games.

The "other" player will get away with it (either the holding down or retaliation) and the match officials will have "managed the game".

Both wrongly!

[Isambard]

Just like in every other rugby game of and above a certain level.