strawclearer wrote:I can only think of 4 options regarding the George North incident:
1. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and the medical team failed to appreciate this. The medical team should be re-trained or replaced.
2. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and, in spite of this, the Northampton coaches 'persuaded' him to return to the pitch because of his perceived importance to the team. The coach(es) concerned should be sacked and banned for a period of years.
3. He was not rendered unconscious but, for his own reasons, pretended he was. He should be cited for unsportsmanlike behaviour.
4. He was not rendered unconscious and decided to lay motionless with his eyes closed until cleared to move by medical staff. He should be applauded for his perspicacity.
Or maybe as North said afterwards he felt a pain in his neck and that's why he remained still fearing any sudden movement until the medical team arrived might be bad. But hey that's not sensationalist enough for some on here so we will discount the explanation from the player.
I'm happy with suggestion 4. GN knows his own situation, Saints' medics know his situation: can't believe either party would do anything but take the sensible option.
But how long before Saints go 'we can't risk George any more' and he is forced to pack it in?
The sad thing is the question is being asked. I think we will start to see players milk situations, particularly where certain sanctions are being driven for what are often not black and white situations. Just a couple of weeks ago we had Nick Evans writhing in agony after a perfectly legal tackle from a committed Genge just after he'd passed the ball. At the time you couldn't help but think is he trying to get the ref to go to the TMO.
On the subject of the TMO, the comms between JP Doyle and TMO (was it Trevor Fisher?) were excellent yesterday, even if they disagreed over Hanrahan's tackle of OW's face.
Hot_Charlie wrote:I think we will start to see players milk situations, particularly where certain sanctions are being driven for what are often not black and white situations.
If the degree of sanction is determined by outcome rather than causal behaviour, I fear you're right.
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
David Flatman's comments were interesting "what could Thompstone do, stand there stationary and get North's knee in his face?"
I understand the rule but it's stupid and needs changing! Imo.
Tiger_in_Birmingham wrote:The way I see it, and from the ref's comments, the issue is Thompstone lifted his arms and moved his feet and therefore played the man, rather than it just being North jumping into him - yellow card seems about right if that is the case.
If Thompstone had kept his arms down and North had gone into him, rolled over and landed the same way what would the outcome have been? What about if he had landed head first?
Would it just be deemed play on as North is legitimately allowed to jump to catch the ball and Thompstone is allowed to stand still
Seems weird that it is outcome driven (how the man lands) but might be completely mitigated by not moving
Can you imagine if Thompstone had kept his arms down North may well have taken his head off with his knee. As it is I think Thompstone was right to help him over his head to avoid possibly being very badly injured! North was (w)reckless.
Tiger_in_Birmingham wrote:The way I see it, and from the ref's comments, the issue is Thompstone lifted his arms and moved his feet and therefore played the man, rather than it just being North jumping into him - yellow card seems about right if that is the case.
If Thompstone had kept his arms down and North had gone into him, rolled over and landed the same way what would the outcome have been? What about if he had landed head first?
Would it just be deemed play on as North is legitimately allowed to jump to catch the ball and Thompstone is allowed to stand still
Seems weird that it is outcome driven (how the man lands) but might be completely mitigated by not moving
Can you imagine if Thompstone had kept his arms down North may well have taken his head off with his knee. As it is I think Thompstone was right to help him over his head to avoid possibly being very badly injured! North was (w)reckless.
In which case, like Alesana Tuilagi in last years World Cup for Samoa v Japan, North presumably would have been yellow carded for kneeing an opponent ??
The people who are saying Thommo was in the wrong and was lucky not to get a red miss my point. This may be the case as the laws currently stand but if that is that case then the laws are completely wrong.
Firstly a man jumping in the air is putting himself in danger. Secondly it is often very difficult to get out of the way. Thirdly we are now encouraging people to jump for no reason.. Saturdays example showed north jumping for a ball there was no need to jump for. In my mind he did it to red card an opponent. In doing so placed himself and Thompstone at risk. Given his own history it was foolhardy in the extreme and for the officials to codone it makes the game a much more inheritantly dangerous one than it need be.
Sadly I keep going back (like a one track record) to the laws as they used to be. None of the recent changes has made for a better spectacle ... virtually all have diminished the game as a spectacle.in this case jumping a tackle used go be against the laws and penalised for dangerous play. Now the would be tackler is penalised. It is a nonsense and is yet another law change that needs to be reversed.
I have a notion that there should be a further breakaway from the union. It should be called the 1970 laws rugby union, that's the game I would pay to see instead of this stop start airy fairy over refereed non contact bull that is dished up to us now. It has destroyed the game I have watched and played for 50 years and I am frankly sick of it. People like North, good player though he me be, should hang his head in shame in his deliberate conivence to get fellow proffesionals sent of and the destruction of a once great sport.
mightymouse wrote:
Firstly a man jumping in the air is putting himself in danger. Secondly it is often very difficult to get out of the way. Thirdly we are now encouraging people to jump for no reason.. Saturdays example showed north jumping for a ball there was no need to jump for. In my mind he did it to red card an opponent. In doing so placed himself and Thompstone at risk. Given his own history it was foolhardy in the extreme and for the officials to codone it makes the game a much more inheritantly dangerous one than it need be. .
The more I look at the incident, the more I feel the referee got it completely wrong.
Betrayed by the bounce, Thompstone turns to face a charging North - recognising that he's not going to be first to the ball and he's going to have to tackle North. He can clearly be seen preparing to tackle an opponent whom he assumes will stay upright and 'on the ground'.
North appears to have time to gather the ball whilst running and without really breaking stride. Given that he's a big guy running hard into a static opponent, it's likely he would have prevailed. Instead, he chooses to jump into contact, raising his knees into Thompstone's right shoulder. He caught Thompstone a glancing blow - had he hit him full-on, Thompstone could have suffered a serious head injury.
Short of getting Scottie to 'beam him up' I fail to see what else Thompstone could have done. Imho, he was blameless and should not have been carded. North, on the other hand, recklessly endangered another player and might well deserve to be cited.
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
Might be a weird way to look at an aspect of this but, as the actual North/Thommo contact has been done to death, why wasn't Burrell penalised for his retaliation following the collision? Albeit that it was feeble retaliation (handbags) - he persisted for quite awhile with different players.
Should have been a penalty reversal. maybe even a (2nd) yellow card.
Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
mightymouse wrote:
Firstly a man jumping in the air is putting himself in danger. Secondly it is often very difficult to get out of the way. Thirdly we are now encouraging people to jump for no reason.. Saturdays example showed north jumping for a ball there was no need to jump for. In my mind he did it to red card an opponent. In doing so placed himself and Thompstone at risk. Given his own history it was foolhardy in the extreme and for the officials to codone it makes the game a much more inheritantly dangerous one than it need be. .
The more I look at the incident, the more I feel the referee got it completely wrong.
Betrayed by the bounce, Thompstone turns to face a charging North - recognising that he's not going to be first to the ball and he's going to have to tackle North. He can clearly be seen preparing to tackle an opponent whom he assumes will stay upright and 'on the ground'.
North appears to have time to gather the ball whilst running and without really breaking stride. Given that he's a big guy running hard into a static opponent, it's likely he would have prevailed. Instead, he chooses to jump into contact, raising his knees into Thompstone's right shoulder. He caught Thompstone a glancing blow - had he hit him full-on, Thompstone could have suffered a serious head injury.
Short of getting Scottie to 'beam him up' I fail to see what else Thompstone could have done. Imho, he was blameless and should not have been carded. North, on the other hand, recklessly endangered another player and might well deserve to be cited.
This is what I saw...and the Saints supports near us - dangerous play by North.
find a better way of life, http://www.marillion.com
mightymouse wrote:The people who are saying Thommo was in the wrong and was lucky not to get a red miss my point. This may be the case as the laws currently stand but if that is that case then the laws are completely wrong.
Firstly a man jumping in the air is putting himself in danger. Secondly it is often very difficult to get out of the way. Thirdly we are now encouraging people to jump for no reason.. Saturdays example showed north jumping for a ball there was no need to jump for. In my mind he did it to red card an opponent. In doing so placed himself and Thompstone at risk. Given his own history it was foolhardy in the extreme and for the officials to codone it makes the game a much more inheritantly dangerous one than it need be.
Sadly I keep going back (like a one track record) to the laws as they used to be. None of the recent changes has made for a better spectacle ... virtually all have diminished the game as a spectacle.in this case jumping a tackle used go be against the laws and penalised for dangerous play. Now the would be tackler is penalised. It is a nonsense and is yet another law change that needs to be reversed.
I have a notion that there should be a further breakaway from the union. It should be called the 1970 laws rugby union, that's the game I would pay to see instead of this stop start airy fairy over refereed non contact bull that is dished up to us now. It has destroyed the game I have watched and played for 50 years and I am frankly sick of it. People like North, good player though he me be, should hang his head in shame in his deliberate conivence to get fellow proffesionals sent of and the destruction of a once great sport.
My first reaction on seeing this from the H & B on Saturday was that it was a red for Tommo. Watching the big screen replays I changed to a yellow at worst. Watching the replays several times since and listening to JPD's comments, if Tommo deserved a yellow, so too did North for dangerous play.
Given that the charge against Tommo was that he tried to put his arms around North to tackle him, I hope that Cockers advice to our players is that if this ever happens again and they have time (heat of the moment I know), they stand their ground, lift their arms to protect their own face/head and let the reckless jumper befall a probably worse landing by tipping straight over. That would be their own fault and the charge of tackling in the air would not hold imo as the defender has no obligation to get out of the jumper's way.
maybe even a (2nd) yellow card.