Yesterday's game.

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Bowden Tiger
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:12 pm
Location: Little Bowden, South Leicestershire

Yesterday's game.

Post by Bowden Tiger » Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:35 pm

I hate to talk about rugby matters, but if you get the chance look at the 62nd/ 63rd minute, have a look at firstly the high tackles on Freddy Burns. Then, what follows is a high one from Farrell, who as he hits the ground proceeds to dig the heel of his hand into FB's head several times. I don't understand what it was and why the blind touch judge didn't see it.

Hot_Charlie
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:30 pm
Location: Lincoln

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by Hot_Charlie » Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:51 pm

Sadly it the little things that cost games. Just as Sarries should have played 10 minutes with 14 in the first half following Skelton's no arm shoulder charge tackle. Ironically the incident they did refer to the TMO - Itoje's feet first charge down - wasn't the only one in the match.

WhitecapTiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5040
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:23 am
Location: Roaming

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by WhitecapTiger » Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:52 pm

Bowden Tiger wrote:I hate to talk about rugby matters, but if you get the chance look at the 62nd/ 63rd minute, have a look at firstly the high tackles on Freddy Burns. Then, what follows is a high one from Farrell, who as he hits the ground proceeds to dig the heel of his hand into FB's head several times. I don't understand what it was and why the blind touch judge didn't see it.
Commented on elsewhere, was shown on the big screens at the game as well IIRC, nothing will be done, he's a chosen one.
Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.

sapajo
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4420
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by sapajo » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:04 pm

Bowden Tiger wrote:I hate to talk about rugby matters, but if you get the chance look at the 62nd/ 63rd minute, have a look at firstly the high tackles on Freddy Burns. Then, what follows is a high one from Farrell, who as he hits the ground proceeds to dig the heel of his hand into FB's head several times. I don't understand what it was and why the blind touch judge didn't see it.
Selective Blind man's buff was invented by a certain J P Doyle he was right in front of it and was paralyzed by cowardice to do anything about it. :smt013
Without hope we are nothing, keep the faith, a Tiger for eternity

Bowden Tiger
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:12 pm
Location: Little Bowden, South Leicestershire

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by Bowden Tiger » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:05 pm

Whitecap, sorry I hadn't seen the post. Just finished watching the game again and picked up where JP played adv to Sarries for a knock on, and Paul Dix is clearly heard saying that the knock on was down to a red hand. JP ignored it completely, as one would expect!

WhitecapTiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5040
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:23 am
Location: Roaming

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by WhitecapTiger » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:10 pm

Bowden Tiger wrote:Whitecap, sorry I hadn't seen the post. Just finished watching the game again and picked up where JP played adv to Sarries for a knock on, and Paul Dix is clearly heard saying that the knock on was down to a red hand. JP ignored it completely, as one would expect!
No, No, me not being clear....didn't mean elsewhere on here Bowden, sorry, I wasn't clear!

The example you give there is one reason why I just cannot abide JP Doyle.
Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.

MurphysLaw
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: Oundle

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by MurphysLaw » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:25 pm

The Farrell on Burns incident was right in front of me (and the inactive Assistant). Freddy was lying prone at the bottom of the pile, going no-where. Farrell, very deliberately, had a couple of goes at Freddy's face with the heel of his hand.

Confirmed my view of Farrell - a player with some good skills, but unnecessary cheap shots like this betrays an under-lying nasty streak. He lacks class.

LittleBigG
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:00 pm

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by LittleBigG » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:01 pm

I'm guessing that that was what got the Cat/MetRX/Holland & Barrett/??? stand riled up? Loads of booing coming from there at one point.

Norfolk & Goode
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 508
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:07 am

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by Norfolk & Goode » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:20 pm

Quite simply Burns was scragged to the touch line and Farrell pushed on Burns head to put him in touch. No malice, no niggle, just rugby! No doubt someone will claim a high tackle on here!

WhitecapTiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5040
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:23 am
Location: Roaming

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by WhitecapTiger » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:49 pm

Norfolk & Goode wrote: and Farrell pushed on Burns head to put him in touch.
Good job it wasn't 3rd January or later then, what with WR enhancing their laws on contact with the head - I wonder if their laws are intended to cater for pushing someone into touch by their head and not just tackles?

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/213339?lang=en
Norfolk & Goode wrote:No malice, no niggle, just rugby!
I am sick and tired of hearing this little gem trundled out, bad enough when commentators spout the same carp time after time, how exactly do you know there was no malice or niggle? (I'm not saying there was)

Were you inside Owen Farrell's head?

Are you actually Owen Farrell?

If your answer to the above questions is NO then you cannot definitively say there was no malice etc.

Intent (malice/niggle) is extremely difficult to prove in fact I'd go as far as to say the only way you'll ever prove it is if the perpetrator admits/confesses the intent or, there is evidence (of malice aforethought) found - written/recorded or a whistleblower casting doubt on protestations of innocence etc.

Always an easy excuse to say "I didn't mean anything by it" after the event or, after you've been caught. (Bit like the wearing a suit, wearing a tie, saying sorry, etc etc at disciplinary hearings)
Norfolk & Goode wrote:No doubt someone will claim a high tackle on here!


So what if they do? Fully entitled to do so, you peddle enough of your own opinions and expect them to be taken seriously.
Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.

Norfolk & Goode
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 508
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:07 am

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by Norfolk & Goode » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:43 am

Phew! glad you got that off your chest Whitecap?

Did you see how Farrell/Burns (or anyone) went at each other straight after? me neither!

If he struck his head then the citing officer would be on to it, have you heard anything yet? me neither!

A little bit of ring craft from Farrell that's all. Be interesting though, to hear the facts of your conspiracy theory of Farrell NOT being penalised because he's the 'chosen one', or should I wait for the movie?

MurphysLaw
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: Oundle

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by MurphysLaw » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:59 am

[quote="Norfolk & Goode"]Quite simply Burns was scragged to the touch line and Farrell pushed on Burns head to put him in touch. No malice, no niggle, just rugby! No doubt someone will claim a high tackle on here![/quote]



Funny how the same incident can be interpreted differently. The tackle had been made, and Farrell was lying over Freddy - both prone, with other players on top. How, in that position, one can hope to try to push another prone man into touch by repeatedly pushing down on his cheek is beyond me.They went no-where.
As I said, I was very close to this and I totally disagree with your 'no malice and no niggle' claim.

It's not the first time that Farrell has shown this streak, and it is such a shame that he feels the need to have this as part of his game. Maybe it's something Eddie Jones wants his players to have, but for me it's cheap and unnecessary. The best players, the likes of Carter, just keep concentrating on their game.

Norfolk & Goode
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 508
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:07 am

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by Norfolk & Goode » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:13 pm

MurphysLaw wrote:Funny how the same incident can be interpreted differently.
Exactly right MurphysLaw!

Just watched the incident again on the TV replay which shows (63m 08s) Freddy was almost on the touch line when Farrell pushed Freddys head (which was over-hanging the touch) onto the whitewash just to make sure. Not illegal then, not illegal now.

MurphysLaw
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: Oundle

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by MurphysLaw » Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:13 pm

[quote="Norfolk & Goode"][quote="MurphysLaw"]Funny how the same incident can be interpreted differently.[/quote]

Exactly right MurphysLaw!

Just watched the incident again on the TV replay which shows (63m 08s) Freddy was almost on the touch line when Farrell pushed Freddys head (which was over-hanging the touch) onto the whitewash just to make sure. Not illegal then, not illegal now.[/quote]

You can defend Farrell all you like, but at least tell the whole story ... what you neglect to report is the repeated goes at the head. Imo, cheap and unnecessary.

WhitecapTiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5040
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:23 am
Location: Roaming

Re: Yesterday's game.

Post by WhitecapTiger » Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:19 pm

Norfolk & Goode wrote:Phew! glad you got that off your chest Whitecap?
Not really.
Norfolk & Goode wrote:If he struck his head then the citing officer would be on to it, have you heard anything yet? me neither!
Wouldn't be the first time a citing-worthy incident (in supporters' eyes at least) went unpunished or unseen, and that includes those committed by Tigers players (often highlighted by opposition supporters - surprise surprise - varying supporters can be as one-eyed as each other). Doesn't prevent opinions being voiced, sometimes the outcome is what you opined sometimes it's not - how did your opinion (nailed on dead cert) regarding Ben Youngs leaving a season or two ago go? Saints wasn't it, or was it Bath? :smt002
Norfolk & Goode wrote:A little bit of ring craft from Farrell that's all.
Semantics, I believe we used to say our players were 'streetwise', but we accepted punishment for actions even if we didn't agree with opposition supporters' assessments of our players.
Norfolk & Goode wrote:Be interesting though, to hear the facts of your conspiracy theory of Farrell NOT being penalised because he's the 'chosen one', or should I wait for the movie?
Fair one, hands up, you've got a point there. However, there have been occasions where Farrell (not just Farrell but we're talking about him right now) has been dealt with leniently in comparison to others IMO - I think there was a no arms late tackle at Sale that was talked about most recently, other players been binned for less, Farrell escapes censure. This in itself leads me, and others I believe, to perceive him as 'protected' - not fact admittedly, mere opinion and a lot of the time it's said in Pantomime manner. It was a point in response to another comment, not yours, but I clearly should have put 'IMO' or as it was intended slightly tongue in cheek - a winking 'smiley/emoticon/emoji' to ensure that those that can't interpret meaning are not left in any doubt. :smt002 (and you keep waiting for that movie....it's coming....)
MurphysLaw wrote:
Norfolk & Goode wrote:Quite simply Burns was scragged to the touch line and Farrell pushed on Burns head to put him in touch. No malice, no niggle, just rugby! No doubt someone will claim a high tackle on here!
It's not the first time that Farrell has shown this streak, and it is such a shame that he feels the need to have this as part of his game. Maybe it's something Eddie Jones wants his players to have, but for me it's cheap and unnecessary. The best players, the likes of Carter, just keep concentrating on their game.
:smt023 Shows a trend. Some call it 'tough/rugged' others call it petulant. He's a good player at what he does, this side of his game/temperament is not desirable - again, IMO.

Remember Chris Halaufia (sic) being sent off for London Irish against us for pushing Lawrence Pearce's head into the ground? That was admittedly a blatantly (far) more aggressive and obvious example but still a player's head shoved into the ground by an opponent. It was illegal then (red carded), it should have been illegal on Sunday, irrespective of 'perceived intent' - Sunday's not worth a card, but worthy of a penalty and a strong word in Farrell's ear IMO - from my terrace perch anyway.

Contact with the head / above the shoulders.......let's see how WR's new directives are implemented by the 'Game Managers' and 'Law Interpreters' from Today. My guess at present is.....inconsistently. Everything will be whistled for a period then it'll start being ignored as the furore dies down, much like other existing Laws. Not meant as a dig at Refs, who have a difficult job, but consistency is the one thing we should be able to demand, I don't think we always get it, from the same ref in a match or from ref to ref - game to game - team to team.
Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Freebird, Google [Bot], grobyman, LE18, Mark62 and 2 guests