Wasps Vs Tigers

[LE18]

Personally I think that for a Red Card to be issued the referee should be satisfied there was intent and in this case there was none. A Red is the ultimate sanction on the pitch, what happens next is out of the refs hands. Rugby is a contact sport, knees, arms, hands, elbows and yes heads get into strange positions sometimes endangering another player sometimes yourself. We have all seen a player leaping for a high ball and jumping into a grounded player who unable to get out of the way receives a card the colour dependant on how the airborne player lands. I have seen a jumping player fall over his own team mate so no action taken. I have often seen players clash heads with a team mate, if the crime is careless contact with the head without intention should there be any difference if the incidence is between teammates or members of opposing teams.
Spencer went into a tackle using his arms, the opposing player lowered himself instinctively, it is impossible for the rest of Spencer's body to disappear, there was no injury and no fault, there should have been no consequence. bold by me.

Like I keep saying, agree with John, Spencer's hands are around Taylor's waist, with arms down, if there was any contact with the head then it was accidental, Taylor ducked causing higher inpact! I am convinced it wasn't intended to be a high tackle!

[Broadstaff]

Any thoughts on Mick Cleary's article on the red card in today's Telegraph? Hogwash, too PC or a breath of common sense?

[Jimmy Skitz]

Any thoughts on Mick Cleary's article on the red card in today's Telegraph? Hogwash, too PC or a breath of common sense?

a patronizing sermon leading the reader to think anyone who doesn't agree is a neanderthal

[WhitecapTiger]

a patronizing sermon leading the reader to think anyone who doesn't agree is a neanderthal

Blimey....sounds familiar......Dreary has clearly been masquerading as a poster on here and not declaring it.

[jgriffin]

Surprisingly a small number on here won't patronise the Telegraph.

[Jimmy Skitz]

Surprisingly a small number on here won't patronise the Telegraph.

luckily it was free to read online

[Chobbsy]

Personally I think that for a Red Card to be issued the referee should be satisfied there was intent and in this case there was none. A Red is the ultimate sanction on the pitch, what happens next is out of the refs hands. Rugby is a contact sport, knees, arms, hands, elbows and yes heads get into strange positions sometimes endangering another player sometimes yourself. We have all seen a player leaping for a high ball and jumping into a grounded player who unable to get out of the way receives a card the colour dependant on how the airborne player lands. I have seen a jumping player fall over his own team mate so no action taken. I have often seen players clash heads with a team mate, if the crime is careless contact with the head without intention should there be any difference if the incidence is between teammates or members of opposing teams.
Spencer went into a tackle using his arms, the opposing player lowered himself instinctively, it is impossible for the rest of Spencer's body to disappear, there was no injury and no fault, there should have been no consequence. bold by me.

Like I keep saying, agree with John, Spencer's hands are around Taylor's waist, with arms down, if there was any contact with the head then it was accidental, Taylor ducked causing higher inpact! I am convinced it wasn't intended to be a high tackle!

4 weeks seems very harsh or am I looking through green tinted glasses?

[ourla]

4 weeks seems very harsh or am I looking through green tinted glasses?

The latter.

If you got to any of the other forums or listen to any opinion from anybody not connected with Tigers virtually all say it was a red and a ban is appropriate.

I've just looked through some of the Tigers fans facebook messages and they are so one-eyed about it, it's ridiculous.

[JP14]

4 weeks seems very harsh or am I looking through green tinted glasses?

The latter.

If you got to any of the other forums or listen to any opinion from anybody not connected with Tigers virtually all say it was a red and a ban is appropriate.

I've just looked through some of the Tigers fans facebook messages and they are so one-eyed about it, it's ridiculous.

Yes a 2/3 ban would have been appropriate not a four week ban!

[Mark62]

Which is what he would have got if he had pleaded guilty.