Cards and punishment
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Cards and punishment
Pat Lam was very concerned that players who are attacked and defend themselves are awarded the same or greater penalties. He said his 5' 11'' player was attacked by two men 6' 5" and 6' 7" and because he defended himself he had the same ban,
In the street, he said, British law allows self defence - but not on the rugby field.
What do you think?
In the street, he said, British law allows self defence - but not on the rugby field.
What do you think?
Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina
Re: Cards and punishment
just watched it and it looks like actually Piutau connected first after some shoving and Kitchener trying to punch him but missed/got blocked then they both kept going and Kitchen punched Piutau a couple more time on the floor.
Probably fair to get the same bans IMO, although you could argue Kitcheners puches were worse than Piutau's so maybe should have had more....Coaches and DOR's are always going to defend theor players.
Probably fair to get the same bans IMO, although you could argue Kitcheners puches were worse than Piutau's so maybe should have had more....Coaches and DOR's are always going to defend theor players.
Re: Cards and punishment
I'm with him, its rubbish that if you proportionally defend yourself on the streets you wouldn't be charged but on a rugby pitch you would, everybody should have the right to self defence regardless of where they are.Old Hob wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:12 pm Pat Lam was very concerned that players who are attacked and defend themselves are awarded the same or greater penalties. He said his 5' 11'' player was attacked by two men 6' 5" and 6' 7" and because he defended himself he had the same ban,
In the street, he said, British law allows self defence - but not on the rugby field.
What do you think?
The only thing I disagree with him on is making a point of the size difference, that shouldn't matter at all.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2897
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:01 pm
- Location: Over The Hills & Far Away
Re: Cards and punishment
Owen Farrell - 5 Game Ban ; free for England , misses Leinster Euro Quarter Final :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54081068
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54081068
Seemingly heading rapidly toward senility .....Not long or far to go now , in fact, getting worse daily.....
Re: Cards and punishment
Lam should wind his neck in.
A single punch either way can do a lot of damage.
A certain level of discipline is required otherwise the sport can go back to the thuggish days of no television exposure.
A single punch either way can do a lot of damage.
A certain level of discipline is required otherwise the sport can go back to the thuggish days of no television exposure.
-
- Super User
- Posts: 3033
- Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:36 am
- Location: Haute-Garonne
Re: Cards and punishment
But will Eddie pick him as he’s now high risk? Daft question, of course he will, although I’d love to see 10,12 & 13 without Farrell!! Ford, Slade and Tuilagi, for example.kk20gb30 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:41 am Owen Farrell - 5 Game Ban ; free for England , misses Leinster Euro Quarter Final :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54081068
Semper in excretia
Re: Cards and punishment
A fair outcome for Farrell.
It was clearly reckless rather than intentional and because of the nature of the injury the sanction needed to start at the upper end of the scale. 50% remission is also warranted.
It was clearly reckless rather than intentional and because of the nature of the injury the sanction needed to start at the upper end of the scale. 50% remission is also warranted.
Life can be unpredictable, so eat your pudding first!
Re: Cards and punishment
Re Farrell getting 5 weeks. How does that compare to the two reds we had for Will Spencer and Kyle Eastmund ? I’m assuming Farrell has a longer ban as his tackle was far worse and with worse consequences for the player he beheaded.
Re: Cards and punishment
I think a difference is that when you go on to a rugby field you a) know something might happen - it is a physical contact sport and emotions run high b) you have another fourteen mates right alongside you and other sitting on a bench who will ensure that you aren't stabbed or cut with a machete or shot c) There is a policeman on the field called a referee who will see nearly everything from the moment it kicks off d) The policeman has two additional PC's running the line and watching e) there are tv cameras recording and reviewing just about everything that happens from every angle known to man. f) The offending player will almost certainly be yellow or red carded and so your team now has an advantage and there will be afters to come at a tribunal hearing.kpj tiger wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:28 pmI'm with him, its rubbish that if you proportionally defend yourself on the streets you wouldn't be charged but on a rugby pitch you would, everybody should have the right to self defence regardless of where they are.Old Hob wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:12 pm Pat Lam was very concerned that players who are attacked and defend themselves are awarded the same or greater penalties. He said his 5' 11'' player was attacked by two men 6' 5" and 6' 7" and because he defended himself he had the same ban,
In the street, he said, British law allows self defence - but not on the rugby field.
What do you think?
The only thing I disagree with him on is making a point of the size difference, that shouldn't matter at all.
If you are walking home alone after a night out across Victoria Park at 2 in the morning in January, no-one is around and some drunken lout has a go at you and you fight back - well it's just not quite the same is it. The likelihood is that the police won't be around and even if you do go to them it will become a statistic. So on that basis its a matter of personal survival.
So to be blunt - I have a lot of time for Pat Lam. But on this occasion I think he is talking absolute pure unadulterated noddle. Fight back by all means to get it off your chest if thats what you want to do. But don't be surprised if you get a lengthy ban.
Re: Cards and punishment
Agreed but over many years watching rugby I have never understood why the instigator of trouble usually gets off Scot free whilst the retaliatory gets carded.Traveller wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:23 amI think a difference is that when you go on to a rugby field you a) know something might happen - it is a physical contact sport and emotions run high b) you have another fourteen mates right alongside you and other sitting on a bench who will ensure that you aren't stabbed or cut with a machete or shot c) There is a policeman on the field called a referee who will see nearly everything from the moment it kicks off d) The policeman has two additional PC's running the line and watching e) there are tv cameras recording and reviewing just about everything that happens from every angle known to man. f) The offending player will almost certainly be yellow or red carded and so your team now has an advantage and there will be afters to come at a tribunal hearing.kpj tiger wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:28 pmI'm with him, its rubbish that if you proportionally defend yourself on the streets you wouldn't be charged but on a rugby pitch you would, everybody should have the right to self defence regardless of where they are.Old Hob wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:12 pm Pat Lam was very concerned that players who are attacked and defend themselves are awarded the same or greater penalties. He said his 5' 11'' player was attacked by two men 6' 5" and 6' 7" and because he defended himself he had the same ban,
In the street, he said, British law allows self defence - but not on the rugby field.
What do you think?
The only thing I disagree with him on is making a point of the size difference, that shouldn't matter at all.
If you are walking home alone after a night out across Victoria Park at 2 in the morning in January, no-one is around and some drunken lout has a go at you and you fight back - well it's just not quite the same is it. The likelihood is that the police won't be around and even if you do go to them it will become a statistic. So on that basis its a matter of personal survival.
So to be blunt - I have a lot of time for Pat Lam. But on this occasion I think he is talking absolute pure unadulterated noddle. Fight back by all means to get it off your chest if thats what you want to do. But don't be surprised if you get a lengthy ban.
A2O
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 896
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:56 am
Re: Cards and punishment
Card em both Simples
Whilst I do understand tempers brew out of frustration and ill discipline. Whilst we are worried about head injuries and player welfare the easiest bi lateral way of dealing with it is both/all parties treated equally. No ambiguity or mitigation.
Then neither team gets a disadvantage by proxy.
Whilst I do understand tempers brew out of frustration and ill discipline. Whilst we are worried about head injuries and player welfare the easiest bi lateral way of dealing with it is both/all parties treated equally. No ambiguity or mitigation.
Then neither team gets a disadvantage by proxy.
Re: Cards and punishment
Agreed.ay2oh wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:59 amAgreed but over many years watching rugby I have never understood why the instigator of trouble usually gets off Scot free whilst the retaliatory gets carded.Traveller wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:23 amI think a difference is that when you go on to a rugby field you a) know something might happen - it is a physical contact sport and emotions run high b) you have another fourteen mates right alongside you and other sitting on a bench who will ensure that you aren't stabbed or cut with a machete or shot c) There is a policeman on the field called a referee who will see nearly everything from the moment it kicks off d) The policeman has two additional PC's running the line and watching e) there are tv cameras recording and reviewing just about everything that happens from every angle known to man. f) The offending player will almost certainly be yellow or red carded and so your team now has an advantage and there will be afters to come at a tribunal hearing.kpj tiger wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:28 pm
I'm with him, its rubbish that if you proportionally defend yourself on the streets you wouldn't be charged but on a rugby pitch you would, everybody should have the right to self defence regardless of where they are.
The only thing I disagree with him on is making a point of the size difference, that shouldn't matter at all.
If you are walking home alone after a night out across Victoria Park at 2 in the morning in January, no-one is around and some drunken lout has a go at you and you fight back - well it's just not quite the same is it. The likelihood is that the police won't be around and even if you do go to them it will become a statistic. So on that basis its a matter of personal survival.
So to be blunt - I have a lot of time for Pat Lam. But on this occasion I think he is talking absolute pure unadulterated noddle. Fight back by all means to get it off your chest if thats what you want to do. But don't be surprised if you get a lengthy ban.
Re: Cards and punishment
First thing I learned playing rugby as a kid was don't retaliate or the penalty would be reversed.
As Dingdong says, if you're lenient on the retaliator it becomes a free for all and, as Traveller points out, it's unlikely Piutau genuinely feared for his own safety given the context.
Pat Lam is just showing his players that he'll stick up for them. It's people management, nothing more.
As Dingdong says, if you're lenient on the retaliator it becomes a free for all and, as Traveller points out, it's unlikely Piutau genuinely feared for his own safety given the context.
Pat Lam is just showing his players that he'll stick up for them. It's people management, nothing more.
Re: Cards and punishment
...and for the record, it transpires Piutau was the instigator, therefore not defending himself so right judgement. Lam once again showing his ignorance.