BRISTOL vs TIGERS - Sat 27 Feb 21 (1300)

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

I'm tempted to go Brink, Reffell, Smith.

Would suit me as well, 3 back rowers in the back row.
Wells looks like a 2nd row playing 6, Chessum looks more natural at 6 if SB wants to go that way.
I would be interested to know where everyone thinks Martin will settle longterm, he looks a bit like Lawes genuinely capable at both lock & 6, but you need an out & out 7 to make that work for me.

[Scuttle]

Bedlow received 3 weeks for tip tackle so misses our match next week. Nothing on our RFU site on our players so hearing must be now or later today. Mike Williams got 4 weeks; 6 originally with 33%reduction taking previous conduct into account.

[JP14]

I'm tempted to go Brink, Reffell, Smith.

SB likes at least one lineout option in the back row, I don't recall Smith being a lineout jumper (may be wrong though)

True, we mustn't underestimate the loss of Liebenberg in the lineout as well as around the pitch in general.

[RunTigerRun]

Bedlow received 3 weeks for tip tackle so misses our match next week. Nothing on our RFU site on our players so hearing must be now or later today. Mike Williams got 4 weeks; 6 originally with 33%reduction taking previous conduct into account.

Based on that you’d imagine, as other have said, Jasper 4 weeks and Hanro 3 weeks.

[Noggs]

SB has the knowledge and experience to select our best back 5 options and I look forward to seeing his selections tomorrow. A win is a big ask but by no means out of the question.

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

Bedlow received 3 weeks for tip tackle so misses our match next week. Nothing on our RFU site on our players so hearing must be now or later today. Mike Williams got 4 weeks; 6 originally with 33%reduction taking previous conduct into account.

Was Williams previous conduct how many tackles he missed playing for Tigers.....

Hanro should be Red Card Sufficient, it won't, but should be, think Jasper could be 6 or more, very similar previous & its something that needs removing from the game, it was spectacularly dull, didn't the Chiefs player get 5 weeks for clearing out Simmons?

[OakhamTiger32]

Bedlow received 3 weeks for tip tackle so misses our match next week. Nothing on our RFU site on our players so hearing must be now or later today. Mike Williams got 4 weeks; 6 originally with 33%reduction taking previous conduct into account.

Based on that you’d imagine, as other have said, Jasper 4 weeks and Hanro 3 weeks.

Article I read said the hearings for Hanro and Jasper are tonight

[OakhamTiger32]

Bedlow received 3 weeks for tip tackle so misses our match next week. Nothing on our RFU site on our players so hearing must be now or later today. Mike Williams got 4 weeks; 6 originally with 33%reduction taking previous conduct into account.

Was Williams previous conduct how many tackles he missed playing for Tigers.....

Hanro should be Red Card Sufficient, it won't, but should be, think Jasper could be 6 or more, very similar previous & its something that needs removing from the game, it was spectacularly dull, didn't the Chiefs player get 5 weeks for clearing out Simmons?

It was dull and completely unnecessary. If he hadn't bothered to turn up to that ruck then Brink scores a try and we likely go on to get the TBP. Equally the circumstances surrounding Hanro's card were unlucky with the Wasps player jumping into him. Hope the sanctions aren't too harsh although the contact with the head does have to be eradicated from the game so expecting a fairly lengthy one for Wiese

[TigerFeetSteve]

Bedlow received 3 weeks for tip tackle so misses our match next week. Nothing on our RFU site on our players so hearing must be now or later today. Mike Williams got 4 weeks; 6 originally with 33%reduction taking previous conduct into account.

Was Williams previous conduct how many tackles he missed playing for Tigers.....

Hanro should be Red Card Sufficient, it won't, but should be, think Jasper could be 6 or more, very similar previous & its something that needs removing from the game, it was spectacularly dull, didn't the Chiefs player get 5 weeks for clearing out Simmons?

It was dull and completely unnecessary. If he hadn't bothered to turn up to that ruck then Brink scores a try and we likely go on to get the TBP. Equally the circumstances surrounding Hanro's card were unlucky with the Wasps player jumping into him. Hope the sanctions aren't too harsh although the contact with the head does have to be eradicated from the game so expecting a fairly lengthy one for Wiese

Tigers website states that Liebenberg is being charged under 9.17
Low end starts at 4 weeks
Mid range starts at 8 weeks
With no priors and a guilty plea it will likely be one of these with a 50% reduction, so hopefully if they judge it low end he misses 2 weeks


Wiese is either under 9.20a or 9.20b
20a
Low end 2 weeks
Mid range 6 weeks
20b
Low end 2 weeks
Mid range 4 weeks
Given it states that is shouldn't be a high level breach unless injury occurs (don't think there was), I doubt it'll be considered low end so hes looking at 4 or 6 weeks, but unlikely to get a reduction due to prior history of this (in super rugby so may not count)


Doubt either will get increases on the standard sanction unless they plead innocent or have other issues.

The one on Simmons was considered "high level" I think due to the fact that Simmons got a concussion (so injury occured) I think so was a 10 week halved to 5.

[JP14]

Wiese has previous though.

[SthrnTiger]

For me the Simmons one was much worse as the Exeter player (forget his name) was completely out of control and dived headfirst at a ruck.

Wiese was more clumsy and poor technique.

On previous didn’t O’Mahoney get mitigated down from 6 weeks to 3 even though he had been sent off for the same offense earlier in the season?

Therefore I’m hoping/think reasonable for 3 weeks for Wiese and 2 for Hanro.

[TigerFeetSteve]

Wiese has previous though.

Yes but that means he'll likely not get a reduction in the ban, they tend not to increase the ban just for one previous incident. He's literally had one other red card in the past, yes it's for the same thing but they cannot just throw the book for that. Previous means he'll not get a 50% reduction, not that they'll start increasing the sanction especially as the player wasn't injured.

[sam16111986]

Wiese has previous though.

That only gets discussed on terms of reduction so like TFS says there's no 50% reduction in the table for Weise. An issue could be the Wasps player did leave the field for a HIA but was able to come back on and complete the match so as long as there were no further symptoms he might avoid the high level entry point.

I expect he will plead guilty and show remorse. The Tigers lawyers/representatives will try and argue down the entry point to as low as possible. I suspect he won't get lower than 6 weeks.

Liebenburg I think they'll bring out a lot of the remorse and lean heavily on the substantial mitigation. As TFS says hopefully get him off on just the two weeks unless the panel are feeling particularly benevolent as accidental collisions aren't really what the law interpretation was brought in to crack down on.

[TigerFeetSteve]

Wiese has previous though.

An issue could be the Wasps player did leave the field for a HIA but was able to come back on and complete the match so as long as there were no further symptoms he might avoid the high level entry point.

I expect he will plead guilty and show remorse. The Tigers lawyers/representatives will try and argue down the entry point to as low as possible. I suspect he won't get lower than 6 weeks.

Pretty sure unless the player has showed injury that it CANNOT be a high level entry point

The RFU guidelines for high level state this

"A player under the age of 18 plays with adults without required permission. Injury occurs, or no injury occurs but player plays in the front row. "

Passing a HIA is a good sign the player isn't injured, so unless he's subsequently been diagnosed with a concussion it will at most count as mid-range

[JP14]

Wiese has previous though.

Yes but that means he'll likely not get a reduction in the ban, they tend not to increase the ban just for one previous incident. He's literally had one other red card in the past, yes it's for the same thing but they cannot just throw the book for that. Previous means he'll not get a 50% reduction, not that they'll start increasing the sanction especially as the player wasn't injured.

And I did mean that in terms of reduction.