Callum Clarke

[The Boy Dave]

Mr Clark. Whether or not he is dim, brilliant or gives his mother flowers or even plays for Saints. Said it before, I'll say it again, his prior actions strike me as malicious. Bad temper/youth/dimness etc I can forgive, malice I cannot and will not.

About sums it up for a Leicester supporter and I agree entirely.
People react badly and make mistakes and obviously each situation is often played up or down by the level of impact it has on the victim, sheer luck often determines the level of punishment.
That particular incident was of a level that few people can comprehend.
It was a long time ago but the impact on a tigers favourite who appeared to be entering his playing prime was huge and it is entirely understandable that people are still angry about it and become even more angry when it is dismissed by others and compared to totally different incidents.
I never condone violence as the outcome could potentially be so damaging and these are big men but to compare incidents to excuse one act of violence because another different one happened and quote the amount of cards given out recently is pathetic.

[MarchingIn]

to compare incidents to excuse one act of violence because another different one happened and quote the amount of cards given out recently is pathetic.

I quoted the number of cards recently issued this year in response to a Tigers fan asserting that Mallinder & West don't care about discipline - nothing to do with what Calum Clark did a couple of years ago, which was terrible. At no point have I defended, minimised, or brushed off what he did.

Saints were giving too much away against Tigers last year and in recent years & thankfully seem to have addressed it judging by both the penalty and card counts in our two encounters so far this year. Maybe too early to say it's fixed, but it is a big improvement & I hope Saints continue in the same vein next time we meet.

I note the Tigers fans remarking on the provocation of Tuilagi by Ashton have conveniently forgotten the dirty arm swinging late tackle that started the whole encounter, why am I not surprised?!

[4071]

I note the Tigers fans remarking on the provocation of Tuilagi by Ashton have conveniently forgotten the dirty arm swinging late tackle that started the whole encounter, why am I not surprised?!

Tiger fans defending Tuilagi or criticising Ashton for any part of that incident might want to ask their guide dogs to post here on their behalf.

Tuilgi went in with a high hit off the ball which was probably worth a card on its own. The little shove that Ashton gave him was so innocuous that no one would even have noticed it had Tuilagi not leapt up and thrown a couple of punches. That reaction was so disproportionate to any possible rovocation that it takes a special kind of 'specialness' to use it as justification.

Ashton did nothing untoward, whereas Tuilagi committed at least two serious offences. Any other interpretation is as one-eyed as it would be to justify Clark's arm-break by claiming he was just clearing out Hawkins who was killing the ball.

Neither offence was excusable.

Only one offender, however, seems to be taking the fact that they were banned personally. Cockerill was actually pretty decent about the disappointingly small ban Clark recieved, and was clear that as far as he and Leicester were concerned, the incident was behind them.

Not so for Clark, who appears to bear a grudge two years on, rather than simply being thankful that his ban wasn't longer and that he's allowed to play again.

[MarchingIn]

Agreed. I might be a rarity for a Saints fan, but I think Clark possibly should have got the full 64 weeks for the arm break - his behaviour against NZ in the U20 world cup probably amounted to enough previous.

There have been people who have said Calum plays 'on the edge' and that's 'part of his game'. That isn't a game I want to see him playing for Saints.

I hope he has found an entirely new game & repays the loyalty Saints club & fans have shown him with it - he is doing so at the moment, despite the inflammatory rubbish about kneeing people, which he didn't. We should probably make retirement from Twitter a clause in his next renewal though.

Leaving aside the small problem you have with this 'ultras' clown, I find the apparent desire of a sizeable proportion of Tigers fans to constantly dredge the incident up on social media disappointing. I think in some cases, the intention is to wind Clark up to effect his game and that ill befits the club - I'd say the same if Saints fans were doing it to Tuilagi over the Ashton fracas too.

[4071]

We should probably make retirement from Twitter a clause in his next renewal though.

That would sensibly apply to a significant number of sportsmen who regularly post on Twitter. For many, it appears to be the fastest and most reliable way of informing the world of their idiocy...

[Iain]

You lot are so one eyed it's beyond belief, yes I'm a Saints fan so no doubt that'll not stand me in good stead - The Clark incident is old news - may I remind you that a certain Mr Ashton could be living in a nursing home now with brain damage courtesy of Mr Tuilagi IF his head wasn't so dense - do we persistently gripe about everything that has happened in the past ? No - put it to bed.
The person saying that Clark is childish etc needs to look in the mirror - Leicester "Ultras" ? Please, this is laughable - the very notion is beyond childish - the fact the "leader" of the ultras is an ex football player says everything you need to know - Football mentality creeping into our game - poor, very poor.

Don't tar us all with the same brush. Most of us think that Tigers Ultra thing is an embarrassment too.

[Tigerbeat]

Tigers ULtra is unnoficial and is not recognised or supported by the Club. This is an active forum where rugby fans across the divides can discuss all things rugby, even if we disagre, and still meet up for a pint when the teams meet.

Lets keep the tradition of rugby going and set an example for others to enjoy watching the game of rugby!!

[h's dad]

I note the Tigers fans remarking on the provocation of Tuilagi by Ashton have conveniently forgotten the dirty arm swinging late tackle that started the whole encounter, why am I not surprised?!

Tiger fans defending Tuilagi or criticising Ashton for any part of that incident might want to ask their guide dogs to post here on their behalf.

Tuilgi went in with a high hit off the ball which was probably worth a card on its own. The little shove that Ashton gave him was so innocuous that no one would even have noticed it had Tuilagi not leapt up and thrown a couple of punches. That reaction was so disproportionate to any possible rovocation that it takes a special kind of 'specialness' to use it as justification.

Ashton did nothing untoward, whereas Tuilagi committed at least two serious offences. Any other interpretation is as one-eyed as it would be to justify Clark's arm-break by claiming he was just clearing out Hawkins who was killing the ball.

Neither offence was excusable.

Only one offender, however, seems to be taking the fact that they were banned personally. Cockerill was actually pretty decent about the disappointingly small ban Clark recieved, and was clear that as far as he and Leicester were concerned, the incident was behind them.

Not so for Clark, who appears to bear a grudge two years on, rather than simply being thankful that his ban wasn't longer and that he's allowed to play again.

You might want to refer to your own dog and ask it to review the footage.

Clearly off the ball, presumably that’s where Tuilagi thought the ball was going unless you’re a conspiracy theorist. You (or at least your dog and I) can see the white of Ashton’s kit above Tuilagi’s arm at the point of contact so I would suggest that indicates the tackle wasn’t high. Ashton then slides down as his legs keep going and his head and torso don’t.

Obviously Tuilagi noticed the shove as you see him rock forward and back. It could be on the shoulder or higher, it could be back of the head or lower, back of the neck? Unless you are suggesting it was a playful tap by Ashton, to describe it as innocuous is asinine. I’m not defending Tuilagi’s reaction, it should certainly have been a red card but to say Ashton should not receive any criticism for his part beggars belief and although less dramatic on camera is also technically a red as I understand it.

[4071]

You might want to refer to your own dog and ask it to review the footage.

Clearly off the ball, presumably that’s where Tuilagi thought the ball was going unless you’re a conspiracy theorist. You (or at least your dog and I) can see the white of Ashton’s kit above Tuilagi’s arm at the point of contact so I would suggest that indicates the tackle wasn’t high. Ashton then slides down as his legs keep going and his head and torso don’t.

Obviously Tuilagi noticed the shove as you see him rock forward and back. It could be on the shoulder or higher, it could be back of the head or lower, back of the neck? Unless you are suggesting it was a playful tap by Ashton, to describe it as innocuous is asinine. I’m not defending Tuilagi’s reaction, it should certainly have been a red card but to say Ashton should not receive any criticism for his part beggars belief and although less dramatic on camera is also technically a red as I understand it.

'Woof woof woof' would have been a more insightful and accurate summary.

1. Tuilagi's original hit might have been just below the shoulder, but it was definitely off the ball and it was also a swinging arm rather than a tackle. It was a yellow card offence on its own, and Ashton would have been rightly aggrieved by it. Claiming that Tuilagi thought that's where the ball was going does not make it any less of an illegal off-the-ball hit.

2. Ashton's reaction is to push Tuilagi. It's not even a particularly hard push. In the world in which that is 'technically a red card' you'd be watching 5-a-side rugby matches. Or at least your guide dog would.

I don't even know in what world a not-particularly-hard push after being blindsided off the ball with a swinging arm is considered unacceptable or worthy of criticism. I'd say it's an entirely understandable reaction, and if the incident had occured this season with the new TMO rules there would have been no sanction for Ashton (and a red for Tuilagi).

[h's dad]

'Woof woof woof' would have been a more insightful and accurate summary.

1. Tuilagi's original hit might have been just below the shoulder, but it was definitely off the ball and it was also a swinging arm rather than a tackle. It was a yellow card offence on its own, and Ashton would have been rightly aggrieved by it. Claiming that Tuilagi thought that's where the ball was going does not make it any less of an illegal off-the-ball hit.

2. Ashton's reaction is to push Tuilagi. It's not even a particularly hard push. In the world in which that is 'technically a red card' you'd be watching 5-a-side rugby matches. Or at least your guide dog would.

I don't even know in what world a not-particularly-hard push after being blindsided off the ball with a swinging arm is considered unacceptable or worthy of criticism. I'd say it's an entirely understandable reaction, and if the incident had occured this season with the new TMO rules there would have been no sanction for Ashton (and a red for Tuilagi).

You originally said it was high and now you agree it “might” not be. I’m glad you had that chat with your guide dog. 5-a-side rugby matches? Your dog has been taking you to the wrong grounds. No point going any further, I don’t know where your prejudices come from but you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about and take all your opinions from the commentators of the moment.

Edit: just looked at it again, I wasn't going to disagree with you on the swinging arm but looking at it again in freezeframe I don't think it was. Get your dog to have another careful look and try not to listen to the commentary. Nice 270 degree dummy by the passer.

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

['Woof woof woof' would have been a more insightful and accurate summary.

1. Tuilagi's original hit might have been just below the shoulder, but it was definitely off the ball and it was also a swinging arm rather than a tackle. It was a yellow card offence on its own, and Ashton would have been rightly aggrieved by it. Claiming that Tuilagi thought that's where the ball was going does not make it any less of an illegal off-the-ball hit.

2. Ashton's reaction is to push Tuilagi. It's not even a particularly hard push. In the world in which that is 'technically a red card' you'd be watching 5-a-side rugby matches. Or at least your guide dog would.

I don't even know in what world a not-particularly-hard push after being blindsided off the ball with a swinging arm is considered unacceptable or worthy of criticism. I'd say it's an entirely understandable reaction, and if the incident had occured this season with the new TMO rules there would have been no sanction for Ashton (and a red for Tuilagi).

All this from the official transcript (and the sole arbiter of fact)
http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/j ... may11.ashx

1 - The tackle wasn't a swinging arm but it was deemed high - clarified later it was initially on the upper chest and rose up. Was also off the ball.

2 - It wasn't just a shove from Ashton it was also a knee to the base of the neck/top of the spine - the record even states that the situation would not have occurred if not for the knee. Hardly blameless Ashton...

Under current TMO it would be a red for Manu and a yellow for Ashton - the same as the transcript says would have been cited.


End of facts, now for my opinion:
Manu reacted over the top and was lucky to get such a short ban

[h's dad]

All this from the official transcript (and the sole arbiter of fact)
http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/j ... may11.ashx

1 - The tackle wasn't a swinging arm but it was deemed high - clarified later it was initially on the upper chest and rose up. Was also off the ball.

2 - It wasn't just a shove from Ashton it was also a knee to the base of the neck/top of the spine - the record even states that the situation would not have occurred if not for the knee. Hardly blameless Ashton...

Under current TMO it would be a red for Manu and a yellow for Ashton - the same as the transcript says would have been cited.


End of facts, now for my opinion:
Manu reacted over the top and was lucky to get such a short ban

Thank you Tiger in Birmingham.

With what I can see it is difficult to confirm contact by the knee, let alone say it is the major provocation. I expect they have superior video technology to mine. Got to go with the sole arbiter of fact although a yellow for a knee and a shove to the back of the head of a man on the ground, however innocuous or unworthy of criticism, seems lenient to me.

I can’t dispute your opinion although he did seem to get every mitigating circumstance going.

[MarchingIn]

Tigers ULtra is unnoficial and is not recognised or supported by the Club. This is an active forum where rugby fans across the divides can discuss all things rugby, even if we disagre, and still meet up for a pint when the teams meet.

Lets keep the tradition of rugby going and set an example for others to enjoy watching the game of rugby!!

The fact they are not affiliated with the club is not the point. I expect most of them are genuine fans - especially those who left the group in reaction to one member's behaviour.

This one particular member of the 'Tigers Ultras' group has not only made (laughable) threats about Calum Clark, but also any Saints fan who supports Calum Clarke. He may have no association with Tigers, but his facebook page features pictures of him with prominent current Tigers players. It would be a positive step for the whole sport if Leicester & Northampton both liaised with each other and the RFU to ensure he cannot set foot in a rugby ground for some time.

Totally agree with the sentiments about open discussion and having a pint. If the day ever comes that fans have to be policed or segregated because of idiots like this one, I won't be going to any more games.

I'm not remotely intimidated by twitter threats by little twerps like him, but that isn't the point - his attitude has no place in the sport whatsoever and he should be expelled back to the football terrace wence he came immediately!

[WiggoTiger]

This ultra fella probably is a fickle fan who jumped on the Tigers bandwagon because we win most years (will be aroundyballer this season!!).
Most fans on this forum have been supporting the Tigers from before time when we all enjoyed the more relaxed atmosphere at games when there was no pressure on team, coaches or fans.
Professionalism ahs made things good and bad!! But rugby is the game I love and nothing will affect my affection to it!!.....even silly individuals!!

[Nik]

just to say the guy you speak about on Ultra's is a good bloke, he hasn't jumped on the band wagon, he's like most of us who have an opinion and feel compelled to write it down.

getting to the point of this subject, I'm disgusted at the RFU's lack of judgement and lack of duty of care to all players by condoning the thugish behaviour of Clarke to continue. They are putting players at risk by having him on the pitch.

I don't care about what flack I'm given, I will admit I've written to the RFU and given them my thoughts on Clarke.

this is the last bit of my letter:

Unfortunately respect for the RFU is waning but whilst the money is pouring in your duty of care of players is diminishing by condoning acts of violence and grievous bodily harm by a player then making him a figurehead for the youth of today.

I like many others are dismayed at the RFU's lack of consideration for the players that have been physically harmed by this person and his lack of sportsmanship towards others.

I only hope his captaincy is short lived.

nuff said.