The Local Derby v Saints!

[Hot_Charlie]

2 things.

1. I agree with those who say that North jumped into the tackle that got Thompstone yellow carded and further agree that it is something that should be stopped.

.

Agreed. If you want to solve the problem of players being taken out in the air, which is (apparently) a safety issue, you keep them on the ground. Controversial?

[BFG]

I think Thompstone needed to go up in the air and compete on a level with North or simply get out of the way if he could not compete and that's about the crux of it.

Thompstone was tracking back to the ball, bounce caught him out and turned him, by which time North had launched. Quite how Thommo could have gone up in the air to compete I'm unsure about, difficult to get out of the way too whilst turning and not knowing where the airborne winger was.

Natural human reaction to raise arms and he did move a bit, take the yellow card and move on. I still think there're arguments in Thommo's favour for penalty only or no sanction at all - just an unfortunate incident that looked worse when North landed and didn't move.

I'm not disputing the fact that Thompstone couldn't get out of the way, but he put himself in that position.
Likely it's something we'll see every week as players just aren't going to get out of the way and concede points but that is what is expected if they can't compete properly.
It is unfortunate, it was a superb bit of athleticism by North and North simply outperformed Thompstone in the moment, but the responsibility is on Thompstone in this instance and not North.

[daktari]

It's a tough one, discussion with Saints fans near us and the consensus was that North was lucky not to be penalised as he jumped into a stationary Thompstone, (Not watched the play back yet mind)

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

The way I see it, and from the ref's comments, the issue is Thompstone lifted his arms and moved his feet and therefore played the man, rather than it just being North jumping into him - yellow card seems about right if that is the case.

If Thompstone had kept his arms down and North had gone into him, rolled over and landed the same way what would the outcome have been? What about if he had landed head first?

Would it just be deemed play on as North is legitimately allowed to jump to catch the ball and Thompstone is allowed to stand still

Seems weird that it is outcome driven (how the man lands) but might be completely mitigated by not moving

[BFG]

It's a tough one, discussion with Saints fans near us and the consensus was that North was lucky not to be penalised as he jumped into a stationary Thompstone, (Not watched the play back yet mind)

That's the big discussion point, does the stationary man in the line of the ball flight have the right or the man who actually gets the ball.
The way I understand it is that the man who gets the ball has right and if you collide with him in any way you then take the responsibility for his safety.
I think criticism of North is unfair in this situation, it was right in front of me and it was one of the best pieces of athleticism that I have seen in a long time, he is a great player who is very committed IMO and often suffers in these situations because of how good he is.

[strawclearer]

I can only think of 4 options regarding the George North incident:

1. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and the medical team failed to appreciate this. The medical team should be re-trained or replaced.

2. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and, in spite of this, the Northampton coaches 'persuaded' him to return to the pitch because of his perceived importance to the team. The coach(es) concerned should be sacked and banned for a period of years.

3. He was not rendered unconscious but, for his own reasons, pretended he was. He should be cited for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

4. He was not rendered unconscious and decided to lay motionless with his eyes closed until cleared to move by medical staff. He should be applauded for his perspicacity.

[Big Dai]

In the good old days wasn't a mark taken on the ground ? You made a mark. There was no lifting in the line out. I'm not sure about boosting blokes skywards at ko receipt but I remember it all being more terrestrial. If the object is not to have people hurt from falling from great height, adjust the laws back to encourage a more ground based game. Whilst you are at it. Get a passive engage at the scrum as well.

[mol2]

He looked more winded than concussed.

Clumsily taken out in the air by Thompstone but in mitigation North jumped for a ball he didn't need to jump for.
It's not specific to North but players do sometimes jump for balls that they really don't need to to avoid being tackled immediately that take it.

[BFG]

I can only think of 4 options regarding the George North incident:

1. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and the medical team failed to appreciate this. The medical team should be re-trained or replaced.

2. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and, in spite of this, the Northampton coaches 'persuaded' him to return to the pitch because of his perceived importance to the team. The coach(es) concerned should be sacked and banned for a period of years.

3. He was not rendered unconscious but, for his own reasons, pretended he was. He should be cited for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

4. He was not rendered unconscious and decided to lay motionless with his eyes closed until cleared to move by medical staff. He should be applauded for his perspicacity.

Maybe he was winded or it just hurt, he was going at some pace and sprung to what was an impressive height, it was a heavy landing.
Don't know if you have ever kicked your toe badly on something but the next reaction after swearing is usually to close the eyes and freeze in pain.
Usually the simplest explanation is the best.

[strawclearer]

In the good old days wasn't a mark taken on the ground ? You made a mark. There was no lifting in the line out. I'm not sure about boosting blokes skywards at ko receipt but I remember it all being more terrestrial. If the object is not to have people hurt from falling from great height, adjust the laws back to encourage a more ground based game. Whilst you are at it. Get a passive engage at the scrum as well.

You're right!

At school (some time in the middle of last century)...

"Strawclearer! You're a full back or think you are! You're not a bird! Stay on the ground; catch the ball; dig your boot hard into the ground and shout 'MARK SIR!' If you get hammered and lose the ball, Strangely-Brown will take your place next match whilst you're in detention. Now - stop bleeding and get on with it, boy!"

Ahhh...happy days!

[BFG]

In the good old days wasn't a mark taken on the ground ? You made a mark. There was no lifting in the line out. I'm not sure about boosting blokes skywards at ko receipt but I remember it all being more terrestrial. If the object is not to have people hurt from falling from great height, adjust the laws back to encourage a more ground based game. Whilst you are at it. Get a passive engage at the scrum as well.

You're right!

At school (some time in the middle of last century)...

"Strawclearer! You're a full back or think you are! You're not a bird! Stay on the ground; catch the ball; dig your boot hard into the ground and shout 'MARK SIR!' If you get hammered and lose the ball, Strangely-Brown will take your place next match whilst you're in detention. Now - stop bleeding and get on with it, boy!"

Ahhh...happy days!

All before the athletes took over!

[strawclearer]

I can only think of 4 options regarding the George North incident:

1. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and the medical team failed to appreciate this. The medical team should be re-trained or replaced.

2. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and, in spite of this, the Northampton coaches 'persuaded' him to return to the pitch because of his perceived importance to the team. The coach(es) concerned should be sacked and banned for a period of years.

3. He was not rendered unconscious but, for his own reasons, pretended he was. He should be cited for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

4. He was not rendered unconscious and decided to lay motionless with his eyes closed until cleared to move by medical staff. He should be applauded for his perspicacity.

Maybe he was winded or it just hurt, he was going at some pace and sprung to what was an impressive height, it was a heavy landing.
Don't know if you have ever kicked your toe badly on something but the next reaction after swearing is usually to close the eyes and freeze in pain.
Usually the simplest explanation is the best.

The only time I broke a toe - barefoot, half-asleep at 7.00am, walked into a chest of drawers young Strawclearer had left on my usual route from bedroom to coffee machine, think Horwill in terms of intensity - I didn't freeze but become mono-syllabic.

I hopped about shouting over and over again that 4-letter word that describes what Mrs Strawclearer and I do in bed! (No - not r-e-a-d, the other one.)

But, of course, you may well be right and I'm sure we'll never know so I fear we must take his word for it and move on. Or.....not?

[BFG]

I can only think of 4 options regarding the George North incident:

1. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and the medical team failed to appreciate this. The medical team should be re-trained or replaced.

2. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and, in spite of this, the Northampton coaches 'persuaded' him to return to the pitch because of his perceived importance to the team. The coach(es) concerned should be sacked and banned for a period of years.

3. He was not rendered unconscious but, for his own reasons, pretended he was. He should be cited for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

4. He was not rendered unconscious and decided to lay motionless with his eyes closed until cleared to move by medical staff. He should be applauded for his perspicacity.

Maybe he was winded or it just hurt, he was going at some pace and sprung to what was an impressive height, it was a heavy landing.
Don't know if you have ever kicked your toe badly on something but the next reaction after swearing is usually to close the eyes and freeze in pain.
Usually the simplest explanation is the best.

The only time I broke a toe - barefoot, half-asleep at 7.00am, walked into a chest of drawers young Strawclearer had left on my usual route from bedroom to coffee machine, think Horwill in terms of intensity - I didn't freeze but become mono-syllabic.

I hopped about shouting over and over again that 4-letter word that describes what Mrs Strawclearer and I do in bed! (No - not r-e-a-d, the other one.)

But, of course, you may well be right and I'm sure we'll never know so I fear we must take his word for it and move on. Or.....not?

But we do know, what they said.
I go for the theory that he didn't want to bee seen crying live on the telly.
Those girly backs do that sometimes.

[Big Dai]

In the good old days wasn't a mark taken on the ground ? You made a mark. There was no lifting in the line out. I'm not sure about boosting blokes skywards at ko receipt but I remember it all being more terrestrial. If the object is not to have people hurt from falling from great height, adjust the laws back to encourage a more ground based game. Whilst you are at it. Get a passive engage at the scrum as well.

You're right!

At school (some time in the middle of last century)...

"Strawclearer! You're a full back or think you are! You're not a bird! Stay on the ground; catch the ball; dig your boot hard into the ground and shout 'MARK SIR!' If you get hammered and lose the ball, Strangely-Brown will take your place next match whilst you're in detention. Now - stop bleeding and get on with it, boy!"

Ahhh...happy days!

All before the athletes took over!

Yes. One could easily replace the descriptors intensity and athletesism with violence and stupidity.

[JohnI]

I can only think of 4 options regarding the George North incident:

1. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and the medical team failed to appreciate this. The medical team should be re-trained or replaced.

2. He was or appeared to have been rendered unconscious and, in spite of this, the Northampton coaches 'persuaded' him to return to the pitch because of his perceived importance to the team. The coach(es) concerned should be sacked and banned for a period of years.

3. He was not rendered unconscious but, for his own reasons, pretended he was. He should be cited for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

4. He was not rendered unconscious and decided to lay motionless with his eyes closed until cleared to move by medical staff. He should be applauded for his perspicacity.

Or maybe as North said afterwards he felt a pain in his neck and that's why he remained still fearing any sudden movement until the medical team arrived might be bad. But hey that's not sensationalist enough for some on here so we will discount the explanation from the player.