Should Lawes be cited for knee on Ledesma?

Lot of discussion on Setanta - predictably not a mention on the rose-fixated ITV - on whether Lawes should (will) be cited for his "tackle" on Ledesma, Replays show pretty clearly that Lawes lead with his knee to Ledesma's head when Ledesma was on the ground and already out of play. There was no need to tackle Ledesma never m ind lead with the knee. Given how much the Argies love the English won't be surprised if he's cited. A

And please, my English friends, before you jump up in indignation go watch the playback.

It was very reckless by Lawes, and I think if it's brought to the citing commision some action may be taken, not sure on it though. Just seemed an incredibly stupid thing to do imo.

Does anybody have a link and also for the alleged gouging incident.
You cant mention one and forget the other.

Has anyone got a link to it. Ledesma was out of it but i didnt see it

It was clearly an accident.

What was the alleged gouging incident?

think it'll be too soon for any links to be up anywhere Stand. From what I remember, Lawes was already going to ground when Ledesma was tackled, what I couldn't understand was why he led with his knees.

Tom - agree it's most probably an accident but it was still reckless and players have been punished for things like it before.

At the end Haskell was going off about a finger in his eye. Again i havent seen the replay.

When Haskell was swearing at the end, apparently he made mention of someone trying to gouge him (I missed him saying that). Not seen any replays of any of the rucks near the end so not sure about that one really.

Haskell was furious about someone putting their fingers in his eyes but there was nothing shown on TV so don't know if there is any footage.

My thoughts about Lawes at the time was either he is an incredibly sly, cowardly, dirty player or a completely clueless, clumsy idiot. Maybe somewhere in between.

Unfortunately I didn't record the match. So I will have to wait for a replay some time or for an industrious young man or woman to post on you tube.

But, to the best of my recollection this was not a foul. Appeared accidental to me. And at the time, it didn't even raise much concern for me at all.

I missed the alleged incident, but I thought Lawes was lucky not to get punished for his late hit on Tiesi, which resulted in him being taken off injured. I know it was only slightly late but the ball had gone!

The Lawes incident was one of a few ugly incidents where English players got involved in "accidental" stuff. Anyone who knows the game knows that Both Lawes incidents were malicious and to answer the Q of course he should be banned..................................

Yes he should be cited deliberate attempt to injure a player....to be fair he had a few shots at other players as well he took out the argie centre with what seemed to be an illegal tackle (didnt wrap atms around player more of a shouldr charge)...i would be surprised if he wasnt cited...possible short ban.

Seagultaf wrote:I missed the alleged incident, but I thought Lawes was lucky not to get punished for his late hit on Tiesi, which resulted in him being taken off injured. I know it was only slightly late but the ball had gone!

i disagree with it being late, i think that was a fair tackle (tackle on Tiesi), not seen the other one.

Lawes 1st tackle was fine, to suggest anything different is simply anti-English bias.

On Ledesma - seemed clumsy running across then sliding in on his knees, but he didn't lunge feet first as some have said on other threads, or to me, 'lead' with his knee. Clumsy - yes. Reckless - possibly. Malicious - I don't think so.

Dissapointing to see Welsh / Irish guys immediatlety calling things deliberate and malicious and calling for players to be banned.

The incident is at the 38min mark.

Looked clumsy to me, but not malicious. The most telling angle is the one looking from infield, so that you see Ledesma's face as Lawes comes in. Lawes is looking for the hit to continue him into touch, then he part pulls out and drops to the ground when Ledesma turns the ball back inside before he reaches touch. It's not his knee that hits Ledesma's head, but the inside of his thigh (and his meat and 2 veg), still would have smarted though, especially as it looked like it rocked Ledesma's head back, which quite possibly was what caused more of an issue.

Dr Ken,
The last thing i am is anti english, believe me on that.
There is an element of this cynical kind of stuff creeping into the game and a lot of it is written off as "he was committed to the tackle" and "he couldn't see him on the ground" and "it was a complete accident". IMO, he kneed him in the head on purpose, IMO he injured the centre on purpose and IMO he should be done for both...............................

We all know there are grey areas in rugby and that's why we need experienced fellas looking at these incidents....................

Mr Cregan - you're entitled to your opinions, they just seem one-eyed.

The tackle on the centre, was just that. It's sad to see folks go off injured but there was nothing untoward in it.

All the Full games and highlights are on ITV Player. Go check for yourselves.

Gibson - where - I only found a paltry 3 mins of 'highlights' for games so far?

Mind you, I think they struggled to find 3 mins of highlights for the Arg v Eng game.

Kenneth,
http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=271643

Enjoy.

P.S. They only have the 1st half of Eng v Arg loaded at the mo. Must be loading it up. All the other games are there in full. So 2nd half coming up.

Good man, cheers.

John Cregan wrote:Dr Ken,
The last thing i am is anti english, believe me on that.
There is an element of this cynical kind of stuff creeping into the game and a lot of it is written off as "he was committed to the tackle" and "he couldn't see him on the ground" and "it was a complete accident". IMO, he kneed him in the head on purpose, IMO he injured the centre on purpose and IMO he should be done for both...............................

We all know there are grey areas in rugby and that's why we need experienced fellas looking at these incidents....................

i'm really not sure how you can tell he intended to injure a player? It's that sort of comment that's leading to the question of the anti english.

nathan wrote:

John Cregan wrote:Dr Ken,
The last thing i am is anti english, believe me on that.
There is an element of this cynical kind of stuff creeping into the game and a lot of it is written off as "he was committed to the tackle" and "he couldn't see him on the ground" and "it was a complete accident". IMO, he kneed him in the head on purpose, IMO he injured the centre on purpose and IMO he should be done for both...............................

We all know there are grey areas in rugby and that's why we need experienced fellas looking at these incidents....................

i'm really not sure how you can tell he intended to injure a player? It's that sort of comment that's leading to the question of the anti english.

Agree with this. It is very difficult to prove intent. THat being said (and i havent yet seen it. trying to get it now) if Lawes slid in clumsily or intentionally a knee to the head is serious and probably deserves a week or two off. I will edit this once i see it

Looked at both incidents. The hit on Tiesi should have been a penalty as there was no attempt to wrap his left arm and it was in essence a charge. Definitely not a citing though.

Im dont think there was intent in the knee but it was clumsy (and really totally unnecessary) and deserves a week or two off.

I doubt either of those will be cited. Both seemed fine.

also thought lawes tackle on contemponi was a bit dodgey, could be argued that he had commited but to me he looked like he had time and space to clearly evade the takle

The tackle on the centre was perfectly fine, he hit him as the ball left his boot.

Th Ledesma incident on the other hand definitely deserves a ban. Ledesma was in touch and on the ground. The was no reason for Lawes to even come near him, never mind leading with the knees. It was not an attempt to tackle, form a ruck or whatever some people might argue, he led with his legs into the head of a player. He knew exactly what he was doing, and if he didn't then he is too clumsy to be allowed on a rugby pitch.

Anybody found a video yet ?

Further up there's a link to ITV player thing

was speaking to a ref friend after and he said if Pumas raise matter then the commission will def look at citing him

HammerofThunor wrote:Further up there's a link to ITV player thing

Can you remember when it happened ? as in 50th min or there about.

Me and the lads I watched the game with went back and watched the Haskell gouging incident back, you can clearly see on the footage one of the argentine players (sub prop i think number 17?) pulling Haskell's head back and it does look like his fingers were too close to Haskell's eyes for comfort to be honest.
Haskell obviously felt it otherwise there would have been no reaction like there was.

however just as I posted that this was put up http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/148745.html?addata=chromium

me,

If thats case and proven then ban the idiot as far as i am concerned

Cymro - I commented on the knee incident at 10:15am, so you can work out from that how far into the match it was.

not sure waht to make of that statement from Haskell really. Saying you've been gouged is a really serious allegation, heat of the moment or no. Seems very odd he's now taking that statement back.

rugbydreamer wrote:not sure waht to make of that statement from Haskell really. Saying you've been gouged is a really serious allegation, heat of the moment or no. Seems very odd he's now taking that statement back.

morning, is he retracting on the gouging?

Diolch RD

You either get gouged or you don't surely a person would be aware if there had been fingers in his eyes.

well, I dunno, but now saying "it's nothing" is very different to his claims that he was gouged. Got to say I'm very confused by it.

Could it be that as a whole team (or the management) they have decided it's not worth pursuing and the only way they feel they can do it without some odd questions being asked is by making a statement like this? But i agree it is very odd that he has said this after the reaction he gave on the pitch.

OP - no he shouldn't and he certainly will not be my Irish friend.

No jumping up here, but I can't help wondering why you felt the need to write an article on the matter, if there's any kind of serial jumping going around it's on the English not by them.

We're used to it though, so no worries at all.

Haskell had a personal issue that accidentally got broadcast, almost the opposite of what's happening here.

It's a funny old world...

Should he be cited....yes if the tape indictaes he lead with his knees he should

am i somehow anti english if i say that - nope , cite whoever gouged Haskell and also Thompson for kissing Ledesma

should the OP polarise the debate with his comment about english fans - nope

A citing for kissing?

Do we have a ref who posts on here? I thought about this alot, it's hugely inappropriate and although ML is a very attractive man i think ST might have a case to answer

Gatts wrote:Do we have a ref who posts on here? I thought about this alot, it's hugely inappropriate and although ML is a very attractive man i think ST might have a case to answer

Soft Muppet.

SafeAsMilk wrote:A citing for kissing?

Massive fan of Big Steve. Hes maybe the best player England have ever produced, with all hes been through. WC winner/Runner up, Docs says "You'll never play again. He says "Cools story bro" Plays with out insurance. Leaves his contract in France to play for Leeds, makes a massive smash there. I remember when he was playing for Saints and he was changing the way hookers played the game. Any ways, he must have got to Ledesma , "Hes a legend! Hes a legend!" Kissing him, maybe he touched his bum at the bottom of a few rucks.. Much better wat the rattle a player then by dropping an elbow as he scores a try.

With Lawes. The "late hit" He was commited. Head down, arms out, boosh. The sliding knee, i dunno. I'd like to think it was an acident. All the same, Ledesma is nails.

Yes.

Ah it was a lovely kiss PJ. In fairness. In the Man-Kiss Of The Cup so far, the Romanian coaches were so happy at scoring a try last night - it could have been a hand-job.

On the supposed gouging, I reckon MJ told Haskell to shut da phhok up and retract.

Good man MJ.

But, I reckon he should also openly apologise to the accused player and put this kind of thing in its place, at the start of the Greatest Tournament on Earth. Its rugby. Not soccer. Be a real man - not a wimp. Kiss (with tongues) and make up....

Just sayin...

Gibson wrote:Ah it was a lovely kiss PJ. In fairness. In the Man-Kiss Of The Cup so far, the Romanian coaches were so happy at scoring a try last night - it could have been a hand-job.

On the supposed gouging, I reckon MJ told Haskell to shut da phhok up and retract.

Good man MJ.

But, I reckon he should also openly apologise to the accused player and put this kind of thing in its place, at the start of the Greatest Tournament on Earth. Its rugby. Not soccer. Be a real man - not a wimp. Kiss (with tongues) and make up....

Just sayin...