Should Lawes be cited for knee on Ledesma?

First topic message reminder :

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.

Ah fair enuf so. Its just the Ledesma citing then

I wonder if Argentina asked the citing officer to have a "butchers"?

Personally I didn't think it worthy of a citing, now it has been it will be a two-week ban I think.

So, here we are after all but two 1st round matches have been completed and the team that takes up the mantle of the dirtiest and most cynical is.....

England.

More citings and yellow cards than all the others put together.

Honestly, water off a duck's back.

rugbydreamer wrote:He put in a crunching tackle on Felipe, but in fairness Felipe was already carrying a knock from earlier on in the game. Definitely the tackle that meant he had to come off, though there wasn't anything wrong with it at all.

It was the earlier "knock" I was referring to where Lawes caught Contepomi in a ruck with his knee.

The Great Aukster wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:He put in a crunching tackle on Felipe, but in fairness Felipe was already carrying a knock from earlier on in the game. Definitely the tackle that meant he had to come off, though there wasn't anything wrong with it at all.

It was the earlier "knock" I was referring to where Lawes caught Contepomi in a ruck with his knee.

I'm surprised Lawrence didn't see that one, he was suffering Reverse-Alzheimers-Myopia at the time.

He remembered seeing things that didn't happen.

Sensible and correct decision - despite all the huffing and puffing of non -English fans so crack on lads

Perhaps a little harsh but ho hum, they've made their decision, let's stick with it. Lawes is out for the 2 "easier" games so hopefully he won't be too missed.

So as expected the 3-12 week guidline was reduced due to his excellent disciplinary record.
Not because hes a New Zealander and a thug s Leinsterbaby suggested.

So I suppose the overriding answer to the original question is yes!!!!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:So as expected the 3-12 week guidline was reduced due to his excellent disciplinary record.
Not because hes a New Zealander and a thug s Leinsterbaby suggested.

I never said he was a thug. If you are going to quote me please read my posts first. I did however say a two match ban was in order. Proper decision.

OK you said he "had a history of dirty play", not much differnet really and most importnatly factualy incorrect. Its a bit ridciulous to get prissy with me for calling you up on it, it doesnt exactly do your own reputation for dirty posting any good...but then you are a New Zealander

Boyne wrote:Looks as if he could miss the rest of the tourney.

100% spot on. Hes a thug. At it 3 or 4 times in the game.

How's the moral high ground up there?

So Lawes gets a two game suspension. What an utter fiasco.

How can you reduce a ban to less than the "minimum"?

On top of that, how can you use "remorse" as a justification, when the guy pleaded not guilty?

Clearly the two games was based on the fact that the next two games are gimmes.

Rugby is rapidly becoming an utter farce. We have endless disasterous game changing refereeing decisions which the brass turn a blind eye to and keep staunchly defending the incompetence. Then the judiciary keeps coming up with laughable decisions based on clear lack of logic. Like this, like the Cooper incident recently.

The fact that Lawes was involved in multiple instances of foul play in the same game should have sealed his fate for a ban from the rest of the competition. It's utterly pathetic.

What is equally pathetic is the number of English pundits appearing with their "calm and reasonable" voices on their "innocent and objective" game faces discussing what a rational and justified decision it was.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

We've had nothing but English fans on here for weeks talking about SA "thuggery" and the threat of pacific island "savages" injuring key players and how the officials must deal with it harshly. Now that's turned out that the thugs are English, suddenly they're retracting their positions.

GG welcome back, where've you been?? we missed you

TheGreyGhost wrote:We've had nothing but English fans on here for weeks talking about SA "thuggery" and the threat of pacific island "savages" injuring key players and how the officials must deal with it harshly.

I think you'll find that was Welsh fans.

would love some proof of that SafeAs.

GG staright in there, no messing around! I thought CL lived dangerously a couple of times during that game but not throughout. Your last paragraph is pure BS tho....

rugbydreamer wrote:would love some proof of that SafeAs.

The Wales/SA build up threads were full of comments by Welsh posters calling SA 'thugs' and bringing up gouging. Surely you couldn't have missed that?

The only player posters had a problem with was Burger I believe.

The GG said this:

"and the threat of pacific island "savages" injuring key players"

Now you tell me where a Welsh poster has said that

TheGreyGhost wrote:So Lawes gets a two game suspension. What an utter fiasco.

How can you reduce a ban to less than the "minimum"?

On top of that, how can you use "remorse" as a justification, when the guy pleaded not guilty?

Clearly the two games was based on the fact that the next two games are gimmes.

Rugby is rapidly becoming an utter farce. We have endless disasterous game changing refereeing decisions which the brass turn a blind eye to and keep staunchly defending the incompetence. Then the judiciary keeps coming up with laughable decisions based on clear lack of logic. Like this, like the Cooper incident recently.

The fact that Lawes was involved in multiple instances of foul play in the same game should have sealed his fate for a ban from the rest of the competition. It's utterly pathetic.

What is equally pathetic is the number of English pundits appearing with their "calm and reasonable" voices on their "innocent and objective" game faces discussing what a rational and justified decision it was.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

We've had nothing but English fans on here for weeks talking about SA "thuggery" and the threat of pacific island "savages" injuring key players and how the officials must deal with it harshly. Now that's turned out that the thugs are English, suddenly they're retracting their positions.

Since you are so hot on the regualtions being followed tou might want to revise that.
The 3-12 weeks is a guidline, which can be reduced for contrition and previously disciplinary behaviour. It was deemed end offence. The procedure, which is based on the same principles legal sentences are determined, was followed.

England have only taken 2 yellows in all world cups combined ( the latest for repeat infringement, must admit I cant remeber the first). Compare that to Tonga who have ammassed 3 reds and 7 yellows in far less world cup games. Is it unreasonable to suggest that they make more of a habit of foul play than England?
Oh right no the referees are biassed and ignore their "thuggery".


Spin it how you like GG but youre a laughing stock on here, bias is one thing but the bile you push it out with makes New Zealand journalists look sane.

Casper
I think he expressed remorse after being found guilty,

dreamer, maybe you should just remove greyghost's comment then or are you only defending Welsh posters?

aucklandlaurie wrote: Casper
I think he expressed remorse after being found guilty,

Its possible express remorse for reckless actions and show sympathy for the injured player whilst not accepting you are guilty of the offence of striking. Once found guilty you then say you accept the decision and youll do your best to modertae your baehaviour in the future.

SafeAsMilk I would be extremely careful of accusing a moderator of bias,,, If you have any issues there are channels to complain.

rugbydreamer I can’t recall any Welsh or English posters going on about it as GG has implied with no proof, but logically why would English fans go on about Saffer and PI thugs if we are not likely to meet them till a final?

You’ll find we are in a different pool.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Casper
I think he expressed remorse after being found guilty,

He pleaded not guilty, so how can he express remorse???

Either the guy is a liar or he is an idiot.

Cymroglan wrote:SafeAsMilk I would be extremely careful of accusing a moderator of bias,,, If you have any issues there are channels to complain.

Really? Just wondering why I needed to provide proof about Welsh posters and greyghost didn't for English ones. Seems a bit odd.

of course I'm going to defend Welsh posters SafeAs, when you are claiming that they have been calling pacific islanders "savages".

If you disagree with GG's claims about the English, by all means defend them, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't try and say that the Welsh have been saying things like that.

I'd defend the English posters as well if I thought there was any truth in the slightest in the GG's claims. Fact is, we all know what he's aiming for with his post, and the best course of action I believe would be to ignore it.

(and I'm posting as myself here not a moderator just to make it clear. If I was replying as a moderator it would be in red. Shockingly, I am allowed my own personal opinion)

If you think he is wrong then provide the evidence it's simple as that.
Why have a go at Welsh fans? the author of this article is not Welsh.

it's sad but I partly agree with TGG... what is the point of having rules and if they are bended on time to time when big players or nations are involved and there is some potential marketing/media attention.

back to Lawes, not judging wether or not he deserved to be banned but as long as he's cited and found guilty, why not apply the rule?

"excellent disciplinary record" : well if he seems to always get away easily, am not surprised he still has a good disciplinary record , he might keep on breaking scrum-halves shoulders (Parra 2 years ago) and doing late tackles.
he's probably not a thug but still remains potentially dangerous to other players if keeps on not controlling himself and I have yet to find evidence of Lawes "moderating his behaviour".

I had no idea that mods wrote in 'red' when they were being 'official'. I thought it was just when you were angry

Fair enough. We'll just have to ignore greyghost then. He really does bring out the worst in people

no! red is mod mode, anything else then we're just posting as ourselves.

The only thing I think the GG has a point on is the farce of some of the disciplinary hearings recently. There's no consistency shown there at all, but then it's been a problem for a while. Tis something the IRB really need to address imo.

It doesn't really matter who said SA players are thugs, there have been so many comments regarding that issue, that it has become "white noise"

And if I had the time and inclination I am sure I can go back and find at least one from every home union that went on about Burger and Bakkies.

But as I say "white noise"

What I’m looking forward to is the role reversal when say an Irish, SA, Welsh or NZ player is in the Dock for something not as sinister as the ‘moral high-grounders’ are suggesting this is.

Will they adamantly defend their own team’s player or call for him to be hung, drawn and quartered?

CL has been found guilty and punished appropriately…what is this ‘The Spanish Inquisition’ cause if so where is Monty Python?

Boyne wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Casper
I think he expressed remorse after being found guilty,

He pleaded not guilty, so how can he express remorse???

Either the guy is a liar or he is an idiot.

"I slid into him caught him with my knee, Im very sorry he got hurt but it was not intentional or in my opinion an act punishable under the striking code. Its a pity for teh guy hes injuyred and I dont like being involved in players getting hurt. Youll notice that I have never been cited for an offence of this nature previously and do not have cards on my record for any kind of striking because I abhor that kind of violence, unlike the pacific island savages we have in our centers who redefine wingers faces"compared to " I didnt touch him Guv, hes making a meal of it. He probably deserved it anyway if i had hit him, which I didnt. I hope he dies and his children commit suicide as a result. Shouldve let Tuilagi get a hold of him"

Something like that. But I guess he was too busy lying about being a New Zealander in an atmept to get away with it.

I think the idiots are people who dont understand the difference between feelings and of guilt and remorse and legal pleas of guilt to specifric charges.

biltongbek wrote:It doesn't really matter who said SA players are thugs, there have been so many comments regarding that issue, that it has become "white noise"

And if I had the time and inclination I am sure I can go back and find at least one from every home union that went on about Burger and Bakkies.

But as I say "white noise"

They are though arent they

Peter he is not going to say he intended it is he or say he could not care less.
I'm not having a go at anybody I'm just being a realist.

Greyghost did you cry foul when Mealamu only got 2 weeks for intentionally head butting a prone Lewis Moody from behind? Surely if you think that was a fair punishment then a proportionate punishment for Lawes would be what, 20 lines on the blackboard and a rap on the knuckles?

biltongbek wrote:It doesn't really matter who said SA players are thugs, there have been so many comments regarding that issue, that it has become "white noise"

And if I had the time and inclination I am sure I can go back and find at least one from every home union that went on about Burger and Bakkies.

But as I say "white noise"

now that you mention those names, Lawes really goes by as a nice guy

here's my small contribution to the "white noise"
recently read an interview of Bakkies in a local french newspaper when he was around Toulon for a quick visit - he also went to see some low level local rugby game (which always finish in a brawl in france) after which he would have said something along the lines that he quite enjoyed the entertainment and that he would settle well in Toulon...

So then you are saying that he "unintentionally" fell into someone, already spreadeagle on the ground, out of touch and without the ball. And for that he is expressing remorse!!!!

OK then.



He meant it and everyone know it.

Anyway, its not the 1st time hes been at it. Plus hes been found guilty.

He wont get away with it again.

Cymroglan wrote:Peter he is not going to say he intended it is he or say he could not care less.
I'm not having a go at anybody I'm just being a realist.

Not if hes pleading not guilty no.
But the question was how can you show remorse and plead not guilty its simple. And you can also do that without lying, hes not going to say he intended to strike the player if he didnt intend to strike him is he?
But then lets look at Tuilagi...theres no way he could say he didnt intend to strike Chris Ashton or plead not guilty, but he can still plead remorse and stupidity


Interestingly theres just been an assault case bought by a welsh policeman against another copper following a club game, blooming west britain savages

Funny thing is no one has picked up on the growing trend for players to slide at an opponent near the goal line to disrupt the scoring process…hoping to either push the opponent out or knock the ball from their grasp.

This is technically illegal as you are playing off your feet/diving in. And as is the case here and I am sure on a few more occasions not mentioned at this or any other level risky cause when sliding the players knee/elbow/shoulder could make contact with the opponents head.

So the next time a player slides in to stop a try and hits the opponent will they award a penalty try or just ignore it and cite the player after?

Boyne wrote:Anyway, its not the 1st time hes been at it. Plus hes been found guilty.

He wont get away with it again.

Which other times has he been found guilty of it? Is the citing commission suppossed to go on teh internet and check the rantings of hate fuilled mobs or do they , as in all other cases, go with this disciplinary record?
Otherwise theyd be banning all the South Africans just because the Welsh call them thugs.

He hasnt got away with it this time, and yes if he does it again he'll face a longer ban. Same as for everyone.

Something that is often overlooked is that courts will often use the term “remorse” with the, now defunct, meaning of “pity, compassion”. Which is likely the situation here.

I also find it very odd that an independent panel, convening in NZ, with an Australian at the helm, would show any bias towards an England player; this seems to be implied by some posters and is ridiculous.

PSB
In my world to show remorse,one is admitting their wrongdoing.

Usually remorse in a judicial forium is expressed in a plea of mitigation,after guilt has been decided.

I guess he was guilty of taking the Lawes into his own hands, and knees

Which other times has he been found guilty of it?

I never said he has been found guilty before this "incident". Not the 1st time he's been at it though.

You'll have to ask the Australians what they mean by remorse. I doubt very much even an Ozzie would reduce his ban because he suddenly owned up and said sorry after being found guilty.

The most obvious conclusions I get from this (not read the report yet) is that they think he didn't deliberately go in to strike him but he was a bit reckless so they gave him a ban.

And I think the 3 weeks is the minimum entry ban not final ban.

Boyne wrote:

Which other times has he been found guilty of it?

I never said he has been found guilty before this "incident". Not the 1st time he's been at it though.

Well you know what these New Zealanders are like eh

For the record (courtesy of the BBC)

A statement from Rugby World Cup Limited read: "Having conducted a detailed review of all the evidence available, including all broadcast angles and additional evidence from the player and submissions from his counsel, the judicial officer upheld the citing on the basis that the player had committed an act of foul play.

However, taking into account mitigating factors being his excellent disciplinary record and remorse and the absence of aggravating factors, the player was suspended for two weeks."