Bans: Compare and contrast and justify

Lawes: (bannned) England's Courtney Lawes suspended for two weeks http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/09/2102/englands-courtney-lawes-suspended-for-two-weeks

McCaw: (no action) The Richie McCaw knee on Morgan Parra http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/10/2216/richie-mccaw-knee-on-morgan-parra-donald-kick-rougerie-eye-gouge-and-more

Both reckless imo. Intent of harm? No intent in either imo.

its because one is an english thug (obviously, hes english, so its worse than if someone else did it) and the other is St.Richie of McCaw the world cup winning captain of New Zealand (as hes a kiwi, its clear that he couldnt be a cheat, you only have to look at his disciplinary records, barely even any yellows!).

right?


can...

...open....

...worms....

....everywhere!

Portnoy some might suggest this thread is a classic WUM on your part.

Hasnt thsi argument been hashed over enough now?

I'm not wumming seabiscuit. I haven't seen two entirely different but very similar cases juxtaposed as an article.

Talk about seeing what you want to see...

McCaw is clearing out Dusauttoir, Parra was unlucky and in the way. All McCaw was thinking of was the ruck. That's what he does.

Regardless of legalities of either act, one involves a tackled player getting injured, the other a player in another players path. Not comparable.

greybeard,
Two players flying in at 100mph. And unless I'm mistaken the laws of physics have not been banned on the rugby pitch, both are subject to the same unfortunate consequence of momentum.

Thats true Portnoy, but Lawes being a big athletic man, id be very worried if he had no control over when he does, and doesnt drop to his knees without being forced.

A correct assertion, re the Laws of physics, Portnoy, not that it actually has any relevance.

In one case the momentum and eventual connection with the opposition player was due to the tackler trying to do just that, which is not the case in the other instance. If McCaw had injured Dusauttoir you might have a point.

Lawes was a deliberate attempt to injure a player. I saw it at the time and thought "knee drop"

Cynical and nasty to a player out of the game and caused him injury. it was deliberate

Fruit: Compare, contrast and justify

Apples: William Tell shot an apple with an arrow. The Witch used an apple to posion Snow White and Isaac Newton used apples to discover gravity.

Oranges: Symbolises royalty in Holland, political unrest in Northern Ireland and Gavin Henson. Is also eaten at half time by soccer players.

Both tasty imo. No intent of harm. But is controversial. . . .

There are no comparisons.

There is no spoon

Chris Ashton: (banned) Given four-week ban for 'hair pull' incident http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/16042053.stm

WTF?

greybeard wrote:There is no spoon

Brilliant.

Ashton - thats a reasonable ban - deliberate and nasty foul. To grab the hair in passing OK - but he readjusted his grip then dragged him out of play by the hair.

But 4 weeks compared to Manu Tulagi getting 5 weeks for punching thats a bit harsh isn't it?

Think it's about right to be honest. I expect he would have got less if he'd just lamped Tuilagi, he'd have been serving his ban eating through a straw but hey!

25 grand (reduced to 15) by the RFU for Mike Royle. Off-field.

500 smackers for Ashton in the heat of the game.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/2011/12/07/chris-ashton-is-banned-over-hair-pulling-incident-115875-23615596/

The sooner Ashton learns his lesson the better. He's a real talent and this sort of stuff has no place in the game. The notion that Mallinder might appeal is a joke, Ashton got what he deserved. Having managed to see a few AP games this last few weeks I've seen some pretty dodgy stuff from Lawes as well and think he's been a tad lucky not be hauled up for it. Stupid behaviour from international players is not what I want to see.