Osprey George Stowers cited over tackle in win against Scarlets

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19697872 wrote:Ospreys back-row forward George Stowers has been cited for an alleged high tackle during their Pro12 win over the Scarlets on Friday.

Samoan Stowers' challenge came as Scarlets wing Andy Fenby was in the process of crossing the Ospreys' line.

Fenby dropped the ball and video referee Derek Bevan ruled no try could be awarded.

The teams were level 6-6 at that point and the visitors went on to win.

A date, time and venue for the hearing at which Stowers will answer the charge has yet to be set.

I am uncertain whether the incident was deliberate or not, but I htink his track record may go against him here.

It was a 'Wilko' style swinging arm 'tackle'.

Should havve been a penalty try, the ref didn't word it well to the TMO

munkian wrote:It was a 'Wilko' style swinging arm 'tackle'.

Should havve been a penalty try, the ref didn't word it well to the TMO

I thought it was only in the Aviva that the video ref had those sort of powers. And to be fair they are using them well IMO.

I am not sure it was intentional or dirty, a few mins earlier he may have made contact with the ball and dislodged it from Fenby's arms.

They should use a standard set of powers then, there are too many 'interpretations' as it is.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

munkian wrote:It was a 'Wilko' style swinging arm 'tackle'.

Should havve been a penalty try, the ref didn't word it well to the TMO

I thought it was only in the Aviva that the video ref had those sort of powers. And to be fair they are using them well IMO.

I am not sure it was intentional or dirty, a few mins earlier he may have made contact with the ball and dislodged it from Fenby's arms.

I'm fairly sure the TMO has the power to award a penalty when the offence is committed over the goal line, regardless off which jurisdiction - so Derek Bevan could certainly have said "penalty" rather than giving the O's a scrum, even if he couldn't award a penalty try.

It was a typical Samoan tackle. He tried to take Fenby's head off and it was pretty cowardly in my opinion. He should have had a yellow at the very least and maybe a red. He knew exactly what he was doing.

He deserves a few weeks to think about it.

What it did do of course was stop a certain try. I don't think the ref or 4th official have the power to say "it would have been a try if Stowers hadn't nearly decapitated Fenby, therefore lets award a penalty try".

These things are being done now in the English league and is a good thing in my opinion and should be rolled out to everyone.

It's just ridiculous that everyone could see that the above was the case and yet all the ref and 4th official can rule on is did he, or didn't he, ground the ball.

I guess it is a good thing for the Ospreys that Ryan Jones is coming back, so theoretically, ban or no bad, Stowers will be unlikely to start (or be involved) until the AIs.

Stowers is an idiot.

Too much indiscipline in the Ospreys this season. Ian Evans in Treviso, now Stowers. I hope the club reprimand him well. We can't have players behaving like this if we want to compete with the best.

I thought Evans was lucky I don't think Stowers will be so. Thought Khan was lucky after his hit too.

If the RP12 don't cite players for misdemeanours like these I would like to see internal club fines.

This stupid behaviour can cost us big time later on in the season.

doctornickolas wrote:What it did do of course was stop a certain try. I don't think the ref or 4th official have the power to say "it would have been a try if Stowers hadn't nearly decapitated Fenby, therefore lets award a penalty try".

These things are being done now in the English league and is a good thing in my opinion and should be rolled out to everyone.

It's just ridiculous that everyone could see that the above was the case and yet all the ref and 4th official can rule on is did he, or didn't he, ground the ball.

True, TMOs everywhere (other than AP and SA varsity? wherer extended powers are being trialled) can only adjudge whether a try was scored, so could not advise a penalty for what I assume was a high stiff arm on the try line?

There are certain things that need ironing out with the current system being trialled. Several times play was stopped at Welford Road with the crowd having no idea what was going on. At the very least the crowd should be told over the tannoy that a decision has been referred to the TMO.

I thought Evans was much worse and repeated acts through the game, and was lucky not to be carded in the 1st 20mins (or even the first 5). But seeing the video of the Fenby incident again (and from a different angle from on Friday) I agree it does look a lot worse than I 1st thought (and it didn't look nice then).

Smirnoff - I didn't see Evans do anything at all, well not dirty. I saw Dirkson, Kahn, Stowers, and Tipuric all try to physically intimidate Liam Williams (and at times it looked very very iffy) within the first twenty mins. But then I saw Turnbull, Liam Williams, and Knoyle all being a bit rough when they got their chance too.

Gods honest truth it could have been a really cracking game if the ref had taken control of it. For chirst sake the man didn't even have enough control to decide if any of hte tries were scored, he went to the TMO every time a play crossed the line.

in the first 3(?) minutes Evans high tackled on of the Scarlets players in midfield badly (can't remember which one as I haven't sat down and watched the game again, just the highlights), and then he did it again on around 20 mins - with nothing.

Then during the game he was involved in some rough stuff around the rucks as well.

I saw Hibbert run in unneccessarily and try and push JD2 and grab the ball, but fall over and head butt JD2s leg - and then JD2 had him around the throat giving him a telling off, and Scott Williams having a bit of a too and fo with an Ospreys player on the deck. Dirkson flipped Liam Williams - which looked disgusting from the stands and wasn't spotted (neither was the Scott Williams one though). Didn't see Knoyle do anything but saw Scott and Jon getting involved in the 2nd half.

But I agree if the ref had carded a player straight away then the game would have settled down - as it was players like Evans and Stowers knew they could get away with it from the off, then the Scarlets got annoyed and started with the niggles and it decended into the mess we had - he also didn't control the breakdown, didn't use the assistants and had a poor game all round.

Priest the high tackle around the 20 mark was not Evans, I think it was Bearman (not sure) but Evans was right near him.

The Ryan Jones try, was rather upsetting, and Scrum V highlights avoided showing the lead up. Ryan Jones gives a pen away on his five yard line, killing a promising attack, but avoids the yellow card. Then we miss the pen, they kick to our 22m where Foxy carries it out and Hibbard starts the aggro, but the ref ignores it. Then off the line out Ryan Jones scores a try, and the Ospreys are suddenly all guns blazing.

Fair play McCusker needs to learn to talk to a ref constantly and hassle him, as AWJ did definately do a good job of that, as did Ryan Jones when he came on too. Maybe a bit of whinging and moaning at Hodges could have seen those cards being produced, and pens being reversed for coilent conduct.

Yup AWJ did a really good job of being on top of the ref every time there was a decision to be made, and if the ref wasn't listening he was on the Assistant ref - I don't remember McCusker talking to the ref unless the ref called him over.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:Yup AWJ did a really good job of being on top of the ref every time there was a decision to be made, and if the ref wasn't listening he was on the Assistant ref - I don't remember McCusker talking to the ref unless the ref called him over.

Some people were getting rather vocal around me about that. Hopefully it will be something he will learn from this match.

I thought it was Kahn Fotauli'i (spelling) not George Stowers.

LordDowlais wrote:I thought it was Kahn Fotauli'i (spelling) not George Stowers.

No it was Stowers the comentators got their south sea islanders mixed up.

In my opinion Bevan bottled it, he could easily told the Ref what happened and left it up to the ref to decide on the action, which would have been a penaty try and a card. Now we have the pantomime of a player being cited for an offence that the video ref looked at from every possible angle and in slow motion during the game.

Considering the Tmo was Derek Bevan who was a fantastic referee in his day it is a shame that the TMO can't have a polite, slightly mentoring advisory capacity.

Priest. The two incidents you mention, Dirksen and Hibbard, both times the scarlets players is trying to waste time either not relasing the ball or the tackled player. Hibbard wanted a quick ball and Dirksen wanted to stand up. Liam Williams would not leave him to after the whistle.

News just in;

George North to be cited under Law 10.5.1.3 "saying mean things about an opponent behind their back" and

Ryan Jones to be cited under a sub-section of the same rule "looking at an opposing player in a funny way".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19697872 wrote:Ospreys back-row forward George Stowers has been cited for an alleged high tackle during their Pro12 win over the Scarlets on Friday.

'Alleged high tackle'? It wasn't a tackle at all!

Just watched that clip and I don't know how the penalty try wasn't awarded, Scarlets player diving over the line, takes a swinging arm to the windpipe and understandably drops the pill.

sheephead wrote:Priest. The two incidents you mention, Dirksen and Hibbard, both times the scarlets players is trying to waste time either not relasing the ball or the tackled player. Hibbard wanted a quick ball and Dirksen wanted to stand up. Liam Williams would not leave him to after the whistle.

A judo toss on a player leading to their head making contact with the ground is not legal, whether or not the player is trying to wate time (which was not the case IMO). A judo toss leading to a players head making contact with the ground first is however classed as a dangerous tackle, and is actually a red card offence. Not being picky but it is technically a red, and far worse an offence than you are making it out to be.

Hibbard's issues with Foxy were more understandable as trying to get the ball quick, and I can (in hindsight) see that it was probably not such an issue. However witht eh way the game had gone etc, it was an issue imo.

yappysnap wrote:Just watched that clip and I don't know how the penalty try wasn't awarded, Scarlets player diving over the line, takes a swinging arm to the windpipe and understandably drops the pill.

Not a pen try due to the ref being pretty poor (he went to the video ref for all decisions) and the video ref not havaing the powers to aware a pen try.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:he went to the video ref for all decisions

As poor a referee as Leighton Hodges is, I wouldn't blame him for that but the touch judge (sorry, 'assistant referee'). It was clear as day that Dirksen had scored his try and the touch judge was right there. If he couldn't see it was a try, he should be fired.

Luckless - did he ask the touch judge? Because from where I was he looked to just blow and signal the tmo.

If he didn't consult his touch judge, that's pretty poor (or maybe he already knew the linesman was no good).

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:If he didn't consult his touch judge, that's pretty poor (or maybe he already knew the linesman was no good).

He has a reputation for ignoring them. And he did seem to avoid them this match too.

If that's true then the WRU should have a word with him. The assistant referees are there for a reason (at least, that's the idea).

Surely Mr Bevan could have said yes its a try a penalty try.

I watched it, and I agree that the contact was of the face and so the penalty try should have been awarded.

But to call it a 'high tackle' and consider citations is just ludicrous.

Seriously, you have to wonder when the last time some of these fans (if ever) played rugby themselves. Its a split second thing. Theres a player diving for the line, I'm going to throw myself in his direction.

The players head was about two feet off the ground as he dived forward and down, the difference between the defender making contact with the face and shoulder is a a mili-second.

This is completely different to a man on man high tackle in open play.

Penalty try would have been fair, but the defender did not do anything wrong or reckless.

Clivemcl - I believe the 'alledged high tackle' is the offense he has been caharged with. I guess it is hard for them to find a specific offence to fit to the incident, as 'caused player to drop ball, in the in-goal area, via a swinging arm/ punch to the temple'.

However I do agree that this could have been one of those really good try saving tackles if it was a few seconds earlier. That said I think Warburtons tackle int eh RWC would have been a really good smash of a tackle if he brought the man down on his back. It is all down to split second timings etc, and IMO if you mess up you take the wrap.

I think citations should discern whether a player had dangerous intent or was carelessly reckless.

I don't think either of these are true for this case.

Are you serious, Clive? Only one part of George Stowers made contact with Andy Fenby, and that was his arm connecting with Fenby's face. He could have used that arm along with the other to get under the ball. That too would have prevented a try.

Yea, I'm serious. Stowers was simply trying to prevent a mass from reaching its finishing point. That is all there is in your head in that scenario. its split seconds we are talking about. Stowers could not have known the contact would have been across the face rather than the shoulder when the action was as fast as it was.

Of course he was 'simply trying to prevent a mass from reaching its finishing point' - any player would try to do that; but a swinging arm isn't an acceptable way of doing that. That's just a fact. JPR prevented a try against France by shoulder-charging a player into touch. Job done, but you just can't do that kind of thing now.

You aren't allowed to strike an opponent with a stiff arm Clive. That's what stowers did.

clivemcl - the voice of reason, well done sir.

Rugby is a collision sport, you see this kind of impact dozens of times in every game.

In this instance it was unfortunate that Fenby got clunked in the chops, but if he hadn't over-run the pass (which ended up being forward - so no try should have been awarded anyway) and hadn't fumbled it before diving, he would have crossed the line comfortably - and Stowers would have either missed him or connected with his torso.

Basically, this was all caused by a rather dismal piece of rugby from Fenby.

Clive - I see your point, however Stowers has a bit of a tendancy for throwing one tackles that are above shoulder height. So a players reputation can go against them.

Maybe a charge of dangerous tackle (as it was a swinging arm) should have been brought instead of high tackle then

Casartelli wrote:Rugby is a collision sport, you see this kind of impact dozens of times in every game.

That's bullocks. If you did, you'd have several players in the bin. Stowers was trying to prevent a try, but it wasn't a tackle. That's the bottom line. It should have been a penalty, if not a penalty try.

rugbydreamer wrote:You aren't allowed to strike an opponent with a stiff arm Clive. That's what stowers did.

I agree. Hence my admission of the penalty try. But context is everything when considering punishment. If there is a citation, it will only be to try and make up for the embarrassment of failing to award the penalty try, not because Stowers (in this instance) deserves to be taught a lesson.

Penalty fair enough - but citing a player every time this sort of thing happened would be ridiculous. There'd be a queue of players round the citing office every weekend.

How often does this kind of thing happen though? The last I can think of is when Tomas O'Leary almost knocked out Cian Healy a few seasons ago.

Ok here we go.

Clearly everyone can see that Stowers is gearing up for a chest height tackle when Fenby drops to the line.



Now if you think Stowers had time to 'pull out' when he saw Fenby drop, I suggest you look at the incident in real time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19694816 - 1minute25

From an entirely neutral perspective -

Should have been a penalty try, as an offence was commited by Stowers (dangerous tackle and failure to attempt to wrap his arms round the tackled player) that clearly prevented a try being scored. Shouldn't even be considered a high tackle because the winger has intentionally positioned himself low.

Citing? Seems very harsh - at worst I would say that Stowers was careless in his attempted tackle, because he was flying across in cover defence. Don't think there was (or could possibly have been given the speed that the play happened) any intent in striking the winger on the head. A fraction later and he would have hit his shoulder and chest (although probably not until the ball was grounded). Hopefully, good sense will prevail and the citing committee will only review the actual incident rather than the consequence (that is, that the failure to award the penalty try should not influence their judgement).

Even if he'd struck him on the shoulder/chest though, it still would have been a stiff arm, which u simply aren't allowed to use in rugby. Added to the fact he has previous for "tackles" like this, and that he wasn't penalised for it at the time, I can see him getting a few weeks.

As dreamer says I think the main point is he went in with a closed fist, fast arm smash, rather than an attempt to wrap his arms around Fenby (if he'd been standing or diving).

rugbydreamer wrote:Even if he'd struck him on the shoulder/chest though, it still would have been a stiff arm, which u simply aren't allowed to use in rugby. Added to the fact he has previous for "tackles" like this, and that he wasn't penalised for it at the time, I can see him getting a few weeks.

I think that is what people are missing here. The incident could quite well have been a case of bad timing. However when a player is pretty well known for putting in one-arm high tackles (clotheslines), and for not tackling without the use of his arms at all, the incident suddenly looks very different. Stowers will generally put in either one shoulder barge, or hight tackle a game (not being harsh but it seems that way to me), so the fact he has smacked someone in the side of the head to prevent a try from being scored sound and appears very believable. However if you were to replace him in the incident with say Richard Fussel, who I can't remember ever being carded, then I would say that it was an unfortunate accident.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

sheephead wrote:Priest. The two incidents you mention, Dirksen and Hibbard, both times the scarlets players is trying to waste time either not relasing the ball or the tackled player. Hibbard wanted a quick ball and Dirksen wanted to stand up. Liam Williams would not leave him to after the whistle.

A judo toss on a player leading to their head making contact with the ground is not legal, whether or not the player is trying to wate time (which was not the case IMO). A judo toss leading to a players head making contact with the ground first is however classed as a dangerous tackle, and is actually a red card offence. Not being picky but it is technically a red, and far worse an offence than you are making it out to be.

Hibbard's issues with Foxy were more understandable as trying to get the ball quick, and I can (in hindsight) see that it was probably not such an issue. However witht eh way the game had gone etc, it was an issue imo.

If Liam Williams was holding on to Dirksen he would not have been "judo thrown". He made the decision to continue holding on although his leg was lifted. 6 Of one and half a dozen of the other