Toby Flood cleared...

... anyone surprised?

Anyone?



At least Cockers will be able to give it a rest this week.

Oh and Flood will be available for the 6N openers.

Im pleased as I get to see him play on Sunday. But seems strange because if that wasn't a tip tackle im confused as to what is?

Yup, I am surprised having seen it. Given the Varndell tackle (yellow card) Flood's was way worse.

Consistency is all we ask for.

I agree Hound. Flood didn't try to plant him in the ground head first but it could be seen as reckless. If you compare it to others: varndell, Ferris (6N v Wales) it should have received something if there was consistency .

Yep, typically consistent in their inconsistency, but every cloud and all that.

It's not the first time there's been a decision of this nature concerning an England player leading up to an International Test window, I doubt it will be the last.

I guess we'll have to wait for the report to see what the actual finding was, but very confusing.

That is a disgrace. He should have got months off. Typical tho given the club and country he plays for and the league he was playing in.

Of all the dangerous / tip tackles discussed on here recently that was by far the worst. How they can find him not guilty amazes me.

I think they may bring Goode's bulk into it and gave him advice for future heavy lifting. Lift with legs, not the back...

sheephead wrote:I think they may bring Goode's bulk into it and gave him advice for future heavy lifting. Lift with legs, not the back...

I shouldn't laugh, but feic it.

If it was Goode tackling Flood I bet Goode would be let off from such a bad tackle, it was worse thhan Warburton and more recent Lloyd Williams and he got 5 weeks. Has this now set the standard i.,e no red card and no punishment?

I have said what i am going to on this, and posted the reasons given for the decision on the other thread. I woukd love to debate this but already the trolls are in the house, so I will now leave this one to the pathetic, childish and rather sad WUMfest it will probably become.


PS I disagree with the decision - but do not think it has been caused by any bias in the makeup of the panel.

Is Flood a Kiwi?

The report suggests other players contributed to the 'tip' I have tp say I agree with Flood getting cleared. Until the worcester 4 Percivel came in to assist Goode who was getting tackled nothing illegal had gone on. I think it is Percivel who ends up acting as the pivot to tip Goode over. Correct decision to clear Flood in my book.

London tiger - it is not a wum to point out that offenders in one competition are treated more leniently than those in another.

Its also very conveninet that England players are not banned during international periods or the run up to them. its a consistent pattern

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Is Flood a Kiwi?

Asbo
If he was a Kiwi the English media will harangue the IRB to appeal the panels decision.

TJ wrote:London tiger - it is not a wum to point out that offenders in one competition are treated more leniently than those in another.

Its also very conveninet that England players are not banned during international periods or the run up to them. its a consistent pattern

Consistent with who? The only iffy one was Cueto but that was following the IRB sanction length and was consistent with other similar offences. Any others?

Without seeing the report you don't know what the decision is based on and therefore condemning is based on limited information and flawed (for now)

Well I can't see any trolls on here, and I don't consider it particularly grown up to bandy around insinuations and then "do one" to avoid defending your inaccuracy.

Is anyone surprised? I'm not, I pretty much expected this to be the outcome for many reasons, but not because it wasn't a dangerous tackle.

Is it the first time we've seen inconsistency both from the match officials and a subsequent judiciary panel? No.

Is it the first time an England player has been exonerated or given a "nothing" ban prior to an important Test window? No.

Is this decision remotely in line with the recent zero tolerance shown by the RFU and other NH panels over dangerous tackles? No.

Does this send out the right kind of message with regards to tackles that are likely to cause serious injury to players? I think not, but maybe I'm just looking at it as a childish, wumming troll?

Good luck and play well Toby, make the most of it.

TJ wrote:That is a disgrace. He should have got months off. Typical tho given the club and country he plays for and the league he was playing in.

Of all the dangerous / tip tackles discussed on here recently that was by far the worst. How they can find him not guilty amazes me.

Does TJ stand for 'Richard Head'?

PJHolybloke wrote:Is anyone surprised?

I am actually. There was obviously no malice in the tackle, but seeing it, i did think that he would be cooling his heels for a little while.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Is Flood a Kiwi?

Asbo
If he was a Kiwi the English media will harangue the IRB to appeal the panels decision.

Fair point, laurie

It's the British media, like the British Monarchy and British Empire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20954379

Toby Flood cleared by RFU disciplinary hearing is the important bit.

I know there's a 6 nations coming up but the RFU need to grow some balls.

Consistency please?

If this was any EPS member they would probably get off lightly too.

We have seen smaller bans for English players before unfortunately.

Compare and contrast to Halauifa who got 5 weeks for this tackle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kww0doBHy_o

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:London tiger - it is not a wum to point out that offenders in one competition are treated more leniently than those in another.

Its also very conveninet that England players are not banned during international periods or the run up to them. its a consistent pattern

Consistent with who? The only iffy one was Cueto but that was following the IRB sanction length and was consistent with other similar offences. Any others?

Without seeing the report you don't know what the decision is based on and therefore condemning is based on limited information and flawed (for now)

The consistent pattern is that england eps players only get sanctions that do not affect their international games. Its happened before. This is a particularly obvious example of finding a way not to ban a player who is important to england because the internationals are soon

My tuppence on the matter is this.

I don't think that tackle was worthy of a ban. It should have been a yellow on the night, but that is all. My gripe is with the consistency of both the referes and the disciplinary process, as we have seen similar tackles punished heavily in recent times.

Jimpy wrote:

TJ wrote:That is a disgrace. He should have got months off. Typical tho given the club and country he plays for and the league he was playing in.

Of all the dangerous / tip tackles discussed on here recently that was by far the worst. How they can find him not guilty amazes me.

Does TJ stand for 'Richard Head'?

No need for personal insults because we have different opinions

Ozzy3213 wrote:My tuppence on the matter is this.

I don't think that tackle was worthy of a ban. It should have been a yellow on the night, but that is all. My gripe is with the consistency of both the referes and the disciplinary process, as we have seen similar tackles punished heavily in recent times.

According to the law it should have been a red and a ban. the law may be wrong - but thats what the law says

"IRB Law on 'tip-tackles' or 'spear tackles':

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB's zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:

- The player is lifted and then forced or 'speared' into the ground (red card offence)

- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player's safety (red card offence)

- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient"

TJ wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

TJ wrote:That is a disgrace. He should have got months off. Typical tho given the club and country he plays for and the league he was playing in.

Of all the dangerous / tip tackles discussed on here recently that was by far the worst. How they can find him not guilty amazes me.

Does TJ stand for 'Richard Head'?

No need for personal insults because we have different opinions

Opinions are one thing but frothing at the mouth rants are another. Months off for a tip tackle? REALLY? How long was Warburton banned for for a much worse tackle? Was this REALLY the worst instance of a dangerous tip tackle discussed on here? Er, no it isn't, there have been much worse, the ongoing debate starting with Warburton in the last WC. It isn't typical of the club or country that he plays for that he wasn't banned, thats just complete nonsense - or you could try to prove it?

How they can find him not guilty is a little odd, I tend to agree he should have had a yellow card at the time and that be the end of it. It was a robust tackle and little else. But since it went to the Commissioner, it is reasonable to assume a ban was forthcoming. I would therefore have expected a 12 week ban, reduced to 6 for previous good conduct.

TJ wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:My tuppence on the matter is this.

I don't think that tackle was worthy of a ban. It should have been a yellow on the night, but that is all. My gripe is with the consistency of both the referes and the disciplinary process, as we have seen similar tackles punished heavily in recent times.

According to the law it should have been a red and a ban. the law may be wrong - but thats what the law says

"IRB Law on 'tip-tackles' or 'spear tackles':

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB's zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:

- The player is lifted and then forced or 'speared' into the ground (red card offence)

- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player's safety (red card offence)

- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient"

Calm down, you'll have a coniption fit.

12 week ban = 3 months. I think he should have had a couple of months off.

Yes in my opinion that is the most dangerous of the takles we have discussed - look at the angle of goodes neck as he landed. Far worse than the warburton one - look at the vids

Look at the tackles and sanctions applied to others - there is a list on here with youtube links
http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2012-13/rugby/story/175325.html

TJ wrote:12 week ban = 3 months. I think he should have had a couple of months off.

Yes in my opinion that is the most dangerous of the takles we have discussed - look at the angle of goodes neck as he landed
Look at the tackles and sanctions applied to others - there is a list on here with youtube links
http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2012-13/rugby/story/175325.html

It looks innocuous to me, as it followed the whole of his back to the floor. Yes, Goode was out for the count wasn't he? Not.

Are you blind Jimpy? get a grip man FFS.

Are you frothing at the mouth TJ? get a grip man FFS.

No - I am being polite and reasonable. You are being deliberatly offensive and are defending the indefensible.

Just have a look at the list of tackles and bans I linked to and then try to understand why I and many others are angered by the RFU refusing to sanction aplayer for a dangerous takle. One rule for England players, one rule for everyone else. the RFU have plenty of previous for this

however I do not expect you to accept this.

Not in the slightest bit surprised, the English want blood from any other national player for even so much as looking at another player in the wrong way,
but always protect their own interests.

Varndell been cited for his yellow on the weekend yet?

TJ wrote:I am being polite and reasonable.

So initially implying a player has easy ride simply due to the club & nation he plays for is polite and reasonable is it TJ?

It is neither polite, nor reasonable. Is it any wonder Jimpy is sticking up for his club and their players after seeing your blatent prejudice?

I think the difference between a "ban attracting" tackle and a "non ban attracting" tackle has to be in the interpretation of the term "lifting".

For the tackle to be regarded as dangerous (and therefore worthy of a ban) under the Laws there has to be LIFTING. In this case I think that Flood drives the player off his feet rather than actually lifting him so that his centre of gravity has moved further away from the earth.

Now, whether one is actually more dangerous than the other is another question and whether the Laws are interpreted consistently is a whole other argument altogether but that is the difference that I see between these tackles.

TJ wrote:No - I am being polite and reasonable. You are being deliberatly offensive and are defending the indefensible.
Just have a look at the list of tackles and bans I linked to and then try to understand why I and many others are angered by the RFU refusing to sanction aplayer for a dangerous takle. One rule for England players, one rule for everyone else. the RFU have plenty of previous for this

however I do not expect you to accept this.

No i'm not, on both counts. Since if I am being offensive, you are being equally pejudiced and the Citing Commission would tend to agree with me, therefore, my position is hardly untenable is it?

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:I am being polite and reasonable.

So initially implying a player has easy ride simply due to the club & nation he plays for is polite and reasonable is it TJ?

It is neither polite, nor reasonable. Is it any wonder Jimpy is sticking up for his club and their players after seeing your blatent prejudice?

I think you need to read a dictionary.

Look up the definitions of polite, reasonable and prejudice. I was polite, my point was reasonable and I do not show prejudice.

As you have been told before. I am not prejudiced against the english as you continually accuse me of being. I am english. It is perfectly reasonable to state an opinion as to why he got off with it as it has been seen before and others agree. t eh RFU citing panels consistently are more lenient than others. Anyone witout bias knows this.

TJ wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:I am being polite and reasonable.

So initially implying a player has easy ride simply due to the club & nation he plays for is polite and reasonable is it TJ?

It is neither polite, nor reasonable. Is it any wonder Jimpy is sticking up for his club and their players after seeing your blatent prejudice?

I think you need to read a dictionary.

Look up the definitions of polite, reasonable and prejudice. I was polite, my point was reasonable and I do not show prejudice.

As you have been told before. I am not prejudiced against the english as you continually accuse me of being. I am english. It is perfectly reasonable to state an opinion as to why he got off with it as it has been seen before and others agree. t eh RFU citing panels consistently are more lenient than others. Anyone witout bias knows this.

I think you need to look up the term irony.

Offensive? yes. these are your comments.

Does TJ stand for 'Richard Head'?

Calm down, you'll have a coniption fit.

Are you frothing at the mouth TJ? get a grip man FFS.

TJ wrote:Offensive? yes. these are your comments.

Does TJ stand for 'Richard Head'?

Calm down, you'll have a coniption fit.

Are you frothing at the mouth TJ? get a grip man FFS.

All in response to equally 'offensive' comments you'd made. Oh well, while you're on the hook, i might as well keep you there for a while.

What offensive commnets I have made?

You know what. I was going to leave this as robust debate. Instead I will report it as you have just made it clear you are deliberately trolling.

Edit - jimpy your position is reasonable - its all about opinion. Your use of insults and accusations aimed at me is not however. thats the difference between robust debate and trolling

TJ wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:I am being polite and reasonable.

So initially implying a player has easy ride simply due to the club & nation he plays for is polite and reasonable is it TJ?

It is neither polite, nor reasonable. Is it any wonder Jimpy is sticking up for his club and their players after seeing your blatent prejudice?

I think you need to read a dictionary.

Look up the definitions of polite, reasonable and prejudice. I was polite, my point was reasonable and I do not show prejudice.

As you have been told before. I am not prejudiced against the english as you continually accuse me of being. I am english. It is perfectly reasonable to state an opinion as to why he got off with it as it has been seen before and others agree. t eh RFU citing panels consistently are more lenient than others. Anyone witout bias knows this.

Oh, you're English. No wait, a naturalised Scot. Ahhh no, back to being English .... no hold on, naturalised Scot again. Sounds deluded to me.

If you think telling someone they 'need to read a dictionary' or that 'He should have got months off. Typical tho given the club and country he plays for and the league he was playing in' isn't rude (and bitter) then i was right in my assessment of you being prejudice. That's no reason or opinion, it's not objective, it is completely bias.

I am in the surprising position of actually agreeing with you that Flood should have taken a hit, but your reason that he got off lightly just due to his club & nation is weak sauce.

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

TJ wrote:I am being polite and reasonable.

So initially implying a player has easy ride simply due to the club & nation he plays for is polite and reasonable is it TJ?

It is neither polite, nor reasonable. Is it any wonder Jimpy is sticking up for his club and their players after seeing your blatent prejudice?

I think you need to read a dictionary.

Look up the definitions of polite, reasonable and prejudice. I was polite, my point was reasonable and I do not show prejudice.

As you have been told before. I am not prejudiced against the english as you continually accuse me of being. I am english. It is perfectly reasonable to state an opinion as to why he got off with it as it has been seen before and others agree. t eh RFU citing panels consistently are more lenient than others. Anyone witout bias knows this.

Oh, your English. No wait, a naturalised Scot. Ahhh no, back to being English .... no hold on, naturalised Scot again. Sounds deluded to me.

If you think telling someone they 'need to read a dictionary' or that 'He should have got months off. Typical tho given the club and country he plays for and the league he was playing in' isn't rude (and bitter) then i was right in my assessment of you being prejudice. That's no reason or opinion, it's not objective, it is completely bias.

I am in the surprising position of actually agreeing with you that Flood should have taken a hit, but your reason that he got off lightly just due to his club & nation is weak sauce.

Aparently I said the same thing, but it was offensive.

with that I will just walk away from this. really alistair that is so weak. I have made no insults bar one minor one to Jimpy. I have been insulted multiple times by you and Jimpy. Latest you call me deluded. Nice rational polite debate

Can you explain how this is rude and who I am being rude to?

Typical tho given the club and country he plays for and the league he was playing in'

Jimpy wrote:

TJ wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

TJ wrote:That is a disgrace. He should have got months off. Typical tho given the club and country he plays for and the league he was playing in.

Of all the dangerous / tip tackles discussed on here recently that was by far the worst. How they can find him not guilty amazes me.

Does TJ stand for 'Richard Head'?

No need for personal insults because we have different opinions

Opinions are one thing but frothing at the mouth rants are another. Months off for a tip tackle? REALLY? How long was Warburton banned for for a much worse tackle? Was this REALLY the worst instance of a dangerous tip tackle discussed on here? Er, no it isn't, there have been much worse, the ongoing debate starting with Warburton in the last WC. It isn't typical of the club or country that he plays for that he wasn't banned, thats just complete nonsense - or you could try to prove it?

How they can find him not guilty is a little odd, I tend to agree he should have had a yellow card at the time and that be the end of it. It was a robust tackle and little else. But since it went to the Commissioner, it is reasonable to assume a ban was forthcoming. I would therefore have expected a 12 week ban, reduced to 6 for previous good conduct.

Jimpy, like the man said, pls leave off the insults - your response above is far more appropriate

Apologies, RDW, had t read to the bottom

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

TJ wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

TJ wrote:That is a disgrace. He should have got months off. Typical tho given the club and country he plays for and the league he was playing in.

Of all the dangerous / tip tackles discussed on here recently that was by far the worst. How they can find him not guilty amazes me.

Does TJ stand for 'Richard Head'?

No need for personal insults because we have different opinions

Opinions are one thing but frothing at the mouth rants are another. Months off for a tip tackle? REALLY? How long was Warburton banned for for a much worse tackle? Was this REALLY the worst instance of a dangerous tip tackle discussed on here? Er, no it isn't, there have been much worse, the ongoing debate starting with Warburton in the last WC. It isn't typical of the club or country that he plays for that he wasn't banned, thats just complete nonsense - or you could try to prove it?

How they can find him not guilty is a little odd, I tend to agree he should have had a yellow card at the time and that be the end of it. It was a robust tackle and little else. But since it went to the Commissioner, it is reasonable to assume a ban was forthcoming. I would therefore have expected a 12 week ban, reduced to 6 for previous good conduct.

Jimpy, like the man said, pls leave off the insults - your response above is far more appropriate

And far more balanced and less pejudiced I think you'll find

Well, that escalated quickly.

bluestonevedder wrote:Well, that escalated quickly.

A common problem on here!