Toby Flood cleared...

First topic message reminder :

... 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.

Especially when a player from Leicester or England is involved. Funny old thing that.

I think the reason Flood was cleared was the fact that even though he made the initial tackle, he was not the only one involved in the tackle. Warbs was and all the others cited as why Flood should be hanging fom tyburn row. Flood cannot be held accountable for others joining the tackles actions, hence we was cleared. Not to everyone ones liking due to perceived national bias

To be honest, I'd rather have Flood playing against us than Farrell or Burns, both of whom I rate much higher. The most impressive thing about Flood over this past year was his November 'tache.

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

Actually Chris Ashton got banned. He missed the Fiji game.

My opinion is that Flood should have got a low end ban - 1-2 weeks.

These sort of tackles are very debatable.

TJ why even pretend you are English? We know you're an Edinburgh fan.

I did mention last week that as the player didnt land on his head (initial impact came on the hand then arm) that the IRB guidance allows for a yellow card not a red card offence...even if it was felt he was resposnible for the way the tackle ended.

I see the usual conspiracy theorists are out in force ...ignoring that a non England player threw a wild punch and dropped a knee on a player yet never even got cited at all. Another non England player put his hand in the face of and opponent and didnt get cited either. All in the same game....and Im sure more too.
You could equally look at this as the high profile player getting dragged over the coals over a non incident which was blown up by some lurid press headlines.
Id be willing to bet 3 sausages that theres far more incidents involving non test players that go unpunished than there are test ones. The idea that citing boards are in cahoots with the England selectors is as insulting the notion that Andrew Hore was the yearly sacrifice by the Europeans authorities to appease the rabid fans who want SH blood.

beshocked 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

Actually Chris Ashton got banned. He missed the Fiji game.

My opinion is that Flood should have got a low end ban - 1-2 weeks.

These sort of tackles are very debatable.

TJ why even pretend you are English? We know you're an Edinburgh fan.

Because I am english? with an english name, an english accent and english parents and was born in england

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.

two things, What do you mean by the highlighted text above and what makes you think that's a worse tackle than any others?

We have discussed a number of these tip tackles in recent months. this one appears to be one of the worst if not the worst. Driven down and is head and neck took a lot of force.

tigers and England players appear to get lower sanctions following citings than other clubs and countries

TJ wrote:....

tigers and England players appear to get lower sanctions following citings than other clubs and countries

Without stats I find that claim a massively dubious. Especially since it's not that long ago that all & sundry were claiming that New Zealand international players got away with lower sanctions.

I think that with a little digging I could find examples of players in any of the top tier nations who got away with stuff, and examples of others who were excessively punished. It's only human nature to notice when it adversely affects a team you do support, or benefits one you don't.

TJ wrote:We have discussed a number of these tip tackles in recent months. this one appears to be one of the worst if not the worst. Driven down and is head and neck took a lot of force.

tigers and England players appear to get lower sanctions following citings than other clubs and countries

I have no idea how your working out that Tigers and England players get lower sanctions. There are that many variables that go into deciding a sanction, so it would be nigh on impossible to compare each one. But if you have, please give us some examples.

Your rating how bad a tackle is purely on how someone landed, your not taking into account the other players involved in the tackle. This isn't like the Warburton incident where it was two players in isolation.

There is little point in debating this. Many of us see this and think it so. When England players are citing somehow they are not suspended for important international matches. that is what some of us see.

TJ wrote:There is little point in debating this. Many of us see this and think it so. When England players are citing somehow they are not suspended for important international matches. that is what some of us see.

Well perhaps some of "you" are wrong then as you won't debate it.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

TJ wrote:....

tigers and England players appear to get lower sanctions following citings than other clubs and countries

Without stats I find that claim a massively dubious. Especially since it's not that long ago that all & sundry were claiming that New Zealand international players got away with lower sanctions.

I think that with a little digging I could find examples of players in any of the top tier nations who got away with stuff, and examples of others who were excessively punished. It's only human nature to notice when it adversely affects a team you do support, or benefits one you don't.

http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2012-13/rugby/story/175441.html

Has links to videos of all the recent tip tackles and sanctions received. Pay attention to the static lift, almost full 180 tip and dump that the player landed hard enough from to bounce off the turf and flip over from...all done after the player had offloaded the ball. Yellow card.

I dont get where this becomes the worst of the recent ones in anyones imagination, no matter how rabidly anti RFU/England/Tigers they are ( for whatever reason)

George Carlin wrote:To be honest, I'd rather have Flood playing against us than Farrell or Burns, both of whom I rate much higher. The most impressive thing about Flood over this past year was his November 'tache.

You're probably going to live to regret saying that.

TJ, when I asked about how this was consistent behaviour I meant specifics. Not just "it's happens all the time, you know it does". Give examples or you're effectively making it up. People often talk about this bias but you rarely get any actual examples.

Quite which would suggest theres a conspiracy against England to ensure he is available!

He will have to show some kind of form to get selected anyway. A ban and longer rest may also have done his long term prospects some good, Im still very concerened hes being rushed back from these ongoing injury problems.

nathan wrote:

TJ wrote:There is little point in debating this. Many of us see this and think it so. When England players are citing somehow they are not suspended for important international matches. that is what some of us see.

Well perhaps some of "you" are wrong then as you won't debate it.

+1

HammerofThunor wrote:TJ, when I asked about how this was consistent behaviour I meant specifics. Not just "it's happens all the time, you know it does". Give examples or you're effectively making it up. People often talk about this bias but you rarely get any actual examples.

Aston and Hartley? From memory both have got shorter suspensions or no citings than they might in the past despite poor disciplinary records and one of them got a suspension reduced for good behaviour! I remember one suspension that was shorter than expected conveniently ending just before an international when the usual tarrif would have been a week after. a fair outcry about this as well

I do take your point about examples tho - I will try and look into it further later on. I just want to avoid a further slanging match on here tho.

Why should the number of players involved in the tackle have any bearing on the illegality of it?

Does that mean that the infamous spear tackle on BOD was actually OK as there were two players that did it?

I wouldn't suggest that Toby Flood should have been banned, I am sure the disiplinary panel thought it through in an unbiased way and made the decision they did for good reasons. The problem I have is that the whole area of tip tackles just seems so open to interpretation and its confusing that intent to hurt doesn't seem to carry any more weight that clumsiness.

As a Blues fan its been consistenty impacting us over the past 15 months with Warburton, Bradley Davies and now Lloyd Williams all getting banned for it.

Bradley mistakenly thought it was part of his enforcers role to seek revenge for what he saw a a cheap shot and Lloyd was in a red mist because the opposition scrum half had just made him look an idiot by stealing our ball. Both picked up and drove the player into the floor and deserved to be banned. Sam, carried out a fairly standard tackle in a clumsy manner and wasn't holding the French player when he hit the ground, he got banned for being clumsy, maybe that is fair enough as we need players to constantly keep safety in mind.

But was Toby Flood any less clumsy than Sam, he was still holding Goode whose head made contact with the ground with both his own and Flood's weight pushing down on it, would it have been worse or better if he had let go? It must be impossible for players to always get these split second decisions correct. I think penalties should be the full punishment for clumsiness and bans reserved for those acting with clear intent

The Great Aukster wrote:Why should the number of players involved in the tackle have any bearing on the illegality of it?

Does that mean that the infamous spear tackle on BOD was actually OK as there were two players that did it?

I imagine it's because one of the players involved was on his own team.

And in this case the actions of others are possibly what caused the tip, including his own team mate who can be seen lifting Goodes hips.

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.

You hit the nail on the head and why I believe so many on here have a feeling that there is one rule for some and another for others.

The Great Aukster wrote:Why should the number of players involved in the tackle have any bearing on the illegality of it?

Does that mean that the infamous spear tackle on BOD was actually OK as there were two players that did it?

Bit different that as two players lifted BOD in a bit of synchronised dumping. Flood was the only player lifting Goode then others joined the tackle.

glamorganalun 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.

You hit the nail on the head and why I believe so many on here have a feeling that there is one rule for some and another for others.

Which similar tackles though, I haven't seen any recent ones that are similar.

glamorganalun 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.

You hit the nail on the head and why I believe so many on here have a feeling that there is one rule for some and another for others.

Quite right, why wasnt Goode cited for the deliberate knee drop or the punching, both of which we have seen England players banned for in recent times?

Nathan - there is a list of recent cases with video clips here http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2012-13/rugby/story/175441.html
One of them its at the side of a ruck and the collision with other players contributed to the tip,

Flood is certainly very lucky to get off on what amounts to a technicality and if this is the right interpretation then the BOD tackle would not have resulted in a citing or banning for the two involved under this rule

TJ wrote:Nathan - there is a list of recent cases with video clips here http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2012-13/rugby/story/175441.html
One of them its at the side of a ruck and the collision with other players contributed to the tip,

Flood is certainly very lucky to get off on what amounts to a technicality and if this is the right interpretation then the BOD tackle would not have resulted in a citing or banning for the two involved under this rule

How is that so, the BOD one and this one are different.

TJ wrote:Flood is certainly very lucky to get off on what amounts to a technicality and if this is the right interpretation then the BOD tackle would not have resulted in a citing or banning for the two involved under this rule

firstly it did not cause a citing or a ban.

Secondly how can you not see the major difference? The panel chair said there were players from BOTH sides contributing to the tip, not just Flood. It is the presence of Percival that creates the "technicality". With BOD two players from the same team picked him up (off the ball) turned him upside down and drove hime to the ground.

Now personally i believe the panel were wrong to remove all liability on flood and should have imposed at least a low end ban. Of course with good behaviour he would have had just 1 or 2 weeks off -which would have maddened people more.

Flood has got off ( we believe) because its not only his fault but others contributed to itso he was not soley to blame nor could it be certain that his actions caused the tip

On the BOD one how would you pick which of them was to blame? same situation. there is not a single person to place the blame on them

Look at the Haymans one in the link above

Londontiger - I know BOD tackle was not subject to a citing or ban - this revision / guidance was brought in since - but if the Flood ruling stands then neither of them would be banned under the rules as they are now

Newsilure wrote:I wouldn't suggest that Toby Flood should have been banned, I am sure the disiplinary panel thought it through in an unbiased way and made the decision they did for good reasons. The problem I have is that the whole area of tip tackles just seems so open to interpretation and its confusing that intent to hurt doesn't seem to carry any more weight that clumsiness.

As a Blues fan its been consistenty impacting us over the past 15 months with Warburton, Bradley Davies and now Lloyd Williams all getting banned for it.

Bradley mistakenly thought it was part of his enforcers role to seek revenge for what he saw a a cheap shot and Lloyd was in a red mist because the opposition scrum half had just made him look an idiot by stealing our ball. Both picked up and drove the player into the floor and deserved to be banned. Sam, carried out a fairly standard tackle in a clumsy manner and wasn't holding the French player when he hit the ground, he got banned for being clumsy, maybe that is fair enough as we need players to constantly keep safety in mind.

But was Toby Flood any less clumsy than Sam, he was still holding Goode whose head made contact with the ground with both his own and Flood's weight pushing down on it, would it have been worse or better if he had let go? It must be impossible for players to always get these split second decisions correct. I think penalties should be the full punishment for clumsiness and bans reserved for those acting with clear intent

Newsilure,

I think it is correct that intent is not considered when deciding if a tackle was dangerous or not. I think the whole point of making this kind of tackle illegal is to try to protect players as best we can. To do that the authorities have to try to deter anyone from picking up a player and dropping or driving them no matter what was going through their mind at the time. They want players to tackle in a way which keeps fellow players safe. Clearly there will always be risks involved in playing rugby but the powers that be have a responsibility to try to change players' behaviour to reduce risks where they can.

I think it is fair to try to assess intent when deciding on the length of any ban but not when deciding whether the tackle was legal or not. Not to be too dramatic about it but the tackled player's neck is just as broken whether the tackler deliberately picked him up or not.

glamorganalun 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.

You hit the nail on the head and why I believe so many on here have a feeling that there is one rule for some and another for others.

There is. It's an almighty lack of consistency within the disciplinary procedure itself across the board, which drastically needs to be adressed. It has nothing to do with which club you play for or which nation you represent, to suggest so would be laughable if it wasn't so sadly bitter.

TJ can you remind me how many players did get banned for the BOD clear out?

Its clearly far different anyway...both were obviously intent on lifting and dumping the player and responsible, in the case Flood wasnt. Nor was the player lifted anywhere near as high, tipped as far, or driven to the ground with as much force.

TJ wrote:Londontiger - I know BOD tackle was not subject to a citing or ban - this revision / guidance was brought in since - but if the Flood ruling stands then neither of them would be banned under the rules as they are now

no, no, no. You are still ignoring the key difference between the two. It was deemed that a player form Worcester, Percival, was involved in creating the tip tackle. This makes it very different.

LondonTiger wrote:

TJ wrote:Londontiger - I know BOD tackle was not subject to a citing or ban - this revision / guidance was brought in since - but if the Flood ruling stands then neither of them would be banned under the rules as they are now

no, no, no. You are still ignoring the key difference between the two. It was deemed that a player form Worcester, Percival, was involved in creating the tip tackle. This makes it very different.

We don't have the full details yet but my understanding is its because it could not be ascertained that Flood was purely to blame that he got off. The point being that unless its a single individual clearly to blame then no one can be found to be at fault

Alistair W - we know you think I am a prejudiced England hater despite being English myself. Now how about you drop it? Its both wrong and tiresome.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:TJ can you remind me how many players did get banned for the BOD clear out?.

No one - I never said they did. My point was that if Floods defence is valid then they still would not even under the law as it is now as it could not be ascertained which of them caused the tip.

TJ I will make one last attempt - you can choose fit to continuing to ignore.

A direct quote from the chairman of the disciplinary panel:

"Whilst we found that the elements of a dangerous tackle were made out, after very careful analysis we could not be satisfied, to that standard required, that the dynamics of the incident had not been caused, or contributed to, significantly by the involvement of other players from both teams."

I have made that last bit bold as it is the key - and the bit you keep ignoring.

Again I think they were wrong to absolve flood of all blame - but to describe it as the wort tip tackle in modern times and to demand a ban measuring months (as you did at the start of this thread) is ......

Indeed - OTHER players - from a reading of that it does not have to be both teams but simply other players or he would have said " a player from the opposing team"

I did not say that I said it was the worst of the recent ones we have discussed and yes a couple of months off would have been right I think - and in line with the tarrif and the fact he was not carded

Tiger - I am not ignoring this - I think the critical bit is the presence and actions of other players not what team they were from - thats my reading of that statement

Edit - if you look at the link vids this is not uncommon that other players are involved but others get bans.

TJ wrote:Indeed - OTHER players - from a reading of that it does not have to be both teams but simply other players or he would have said " a player from the opposing team"

I did not say that I said it was the worst of the recent ones we have discussed and yes a couple of months off would have been right I think - and in line with the tarrif and the fact he was not carded

Are you serious? Can you not even read to the end of a very short, highlighted in bold section?

wrfc1980 wrote: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.

WRFC1980 - I have to say I agree with you. I watched it live and it just looked like a bundle of people going over together. The crowd gave a bit of an 'OoooH!' as it went down but most of this was in response to it 'looking' like someone was pulling Goode by his hair. Watching it again on the replay and it you can clearly see several people, all involved in pulling and shoving on Goode, both Worcester players and Tigers players and this is what caused Goode to go over the way he did.

This is what the citing panel refer to and cleared Flood accordingly.

I think it was the right decision. But fully expect to be lambasted for that opinion and dismissed because I am a Tigers fan.

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:Indeed - OTHER players - from a reading of that it does not have to be both teams but simply other players or he would have said " a player from the opposing team"

I did not say that I said it was the worst of the recent ones we have discussed and yes a couple of months off would have been right I think - and in line with the tarrif and the fact he was not carded

Are you serious? Can you not even read to the end of a very short, highlighted in bold section?

Yes - its the presence of the other players not what team they are from that is the important thing. If it had only been the presence of the opposition player that makes it invalid then no mention of BOTH teams would have been needed.

TJ wrote:

Toadfish wrote:

TJ wrote:Indeed - OTHER players - from a reading of that it does not have to be both teams but simply other players or he would have said " a player from the opposing team"

I did not say that I said it was the worst of the recent ones we have discussed and yes a couple of months off would have been right I think - and in line with the tarrif and the fact he was not carded

Are you serious? Can you not even read to the end of a very short, highlighted in bold section?

Yes - its the presence of the other players not what team they are from that is the important thing. If it had only been the presence of the opposition player that makes it invalid then no mention of BOTH teams would have been needed.

So what do they do? They felt another player from each team was involved in the tackle. Do they just dump the blame on Toby Flood as he's standing in front of them?

TJ wrote:We have discussed a number of these tip tackles in recent months. this one appears to be one of the worst if not the worst. Driven down and is head and neck took a lot of force.

tigers and England players appear to get lower sanctions following citings than other clubs and countries

Really? I think it's the least worst, definitely the softest. Flood didn't act alone like the others, ie Warburton, B Davies per se. Personally I thought he'd get a couple of weeks at least.

That is indeed the point and why he was cleared. I understand why he was cleared but it leaves a nasty taste. It would have been better if it was a part of the mitigation perhaps.

In the clips linked to of other tip tackles for which people were banned in a couple of cases other players are involved as well. this was supposed to be strict liability. tip tackle someone and even if it was accidental you get punished - ie intent is not considered. this ruling has created a huge loophole which will be exploited in future I am sure and used as a precedent

"Worst" as in potential to harm.

I'm no rugby fan but I saw the tackle on SSN and actually thought it was the player next to Flood who instigated the downward motion. I'm sure I saw an angle on SSN which showed it perfectly.