Marler Banned

by Allty Tue 05 Apr 2016, 9:49 pm

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/35967459

by HammerofThunor Tue 26 Apr 2016, 10:00 am

I remember several Irish supporters unhappy with Sexton and saying he should have been penalised as well.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Apr 2016, 10:19 am

Retaliation is always going to get more heat than the initial offence, which is rarely picked up or penalised. Players simply have to accept they are going to be held at the moment; it's a win win for the defenders. When they do get noticed it's because someone has reacted and the pen is going to get reversed anyway.

by Cyril Tue 26 Apr 2016, 10:33 am

Unless you card an offender for holding or other 'cynical' offences (which they generally don't deserve unless there are specific circumstances like stopping a likely try etc) there isn't really a way to punish the initial offender once you've reversed the penalty.

by beshocked Tue 26 Apr 2016, 10:34 am

hammerofthunor the problem was the same as this one - Sexton was in the wrong but what the Scottish player did was worse.

no 7 & 1/2 surely it should be the ref or assistants' job to pick up offences like that.

Let's be honest refs miss so much anyway. Crooked lineouts and crooked feeds are still common place.

Mcintyre got away with running into Goode. I have no sympathy for him. Fortunately Goode wasn't badly injured though Mcintyre rocked him badly.

It's important to get the ref on your side and Itoje is good at that,he doesn't complain, just gets on with the game. Also is a good mediator. He's a well respected leader already and he's only 21.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Apr 2016, 10:38 am

It definitely is beshocked, but at the moment it's at every ruck (all teams) and very rarely picked up. I had to chuckle at Poite when he said he was going to penalise Itoje until the retaliation, no he didn't even see it. And there's the problem at the moment, it's an accepted part of the game by coaches and officials. Players have to keep their cool and accept they are out of the game.

The Goode thing wasn't even a foul, players are allowed to charge down still, it's just you rarely see a 19 stone prop get the chance!

by munkian Tue 26 Apr 2016, 10:39 am

Just a pity he plays for such a cynical side at both levels

by beshocked Tue 26 Apr 2016, 10:59 am

no 7 & 1/2 surely you aren't allowed to take out an opposition player. If you get the timing wrong then you should be punished.

I don't think it was Farrell's intention to injure Robson as Robson was slipping at the time but he got a YC deservedly.

Cynical side? Laugh

I would say all sides cheat just some players/teams are better at it.

Playing the ref well is an important part of the game whether you like it or not.

Interpretations of the same incident can differ from ref to ref too.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Apr 2016, 11:04 am

Think it's down to whether you've committed yourself or not personally. There is the argument to say that if you make contact with a player without the ball it's a foul but players would then play for the easy foul.

by munkian Tue 26 Apr 2016, 11:07 am

My personal bug bear is players being taken out beyond the ruck - you especially see some Irish sides doing it and its almost like watching NFL.

I think Scott Quinnell mentioned something about it too at halftime.

by beshocked Tue 26 Apr 2016, 11:10 am

Just means that you can run into an opposition player and not be punished. Oh I was committed... not my fault guv... despite him almost injuring Goode.

If you make a clumsy challenge you should be punished in my opinion.

It's a timing thing, needs to be spot on.

Would stop opposition from cynically trying to block the opposition or take them out if they can be penalised for it.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Apr 2016, 11:16 am

If a player is late and is committing themselves after the ball has gone fair enough, foul. It takes some time to commit yourself to a tackle or a charge down etc, it would be quite easy to buy a penalty for your team if you just have to get rid of the ball before the opposition touch you.

I take it the blocking thing is around Ashton and Watson the other week?

by beshocked Tue 26 Apr 2016, 11:31 am

My point is that a player has to have some awareness and not just come steaming in because that can lead to injuries.

I thought what Mcintyre did was reckless. Get your timing/technique wrong and you could be in trouble.

It's not just about Ashton and Watson it's any blocking, foul play. in my opinion every team does it.

Well if you get rid of the ball before the opposition touches you it encourages the player with the ball to get rid of the ball quicker or maybe even hold the ball in hand if the oppostion can't come steaming in.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Apr 2016, 11:51 am

Don't think it's workable myself. PLayers would quickly take the spirit of the law and twist it. You wouldn't be able to make tackles or charge down for fear the player just throws the ball into empty space and get a pen. We'd just be playing touch rugby.

by HammerofThunor Tue 26 Apr 2016, 12:18 pm

beshocked wrote:My point is that a player has to have some awareness and not just come steaming in because that can lead to injuries.

I thought what Mcintyre did was reckless. Get your timing/technique wrong and you could be in trouble.

It's not just about Ashton and Watson it's any blocking, foul play. in my opinion every team does it.

Well if you get rid of the ball before the opposition touches you it encourages the player with the ball to get rid of the ball quicker or maybe even hold the ball in hand if the oppostion can't come steaming in.

You seem to be responding as though people are saying McIntyre has been harshly treated or should have been let off. I haven't seen anyone say that. What they've said is that Itoje should have got with a penalty offence because someone retaliated. What I would do is yellow card minimum all retaliation and keep the original offence as well.

by nlpnlp Tue 26 Apr 2016, 1:04 pm

I am sorry but Heguy fully caused the incident with Marler and I would guess did so quite deliberately to get a reaction. Also Itoje, who has been guilty of this a few times this season. I am tempted to say that if a player does what Heguy and Itoje did then they deserve whatever they get, but in these pc days that isn't acceptable. I think McIntyre should have been red card as pathetic as the 'kick' was and Itoje should have been yellow carded for cynical foul play. Until players are carded for this holding on and taking out off the ball, they will continue to do it. What Marler and McIntyre did was unacceptable, but you need to stop other 'professional players' putting them into that situation where they react.

I thought the charge down incident by McIntrye was marginal, but there was no deviation in his direction of travel and no flicking out of an arm or leg to make contact. It could have caused a nasty injury to Goode, but that is rugby. I don't think Goode has the right to expect no challenge there - what if he had dummied the kick and sidestepped McIntyre - McIntyre would get pilloried for not making a challenge.

by Knowsit17 Tue 26 Apr 2016, 1:24 pm

nlpnlp wrote:I am sorry but Heguy fully caused the incident with Marler and I would guess did so quite deliberately to get a reaction. Also Itoje, who has been guilty of this a few times this season. I am tempted to say that if a player does what Heguy and Itoje did then they deserve whatever they get, but in these pc days that isn't acceptable. I think McIntyre should have been red card as pathetic as the 'kick' was and Itoje should have been yellow carded for cynical foul play. Until players are carded for this holding on and taking out off the ball, they will continue to do it. What Marler and McIntyre did was unacceptable, but you need to stop other 'professional players' putting them into that situation where they react.

I thought the charge down incident by McIntrye was marginal, but there was no deviation in his direction of travel and no flicking out of an arm or leg to make contact. It could have caused a nasty injury to Goode, but that is rugby. I don't think Goode has the right to expect no challenge there - what if he had dummied the kick and sidestepped McIntyre - McIntyre would get pilloried for not making a challenge.

The first paragraph is interesting. Often it is the case that the so-called 'victim' of foul play is the one who sets the incident in motion to begin with. Through deliberately holding the man without the ball say. It's a form of rugby craftiness which has been going on almost for time immemorial. Typically experienced forwards will do whatever they can when they know the ref isn't looking in order to provoke an extreme heat-of-the-moment reaction from the opposition. It's actually fairly rare to see players lashing out for no reason.

You're right of course, it is cynical play and should probably be looked at. However it's hard to say which to blame more, the cynical provocation or the extreme lack of restraint in the 'provoked' party. You see many professional players who know the mind game inside out and have little trouble resisting the urge to retaliate. Players like Marler and McIntyre really need to take a leaf out of that book.

by The Great Aukster Tue 26 Apr 2016, 1:52 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
beshocked wrote:My point is that a player has to have some awareness and not just come steaming in because that can lead to injuries.

I thought what Mcintyre did was reckless. Get your timing/technique wrong and you could be in trouble.

It's not just about Ashton and Watson it's any blocking, foul play. in my opinion every team does it.

Well if you get rid of the ball before the opposition touches you it encourages the player with the ball to get rid of the ball quicker or maybe even hold the ball in hand if the oppostion can't come steaming in.

You seem to be responding as though people are saying McIntyre has been harshly treated or should have been let off. I haven't seen anyone say that. What they've said is that Itoje should have got with a penalty offence because someone retaliated. What I would do is yellow card minimum all retaliation and keep the original offence as well.

I like this idea thumbsup

Keeping the original offence as a minimum reduces the attractiveness to the perpetrator, because if he elicits retaliation it will also highlight his penalty offence. The problem still remains though with cheating not being picked up by the officials. In ye olde days guys would have sorted out the boundaries off the ball, but with cameras everywhere they will just get cited and so there needs to be another mechanism.

One solution might be to give each captain one incident review per game (similar to cricket). So if a player is being fouled he can alert his captain who then asks the ref/tmo to review the incident. At least the risk of getting caught would increase and again hopefully discourage cynical play.

by Jimpy Tue 26 Apr 2016, 1:58 pm

The low-end is four weeks for Marler's offence. The fact that he's just returned from a ban will preclude him training with (and therefore playing for) England this Summer.

Farrell is going to get 2 - 3 weeks I'd imagine (2 weeks being the minimum) so his chances for England are likely to be unchanged.

by beshocked Tue 26 Apr 2016, 2:09 pm

Hammerofthunor holding onto someone's foot is not generally a YC card offence in my opinion. It's no worse than a neck roll for example which is only a penalty offence. Less dangerous too.

nlplp encourage people to kick people in the head. Bravo.... clap

Seems like you happily want to see players get injured.

You are right, there was no effort made to pull out of the collision. You say it's tough on Goode if he's injured, I didn't feel that way about Robson, I felt sympathy for him when Farrell Jr poleaxed him. Even though Robson was falling at the time, it was still a clumsy challenge which injured Robson. Surprised you haven't blamed Robson for slipping... If Robson didn't slip it would have been a clean hit.

You can challenge someone but it has to be a clean challenge, can't take out people. Unless you want to see high tackles and taking out kickers be the norm. My own team does stuff like that too and it's not right.

Knowsit17 not every player reacts.

Jimpy we'll see.

by munkian Tue 26 Apr 2016, 2:11 pm

Jimpy wrote:The low-end is four weeks for Marler's offence. The fact that he's just returned from a ban will preclude him training with (and therefore playing for) England this Summer.

Farrell is going to get 2 - 3 weeks I'd imagine (2 weeks being the minimum) so his chances for England are likely to be unchanged.

You forget about law 5 section 2 Paragraph B

A player's ban can be considerably reduced if premium biscuits are brought to the citing hearing, especially if he is 'not that sort of player'

by munkian Tue 26 Apr 2016, 2:12 pm

beshocked wrote:Hammerofthunor holding onto someone's foot is not generally a YC card offence in my opinion. It's no worse than a neck roll for example which is only a penalty offence. Less dangerous too.

nlplp encourage people to kick people in the head. Bravo.... Seems like you happily want to see players get injured.

You are right, there was no effort made to pull out of the collision. You say it's tough on Goode if he's injured, I didn't feel that way about Robson, I felt sympathy for him when Farrell Jr poleaxed him. Even though Robson was falling at the time, it was still a clumsy challenge which injured Robson. Surprised you haven't blamed Robson for slipping... If Robson didn't slip it would have been a clean hit.

You can challenge someone but it has to be a clean challenge, can't take out people. Unless you want to see high tackles and taking out kickers be the norm. My own team does stuff like that too and it's not right.

Knowsit17 not every player reacts.

I'm sure I've seen players carded for holding onto defenders in rucks before... its a professional foul.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Apr 2016, 2:15 pm

Tbf McIntyre was in the air trying to block a kick. Comes back to shall we stop players from jumping. Bit different to Farrells no arms tackle just after he'd be warned.

by Knowsit17 Tue 26 Apr 2016, 2:20 pm

I know not every player reacts, which is why I said Marler and McIntyre need to take a leaf from the book of players with greater composure and restraint.

by beshocked Tue 26 Apr 2016, 2:32 pm

Munkian surely it would depend on the situtation, let's say preventing quick release in the opposition half or when the penalty count has got to a certain level. Neither relevant in this.

no 7 & 1/2 Great way to block a kick is to take out the opposition... It doesn't matter what he tried to do. It's what he did.

Farrell Jr tried to tackle Robson

Knowsit17 I agree a ban would do both some good.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Apr 2016, 3:36 pm

Well it's within the rules to do what McIntyre did and not within the rules to do no a no arms high (granted the player was going down) tackle after just being warned.

by beshocked Tue 26 Apr 2016, 3:59 pm

Well it's hard to a regulation tackle when the other person is falling down.... When he lines him up he's not expecting him to duck down/slip.

Within the rules to take out someone late.... good to know... Should encourage more of it...

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Apr 2016, 4:52 pm

If you're committed yes it is.

You could make a slight case for Farrell being unlucky but he led with the shoulder he was putting himself in a awkward place.

by cakeordeath Wed 27 Apr 2016, 1:33 pm

munkian wrote:My personal bug bear is players being taken out beyond the ruck - you especially see some Irish sides doing it and its almost like watching NFL.

I think Scott Quinnell mentioned something about it too at halftime.

So much this. I see it all the time and it really hacks me off

by munkian Wed 27 Apr 2016, 2:32 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/36150588

2 week ban - free to play in final 'shocker'

by Guest Wed 27 Apr 2016, 2:42 pm

Bit of a strange one.

by munkian Wed 27 Apr 2016, 2:43 pm

Munchkin wrote:Bit of a strange one.

In what way ?

by PenfroPete Wed 27 Apr 2016, 2:51 pm

Must have a brought some really, really nice biscuits and not eaten any himself, or was it the 'heat of the moment' ?

by Guest Wed 27 Apr 2016, 2:52 pm

munkian wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Bit of a strange one.

In what way ?

McIntyre admits he committed a foul that was worthy of a red card, and gets two weeks, reduced from four, for previous good record. Marler admits he committed a foul, but doesn't agree it was worthy of a red card, and gets two weeks, even though he doesn't have a previous good record. Although the citing panel dismiss Marlers last offence (the gypsy slur), because it was of a different nature, they don't give the reason 'previous good behaviour', because it simply doesn't apply to him, and ignore that Marler didn't agree that it was a red card offence.

by PenfroPete Wed 27 Apr 2016, 2:53 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/apr/27/joe-marler-hit-two-week-ban-cited-kicking-arnaud-heguy-harlequins-grenoble-rugby-union

Marler, 25, was reported by the match citing commissioner Iain Goodall following the first-half incident involving Héguy at the Stoop five days ago. The disciplinary committee, though, disregarded the Quins prop’s earlier two-week suspension because it was “of an entirely different nature”.

In a statement, EPCR said: “A disciplinary committee consisting of Roger Morris [Wales], chairman, Simon Thomas [Wales] and Kathrine Mackie [Scotland] heard evidence and submissions from Marler, who accepted that he had committed an act of foul play but who did not accept that the foul play warranted a red card, and from Richard Smith QC on behalf of Marler.

“The committee also heard evidence and submissions from the EPCR disciplinary officer, Liam McTiernan. In upholding the citing complaint, the committee found that Marler had committed an act of foul play that warranted a red card. It determined that the offence was at the low end of World Rugby’s sanctions and selected four weeks as the appropriate entry point.

“In deciding to disregard the player’s recent suspension as it was of an entirely different nature, the committee then reduced the sanction by two weeks – 50 per cent of the entry point – before imposing a suspension of two weeks

by SecretFly Wed 27 Apr 2016, 2:59 pm

Oh bethejeepers............. I'm going to have a lot of fun using that one over the next few years.

Entirely Different Nature.

It's an argument killer. It's an absolute Gold-plated Get-Out-Of-Jail card.

"Yeah....but he...........!!!"

" 'But he' nothing! That was an entirely different nature." Cool

by munkian Wed 27 Apr 2016, 3:03 pm

Its up there with 'heat of the moment' Whistle

by SecretFly Wed 27 Apr 2016, 3:09 pm

That's an entirely different nature though, Munkian.

by munkian Wed 27 Apr 2016, 3:10 pm

SecretFly wrote:That's an entirely different nature though, Munkian.

Ah, Jesus, I look like a right eejit now Sad

by **RiscaGame** Wed 27 Apr 2016, 3:13 pm

It is an entirely different nature to what he got banned for, but not an entirely different matter to striking a player on the floor (as he did with Rob Evans). Ah well, I'm sure he will use his banning period wisely, like he did the last one.

by exile jack Wed 27 Apr 2016, 3:29 pm

If you are French it would be understandable if you thought something didn't feel quite right here.You could also understand the FFR President asking World Rugby how a kick to the head merited only a 2 weeks ban.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 27 Apr 2016, 3:34 pm

Given how the French have recently taken the mick in appealing bans domestically handed out from Euro comp I'd like to think they'd keep their heads down.

by lostinwales Wed 27 Apr 2016, 3:57 pm

Because it wasn't a violent kick to the head but a nasty shinning? It was very dumb of Marler but it was at the low end as far as dangerous play goes.

by SecretFly Wed 27 Apr 2016, 4:07 pm

he likes the low end, does Marler.... Whistle

by PenfroPete Wed 27 Apr 2016, 4:12 pm

lostinwales wrote:Because it wasn't a violent kick to the head but a nasty shinning? It was very dumb of Marler but it was at the low end as far as dangerous play goes.

In upholding the citing complaint, the committee found that Marler had committed an act of foul play that warranted a red card. It determined that the offence was at the low end of World Rugby’s sanctions and selected four weeks as the appropriate entry point.

by exile jack Wed 27 Apr 2016, 4:15 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Given how the French have recently taken the mick in appealing bans domestically handed out from Euro comp I'd like to think they'd keep their heads down.

From recent evidence i'm not sure i'd want to put my head,or any other body part,down in front of Joe M.The French case you refer to is interesting in two respects.Firstly,the case fell on a legal technicality concerning 'evidence' under French law.Secondly, you would think any professional rugby disciplinary process would be compliant with the legal jurisdiction in which an offence took place.I note that Joe M was represented by one of the UK's leading Queen's Counsel but he failed to get the citing dismissed on legal grounds.I agree that the disciplinary processes more generally need serious review because the anomalies are increasing.Rather than pfaffing about rules changes WR should focus on improving the credibility of the citing and sanction process.

Perhaps another way of looking at this incident is to avoid use of the words 'Marler','English' and 'French' and state that a top professional rugby player kicked another top professional rugby player,was cited and found guilty,and was given a ban of 2 weeks.Doesn't quite hit the right note for me.

by HammerofThunor Wed 27 Apr 2016, 4:50 pm

I blame the Welsh and Scot.

by doctor_grey Wed 27 Apr 2016, 5:06 pm

SecretFly wrote:Oh bethejeepers............. I'm going to have a lot of fun using that one over the next few years.

Entirely Different Nature.

It's an argument killer. It's an absolute Gold-plated Get-Out-Of-Jail card.

"Yeah....but he...........!!!"

" 'But he' nothing! That was an entirely different nature."

Exactly!
Kind of like having sex with a married women.
But it didn't count - because it was sex 'of an entirely different nature'.............

Cool.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 27 Apr 2016, 5:23 pm

PenfroPete wrote:In upholding the citing complaint, the committee found that Marler had committed an act of foul play that warranted a red card. It determined that the offence was at the low end of World Rugby’s sanctions and selected four weeks as the appropriate entry point.

So what was the two-week reduction actually for? It couldn't have been for contrition if Marler 'did not accept that the foul play warranted a red card'.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 27 Apr 2016, 5:52 pm

exile jack wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Given how the French have recently taken the mick in appealing bans domestically handed out from Euro comp I'd like to think they'd keep their heads down.

From recent evidence i'm not sure i'd want to put my head,or any other body part,down in front of Joe M.The French case you refer to is interesting in two respects.Firstly,the case fell on a legal technicality concerning 'evidence' under French law.Secondly, you would think any professional rugby disciplinary process would be compliant with the legal jurisdiction in which an offence took place.I note that Joe M was represented by one of the UK's leading Queen's Counsel but he failed to get the citing dismissed on legal grounds.I agree that the disciplinary processes more generally need serious review because the anomalies are increasing.Rather than pfaffing about rules changes WR should focus on improving the credibility of the citing and sanction process.

Perhaps another way of looking at this incident is to avoid use of the words 'Marler','English' and 'French' and state that a top professional rugby player kicked another top professional rugby player,was cited and found guilty,and was given a ban of 2 weeks.Doesn't quite hit the right note for me.

Both kicks this weekend weren't full blooded, if they were both would be looking at longer bans.

by PenfroPete Wed 27 Apr 2016, 5:54 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
PenfroPete wrote:In upholding the citing complaint, the committee found that Marler had committed an act of foul play that warranted a red card. It determined that the offence was at the low end of World Rugby’s sanctions and selected four weeks as the appropriate entry point.

So what was the two-week reduction actually for? It couldn't have been for contrition if Marler 'did not accept that the foul play warranted a red card'.

The Lord (and the 3 Wise Monkey's) alone know Lucky Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content