| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
gerg_861 
World Cup Winner
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Location: Ealing
Status: Offline
Points: 2689
|
 Posted: 15 Nov 2019 at 06:09 |
|
|
 |
Guinness John
World Cup Winner
Joined: 21 May 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1300
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2019 at 09:15 |
|
A one match ban sets a really interesting benchmark for the future. I see it as a cop out. The fact that Temm was not badly injured seems to have been a mitigating factor. He could have had a broken neck just as easily.
|
|
Bedford Blues Supporter of the Year 2010 - 2011
|
|
Pappashanga
World Cup Winner
Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Location: Surrey
Status: Offline
Points: 2167
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2019 at 09:44 |
Yes i agree. It's a matter of sheer chance that the result of the foul play was not serious. Surely the offence should be judged by what it is, not by the lucky consequences. The wording of the judgment seems to me to very careful to minimise what happened. Yes we know the referee and co saw it, but the video is the key. Possibly favouring a well known player?
|
|
pappashanga
|
|
islander
World Cup Winner
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Location: jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 7598
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2019 at 09:58 |
Flood verdict, with link to full judgement:
|
|
corporalcarrot
World Cup Winner
Joined: 22 Sep 2013
Location: St Brelade
Status: Offline
Points: 4724
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2019 at 10:46 |
|
|
|
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.
|
|
gerg_861
World Cup Winner
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Location: Ealing
Status: Offline
Points: 2689
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2019 at 16:10 |
 islander wrote:
Flood verdict, with link to full judgement:
|
That judgement stinks, and I would argue that the logic is faulty. They cite a previous judgement as precedent to say that not all contact with the head or neck is definitely a mid-range entry point. However, they then follow that up not by claiming that the contact was incidental, but by stating that the contact with the head was actually with the ground consequential with being rolled out of the ruck. That makes no sense.
By that logic, I could pick someone up by the legs and tombstone piledriver their head into the ground, and that wouldn't require a mid-range entry point because the contact with the head was consequential to me driving him into the ground.
|
|
Pappashanga
World Cup Winner
Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Location: Surrey
Status: Offline
Points: 2167
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2019 at 16:33 |
|
I agree. Could have been written by his mother.
|
|
pappashanga
|
|
Cricks at 2
World Cup Winner
Joined: 08 Dec 2015
Location: Bedford
Status: Offline
Points: 535
|
Posted: 16 Nov 2019 at 09:16 |
gerg_861 wrote:
islander wrote:
Flood verdict, with link to full judgement:
|
That judgement stinks, and I would argue that the logic is faulty. They cite a previous judgement as precedent to say that not all contact with the head or neck is definitely a mid-range entry point. However, they then follow that up not by claiming that the contact was incidental, but by stating that the contact with the head was actually with the ground consequential with being rolled out of the ruck. That makes no sense.
By that logic, I could pick someone up by the legs and tombstone piledriver their head into the ground, and that wouldn't require a mid-range entry point because the contact with the head was consequential to me driving him into the ground. |
Totally agree, by using a precedent does that enable this ruling as another precedent for future citing? In that case, it is open season on dangerous play, with lesser consequences. Another team getting a six match player ban for the same offence, should rightly be hacked off.
|
|
KnightsBoy
World Cup Winner
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Location: Doncaster
Status: Offline
Points: 2877
|
Posted: 16 Nov 2019 at 09:30 |
|
Looks to me like big club bias, it stinks.
|
|
Bluesman11
World Cup Winner
Joined: 13 May 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1122
|
Posted: 16 Nov 2019 at 09:36 |
|
Also can’t comprehend why the forearm smash wasn’t cited or referred to in that citing. I think that one was worse and a more obvious red. He also seems to be mitigated by the fact the TMO saw it and did nothing. Not sure why David Grashoff’s complete incompetence is a mitigating factor. Another mitigating factor seems to be he is an experienced international. Again, I don’t understand why that matters. If say Lewis Robling had done the same thing would he be punished more harshly because he hasn’t played for his country?
|
|
Championship Prediction League Winner 11/12
|
|
Tweet
Citings