Should Lawes be cited for knee on Ledesma?

First topic message reminder :

Lot of discussion on Setanta - predictably not a mention on the rose-fixated ITV - on whether Lawes should (will) be cited for his "tackle" on Ledesma, Replays show pretty clearly that Lawes lead with his knee to Ledesma's head when Ledesma was on the ground and already out of play. There was no need to tackle Ledesma never m ind lead with the knee. Given how much the Argies love the English won't be surprised if he's cited. A

And please, my English friends, before you jump up in indignation go watch the playback.

The thing with major competitions is that all the matches are quite close together and any ban will set a precedence,
So I take it that 2 match ban will be the norm during the world cup for this type of offence.

whocares wrote:it's sad but I partly agree with TGG... what is the point of having rules and if they are bended on time to time when big players or nations are involved and there is some potential marketing/media attention.

back to Lawes, not judging wether or not he deserved to be banned but as long as he's cited and found guilty, why not apply the rule?

"excellent disciplinary record" : well if he seems to always get away easily, am not surprised he still has a good disciplinary record , he might keep on breaking scrum-halves shoulders (Parra 2 years ago) and doing late tackles.
he's probably not a thug but still remains potentially dangerous to other players if keeps on not controlling himself and I have yet to find evidence of Lawes "moderating his behaviour".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAB9jlyE7Q4

What is wrong with that tackle? It wasn't high, or late, and he wraps his arms. It is a shame that Parra got injured but there is nothing wrong with the tackle.

Some people "bordering on ignorance' just seem to have made their minds up that he is a thug and twist facts to suit their prejudice.

Is there a video clip available?

I saw the game but didn't record it.

I really would like to review the incident.

No it won't. It'll be 3 weeks. That was the entry level it was given. the one week reduction was specific to this instance with this player. that's how it's usually done. They look for precedence for entry level

Portnoy wrote:Is there a video clip available?

I saw the game but didn't record it.

I really would like to review the incident.

Is it not still on itv player?

Posted on another topic (about the match ball): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EAWdb7ALGE

Should the Romanian player at the start of this clip be banned for striking with the elbow? If you're banning Lawes, you've got to ban him too.

Lawes is being punished purely because Ledesma got injured. If Ledesma had have stood up and played on, then this wouldn't have been an issue. But because Ledesma is hurt people are trying to apportion blame.

Lawes is a hard, physical player, but rugby is a hard, physical game. No way should he be banned. Next thing you know we'll be playing in tutus.

Justice4.

Rugby is also played on the field touchline is for officials,,,,When a player goes into touch he is out of play so should not be tackled.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Is there a video clip available?

I saw the game but didn't record it.

I really would like to review the incident.

Is it not still on itv player?

Can't find it...

If lawes was actually a kiwi he would show no remorse and then appeal the decision ala Kevin "it was an accident" Mealamu. At least he has some guts to take it on the chin. He probably should have admitted his guilt though at least he showed remorse for injuring the guy.

http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=271643
38 min into game.

Cymroglan wrote:Rugby is also played on the field touchline is for officials,,,,When a player goes into touch he is out of play so should not be tackled.

So should the Romanian player be cited? Once the ball was grounded and the try was scored, the try-scoring player shouldn't be tackled.

@ Cymroglan

“When a player goes into touch he is out of play so should not be tackled”

What about when they are over the try-line and have put the ball down…can you still play the man? robbo277 does make a valid point.

I posted earlier about the new trend to dive/slide on a player to disrupt a try. Where do you draw the line?

The remorse he feels is for himself, unless he accepts guilt first.

The thing that bothers me is that "It was an accident, I didn't mean to" is apparently a "mitigating factor".

Two weeks ago it was Cooper who "accidently kicked McCaw in the head" but "didn't mean to". This week it was Lawes "accidentally" kneeing a guy in the chest.

If it had been one of the Tongans, or a Samoan, or a Fijian he would have got something like 5 or 6 weeks and everyone would be making borderline racist comments like "These Islanders really need to work on their discipline".

Frankly, resorting to foul play under pressure is just part of the negative cynical anti-rugby that is brought to the table by certain countries. The judiciaries failure to act is similar a referees hesistance to immediately issue a yellow card for the obvious professional fouls that some countries deliberately concede early in the game on the basis that "3 is better than 7".

If it breaks the laws of the game then yes of course he should..I don't do the blinked stuff any player who is a dirty player irrespective of his nationality should be punished.
I want my game to be hard and physical but I also want the players to understand they will be severely punished if caught using dirty tactics.

TheGreyGhost...I take it no one in a Kiwi shirt has ever done anything cynical on the pitch its just us Pommie's eh.

"So I take it that 2 match ban will be the norm during the world cup for this type of offence."

If it is the lowest end, with mitigating factors, with no previous conviction and remorse shown evn though they do not think they are guilty, then yes it will probably be two weeks. If not then the lowest end is 3 weeks/games at RWC.

robbo277 wrote:
Lawes is being punished purely because Ledesma got injured. If Ledesma had have stood up and played on, then this wouldn't have been an issue. But because Ledesma is hurt people are trying to apportion blame.

Justice4.

I think you're probably right here, the fact that Ledesma was hurt certainly makes the incident look worse - though we can't blame Ledesma for that!

This raises a point that I've always questioned. Players tend to get punished for the end result of foul play rather than their initial intention or action. Put simply, if a playe rthrows a punch and misses then he probably gets a telling off from the ref, but if he throws a punch, makes contact and the 'victim' hits the ground, then the culrpit is likely to get a lengthy ban.

Anyone know how these things are officially judged - is it intent or end result, or both?

The WarLord Mashaka wrote:What I’m looking forward to is the role reversal when say an Irish, SA, Welsh or NZ player is in the Dock for something not as sinister as the ‘moral high-grounders’ are suggesting this is.

Will they adamantly defend their own team’s player or call for him to be hung, drawn and quartered?

CL has been found guilty and punished appropriately…what is this ‘The Spanish Inquisition’ cause if so where is Monty Python?

you can keep us out of that one Warlord. We never said anything. We have no leg to stand on when it comes to

TheGreyGhost wrote:Frankly, resorting to foul play under pressure is just part of the negative cynical anti-rugby that is brought to the table by certain countries. The judiciaries failure to act is similar a referees hesistance to immediately issue a yellow card for the obvious professional fouls that some countries deliberately concede early in the game on the basis that "3 is better than 7".

To be fair though GG Tonga still wouldve lost if theyd carded Cowan or if hed let them score a try even under the Cueto rule. England still managed their win too despite the 15 penaties conceded by an Argentinian side intent on not letting them play.
Lets not get too wound up by it.

rugbyfan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:
Lawes is being punished purely because Ledesma got injured. If Ledesma had have stood up and played on, then this wouldn't have been an issue. But because Ledesma is hurt people are trying to apportion blame.

Justice4.

I think you're probably right here, the fact that Ledesma was hurt certainly makes the incident look worse - though we can't blame Ledesma for that!

This raises a point that I've always questioned. Players tend to get punished for the end result of foul play rather than their initial intention or action. Put simply, if a playe rthrows a punch and misses then he probably gets a telling off from the ref, but if he throws a punch, makes contact and the 'victim' hits the ground, then the culrpit is likely to get a lengthy ban.

Anyone know how these things are officially judged - is it intent or end result, or both?

I definitely wasn't trying to blame Ledesma, I don't think he would have stayed down unless he was genuinely hurt.

I think it's meant to be on original action. If you tackle someone hard and fair and they get hurt, then you shouldn't receive any punishment. But I think injuries do sway people's opinion and do possibly highlight certain incidents. Had Ledesma not been hurt and have played on, I don't think the citing commissioner would have given the incident a second glance.

Dr Kenneth Noisewater wrote:

whocares wrote:"excellent disciplinary record" : well if he seems to always get away easily, am not surprised he still has a good disciplinary record , he might keep on breaking scrum-halves shoulders (Parra 2 years ago) and doing late tackles.
he's probably not a thug but still remains potentially dangerous to other players if keeps on not controlling himself and I have yet to find evidence of Lawes "moderating his behaviour".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAB9jlyE7Q4

What is wrong with that tackle? It wasn't high, or late, and he wraps his arms. It is a shame that Parra got injured but there is nothing wrong with the tackle.

Some people "bordering on ignorance' just seem to have made their minds up that he is a thug and twist facts to suit their prejudice.

true nothing wrong "technically" with this tackle - was more an example of Lawes potential dangerousity -
nowhere I say he's a thug but you cant hide that he's reckless.

oh and next time you talk about "bordering on ignorance' , try to put the right video (parra was playing for bourgouin not montpelier) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhB31tI-qlg

you will see that the tackle from the side although not illegal is quite dangerous and probably with malicious intent.

thanks

@Cymroglan
Not insinuating you were but as I said it is a growing trend to desperately slide at an opponent to stop a try (all teams do it now, even if the try is almost certain).

Just sometimes elbows/knees/shoulders can catch the opponent. Lawes did this and is being punished just hope the IRB can be consistent.

The WarLord Mashaka wrote:@Cymroglan
Not insinuating you were but as I said it is a growing trend to desperately slide at an opponent to stop a try (all teams do it now, even if the try is almost certain).

Just sometimes elbows/knees/shoulders can catch the opponent. Lawes did this and is being punished just hope the IRB can be consistent.

+1 We are both in agreement there.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Frankly, resorting to foul play under pressure is just part of the negative cynical anti-rugby that is brought to the table by certain countries. The judiciaries failure to act is similar a referees hesistance to immediately issue a yellow card for the obvious professional fouls that some countries deliberately concede early in the game on the basis that "3 is better than 7".

To be fair though GG Tonga still wouldve lost if theyd carded Cowan or if hed let them score a try even under the Cueto rule. England still managed their win too despite the 15 penaties conceded by an Argentinian side intent on not letting them play.
Lets not get too wound up by it.

Seabiscuit, the thing with some teams is that you find they consistently concede the same kind of offence, in the same areas of the field, under the same circumstances. It's so tired and predictable and annoying that as soon as a team gets into some teams 22, there is a member of some team throwing themselves in from the side, off their feet, and just obviously deliberately making no attempt to play by the laws of the game. Some teams do this consistently in every single game until they get a team warning and then magically seem to be able to restrain themselves. You'll find that this almost coincides with when some teams concede their first try. It annoys me that referees are so stupid that they let some teams get away with this consistently for half of the game, or more.

I think a bold referee has to just take the attitude: sorry, but that was a professional foul obviously conceded for fear of conceding a try. I don't care it's the first penalty of the game, I don't care the game is 2 minutes old. Yellow card. Until they do, some teams will continue doing it, then bragging about their hollow one or two point victories and claiming they played "finals rugby" and "dominated the game".

:s/some teams/england/g

whocares wrote:

Dr Kenneth Noisewater wrote:

whocares wrote:"excellent disciplinary record" : well if he seems to always get away easily, am not surprised he still has a good disciplinary record , he might keep on breaking scrum-halves shoulders (Parra 2 years ago) and doing late tackles.
he's probably not a thug but still remains potentially dangerous to other players if keeps on not controlling himself and I have yet to find evidence of Lawes "moderating his behaviour".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAB9jlyE7Q4

What is wrong with that tackle? It wasn't high, or late, and he wraps his arms. It is a shame that Parra got injured but there is nothing wrong with the tackle.

Some people "bordering on ignorance' just seem to have made their minds up that he is a thug and twist facts to suit their prejudice.

true nothing wrong "technically" with this tackle - was more an example of Lawes potential dangerousity -
nowhere I say he's a thug but you cant hide that he's reckless.

oh and next time you talk about "bordering on ignorance' , try to put the right video (parra was playing for bourgouin not montpelier) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhB31tI-qlg

you will see that the tackle from the side although not illegal is quite dangerous and probably with malicious intent.

thanks

Oops - correct. My bad.

But we've now shown two hard but fair tackles and thus supporting that whilst he's injured people, they were with hard & fair tackles (albeit miniature scrum halfs).

@biltongbek sorry not referring to you or in fact all supporters from those countries just those harping on…also had a look at the Keo website and over there they are making it sound like Lawes repeatedly kicked him.

That's Keo for you, loves controversy. I don't read his rubbish, perhaps you should consider it too.

The above were not dirty tackles this one was though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfVfR4mh3DQ&feature=related

@biltongbek

Try ever so hard but the it just draws me in………..sorry almost went back but will stay here for good.

Cymroglan wrote:The above were not dirty tackles this one was though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfVfR4mh3DQ&feature=related

That was an awful 'tackle' by Rush. I remember shouting at the TV when that one happened. Cracking run by Foden there. England needs to get him doing that again!

It's a bit harsh because I've seen similar and worse, with no further action taken. But thankfully he'll fit back in nicely for the Scotland game.

Cymroglan wrote:http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=271643
38 min into game.

OK http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=271712 for me.

On the ITV player stop the clock at 49 minues (that equates to the incident).

Looks accidental to me in real time.

Given the next two games, MJ shouldn't appeal.

not many people are saying it's inentional Portnoy, but it was definitely clumsy and reckless. At that time I thought he would get cited. 2 match ban is fair imo (even if I had my doubts they'd actually go through with it an ban him)

ITV player is a joke, 7 adverts I have to sit through and I don't even know if I'm at the right place.

EnglishReign wrote:ITV player is a joke, 7 adverts I have to sit through and I don't even know if I'm at the right place.

38 min on the game clock

rugbydreamer wrote:not many people are saying it's inentional Portnoy, but it was definitely clumsy and reckless. At that time I thought he would get cited. 2 match ban is fair imo (even if I had my doubts they'd actually go through with it an ban him)

sums it up nicely.

Just watched it again (having also had to sit through 7 adverts!) and would agree that it is clumsy and reckless. I'd say it's a 50:50 one that would be ignored as often as punished but there you go. Can't really complain about 2 game ban, seems fair once he was cited.

Not that it makes much difference to the offence but for those who have been saying he was out of the field of play when it happened are wrong, he was still on the field.

rugbydreamer wrote:not many people are saying it's inentional Portnoy, but it was definitely clumsy and reckless. At that time I thought he would get cited. 2 match ban is fair imo (even if I had my doubts they'd actually go through with it an ban him)

Well some have been charging him with being a thug.

Interesting that the ban is for two games. I've been banging on about that is how they should be calculated. Rather than weeks elsewhere.

p.s. I can't even see it as reckless. Would have looked a whole lot worse if he'd stayed upright an clouted Ledesma on his head with his boot as he went flying in.

I (and I suspect, MJ and CL) will just let it lie.

He was definitely out of play.

Portnoy the reason it was reckless is you cant lead into a tackle with your feet knees or whatever you want to call it.

Rdreamer - Yep same here, a bit clumsy and reckless, but then reckless is sometimes what tackless are about, you don't get much time to think once you're committed.

As for sliding into tackles that is silly, but possible due to defensive structures. The japs did well enough keeping x2 trys off the floor without trying to 'take' players out.

Some of the comments on here are pretty harsh towards Lawes. I am not an England fan by any stretch of the imagination but i still remain of the belief that it was'nt intentional. Silly and reckless it was and a ban was due but it was not an attack on the player.

I've got to be honest I don't think it’s a loss not to have Lawes for the next two games, I don't rate the guy, sure he has his moments but then most players do at some point.

To me it looks as though he doesn't read the game to well and his decision making is just poor (as are most of the England players at present), is he a talented rugby player or just a young big-ish bloke who can throw his weight around on the rugby field?

For me it’s the latter, England are better off with Palmer, Shaw or Croft in the 2nd row

i

Cymroglan wrote:He was definitely out of play.

Portnoy the reason it was reckless is you cant lead into a tackle with your feet knees or whatever you want to call it.

OK - if that's what you think (or prefer to see) then go ahead.

I cannot share your opinion. As I view it it's an unfortunate accident. There you go.

Can't satisfy everyone. Some see a grassy knoll and some don't.

I was very surprised Lawes got up from that Rush tackle - he seems to be able to take what he dishes out which is always good to see.

Portnoy wrote:i

Cymroglan wrote:He was definitely out of play.

Portnoy the reason it was reckless is you cant lead into a tackle with your feet knees or whatever you want to call it.

OK - if that's what you think (or prefer to see) then go ahead.

I cannot share your opinion. As I view it it's an unfortunate accident. There you go.

Can't satisfy everyone. Some see a grassy knoll and some don't.

You are fully entitled to your opinion and if you believe that it was not reckless then so be it.

Never mind Courtney Lawes he got a deserved two match ban case closed. It is however outrageous that Steve Thompson escaped a ban for trying to kiss Mario ledesma. What was he thinking?

Maybe he just couldn't resist?

Regaridng the Lawes thing I think it's marginal whether it deserves a ban but don't think 2 weeks is excessive. I just hope we see similar bans for similar offences. Especially for those on people just scoring a try. It seems to be common practice. Also it seems that you don't need to tackle people into touch anymore. Just throwing your shoulder into them sees to be ok. will we see these people banned as well?

I've just watched the Lawes incident a dozen times on the ITV player.
It's one of those 50/50 incidents.
If you're desperate to blame him, then there's enough there to back up your argument.
However, there's also more than enough there to suggest that it is nothing but an accident.

It all depends on your frame of mind when watching it.


From my perspective, Argentina are attacking hard.
Lawes (and probably everyone on the pitch) is very fired up due to it being the first World Cup game. The tackle just before on Tiesi (I think) shows that Lawes is looking to make an impression in the game.
He's becoming known for big, hard tackles.... nothing wrong with that at all.

Anyway, the Argentinians are breaking down the touchline.
At full speed you can see that Lawes is sprinting across to cover.
A tackle is made on Ledesma that pushes him into touch.

If you play it in slow motion, you can see that at the same time the tackle is made on Ledesma, Lawes is already starting to lower himself to make a low, hard tackle around the legs of Ledesma.

In actual fact, Lawes makes contact with Ledesma about 1 second after he is pushed into touch.
you could argue that he's trying to pull out of the tackle, which is why he hasn't led with a shoulder.
Lawes can't be expected to wait and see if Ledesma is pushed into touch or not before decided whether to continue with his tackle.
Given the last gasp try-saving nature of his attempted tackle, he has to make it, or give away a try.... he can't wait to see if a front-row forward has managed to power through a tackle from a ScrumHalf.
Afterall, it wouldn't be the first time that a hooker has brushed off a tackle from a scrumhalf.


I think that Lawes is perfectly within his rights to go for the tackle, given that he has no way of knowing whether Ledesma will be pushed into touch or not.
He's also sprinting at full speed to make up the ground, and with less than a second between Ledesma being pushed into touch, and Lawes making contact with him, it is practically impossible to pull out of the tackle.

That leaves the only question as 'did he lead with his knee to purposely injure Ledesma'.
No-one knows the answer to that.
Personally, I think he might have been trying to pull out of the tackle.
Others, will feel that he either did it maliciously (unlikely), or more likely, just didn't care....


Given the possible question marks over that, I think the IRB have made a fairly sensible choice.
It gives them the chance to ban anyone for reckless tackling, but also allows them to give soft punishment if there is sufficient 'grey area'.

There should be a two match ban for trying to kiss the opposition. If you did that to someone on the street you could be up in court.

Jokes aside though Thompson was looking for a dig and probably deserved it.

The sliding in after a try has been scored needs to be looked at but if they do that then so should going through the motions of dummy grounding the ball just to throw defenders off to gain a few yards nearer the post be looked at.