Hopkins vs Dawson *SPOILER*

First topic message reminder :

site closed

Hopefully the decision will get overturned and rematch made for early next year. That was a horrible way for someone to lose their title.

milkyboy wrote:blatant spear tackle, clear red card for dawson. Only welsh fans would see this any different.

Begone with you, foul fiend. Only Monsieur Rolland would be crazy enough to give that a card. There's no consistency. As Kahui wasn't carded or banned for dumping Cooper on his head, so Williams was awarded the win over Cintron in equally farcical circumstances - by throwing someone out of the ring.

I may be mixing my sporting metaphors.

oxring wrote:

milkyboy wrote:blatant spear tackle, clear red card for dawson. Only welsh fans would see this any different.

Begone with you, foul fiend. Only Monsieur Rolland would be crazy enough to give that a card. There's no consistency. As Kahui wasn't carded or banned for dumping Cooper on his head, so Williams was awarded the win over Cintron in equally farcical circumstances - by throwing someone out of the ring.

I may be mixing my sporting metaphors.

i was wondering if i'd get a bite!

Shame the game was ruined, but they're trying to outlaw potentially career threatening tackles and frankly, great player though he is, your boy warburton is getting off lightly in the media for what was a moment of stupidity. Had the tackle been done by a frenchman on a welshman, we'd all be hearing how the nasty frog deserved his punishment. You're right there's no consistency, but kahui was lucky more than warburton unlucky. If your own coach accepts its a yellow, then that's the least it is regardless of what an itv commentary team and press row of old timers reckon. If you want to blame a ref blame paddy o'brien for insisting that such tackles get a red... the players knew that, which makes warburton a bit of a muppet, albeit an unlucky muppet to have been made an example of.

As i said, a great shame as i have nothing but admiration for the way the welsh have played. Hard to say coming from an englishman

Re dawson, personally, i think he knew exactly what he was doing, but obviously wouldn't expect hopkins to get injured from it, lucky to get the win imo. Williams cintron a little different as it looked like cintron dived out lof the ring deliberately!

In principle, if they think an injury is from an accidental clash, I think they need independent medical analysis to check that the injury isn't faked. If so, it should be a n/c and a rematch ordered.

Yeah - calling it a TKO pending medical would be a reasonably fair thing to do.

Re: letter of the law - its the consistency that's my issue, nothing more. If the tackle had been more in open play, I'd blame Warburton a little - but Clerc appeared from the blind side out of a see of French players - he didn't have much time to react.

I mostly blame O'Brien to be honest. That and the Love sacks from the Lions 05. I know the "spear tackle" [it wasn't a Flip tackle - O'Golden Love sacks didn't have the ball] from Umanga and Muliaina was horrific - but things have gone too far the other way if an accidental tackle becomes a straight red. I found it relatively telling that the enlish players at the time of the decision (Foden, Cueto, etc) were busy slating the referees decision - because it came as a bit of a shock.

TBH - someone was always going to get burned with the new law interpretation. Shame it had to be our captain, shame it had to be in the semi-final, shame that our fly half got injured and his back ups seemed unable to hit a barn door at 5 paces.

having been a decent rugby player myself known for tackling i might have a stint at the old boxing if they let you win by rugby tackle!! rugby tackling a 46 year old cant be that hard, being a paper champ here come!!!

milkyboy wrote:

oxring wrote:

milkyboy wrote:blatant spear tackle, clear red card for dawson. Only welsh fans would see this any different.

Begone with you, foul fiend. Only Monsieur Rolland would be crazy enough to give that a card. There's no consistency. As Kahui wasn't carded or banned for dumping Cooper on his head, so Williams was awarded the win over Cintron in equally farcical circumstances - by throwing someone out of the ring.

I may be mixing my sporting metaphors.

i was wondering if i'd get a bite!

Shame the game was ruined, but they're trying to outlaw potentially career threatening tackles and frankly, great player though he is, your boy warburton is getting off lightly in the media for what was a moment of stupidity. Had the tackle been done by a frenchman on a welshman, we'd all be hearing how the nasty frog deserved his punishment. You're right there's no consistency, but kahui was lucky more than warburton unlucky. If your own coach accepts its a yellow, then that's the least it is regardless of what an itv commentary team and press row of old timers reckon. If you want to blame a ref blame paddy o'brien for insisting that such tackles get a red... the players knew that, which makes warburton a bit of a muppet, albeit an unlucky muppet to have been made an example of.

As i said, a great shame as i have nothing but admiration for the way the welsh have played. Hard to say coming from an englishman

Re dawson, personally, i think he knew exactly what he was doing, but obviously wouldn't expect hopkins to get injured from it, lucky to get the win imo. Williams cintron a little different as it looked like cintron dived out lof the ring deliberately!

In principle, if they think an injury is from an accidental clash, I think they need independent medical analysis to check that the injury isn't faked. If so, it should be a n/c and a rematch ordered.

If they brought in a rule against whistling on the pitch though (might distract at a crucial moment or be confused with the ref) and somebody accidentally let one out during an exhale and then got sent off - it wouldn't make it right, would it? As Pienaar said, this isn't a contact sport it's a collision sport, and the governing bodies are turning it into football. Yes he lifted him but that was through force of impact, as soon as he realised he was so up off his feet he released him, he didn't spear him or even really dump him and, as Oxy pointed out, it was pure misfortune that it was piddly little Clerc that claim flying from the blindside and not a big centre or back row.

tend to agree with rugby getting very soft, it was never a red imo, warburton couldnt win there as he hit him so hard that he was either going to get done for a tip tackle or a spear tackle if he put him down. yellow i can accept even then its harsh, theres no science in a rugby tackle that you can predict. its not like football where its alot easier to see when some one is bending the rules, rugby is physical and there is no such rule that says you cant be over physical (although it seems now you really cant hit anyone too hard for the fear of refs).

the other main point is consistency, seen loads of similar tackles. no onfield decision but gone back and banned them afterwards. i think putting some one on report is fairer for these tackles than pretty much handing the game to the french in the first ten minutes. he lost the game and then banned since which is overly harsh

agree with all you say oxring,

compelling/top - the consistency is an issue, but it is with rugby refereeing full stop. The game has too many rules as it is, and too many refs interpret them differently. Doesn't help, that they change them all the time anyway. Embarassing when you have refs pinging for penalties on the scrum, when clearly no-one can agree who was to blame if any.

As an englishman, i didn't think it was right to have a world cup taken away by an official we have history with over whether a boot may or may not have touched a blade of grass with whitewash on it... benefit of doubt should be to the attacking side imo - but it isn't. I understand the frustration topcat but the rules are the rules... and no whistling ever rendered someone paralysed like dropping someone on their head.

Don't agree that it was a complete accident though, he drove upwards and then tipped him imo. I accept that you can't predict the outcome when 2 guys hit each other, but there were two separate movements to me, the hit and the tip. You guys see it differently, fair enough. If the player hadn't landed on his head he'd have got away with it... but he did and the fact that it's easier to pick up a smaller player is no excuse. I feel sorry for warburton and wales, but he certainly isn't blameless imo.

Basically everyone connected to the game has said it was a disgraceful decision, it's only the suited hierarchy that have tried to defend it by hiding behind pathetic rule changes.

Our posts crossed paths there Milky, mine wasn't a reposte.

I guess it's horses for courses.

Everyone connected with the game? You mean the goons on ITV? Who's job it was effectively to learn the rules??

It was an obvious red, dropping someone on their neck/head is classed as a dangerous tackle (quite rightly), and the same ref did the same thing just a few months ago.....

Anyway this is a boxing thread, we do not want to hear anymore welsh whinging on here thanks!

Its slightly off topic, but I have to say the decision on Warburton was not straightforward.

There has been a zero tolerance approach taken to those kind of tackles with regards to the way the laws have been drawn up. The decision has been taken with the safety of the game in mind. Had Clerc dislocated his shoulder/broken his neck or suffered any kind of injury would people be saing it was only a yellow? I doubt it.

At the end of the day, the tackle was dangerous and illegal. There is obviously a middle ground as to the severity of those kind of tackles, some are worse than others. But trying to draw up a whole set of rules to govern that middle ground would be impossible. The IRFU have adopted to take a stricter rather than more lenient attitude to these tackles in there laws in an effort to erradicte them. Ultimately I think this is the correct aproach.

But it's not applied. I don't remember a red card for that tackle in any game I've watched in the Premiership, and there were similar (and worse) earlier in the tournament which didn't result in a red. He didn't land on his head, and wasn't dropped from any great height. Seen far worse, it needs consistency.

Scottrf wrote:But it's not applied. I don't remember a red card for that tackle in any game I've watched in the Premiership, and there were similar (and worse) earlier in the tournament which didn't result in a red. He didn't land on his head, and wasn't dropped from any great height. Seen far worse, it needs consistency.

Yes I agree greater consistency is needed. In fairness to Rolland though he has been pretty consistent in his own approach and has sent off players in the past for similar tackles.

Giving a yellow card is an easy middle ground (some would say cop out) as the ref has handed out a punishment and the player can be cited after. Most refs would only have given a yellow in that situation, but I dont think that makes it neccessarily the right decision, nor the one that is promoted by the IRFU.

M sympathy for Warburton (or any other player that does that) is limited because I see it being a case of playing with fire and getting burned. That he may only have got a yellow card 9/10 times doesnt mean he ws hard done by to get a red would be my take on it.

manos- for me there targeting a area where its never been a real threat or issue. look at some of the hits someone like lima put in, never any real problems other than alot of winded players. spears and tips have always been illegal and always called for it. health and safety of the players is of course very important but look at what the rules makers have done to the scrums where there are many serious injuries. perhaps trusting the players is most important because before all these new rules the scrums were alot better

Scottrf wrote:But it's not applied. I don't remember a red card for that tackle in any game I've watched in the Premiership, and there were similar (and worse) earlier in the tournament which didn't result in a red. He didn't land on his head, and wasn't dropped from any great height. Seen far worse, it needs consistency.

But that ref has been consistant, he sent someone off a few weeks ago for something almost identical and you cannot fault him in this case.

He didn't land on his head true, but that was down to luck more than anything else, as Warburton had no control and THAT the lack of control, ie endangering an opponent, is the issue, and warrents a red card!

Players have to learn to tackle properly, dropping someone on their head, neck, is dangerous!

And to the above, scrums are far better now, and a vast improvement!

warburton saw he was going to land on his head and let go, meaning alot less damage was done. thats a massive difference to spearing him on his head, where your full weight is landing on his neck/shoulders. tips are alot less because either the tackled players own strength has cause the players to lose control or the player let go to stop alot of damage. there is no comprasion on what umanga did to bod to what warburton did

No one is comparing what Umaga did 4 years ago - and what you say (he saw he was going to land on his head an let go' makes it worse (i doubt he did that at all) - he just dropped him, by accident is my view, I doubt he would deliberately put a players life at risk.

But it is the fact he dropped him that is the problem, yes admittedly it is unlikely to do as much damange as forcing someone into the ground, but the lack of control is what is dangerous and if he had kept hold of him, he could have ensured he landed safely.

JD, I can't agree that scrums are better now. It's a pretty simple case of winning the "hit" means winning the scrum, so long as both teams are roughly at the same level.

I am not sure as I haven't researched it, but the amount of collapsed scrums now must be vastly increased on previous era's. About 8 years ago and 3 stone heavier, I played in the front row for my team, and we used sequential binding which almost always resulted in a stable scrum. I have never played in the touch, pause and engage era but the combined forces coming together at that speed will result in many more minutes spent resetting them I would imagine. Unless the props get their bind straight away, then down it goes. You only have to look at the changes in bodyshape of international prop forwards to see where it is going.

compelling and rich wrote:manos- for me there targeting a area where its never been a real threat or issue. look at some of the hits someone like lima put in, never any real problems other than alot of winded players. spears and tips have always been illegal and always called for it. health and safety of the players is of course very important but look at what the rules makers have done to the scrums where there are many serious injuries. perhaps trusting the players is most important because before all these new rules the scrums were alot better

I think they have a taken a pretty simplistic approach regarding spear/tipping tackles. If you engage in it, then you run the risk of a red card. I dont think they have focused on it or complicated it particulalry. The outcry was on the other foot when it happened to O'Driscoll for the Lions resulting in a serious injury. Suddenly all the focus was on outlawing these tackles and penalising heavily I think thats the way it has been done, and thats the way it should be. Most refs are reluctant to issue a red card for it for it and its easy to see why given the outcry and villification of Rolland in many quaters (some of it pretty ridiculous - see Stuart Barnes). Like I said, had Clerc suffered a bad injury or missed the final I think Rolland would be getting praised for taking a tough stance. I think there needs to be greater consistency with its application but perhaps will see that in the future as a result of this incident and the stage it happened on.

Tino

If the new system is refereed and played properly it is alot safer (better I said) and means a collapse in teh scrum is much less likely.

Players are not falling into a scrum, which would mean it is up to the other team to keep them upright, they engage at a position that means they are almost rising up when the hit is taken.

All they need to sort is the art of feeding, and make sure the ball is in quick, and it will develope into a much better contest, and most importantly a safer one!

i didn't read stuart barnes comments (i try to avoid such painful experiences where i can), but i can categorically state that whatever his opinion on anything i will take the 100% opposite view. If he said it was a gloriously sunny day, i'd pick up my umbrella. If there is a bigger muppet on the planet i have never met him, and have no wish to.

apologies for arbitrary rant about rugby man on boxing thread... one that i am guilty of taking off topic!

JDandfries wrote:Tino

If the new system is refereed and played properly it is alot safer (better I said) and means a collapse in teh scrum is much less likely.

Players are not falling into a scrum, which would mean it is up to the other team to keep them upright, they engage at a position that means they are almost rising up when the hit is taken.

All they need to sort is the art of feeding, and make sure the ball is in quick, and it will develope into a much better contest, and most importantly a safer one!

I agree that they need to be refereed correctly. The perennial problem remains that no-one is exactly sure who is at fault, unless it is an obvious infringement. Even as an ex front-rower, I seriously struggle to see who collapsing the scrum, whether intentionally or not, most of the time. I agree to a point that feeding the ball into the scrum quicker is paramount, but I have some sympathy for scrum-halves as the impact of the "hit" often makes the scrum instantly unstable. They are not stupid, and no number 9 is going to willingly feed the ball into the scrum when they can see their team have lost the impact. They will just pull away and claim they can't feed. I still think sequential binding makes for straight backs, stable scrums and more technically adept front rowers, but I also understand the game has moved on.

It is harder to see now, and the bindings are a problem with the new style shirts, and free kicks should be given more for delayed feeding aswell as crooked feeding!

it might seem stupid but i think there should be a sleeve/handle added to the side of props shirts to help with binding. just a extra bit of shirt would give the props something to grip and should reduce restarts. its perhaps not the only reason but old school big cotton shirts there were alot less colaspes

compelling and rich wrote:it might seem stupid but i think there should be a sleeve/handle added to the side of props shirts to help with binding. just a extra bit of shirt would give the props something to grip and should reduce restarts. its perhaps not the only reason but old school big cotton shirts there were alot less colaspes

i had the same thought myself about a handle... and then figured they're grease them, or undo the stitching, then they'd complain if they got tackled by them etc. Not that i'm suggesting props are duplicitous by nature Tino

milkyboy wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:it might seem stupid but i think there should be a sleeve/handle added to the side of props shirts to help with binding. just a extra bit of shirt would give the props something to grip and should reduce restarts. its perhaps not the only reason but old school big cotton shirts there were alot less colaspes

i had the same thought myself about a handle... and then figured they're grease them, or undo the stitching, then they'd complain if they got tackled by them etc. Not that i'm suggesting props are duplicitous by nature Tino

I wasn't a prop milky, I was a hooker. I was just trying to avoid saying it to spare me the usual jokes!

I did play a game at loosehead once but I could barely lift my chin off my chest for the next two days so moved back to the 2 shirt quickly!

Anyone in the front row has my respect tino. Frankly, i was far too pretty to risk it... well that's what i tell people over the internet. Those who've seen me, know that 'too much of a wimp' would be nearer the mark.

milkyboy wrote:Anyone in the front row has my respect tino. Frankly, i was far too pretty to risk it... well that's what i tell people over the internet. Those who've seen me, know that 'too much of a wimp' would be nearer the mark.

It wasn't through any bravado or toughness milky. I simply had neither the pace, or handling skills to play in the backs! I fancied myself as an inside centre but they always seemed to use the miss-pass when I was loitering out there!

I disagree that the ref made the wrong decision. Hopkins jumped on Dawsons back, as he'd done earlier in the round, Dawson had every right to push him off.

If Solis had claimed that his knee went because of VK pushing down on him, should that have been a NC?

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Anyone in the front row has my respect tino. Frankly, i was far too pretty to risk it... well that's what i tell people over the internet. Those who've seen me, know that 'too much of a wimp' would be nearer the mark.

It wasn't through any bravado or toughness milky. I simply had neither the pace, or handling skills to play in the backs! I fancied myself as an inside centre but they always seemed to use the miss-pass when I was loitering out there!

... it never held back mike tindall

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:I disagree that the ref made the wrong decision. Hopkins jumped on Dawsons back, as he'd done earlier in the round, Dawson had every right to push him off.

If Solis had claimed that his knee went because of VK pushing down on him, should that have been a NC?

No foul for me either. Hopkins had gone into spoiler mode very early in the fight, the familiar right hand lead then jump on his opponent. He jumped on Dawson's back, Dawson just straightened up. Nothing wrong there for me.

With the way Hopkins through himself through those ropes he may have actually injured himself whilst trying to feign injury.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:With the way Hopkins through himself through those ropes he may have actually injured himself whilst trying to feign injury.

I thought that and lold.

The logical conclusion to his carrer IMO, was feeling pleased for him after the last fight, but he's such a $unt that it can't not show eventually.Talented man but ,like Gordon Brown, his psychological flaws will be the death of him and not age(although he was probably scared of getting whupped by a younger man).

if hopkins hadn't been leaning on top of dawson then he might have had a leg to stand on, but seen as he was then its tough luck, dawson was just sending a message to hopkins that he wouldn't take that all night. it was Holly Wilaboobie for tat and he started it. if the rules were any different they would be open to abuse.

if dawson hadnt hooked the leg then pushed him over i wouldnt have minded, it would have been him just shoving him over which is fine and see loads of times. to hook his leg then shove is a clear foul for me. leaning on some one is hardly the same

eddyfightfan wrote:if hopkins hadn't been leaning on top of dawson then he might have had a leg to stand on, but seen as he was then its tough luck, dawson was just sending a message to hopkins that he wouldn't take that all night. it was Holly Wilaboobie for tat and he started it. if the rules were any different they would be open to abuse.

Good points Eddy, Hopkins should be made to promise that he will try and box next time he fights and not try and con his way through a fight, by wrestling, grabbing and jumping on people. Of the little action i saw there was only one man wanting to fight and only one man in the fight. Kellerman is finished in my book, the way he was up there in the ring talking to himself was horrible, it's good if there is controversy and he's willing to get in about it, but don't leave out important facts, he went through the replays numerous times but didn't once mentions Hopkins jumping on his back. It wasn't as if Dawson hunted him down grabbed him, and slammed him. No, he was boxing at distance and crouched, Hopkins closed the distance and pounced. I thought it was great he lost as he made a lot of money out of that farce and unfortunately will get another chance. I expect Dawson to win the rematch comfortably, but don't think for a moment Hopkins won't have a few tricks up his sleeve if things aren't going well.