Dowson Citing

I did not see the game, so have not seen the incident:

He is alleged to have "lifted a player off the ground and dropped or drove that player into the ground whilst their feet were still off the ground such that his head/upper body came in to contact with the ground first."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15986529.stm

Anyone who did see the game and remembers the tackle, how bad was it?

struggling to see where theyre coming from on this one. I watched the tackle on sky sports news, doesn't exactly 'drop' or 'drive' goode into the ground.

Dowson is not a malicious player I expect the sanctions will not be catastrophic.

Might simply be the citing commission knowing it's the highlighted area at the moment and he's passignt he buck to another to decide.

I've not seen it either. If Goode lands on the top of back/neck then he'll probably get a ban even if he didn't drop/drive

All I want is consistency. Give him 3 weeks just like others have for similar incidents. I am sure Dowson meant no harm but a dangerous tackle needs to be punished.

It will be a travesty if he gets no ban but I do expect him to get the appropriate 3 week ban.

Anyone got a link to the incident? I've not seen it. There have been players cited with dangerous tackles but not punished noteabley Owen Farrell's shoulder charge on Trinder and earlier in the season Stankovitch the Tigers prop was cited for a dangerous tackle against Bath (I didn't see it during the game and still haven't) but was acquited at the hearing.

Sam I know you hate Farrell. Why? I don't know but Owen Farrell's shoulder charge was a yellow card at best. You can only be banned if it's a potential red card offence. Surely you don't think even with the blinkers on that Farrell warranted a red card?

Also a shoulder charge is completly different.

This Dowson tackle is a similar incident to Brit's tackle so deserves a 3 week ban.

You'll also might have noticed I thought Brits deserved his ban.

Sam I know you hate Farrell. Why?

I don't. He was just an example of dangerous tackles being cited but not leading to bans.

Yes you do Sam. You are always criticising Farrell.Maybe you dislike him because he is a nemesis of Leicester. I don't know why. Possibly hate is the wrong word - is intensely dislike more appropriate?

He didn't get a ban because he didn't deserve one. You'll have to explain to me with a decent argument why you think he should have got one.

Because it was a cynical piece of foul play that wasn't appropiatley punished on the pitch. The citing doesn't have to reflect the necessity for a red card (that was removed after an incident involving Johnno). It was a dagnerous challenge, other players had previously been banned for similar incidents (noteabley Alessana Tuilagi).

I don't dislike him I generally argue against his inclusion in the England team because he lacks a passing game, something which you were quick to bemoan after last weekend.

He wasn't even the only example I used.

I criticised him last week because he was poor but I praise him when he has a good game whereas you just criticise him even when he plays well - generally when he plays Leicester. I find the criticisms of his performances against Leicester in particular baffling.

Do I think Farrell is the finished article? No. Do I think he is faultless? No. Then again I don't think he is a disciple of Satan.

Farrell did not deserve a ban. I have seen the incident. I am glad he didn't get one. Let's not get onto the topic of Leicester players......

Dowson should be punished based on how similar incidents have been judged.

He should but I was pointing out that others have gotten away with dangerous tackles this year. I haven't seen the incident so couldn't comment on particulars.

whereas you just criticise him even when he plays well - generally when he plays Leicester

Not really criticise, bemoan his kicking the leather off the ball but that's because I had paid to watch the final live and it was dull. Can never criticise someone for winning. There was no criticism for him when Sarries put 50 on Tigers, I saved that for the Tigers players (particularly Hamilton).

Sam we lost the 2010 final but played excellently. We won the 2011 final by playing to a game plan - good kicking and powerful defence (which Farrell excelled at both). The 2010 final was much more exciting but we lost.

Leicester are to blame for us still playing this boring rugby by the way IMO.

If we had won that 2010 final playing exciting rugby we would have probably continued with that style.

It's all about finding the winning formula. Till teams work out our style and beat us there is no incentive to change.

Hey you're preaching to choir on that one. Tigers won 2 HEC titles and 4 in a row league titles by playing foward dominated rugby. It is all about the winning. Though I note this season Sarries have largely abandoned the mass kicking game and are utilising the backline more frequently, Hodgson being a key part of that but it is vastly different to how they were playing last season.

beshocked wrote:All I want is consistency. Give him 3 weeks just like others have for similar incidents. I am sure Dowson meant no harm but a dangerous tackle needs to be punished.

It will be a travesty if he gets no ban but I do expect him to get the appropriate 3 week ban.

To be consistent he should now get four weeks as that's what Shingler got (extra time added as a deterrent against this 'pattern of offending') ... in fact it was 4 weeks and a few days as the dates given are set to a calendar month, presumably due to incompetence on the part of the judge in not knowing the difference between four weeks and a calendar month.

And I haven't seen the Farrell tackle but Hape got four weeks for a supposed high tackle ...

I fear if you want consistency (as I would also like) you'll be disappointed ....

as expected no consistency at all ... Dowson gets 2 weeks for the same thing that Shingler got 4 weeks and other players 3 weeks or nothing at all .... the only consistent thing is that London Irish seem to come off worst every time

Is the explanation published online?

Yeah they always publish the reports, just people never read them before wanging on about inconsistentcy

OK then how do you explain extra weeks added to Shingler as a 'deterrent' to this type of tackle (but not given to anyone else before) and then when Dowson does the same thing afterwards no extra time added? didn't see that explained anywhere?

Perhaps there was no extra time added as unlike LI Dowson wasn't the 3rd plarer from his club up for dangerous tackles.

I still have not seen Dowson's challenge - but having seen Shinglers I was amazed he only got 4 weeks.

Any way, the panel have to decide how serious each offence is. That is why there is a sliding scale and why Attoub got 52 weeks fow what in the law book was the same offence as Quinlan for instance got 8 weeks for.

Blackett is a decent bloke who so long as you treat him with respect will treat you fairly. Like most judges if you show contempt he gets a tad arsey.

Interesting theory but the judgement said "As a deterrent against the this pattern of offending within the game the Judicial Officer added a further two (2) weeks" ... i.e. within the game, not at this club ...

And although I admit most supporters will tend to feel their club is treated worse, in the case of LI there are many examples of inequality that are difficult to reason no matter how even minded you try to be.

And to add to the persecution complex they gave him four weeks from the match date (which was on a Friday) and somehow ended up with him being banned until a Monday (i.e. four weeks and a few days) by giving him a calendar month, not four weeks which in my universe is 28 days - thus precluding him from an extra match ...

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you

Just because they are out to get you does not mean you are not paranoid

At least Dowson got a ban.Maybe not 3 or 4 weeks but at least he got one.