Chris Ashton starts brawl at Welford Road

First topic message reminder :

A seperate thread away from the main Tigers V Saints game post to discuss in more detail the incident provoked by Chris Aston.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0dcme2wCGBs#!

For those who haven't seen/heard the incident yet... Alessano Tuilagi makes a break down the wing (crumbie side) and hands off Chris Ashton. Chris Ashton grabs hold of Tuiagis hair as he goes bay and swings him to the ground, then taking a firm grip on his dreadlocks, drags him across the pitch into touch.

Tuilagi is less than happy. As he stands up he gives Ashton a dig in the ribs.

I think it was Matt Smith (?) runs in to try and split them up.

Courtney Lawes runs in and starts swinging.

Players from both team pile in to join or sperate (depending on your point of view I suppose).

Geordan Murphy jumps in and launches a couple back at Courtney.

Tom Wood runs across the park and delivers a flurry of punches into the melee.

The ball boy who is stood watching a little too close gets swallowed up the brawl and lucky not to be injured.

Officials finally restore order.

Barnes in a shocking & disgraceful decision red cards Tuilagi (the victim of Ashtons foul & dangerous play) and then red cards Tom Wood (fair enough decision I thought).

Ashton walks away unpunished and (alledgedly from some of the supporters in the Crumbie, although I didn't see this) grinning & winking at the crowd.

This should go before the citing panel this week and lengthy bans for Ashton, Lawes & Wood. Most likely Murphy too. But will Alessano also pick up a ban for reacting to Ashtons attack in the way he did? Unfair to be sure, but likely.

TJ wrote:Citing commissioner Mike Rafter issued level one citings - the equivalent of a yellow card - to Leicester duo Geordan Murphy and Horacio Agulla and Northampton lock Courtney Lawes for their roles in the mass brawl
The players were not required to appear before the disciplinary panel and can continue playing.

from

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/news/article/ashton-handed-four-week-ban/29772/

i find it strange he pleaded not guilty. most of the time players just plead guilty.

He is a plonker. How can he plead not guilty? he would probably have got two weeks if he pled guilty

He wanted a couple of pints oop north over Christmas.

TJ wrote:Lawes - ran from a distance away and threw punches

Poor WUM, have you actually watched the footage, you didn't get anything right there, he didn't throw a single punch, and he ran all of about 2m, he was in shot for the whole incident and before Ashton even grabbed Tuilagi. He did charge into the back of Tuilagi from 2m away though.



On a seperate issue, why is everyone saying that there was a ball boy involved, he is quite clearly carrying a boom mic and has an ESPN bib on. I fear for the eyesight of many of you. No wonder police and the legal profession are always saying how unreliable eyewitnesses are regarding details of an incident (and many of you have had the benefit of video replays).

It not a Wum. I have watched the footage, Lawes did throw a punch, he did run in and get involved when he had no need to. He has been given the equivalent of a yellow card by the citing officer

Watch it again yourself - he does not connect very well but he clearly throws a punch

beshocked wrote:Metal Tiger soulless and empty? You evidently haven't been to Adams Park or Vicarage Road!

I was only referring to the Madstad. It's a big stadium and the wind doesn't half whip around in there.

I was half right. Jeff Blackett did ban Dowson which I am pleasantly surprised by. Expected Ashton to get a ban.

Not surprised Wood,A.Tuilagi,Murphy and Agulla didn't get bans. Typical Jeff Blackett. I don't expect him to be impartial and he didn't let me down.

At least there is consistency on dangerous tackles, shame the same can't be said for punches.

In my opinion an accidental dangerous tackle isn't as bad as a malicious punch.

It's very confusing.

So far

shinglers is the worst. 4 weeks

warbertons second three weeks

And your mandowson third with a mere two weeks.


Really should sort this out, none of these tackles look any different.

None look as dangerous as an eighteen stone Samoan throwing punches left right and centre. I guess blanket really despises hair pulling...!

beshocked wrote:I was half right. Jeff Blackett did ban Dowson which I am pleasantly surprised by. Expected Ashton to get a ban.

Not surprised Wood,A.Tuilagi,Murphy and Agulla didn't get bans. Typical Jeff Blackett. I don't expect him to be impartial and he didn't let me down.

At least there is consistency on dangerous tackles, shame the same can't be said for punches.

In my opinion an accidental dangerous tackle isn't as bad as a malicious punch.

Unlike you, and me, Blackett is impartial. Time to take that great big chip of your shoulder and have a giant fish supper.

maestegmafia wrote:It's very confusing.

So far

shinglers is the worst. 4 weeks

warbertons second three weeks

And your mandowson third with a mere two weeks.


Really should sort this out, none of these tackles look any different.

Warburton was given a 6 week ban, reduced down to 3 when mitigating circumstances applied.
Shinglers was given a 6 week, increased to 8 weeks "as a deterrent against this pattern of offending", reduced down to 4 when mitigating circumstances applied.

Was Dowson given 2 weeks or was it reduced down.

Dowson was a low end sanction of three weeks, reduced to 2 for his guilty plea.

LondonTiger wrote:

beshocked wrote:I was half right. Jeff Blackett did ban Dowson which I am pleasantly surprised by. Expected Ashton to get a ban.

Not surprised Wood,A.Tuilagi,Murphy and Agulla didn't get bans. Typical Jeff Blackett. I don't expect him to be impartial and he didn't let me down.

At least there is consistency on dangerous tackles, shame the same can't be said for punches.

In my opinion an accidental dangerous tackle isn't as bad as a malicious punch.

Unlike you, and me, Blackett is impartial. Time to take that great big chip of your shoulder and have a giant fish supper.

LondonTiger you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. All I see is 1-0. It takes two to make an argument. I would say the same if it was two other teams.

All I want is consistency for ALL teams. Blackett isn't impartial. If he was he would be consistent and fair.

Maestegmafia Brits got 3 weeks for a dangerous tackle too which he deserved. Dowson got banned so that's fair enough.

In terms of dangerous tackles there is some consistency. In regards to punching there is none.

If only there were sanctions for predictable and boring rugby, Saffacens would be bereft of players week in week out.

Time for Trumpton is school out? When will you learn to spell properly and actual gain some knowledge?

How many tries did Leicester score in the recent AP final against Saracens? Oh wait they didn't score any did they? Who played the boring rugby then? Naughty Saracens didn't let Leicester score did they.

Boring Saracens stuck 50 points past Leicester at Welford Road with 6 tries in their last encounter. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/9595844.stm

Just to remind you in case you forgot.

If we are so predictable and boring surely we should lose more often?

Oh and btw Time for Trumpton in the AP final English players scored all the points. In the 50 point match - 40 were scored by English players.

beshocked wrote:Time for Trumpton is school out? When will you learn to spell properly and actual gain some knowledge

Now, that's comedy.

maestegmafia wrote:It's very confusing.

So far

shinglers is the worst. 4 weeks

warbertons second three weeks

And your mandowson third with a mere two weeks.


Really should sort this out, none of these tackles look any different.

None look as dangerous as an eighteen stone Samoan throwing punches left right and centre. I guess blanket really despises hair pulling...!

Its very confussing when you post bans without putting links up to the sections of the reports that describe how the panel reached their decision yes.

If you sit and rea dthe whole thing you can disagree with bits but youll see there is a proccess that is applied to everyone according to rules laid down by the IRB in consultation with the unions and players representatives.
The bans can also be appealled against if the players feel they have been unfairly treated and the rules applied incorrectly.

These bans arent plucked out of the air or negotiated for cash deals. The proccess is open and transparent. There is no conspiracy.

The real incostencies come from the initial citation process itself though. As we saw from the Mccaw eye gouged incident some things just dont reach the panels in the first place that really should. As it si the IRBs looking to extend the window, which makes sense.

Quite how Murphy escaped censure from the game in question though is a different matter. Id like to get an exlpantion form the citeing official why he wasnt called up to explain his actions.

Murphy and Agulla are very lucky to escape bans for running across the pitch and throwing punches.

Before Agulla started swinging it hadn't properly kicked off, it's only after he enters the fracus and then Wood throws some back that it all goes mad. Really can't see how he didn't get some kind of ban.

Good to see Ashton given 4 weeks and I agree with how it was worked out.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Quite how Murphy escaped censure from the game in question though is a different matter. Id like to get an exlpantion form the citeing official why he wasnt called up to explain his actions.

Him and Agulla Sam. Both were out of order.

Agulla was right there. How was he running across the pitch? Murphy wasn't far away either. If there had been no red cards only Ashton would have been cited. As it were they only got the red and no additional bans. You see incidents almost indical to it go on and no-one get's cited or anything more than a yellow. And no-one says anything. The only difference in this case was Ashton pulling hair and they banned him for 4 weeks (6 weeks entry on a par with mid-level spitting and reduced by 2 weeks for good behaviour).

Haven't seen Dowson's tackle so can't say whether it's a far ban. Low level entry and one week reduction due to good behaviour.

Murphy and Agulla, along with Lawes, escaped bans because they were given Level 1 Citings by Mike Rafter (the same level he believed should apply to Tuilagi and Wood).

This effectively means he decided that all five deserved yellow cards only. The panel obviousley agreed with him re Tuilagi and Wood, and had no remit to do anything different with the other 3.

So if Rafter is correct, we'd have seen Ashton on a red, Wood and Lawes depart for 10, accompanied by Agulla and Murphy (poss Tuilagi too) - how would that have affected the result?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:So if Rafter is correct, we'd have seen Ashton on a red, Wood and Lawes depart for 10, accompanied by Agulla and Murphy (poss Tuilagi too) - how would that have affected the result?

Thats a good question.

Don't know. Tuilagi took a forward pass before Ashton's 'tackle'. How would that have effected the game? Or the multitudes of other things done 'wrong'. No point really worrying about.

Except for that I think the TMO should be able to be called upon for things like this (mass brawls were the start wasn't noticed). The game already has a break in it so why not?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:So if Rafter is correct, we'd have seen Ashton on a red, Wood and Lawes depart for 10, accompanied by Agulla and Murphy (poss Tuilagi too) - how would that have affected the result?

An interesting what if. For 10 minutes Tigers are without their entire back 3, while Saints lose two forwards and a winger. I suspect for thos 10 minutes Croft would have played in the backs. This would give us the same situation we had of Tigers with one man less than saints in tha backs, but one man more in the pack. Based on their decision after Wood was sent off, I guess this is how it would have stayed. 12 v 12 for 10 minutes would have been interesting.

After that Saints would still have been one man down.

TJ wrote:It not a Wum. I have watched the footage, Lawes did throw a punch, he did run in and get involved when he had no need to. He has been given the equivalent of a yellow card by the citing officer

Watch it again yourself - he does not connect very well but he clearly throws a punch

Absolute nonsense, you're clearly as blind as a bat and just claiming what you want to see. Your story is changing now as well, first it was punches, now it's punch. You claimed he ran in from a way off, which just wasn't the case. The citing was for ramming into the back of Tuilagi. He then immediately brought his arm over between the two players and wrapped Tuilagi up in a hold to seperate them. If you can't see that clearly for what it is, the rugby world can be thankful that you're not a ref and just a one-eyed keyboard warrior. Keep watching the footage and try changing your story again, you might get it right eventually.

HammerofThunor wrote:Don't know. Tuilagi took a forward pass before Ashton's 'tackle'. How would that have effected the game? Or the multitudes of other things done 'wrong'. No point really worrying about.

Except for that I think the TMO should be able to be called upon for things like this (mass brawls were the start wasn't noticed). The game already has a break in it so why not?

It the citeing commissinar cant make a judgement that pleases everyone over the course of two days whats to think that a TMO can?

What we got was the refs pulling the players apart, then no more than a minutes delay whilst Barnes asked what was seen and dealt with it accordingly.
Think how long it takes the TMO to adjudge somethig as simple as a touchdown for a try. How many replays does that take? Theres still debate between us form watching the footage if Tuilagi did throw land punches.
The TMO couldve spent two dayts watching that , sending a report to Barnes, and he still wouldve had to make a decision on what did or didnt require a card.
The citing procudre is there to pick up things that werent dealt with in the game.

niwatts

I suggest you look at the vid again.
Lawes was censured by the citing commissioner - the equivalent of a yellow. there is at least on clear punch and he did run over and get involved - its clear for every one to see. Its on Rugby dump.

It is all now irrelevant.

In a fairly measured way, probably without prejudice, the Citing Officer and Discipliary panel made their decisions.

Case close M'lud

[quote="Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler"]

"These bans arent plucked out of the air ... "quote]

So where did the extra two weeks for Shingler get plucked from? - haven't seen that in any guidelines ... and if it was meant to be a deterrent and then other players eg Dowson do the same thing afterwards why don't they get extra time also?

And how does four weeks become more than 28 days? haven't seen that calculation before or since either?

TJ wrote:niwatts

I suggest you look at the vid again.
Lawes was censured by the citing commissioner - the equivalent of a yellow. there is at least on clear punch and he did run over and get involved - its clear for every one to see. Its on Rugby dump.

I know he received a level one citing, I said as much in my post and explained why, it wasn't for a punch. I know the video is on rugby dump, I provided a link to it in my original post (I probably shouldn't have expected you to notice it, I coloured it red, but you seem to have issues with the obvious) where I highlighted you were wrong about multiple punches and running in from a long way off. I suggest you go to specsavers, you seem to be having problems reading as well as watching videos.

There is no need for the nasty language - Its clear punch to me and he had no need to get involved. I am surprised you can claim its anything else

Just agree to disagree hey?

No, you're just wrong.




I didn't use any nasty language.

TJ is correct, if you watched the game not the RD clip you would see Lawes came in fro ma distance. The camera work on the RD clip is too tight for you to see where he came in from.

He gets at least one big punch in before he starts grabbing someone round the neck.

Poor WUM, have you actually watched the footage, you didn't get anything right there, he didn't throw a single punch

13 seconds into the footage you provided, 1x right hook thrown by Lawes connecting with Alesana Tuilagi.

Murphy and Agulla are very lucky to escape bans for running across the pitch and throwing punches.

Both provided with retrospective yellow cards. Not sure what the point was but there you go. Agulla was standing almost next to Tuilagi by the time he was in touch and helped him throw Ashton against the barriers. Hardly 'running across the pitch' is it. I presume Murphy has got away with it as Wood punches him first and then he retaliates but that's not a very good defence.

Rubbish maestegmafia. I did watch the game, live and again later (were you not watching the Wales match?), but doesn't change the fact that the the footage clearly shows him right next to Ashton when he first grabs Tuilagi and is on the touchline as the two go off into the hoardings. That can in no way be described as a large distance, he was no more than a couple of metres away at any point.

You could only describe that as a punch if you had no idea what a punch is. Try watching it frame by frame, his arm comes over the top and wide of Tuilagi's head, then is pulled in as he divides them and wraps Tuilagi up. You want to believe Lawes is punching him, so that is what you are trying to convince yourself occured

formerly known as Sam wrote:
13 seconds into the footage you provided, 1x right hook thrown by Lawes connecting with Alesana Tuilagi.

Watch the slowed down footage around 2m34s, you can watch it frame by frame by clicking pause/play repeatedly (not quite as good as proper frame by frame and zoom on my recording). It is not a punch and doesn't connect with Tuilagi's head, his hand unclenched passes wide and is pulled back still open. A bit of Tigers bias from you I'm afraid Sam.

The footage is even more slowed down around 3m21s

Its funny how subjective video footage is.

Lawes seems to be singled out because people dislike him as "he thinks hes a hardman" - words he's never uttered. I think hes a great young player and could be a world class lock in a few years time given long enough to mature. Here, he sort of throws his arm around Tuilagi aggressively to grab, not so sure on the punch.

Agulla, well hes right there, and just saw his pal get dragged by his hair, id be p*ssed too. Still, no need/real explanation for his actions.

Wood goes in to protect his own, again, he could/should have acted with less aggression, but this isnt the ballet and tuilagi/agulla are more nut crackers than swan lake. In the scheme of things, he shouldnt have got a red, but then he would have been cited I think.

Murphy reacts to being punched in the face the same way most people would, punching back.

Tuilagi just got dragged on his harris by his braids, im sure we can forgive him for something that wasnt quite a punch, wasnt quite grab.

Ashton comes out of all this looking like an idiot - shame it overshadows the rest of his game.

I dont favour either team, think some players reacted stupidly, some more understandably than others, but it takes 2 to tango, and a samoan, an argentinian, an irishman and a sprinkling of englishmen to cause a ruckus that wouldnt even have been mentioned twice 10 years ago.

It is not a punch and doesn't connect with Tuilagi's head, his hand unclenched passes wide and is pulled back still open. A bit of Tigers bias from you I'm afraid Sam..

Not really it's a blatant right hook, if you don't want to see it then fine but it's still a right hook. The second time he swings his arm round he grab Alesana.

I'm glad he didn't get suspended, as if we start citing every bout of brawling like that we'll need more than one panel. Doesn't mean he didn't punch him though.

I don't know what you are watching or watched it on Sam, but on my HD recording on a big screen TV at home, going frame by frame, you can quite clearly see he has an unclenched hand as he brings his arm through first time round. Quite aside from the fact that his hand doesn't contact until after he's passed his head and is bringing it back, a right hook is impossible with an open hand.

I think you're letting your stripes get in the way of your objectivity.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Both provided with retrospective yellow cards. Not sure what the point was but there you go. Agulla was standing almost next to Tuilagi by the time he was in touch and helped him throw Ashton against the barriers. Hardly 'running across the pitch' is it. I presume Murphy has got away with it as Wood punches him first and then he retaliates but that's not a very good defence.

Goes on your record and would be considered against future bans. I guess it works like a police caution.

Northampton Saints consider Chris Ashton ban appeal

You don't want fighting," he said. "But it's a physical game and there's a real fine balance with the emotion and aggression, particularly Leicester against Northampton.

"Sometimes it can overflow a bit and it needs a referee who can calm things down. We see worse in training almost every week.

If this is the case - i.e fighting in training not being a rare occurrance then surely the coach needs to stamp some discipline into his players ? They flare up far too easily and its affecting their game

I remember when Lewsey punched Cipriani in training, Edwards came out and said there was nothing in it and things like that happen in training all the time. Seems ok for the full time Welsh defence coach.

Comfort wrote:Its funny how subjective video footage is.

Lawes seems to be singled out because people dislike him as "he thinks hes a hardman" - words he's never uttered. I think hes a great young player and could be a world class lock in a few years time given long enough to mature. Here, he sort of throws his arm around Tuilagi aggressively to grab, not so sure on the punch.

Agulla, well hes right there, and just saw his pal get dragged by his hair, id be p*ssed too. Still, no need/real explanation for his actions.

Wood goes in to protect his own, again, he could/should have acted with less aggression, but this isnt the ballet and tuilagi/agulla are more nut crackers than swan lake. In the scheme of things, he shouldnt have got a red, but then he would have been cited I think.

Murphy reacts to being punched in the face the same way most people would, punching back.

Tuilagi just got dragged on his harris by his braids, im sure we can forgive him for something that wasnt quite a punch, wasnt quite grab.

Ashton comes out of all this looking like an idiot - shame it overshadows the rest of his game.

I dont favour either team, think some players reacted stupidly, some more understandably than others, but it takes 2 to tango, and a samoan, an argentinian, an irishman and a sprinkling of englishmen to cause a ruckus that wouldnt even have been mentioned twice 10 years ago.

+1 pretty much agree with all of that.

Ashton is thinking of appealing? On what grounds?

Well the board had no recommendations to base their ban on so they linked it to spitting. The fact the ban isn't based on IRB recommendations means he's got that to go. Of course the appeal panel could decide that it's worse than spitting.

https://www.606v2.com/t19782-a-wonderful-photo-of-jim-mallinders-reaction-to-chris-sp-ashton-wanting-to-appeal-his-ban

Ashton might appeal according to Mallinder...!

It would appear that Mr Ashton is nothing but an overrated bully, who abuses women and pulls hair. Nice guy to have around !

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:It would appear that Mr Ashton is nothing but an overrated bully, who abuses women and pulls hair. Nice guy to have around !

Although ... maybe a few more hair-pulling misogynists is just what the game needs to pull the crowds in.

Game has gone soft since the 1970s if you can't drag a bloke by his ponytail and gang up to make lewd comments at young women now and again!

Rugby hasn't been the same since they did away with drinking aftershave.