Donnacha Ryan to be cited?

First topic message reminder :

Surely O'Callaghan will be cited for his malicious charge on Adam Jones that led to Bradley Davies taking the law into his own hands?

It was identical to the Bakkies Botha charge on the same player which if I recall correctly received about 2 weeks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CM-_JlG64

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
So you wrote 3 specific threads about Davis being bold and needing 6 weeks...or you placed 3 comments in the bowls of someone else's post admitting that 'yeah, I know - so it was a spear tackle - but he's not dirty like, just annoyed.'?

Sorry for getting it all so wrong.

You've lost me. Brad Davies is guilty and deserves all he gets.

Can we discuss D Ryan now?

But Chunky, I get the sense that you're a wee bit het up about this topic and that you don't really want a discussion at all? I've offered you a view that doesn't match yours and you've resorted to telling me that I'm watching a different incident (which you honestly in your heart know not to be the case) - not much point in a discussion? Sorry pal

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
So you wrote 3 specific threads about Davis being bold and needing 6 weeks...or you placed 3 comments in the bowls of someone else's post admitting that 'yeah, I know - so it was a spear tackle - but he's not dirty like, just annoyed.'?

Sorry for getting it all so wrong.

You've lost me. Brad Davies is guilty and deserves all he gets.

Can we discuss D Ryan now?

But Chunky, I get the sense that you're a wee bit het up about this topic and that you don't really want a discussion at all? I've offered you a view that doesn't match yours and you've resorted to telling me that I'm watching a different incident (which you honestly in your heart know not to be the case) - not much point in a discussion? Sorry pal

Yes you said he gets pushed off the ball by Davies. So you are watching a different video.

The counter rucking comes before Davies has any contact with D Ryan. The correct video link is on page 1.

So let's see if we can agree on anything:
- Ryan takes 3 steps and tonks Adam Jones on his harris
- Ryan hit Jones's shoulder
- both Jones orignally and then Ryan are above the rest of the pile of bodies in the ruck
- Ryan is left over the side of the pile of bodies, with the ball no longer covered by Jones
- Davies re-engages into the ruck to protect the ball, locking horns with Ryan and pushing him back initially?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:So let's see if we can agree on anything:
- Ryan takes 3 steps and tonks Adam Jones on his harris
- Ryan hit Jones's shoulder

^ These are the only points we need discuss in this thread though, right?

As the issue we are discussing is in the 2nd point above. Not in any of the points below.

- both Jones orignally and then Ryan are above the rest of the pile of bodies in the ruck
- Ryan is left over the side of the pile of bodies, with the ball no longer covered by Jones
- Davies re-engages into the ruck to protect the ball, locking horns with Ryan and pushing him back initially?

OK, we're getting somewhere.

I'd add in

- both Jones orignally and then Ryan are above the rest of the pile of bodies in the ruck
- Ryan is left over the side of the pile of bodies, with the ball no longer covered by Jones
- Davies re-engages into the ruck to protect the ball, locking horns with Ryan and pushing him back initially?

cos they're relevant to the wasn't binding/didn't have anything to bind on until Davies re-engages?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:OK, we're getting somewhere.

I'd add in

- both Jones orignally and then Ryan are above the rest of the pile of bodies in the ruck
- Ryan is left over the side of the pile of bodies, with the ball no longer covered by Jones
- Davies re-engages into the ruck to protect the ball, locking horns with Ryan and pushing him back initially?

cos they're relevant to the wasn't binding/didn't have anything to bind on until Davies re-engages?

No. completely incorrect. As I stated above, he could have legally bound on to the shoulder of Rhys Gill (i think). He chose not to. He chose to do what is in effect an illegal and highly dangerous shoulder barge on Adam Jones.

Can you seriouisly not see this?

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

gowales wrote:Yes we know that. Did you not read the title it says Donnacha Ryan to be cited. That means that here we are discussing wether Donnacha Ryan should be cited.

The original post is from a troll, a WUM if your prefer. It is fairly obvious he should get cited. It's a pity there is a minority of Welsh fans who have absolutely no class. Warren Gatland was embarrassed by the tackle, that was there for all to see. You should be equally embarrassed that you have fans who feel that Davies was justified because of what Ryan did. Ryan was wrong and should get cited. Davies attempted to break his neck. Let me say it again- Davies purposefully lifted a player up in the air in an attempt to seriously injure him. And you have the gall to be pedantic with me? You should be ashamed of yourself frankly. This is one of the most disgusting incidents I have seen on a rugby field in quite some time and your focus is on Ryan. Good man. You are a credit to Welsh rugby

WOAHH hold your horses cowboy!

Where do i say that it justifies what Davies did. Where? Please go and crawl back in your hole.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:OK, we're getting somewhere.

I'd add in

- both Jones orignally and then Ryan are above the rest of the pile of bodies in the ruck
- Ryan is left over the side of the pile of bodies, with the ball no longer covered by Jones
- Davies re-engages into the ruck to protect the ball, locking horns with Ryan and pushing him back initially?

cos they're relevant to the wasn't binding/didn't have anything to bind on until Davies re-engages?

No. completely incorrect. As I stated above, he could have legally bound on to the shoulder of Rhys Gill (i think). He chose not to. He chose to do what is in effect an illegal and highly dangerous shoulder barge on Adam Jones.

Can you seriouisly not see this?

Would you have preffered he made contact with Adam Jones's head? At that level of the ruck, that was his only other option, short of not entering it at all, or simply binding passively. So, in answer to your question, no, I don't see things as you obviously do

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:OK, we're getting somewhere.

I'd add in

- both Jones orignally and then Ryan are above the rest of the pile of bodies in the ruck
- Ryan is left over the side of the pile of bodies, with the ball no longer covered by Jones
- Davies re-engages into the ruck to protect the ball, locking horns with Ryan and pushing him back initially?

cos they're relevant to the wasn't binding/didn't have anything to bind on until Davies re-engages?

No. completely incorrect. As I stated above, he could have legally bound on to the shoulder of Rhys Gill (i think). He chose not to. He chose to do what is in effect an illegal and highly dangerous shoulder barge on Adam Jones.

Can you seriouisly not see this?

Would you have preffered he made contact with Adam Jones's head? At that level of the ruck, that was his only other option, short of not entering it at all, or simply binding passively. So, in answer to your question, no, I don't see things as you obviously do

You've neglected to read the bit about Rhys Gill. Why?

Rhys Gill is beneath him?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Rhys Gill is beneath him?

I'm sure he thinks that - what with Gill being Welsh and all, but why doesn't he bind on to Gill or not counter ruck at all if he can't do it legally?

Donnacha Ryan to be cited?

Er no is the answer...no matter how much you weally weally want him to be...

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Rhys Gill is beneath him?

I'm sure he thinks that - what with Gill being Welsh and all, but why doesn't he bind on to Gill or not counter ruck at all if he can't do it legally?

At a guess, Ryan thought it was legal? You obviously believe otherwise - it might well be cited, and we'll see what the citing officer makes of it

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Rhys Gill is beneath him?

I'm sure he thinks that - what with Gill being Welsh and all, but why doesn't he bind on to Gill or not counter ruck at all if he can't do it legally?

At a guess, Ryan thought it was legal? You obviously believe otherwise - it might well be cited, and we'll see what the citing officer makes of it

If he doesn't get cited then Bakkies Botha has every right to feel very aggreived at his citing and banning from the Lions games.

Chunky, can't agree with you there, Botha runs from much further away, changes direction and hits the boosters to smash Adam Jones - Ryan takes 2/3 steps. I'll give you that the contact was similar, but not the force

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Rhys Gill is beneath him?

I'm sure he thinks that - what with Gill being Welsh and all, but why doesn't he bind on to Gill or not counter ruck at all if he can't do it legally?

At a guess, Ryan thought it was legal? You obviously believe otherwise - it might well be cited, and we'll see what the citing officer makes of it

If he doesn't get cited then Bakkies Botha has every right to feel very aggreived at his citing and banning from the Lions games.

Seriously? You are seriously claiming that is similar to Bakkies Botha??

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Rhys Gill is beneath him?

I'm sure he thinks that - what with Gill being Welsh and all, but why doesn't he bind on to Gill or not counter ruck at all if he can't do it legally?

At a guess, Ryan thought it was legal? You obviously believe otherwise - it might well be cited, and we'll see what the citing officer makes of it

If he doesn't get cited then Bakkies Botha has every right to feel very aggreived at his citing and banning from the Lions games.

Bakkies was aggrieved - remember "Justice 4" ...

Actually at the time there were a few calls that the punishment came about due to the end result (Jones' broken arm) rather than the action itself.

Which is a bit ridiculous. The injury should have no bearing on the punishment in this case. It was dangerous and deserves a ban.

eirebilly wrote:


Seriously? You are seriously claiming that is similar to Bakkies Botha??

Try reading the thread.

Chunky Norwich wrote:Which is a bit ridiculous. The injury should have no bearing on the punishment in this case. It was dangerous and deserves a ban.

no it wasnt and it wont...

DOD wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:Which is a bit ridiculous. The injury should have no bearing on the punishment in this case. It was dangerous and deserves a ban.

no it wasnt and it wont...

I'm pretty sure the Davies incodent will cloud the judgement and D Ryan will get off scott free.

But it was worse than Bakkies Botha's and deserves at least 2 weeks.

I have been following this thread and you are getting more and more extreme with every comment.

You have been rude and condescending on many threads today chunky.

I say that Ryan will get sighted and he may even get a ban from it or nothing may happen.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

DOD wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:Which is a bit ridiculous. The injury should have no bearing on the punishment in this case. It was dangerous and deserves a ban.

no it wasnt and it wont...

I'm pretty sure the Davies incodent will cloud the judgement and D Ryan will get off scott free.

But it was worse than Bakkies Botha's and deserves at least 2 weeks.

Ah, I get it, so we're building up to the citing officer being wrong and you being right?

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Rhys Gill is beneath him?

I'm sure he thinks that - what with Gill being Welsh and all, but why doesn't he bind on to Gill or not counter ruck at all if he can't do it legally?

At a guess, Ryan thought it was legal? You obviously believe otherwise - it might well be cited, and we'll see what the citing officer makes of it

If he doesn't get cited then Bakkies Botha has every right to feel very aggreived at his citing and banning from the Lions games.

Bakkies was aggrieved - remember "Justice 4" ...

Actually at the time there were a few calls that the punishment came about due to the end result (Jones' broken arm) rather than the action itself.

Which were incorrect, its just as with the Warburton thing people had turned a blind eye to IRB directives...coaches players commenetaers and teh internet got all blutetery when confronted with the rules that had clearly been left in a locked box for several years. You also have to remeber P Divy was using this whole worlds biassed against us bunk to create a siege mentality and bind the team.

Charging into rucks is now banned and subject to stiff penalties. If you run in and engage without binding or warapping the arms then you are subject to a possible card and/or citeing.

Whether this will get cited or not is a differnt matter.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Ah, I get it, so we're building up to the citing officer being wrong and you being right?

I have no idea if he will be cited. But he should be according to the laws.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Rhys Gill is beneath him?

I'm sure he thinks that - what with Gill being Welsh and all, but why doesn't he bind on to Gill or not counter ruck at all if he can't do it legally?

At a guess, Ryan thought it was legal? You obviously believe otherwise - it might well be cited, and we'll see what the citing officer makes of it

If he doesn't get cited then Bakkies Botha has every right to feel very aggreived at his citing and banning from the Lions games.

Bakkies was aggrieved - remember "Justice 4" ...

Actually at the time there were a few calls that the punishment came about due to the end result (Jones' broken arm) rather than the action itself.

Which were incorrect, its just as with the Warburton thing people had turned a blind eye to IRB directives...coaches players commenetaers and teh internet got all blutetery when confronted with the rules that had clearly been left in a locked box for several years. You also have to remeber P Divy was using this whole worlds biassed against us bunk to create a siege mentality and bind the team.

Charging into rucks is now banned and subject to stiff penalties. If you run in and engage without binding or wrapping the arms then you are subject to a possible card and/or citing.

Whether this will get cited or not is a differnt matter.

PSW, so would you say that the key here is (a) whether there was a charge (imo, yes), and (b) failure to bind (he had nothing to bind on until Davies re-engaged in the ruck, imo)?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

DOD wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:Which is a bit ridiculous. The injury should have no bearing on the punishment in this case. It was dangerous and deserves a ban.

no it wasnt and it wont...

I'm pretty sure the Davies incodent will cloud the judgement and D Ryan will get off scott free.

But it was worse than Bakkies Botha's and deserves at least 2 weeks.

no it wasnt....just by you repeating that it was doesnt mean it...

seemed like it was agressive rucking to me

Looks like a fair counter ruck to me, though it could have caused damage because Jone was not in a rucking position. It may be that Ryan saw that and tried to target his shoulder and hurt him, but there is hardly any evidence for that. As of itself, that was a legal move

ChequeredJersey wrote:Looks like a fair counter ruck to me, though it could have caused damage because Jone was not in a rucking position. It may be that Ryan saw that and tried to target his shoulder and hurt him, but there is hardly any evidence for that. As of itself, that was a legal move

Normally when players "clear out" they use their arms - if (hypotherical situation) Jones had already picked the ball up and Ryan had tried to tackle Jones like that he'd probably have been binned for a shoulder charge.

I suspect that had the ref seen it he'd have penalised Ireland. And then reversed it pretty quick smart for the spear.

I think the OP should maybe go back to playing tag rugby. Jones - when protecting a ruck should have been looking in the right place. There was a charge, he had is right hand out but the attempt to bind on Jones wasn't great - he in turn bound with Davies.
There is a case for a penalty - but a citing - not really.

My tuppence worth. I believe that Ryan would not have been cited if the shoulder charge was the only incident but the retaliation by Davies will probably have caused Ryan's charge to come under further scrutiny.

In my opinion what Ryan did was legal classic rucking - he's on his feet, he simultaneously binds with his right arm while impacting with his left shoulder. Pearson was directly opposite and didn't flag it nor mention it to Barnes at all so it can be assumed that he did not have an issue with what Ryan did. What Davies did was a disgraceful intentional attempt to seriously injure an opponent. He deserves a serious ban and the IRB should make an example of him to "encourage the others".

Red Right wrote:I think the OP should maybe go back to playing tag rugby. Jones - when protecting a ruck should have been looking in the right place. There was a charge, he had is right hand out but the attempt to bind on Jones wasn't great - he in turn bound with Davies.
There is a case for a penalty - but a citing - not really.

lol, seriously that arm has nothing to do with an attempted bind, he led with the shoulder plain and simple. You can tell because his left shoulder dips.

That said, i'm not sure if it's a citing or not.

Ryan didn't bind in the ruck and therefore it was illegal. Just like many other ruck clearouts in every game. If he's cited it'll be just as much of a joke as the Botha one. Just watched the Ferris one again and there is no way (IMO) that it was a dangerous tackle.

http://www.rugbydump.com/

2mins 23 in

Davies has been cited. Gatland has said that he should have got a red card.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/16898415

You've presented this article in a very one-sided and provocative manner, it has to be said.

Personally, I thought Ryan was making an everyday clearout, I wasn't aware at the time that there was anything illegal about it and I'm still not sure now. But if there was anything wrong, it simply doesn't compare to what Davies did, nor did it in any way warrant that kind of reaction.

Davies could have threatened a man's life or long-term health, nevermind end his career. It wasn't like most tip tackles you see where it's an awkward hit with an unintended result, Davies intentionally flung a man with zero regard of the consequences and for doing so he has put himself up alongside all the other scum that have committed similar deeds. It really makes the Warburton-Clerc incident look like a hug and highlights major refereeing inconsistency in this area.

I'd say Davies deserves to take the rest of the season off with most probably a portion of next season too. The IRB need to crack down on things when they're this blatantly intentional and from a Welsh perspective Bradley has gotten mixed up in off-field incidents too, any hint of indiscipline needs to be eradicated.

Knowsit17 wrote:You've presented this article in a very one-sided and provocative manner, it has to be said.

Personally, I thought Ryan was making an everyday clearout, I wasn't aware at the time that there was anything illegal about it and I'm still not sure now. But if there was anything wrong, it simply doesn't compare to what Davies did, nor did it in any way warrant that kind of reaction.

Davies could have threatened a man's life or long-term health, nevermind end his career. It wasn't like most tip tackles you see where it's an awkward hit with an unintended result, Davies intentionally flung a man with zero regard of the consequences and for doing so he has put himself up alongside all the other scum that have committed similar deeds. It really makes the Warburton-Clerc incident look like a hug and highlights major refereeing inconsistency in this area.

I'd say Davies deserves to take the rest of the season off with most probably a portion of next season too. The IRB need to crack down on things when they're this blatantly intentional and from a Welsh perspective Bradley has gotten mixed up in off-field incidents too, any hint of indiscipline needs to be eradicated.

I seriously do not condone what Davies did, it was off the ball, it was ridiculously dangerous and he knows it was illegal. The game has had some awful incidents this year of silly and Un-Rugby-like behaviour and I am very sad to say that this is up there with hair pulling a player in to touch.

I hope that the WRU and IRB are equally firm with Davies, he is a young player that we hope has an exciting, rewarding and prosperous career ahead of him, but he can not behave in this way.

RubyGuby wrote:It was a strange one from Bradley, he's an abrasive player but I've never seen him as being dirty

He doesn't come across as being the sharpest tool in the box - wasn't he arrested for beating up some guy in a bar?

Ryan probably should be cited but may not be as his charge was in full view of Barnes who already looks bad enough from this game.

The Great Aukster wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:It was a strange one from Bradley, he's an abrasive player but I've never seen him as being dirty

He doesn't come across as being the sharpest tool in the box - wasn't he arrested for beating up some guy in a bar?

No he was in a bar where there was a fight and the police had been called.

Neither player, Ryan or Davies have a reputation for poor behaviour and that will serve both in good light, both were wrong in there doing and if cited will see retribution by the IRB.

It's always pointed when high profile no-nos keep getting committed. Luckily enough (for now) the gouging incidents have quietened down (although didn't Healy have issues with a player in the Italian world cup game)

But my point is that after all the publicity of some high profile examples... players still were ready to 'put fingers in the face area' as though they were oblivious to the sanctions imposed.

Here we have a spear tackle only a few months after another high profile spear tackle. The player comes from the same side, saw the same effect it had on his side, knows cameras are on him, knows it's considered dangerous because it IS and still clearly rises a player and clearly twists him in the air and clearly releases him to fall to the ground head first.

Just what part of 'we see you' do some players not understand in this age of multiple camera views, multiple private video moments shot by fans and observant linesmen on each wing??? And more seriosly, what part of 'dangerous - life threatening' do they not understand? Davis knew what he was doing was highly illegal and still went ahead and did it.

Nothing to do with him being Welsh, I'd say the same if he were Irish

There are some very extreme comments on here. What Davies did was poor and thoughtless. In no way do i think that his intention was to seriously hurt Ryan, it was more out of frustration and a momentary brain fart.

He will be charged and he will get a lengthy ban but again, i doubt seriously that he even thought about it, let alone intentionaly try to seriously injure Ryan.

As for Ryan, i suspect that he will get cited but nothing will be done.