7 week ban for Bradley Davies

First topic message reminder :

7 week ban for Bradley Davies.


Right , onwards and upwards, Jones or Lou Reed to lock ?

RubyGuby wrote:Warburton, Lydiate and Jenkins all fit

thanks, so does that open-side who came on at half-time (Tipsevic?) drop out of the 22 entirely, with Lydiate coming onto the bench? Harsh, thought he did very well last Sunday.

EDIT: according to luckless, Warburton may not be fit after all.

A seven week ban doesn't seem appropriate given that accidental contact with the eyes can land players 4-6 week bans

8 week ban is normally the absolute minimum for contact with the eye area including the dodgey 'unintentional' contact (either you mean it or you don't).

I thought that Davies might get a bit longer but they have ended his 6N so I suppose that's about right. Had there been a bigger media out cry I'm sure he'd have been crucified but luckily for him the media were to busy with the Anfield cat and football related racism cases.

Naughty step for Duty

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:So what youre saying is the entry point should be higher for this type of offence.

Fine thats your opinion. When it comes to proprtionality, its already been pointed out several times that all but the most extreme gouges get similar bans. Im struggling to think of a striking incident thats copped a ban like this(pre reductions). Proportionaltly, it is punished harshly.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if your commit a 'high end' offence then you get a 'high end' punishment. That might requite the IRB to look at how they sentence these things. If the high end punishment is set at an entry point of ten weeks then that should be the minimum one can receive. Then aggravating and mitigating factors should be taken into account. For example, they wanted to add two weeks to the punishment. I would have added further punishment for the clear intent to do harm and also that it took place along way off the ball. That might say, for arguments sake, bring the offence to 16 weeks. Then look at mitigating factors. Good record, appeared personally, admitted guilt, etc. In this case a high end offence has been met with a mid range punishment. That is not proportional and the punishment does not fit the crime.

Comparing this with gouging is frankly ludicrous. It is a different offence carrying a differing range of punishments and to compare it to this is apples and oranges.

Sky reporting that Stephen Ferris's citing not upheld.

Sky reporting that Stephen Ferris's citing not upheld.

He was only cited as a matter of course. He was sin binned for a tip tackle and so pretty much had to have the citing, as I predicted before they'll have told him the on pitch sanction was adequete for the offence and that'll be it.

formerly known as Sam wrote:
He was only cited as a matter of course. He was sin binned for a tip tackle and so pretty much had to have the citing.

Not really. There have been instances where players have been carded for tip tackles this season and not been cited.

Although Bradley D seems as nice an enforcer as you could hope to meet, 7 weeks seems light. But then I'm often shocked at the leniency of the bans handed out when there is an obvious attempt to hurt a player; Cueto's gouge/punch being the most recent I can remember.

Meanwhile, I'm pleased Ferris' citing appears to have come to nothing. Reckless, but not malicious, and amply punished on the field.

Not very often you will necessarily hear me say this but at least someone in charge of discipline has some sense.

I have to say though that the behaviour of several posters on this topic over the last couple of days has left me feeling pretty disgusted.

MrsP wrote:Not very often you will necessarily hear me say this but at least someone in charge of discipline has some sense.

I have to say though that the behaviour of several posters on this topic over the last couple of days has left me feeling pretty disgusted.

+1 MrsP. Some of the things that have been said have left me shocked...

Just out of interest, how is it classed as a dangerous tackle? A tackle assumes the other person has the ball. This should have been judged as violent conduct maybe? To reiterate, how can an off the ball incident be tried as a dangerous tackle? Just another angle on the whole thing.

It could very well have been seen as that Carpe, i will be very interested to read the full report when it comes out.

eirebilly wrote:

MrsP wrote:Not very often you will necessarily hear me say this but at least someone in charge of discipline has some sense.

I have to say though that the behaviour of several posters on this topic over the last couple of days has left me feeling pretty disgusted.

+1 MrsP. Some of the things that have been said have left me shocked...

+1 also. Some poster have gone back to the bad old days of 606v1.

Hopefully this is not a sign of things to come.

No surprise and Davies cannot have any quarrel about it.

For me its now simple if Lydiates fit then move Jones up to 2nd row

I've been a Wales supporter since the mid-1950s and agree that Bradley Davies got what he deserved, i.e. suspension for the rest of the 6 nations championship.

To people who were shocked at last Saturday's 'red mist'action by Davies, I'd say they should have been at the Arms Park in 1969 when the Wales captain Brian Price laid out Ireland's Noel Murphy with a haymaker punch. All he got was a stiff talking-to from the ref. I can't remember if a penalty was given - probably - but most people seemed more shocked that it happened in front of the stand, where sat the young Prince of Wales, than by the punch itself.

That was a game in which, I heard later, the Irish seriously considered walking off the pitch because they felt the referee wasn't protecting their players from deliberate violence by Wales!

Believe it or not - despite the furore over last Saturday's incidents - things have improved!

optimist,

My Uncle played 1st class rugby through the 70s for Ebbw and Abertillery and whilst thats what got me hooked and my love of the game started some of the things that went on then and what he told me about is not what I would want my kids playing nowadays.

Davies got what her deserved sorry, I believe he didn't mean it and the red mist comes across us all sometimes but in this day and age you just cant do it

7 weeks that keeps him out of a major competition is about right but it's a shame he lost his head he was having a good game up to that stage.

optimist wrote:I've been a Wales supporter since the mid-1950s and agree that Bradley Davies got what he deserved, i.e. suspension for the rest of the 6 nations championship.

To people who were shocked at last Saturday's 'red mist'action by Davies, I'd say they should have been at the Arms Park in 1969 when the Wales captain Brian Price laid out Ireland's Noel Murphy with a haymaker punch. All he got was a stiff talking-to from the ref. I can't remember if a penalty was given - probably - but most people seemed more shocked that it happened in front of the stand, where sat the young Prince of Wales, than by the punch itself.

That was a game in which, I heard later, the Irish seriously considered walking off the pitch because they felt the referee wasn't protecting their players from deliberate violence by Wales!

Believe it or not - despite the furore over last Saturday's incidents - things have improved!

You may be right,but I thought it was Kennedy,the hooker that copped it.
In passing,might be worthy of mention that Brian Price was 6ft 2",I believe.Would be too small for flyhalf these days!

As a fan of BD Im gutted. Not in that he's been banned for 7 weeks but that he committed a stupid dangerous act. He deserves what he got, despite the reasons for his actions and I hope he learns from this.

He got what he deserved, shame it wasn't 7 months.

To Taffineastbourne

Thanks for the comment. It was definitely Noel Murphy who Price laid out. It happened in front of me as well as the Prince of Wales! I felt sorry for Murphy as it was his last game for Ireland - announced beforehand - and he had to go off. Price wasn't known for fighting - he said afterwards that he thought he felt fingers moving near his eyes so lashed out, but as there was no video back then nobody really knows.

But you're right about Kennedy being in the wars - really knocked about. As I recall, there were about 3 on the receiving end of some targetted rough treatment. Although as a Welsh fan I was glad Wales won, it was all pretty disgraceful and the referee lost control for some of the game. Of course, the referee back then needed to have eyes in the back of his head because the touch judges couldn't come in on foul play.

It was a shame as there were some great names on the pitch - including JPR, Gerald Davies, Barry John, Gareth Edwards, Mervyn Davies for Wales and Mike Gibson, Tommy Kiernan, Willie-John McBride, Roger Young, Syd Millar for Ireland.

overlordofthewest wrote: despite the reasons for his actions and I hope he learns from this.

No, I'm not going to attack you for suggesting he had 'reasons'.

But let's for argument sake suggest he did have a reason. So there is an argument, there is the forehead to forehead stand-offs, there is the shirt collar grabbing, there is the heavy pushes, there is even at times a fist thrown. Anger does those things to a man and when two angry rugby players with a bone to chew size each other up, the notion that a thump might be the final result would be an accurate enough assessment.

Now, why in a moment of anger, away from the game, should one player hoist another player into the air and let him fall head first onto the ground? No I know you're not defending that. But I am asking the question, what the hell was he thinking that he couldn't make his angry point without reverting to the act that virtually knocked his side out of the World Cup final only a few months ago?

You can't obviously answer it - but someone should ask him because it's bizarre. Anger doesn't work that way. Humans don't think of tossing a player when they want to hit them

gowales wrote:Id like Lou Reed to go to lock, Jones to stay at blindside and Lydiate on the bench.

Cant agree with that.We must pick our strongest side which means Lydiate must start.Jones to 2nd row and Shingler on bench.

eirebilly wrote:

MrsP wrote:Not very often you will necessarily hear me say this but at least someone in charge of discipline has some sense.

I have to say though that the behaviour of several posters on this topic over the last couple of days has left me feeling pretty disgusted.

+1 MrsP. Some of the things that have been said have left me shocked...

What's done is done (the tackle, the ban) so now you need to move on.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:So what youre saying is the entry point should be higher for this type of offence.

Fine thats your opinion. When it comes to proprtionality, its already been pointed out several times that all but the most extreme gouges get similar bans. Im struggling to think of a striking incident thats copped a ban like this(pre reductions). Proportionaltly, it is punished harshly.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if your commit a 'high end' offence then you get a 'high end' punishment. That might requite the IRB to look at how they sentence these things. If the high end punishment is set at an entry point of ten weeks then that should be the minimum one can receive. Then aggravating and mitigating factors should be taken into account. For example, they wanted to add two weeks to the punishment. I would have added further punishment for the clear intent to do harm and also that it took place along way off the ball. That might say, for arguments sake, bring the offence to 16 weeks. Then look at mitigating factors. Good record, appeared personally, admitted guilt, etc. In this case a high end offence has been met with a mid range punishment. That is not proportional and the punishment does not fit the crime.

Comparing this with gouging is frankly ludicrous. It is a different offence carrying a differing range of punishments and to compare it to this is apples and oranges.

hang on, we have to consider the proportionality of the ban, but comparing it to other bans is ludicrous because it makes a mockery of your point?

OK so long as I know the debate is that pointless.

The extra weeks you allude to come in finding it as an upper range offence. It is proportional when compared to bans handed out for other offences, if anything harsh ( as mentioned in the press release). If youre going to increase bans on this then you have to look at increasing bans for all foul play, and where do we end up?
Incidents of this nature are an inevitability in a game like rugby. Many people feel the IRB is being over harsh on these sort of things; tip tackles only officially became a penalty offence in 2009, and were only defined as dangerous play by the IRB in 2005 (at the request of the IRFU funnily enough)

Now we are talking 16 weeks for one?

So... moving on... Ryan stays at 6, Reed at Lock and Lydiate on the bench.

Love that Wales have some strength in depth. Ireland would be screwed if they lost one of their two decent locks or one their thrice beaten back row

Can everyone stop calling this a tackle,

It wasn't a tackle it was an act of thuggery in which he tried to injure the player.

I'd say he was lucky to get away with a 7 week ban, imagine if this was a football match the police would be involved by now and the player would be out of the game for months.

munkian wrote:So... moving on... Ryan stays at 6, Reed at Lock and Lydiate on the bench.

Love that Wales have some strength in depth. Ireland would be screwed if they lost one of their two decent locks or one their thrice beaten back row

Lol shows how much you know about rugby outside Wales.

HERSH wrote: imagine if this was a football match the police would be involved by now and the player would be out of the game for months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KADMN6ua3WU

munkian wrote:So... moving on... Ryan stays at 6, Reed at Lock and Lydiate on the bench.

Love that Wales have some strength in depth. Ireland would be screwed if they lost one of their two decent locks or one their thrice beaten back row

Nope we would be fine in those positions thanks