Shock and Horror! Stuart Barnes defends a Tiger's player!

http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,12062_7627640,00.html

According to Mr Barnes the practice of holding players down and off the ball should be targeted by referees whilst Ben Youngs (guilty of throwing a couple of punches and using his knee to get away from the attentions of the LI number 8) should be let off because of the provocation involved.

What do we think, is retaliation in such cases understandable and as such should be viewed more leniently than other attempts at scrapping or are punches etc all equal?

"Retaliation is OK" is not an argument that's ever going to win. However, there's way too much holding and interfering with players off the ball. There are at least 3 officials at every game so why can't they stamp this out.

So may frustrations of watching the sport we love is directly attributed to officials failing to administer the rules !

Shock and Horror indeed, sam.

And to my mind the second serving of 'afters' should be included in the incident that raised the prospect of the citing,

Still, I think that Youngs should be banned for dropping a knee for a week or two.

Which brings up the issue of whether it should be a game or two (again).

Holding onto players off the ball to stop them participating in attack or contributing to defence is what we all see happening as the attention moves along with the ball.... it should get tougher treatment from the referee and should be called to his attention by his assistants.

If it's legal, teams should certainly concentrate on it more and use it aggressively to hold down opposing players in rucks whilst allowing your players to use the advantage to attack or defend more effectively.


................... if illegal then perhaps the refs could open their eyes and penalise it...!

Was it against Sarries when Chuter tried to smack someone who was holding him back (Gill?) with the opponent being carded?

Fly,

Surely by definition you have compound eyes and thereby have pretty much 360 degree vision.

The rest of us have a sight focus concentration of a patch about the size of a penny (at 1m). With a wider peripheral peripheral vision.

Try reading this post and the previous paragraph simultaneously.

It's tough being a ref.

I don't think retaliation is ever going to be let go in these circumstances but I agree that there is far too much of it, if you were being cynical you might suggest that some of those who do it wouldn't mind if there was a reaction which might result in a yellow.

In the same vein, some of the 'clear outs' at the ruck can't possibly be in the law book, they dont involve competing for the ball at all, just knocking over some bloke you would like out of the next play.

"Retaliation is OK" is not an argument that's ever going to win.

Well I think Barnes was arguing for stopping it at source. With the Youngs incident the linesman offers nothing to the referee until Ben Youngs starts to retaliate (Portnoy I'll leave out the Allinson extras as that's a whole different can of worms). Now if the assistant had got his flag out earlier and informed the referee or stepped in and told Gibson he must release Youngs then it's likely there would have been no violent conduct. Is there much point telling the ref after things have escalated that the first penalty should have been given against blah but then should be reversed because bleh's actions.

Now there is little or no defence for Youngs's knee drop and flailing fists (as rubbish as they were) and I'd expect him to get cited. However, should the citing commission cite Gibson and drag him to the hearing and give him, and the rest of the league, a clear warning this won't be tolerated. Obviously no ban can or should be given but the citing officials can note the offence deemed a YC and keep it on his record. Would this help target the deliberate slowing of play?

Was it against Sarries when Chuter tried to smack someone who was holding him back (Gill?) with the opponent being carded?

Gill has previous for that, he was sin binned along with Nick Wood at Gloucester over an off the ball incident Gill started. Against Leicester Gill merely conceded the penalty despite Chuter landing a pretty good elbow to his face.

Portnoy wrote:Fly,

Surely by definition you have compound eyes and thereby have pretty much 360 degree vision.

The rest of us have a sight focus concentration of a patch about the size of a penny (at 1m). With a wider peripheral peripheral vision.

Try reading this post and the previous paragraph simultaneously.

It's tough being a ref.

Look Portnoy...compound eyes aren't all they're cracked up to be. For sure I'm quicker than average at beating a rolled up piece of paper....but have you ever had Cooper's Fly spray blasted into your eyes................... all (well I don't know how many, as, being a fly, I can't count)??? It's not funny!

On a serious front though... if I can see it happening away from the action (where the ball is), you can be certain at least one of the ref assistant's sees it happening.

SecretFly wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Fly,

Surely by definition you have compound eyes and thereby have pretty much 360 degree vision.

The rest of us have a sight focus concentration of a patch about the size of a penny (at 1m). With a wider peripheral peripheral vision.

Try reading this post and the previous paragraph simultaneously.

It's tough being a ref.

Look Portnoy...compound eyes aren't all they're cracked up to be. For sure I'm quicker than average at beating a rolled up piece of paper....but have you ever had Cooper's Fly spray blasted into your eyes................... all (well I don't know how many, as, being a fly, I can't count)??? It's not funny!

On a serious front though... if I can see it happening away from the action (where the ball is), you can be certain at least one of the ref assistant's sees it happening.

Exactly. The ref didn't (apparently) see the incident but his assistant did - that's why he flagged the incident. And gave a good summary of what went on.

But the Allinson afters has not been much commented on.

I'ts all similar with the continual sneaking away with the ball after a penalty has been given. Rubbish sportsmanship.

Portnoy wrote:
Exactly. The ref didn't (apparently) see the incident but his assistant did - that's why he flagged the incident. And gave a good summary of what went on.

But the Allinson afters has not been much commented on.

I'ts all similar with the continual sneaking away with the ball after a penalty has been given. Rubbish sportsmanship.

Yes, well I was commenting on the general rather than your specific, Portnoy - apologies for the oversight.

I don't support player's taking the law into their own hands but if game speed is being championed in reffing circles by often turning a blind eye to how that speed and defense breakdown is sometimes accomplished then I want no part of this lovely speed game we all like to say is the way forward. If attack or defense happens legitmately - fine and beautiful with it. If it happens because a player or two is wrapped up in a spiderweb off-ball then no, no interest in that 'skill'.

offload wrote:"Retaliation is OK" is not an argument that's ever going to win. However, there's way too much holding and interfering with players off the ball. There are at least 3 officials at every game so why can't they stamp this out.

So may frustrations of watching the sport we love is directly attributed to officials failing to administer the rules !

+1

I have nothing further to add, that is the comment of the day