Is the lack of a ban on Tuilagi a farce.

Should he have been banned. To me there is, once again, an issue of inconsistency with rugby's judicial process. For me it's not a question of whether these types of tackles should be banned or not. What I want is consistency. It seems to me that there is little. This tackle was probably worse that Haymans tackle in the French league that got him banned recently. Before anyone tells me I'm having a go at the poms, I think consistency us an IRB wide issue that wont go away.

If it looks like a fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish: I'm guessing it's fish.

I haven't seen the tackle but given it is the rfu citing panel and they have a tour of SA in a week they aren't going to ban him. It is poor form but all the unions are the same.

did Tuilagi get a ban when he wacked Ashton with that swing?

Yes he did, he got a 10 week ban which was reduced by half for previous good behaviour as it was his first incident.

My mate a tiger's fan and massive england fan said he won't get a ban,not him and not this close to a summer tour!
I guess he was right.
Personally I think the tackle wasn't that bad but to the letter of the law he should be banned

Well if he did get a ban of let's say 2 weeks he would stll have played for england anyway.

Can you just change this to "are you not from England?"

No point. This might be a product of the RFU, but there are plenty of other decisions that could be considered similar. I know many Lions supporters were pretty upset with Umaga and Meealamu decision. Every year we have them. The point is more to do with the lack of consistency in the international system than any one nation. It could be that the RFU's call on Tuilagi was right in which case the call on big Carl wasn't, or vice versa.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Can you just change this to "are you not from England?"

Why do club ban affect international and vice versa- shouldnt he have just received a 3 game club ban or something- what is all these odd week bans all about- its not consitant in its self. players could get away with hardly missing any games, yet someone else banned for the same time could miss a RWC!!

how does any of this make sense?

Mystir a ban if effected doesn't discern between test or club rugby.

We actually had this discussion before where the bans shouldn't be for a period but for a number of matches.

And I agree with you, the ban should be reflective of the level, ie. club or test.

Tour or not, i find this ruling a bit of a farce.

I like Touilagi as well, but the law stands and he should have taken a 4 week hit. It was almost exactley the same as Afoa's tackle; technically a tip but with no malicious intent, and the player was put down with consideration. People like to have a go at Barnes, but in this case i think he made absolutley the right call at the right time.

I think there is definatley a case here, as part of a head of steam building, to review the tip tackle laws.

blackcanelion wrote:No point. This might be a product of the RFU, but there are plenty of other decisions that could be considered similar. I know many Lions supporters were pretty upset with Umaga and Meealamu decision. Every year we have them. The point is more to do with the lack of consistency in the international system than any one nation. It could be that the RFU's call on Tuilagi was right in which case the call on big Carl wasn't, or vice versa.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Can you just change this to "are you not from England?"

The two tackles were different. Haymans tackle wasnt far off the BOD spear, although he didnt lift the player very high he was tipped vertical and dropped head first.
Tuilagi lifted the player in an attempt to make a legitimate tackle and bought one of his legs slightly beyond the horizontal, then bought him down on his side.

The rules are not entirely clear and there are shades of grey no question. What I find annoying is the inference that when a player from "the opposition" is not hung drawn and quartered that this is automatically the wrong decision, political, and grossly unfair on the all those poor dears like Davies who got short bans for acts of gross thuggery.

Hayman pulled out of the tackle halfway, Tuilagi didn't. The hips relative to the head were similar in my opinion.

You are joking right? Try watching it again

http://www.rugbydump.com/2012/05/2606/carl-hayman-suspended-for-four-weeks-for-zee-ngwenya-spear-tackle

The reaction of the players says a lot.

Any comment I make in support of the decision will be construed to have bias, but here we go anyway.

The only farce was that tuilagi was cited. There was no tipping, the player to all intents and purposes horizontal, the player was never at any height, the player was brought down safely.

It is a complete and utter non-issue.

It is an issue because a player doing the same thing got 4 weeks.

I dont think he should be banned but the inconsistency is a farce

LondonTiger wrote:Any comment I make in support of the decision will be construed to have bias, but here we go anyway.

The only farce was that tuilagi was cited. There was no tipping, the player to all intents and purposes horizontal, the player was never at any height, the player was brought down safely.

It is a complete and utter non-issue.

I think it was worth a citing - no harm in checking through the evidence properly, and it keeps up players' awareness of tip tackles. Under the current rules around tip tackles it probably should have been a yellow at the time, but as the panel said, it wasn't worthy of a red, so not worth a ban.

geoff998rugby wrote:It is an issue because a player doing the same thing got 4 weeks.

I dont think he should be banned but the inconsistency is a farce

If someone else was banned for an identical challenge then that was wrong.

Different panels though. That is the problem. I remember Hayes got 3 or 4 weeks for stamping on Healy, a ban that just so happened to finish the week before the AI's.

I recall Alec brew getting away with one aswell from a welsh panel. The partiality of unions acting as judges of their own international players is what is wrong here.

The fundamental problem here, which will lead inevitably to suggestions of foul play (no pun intended) is that we have a rugby union adjudicating on a case involving one (or two, in fact) of its own players just before an international tour. If there was an independent body for citings, we could all be more confident that everything was above board.

You beat me to it, Stand!

Great minds luckless

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The fundamental problem here, which will lead inevitably to suggestions of foul play (no pun intended) is that we have a rugby union adjudicating on a case involving one (or two, in fact) of its own players just before an international tour. If there was an independent body for citings, we could all be more confident that everything was above board.

Well aside from that the panel was independent from the Union, when was the last time people where happy with the decisions of the independent review panels we get in the ERC/International games?

It was an RFU panel, Seabiscuit. That doesn't sound too 'independent' to me.

RFU Panel!! If he was a London Welsh player he would have got Life without parole

I dont understand why there is any problem with the RFU panel presiding over this citing.
Wasnt Tuilagi playing for an English team against another english team in an English competition? who's meant to preside over it a panel from New Guinea?

obviously a panel from wales auckland

I love these threads because they are the best way to completely waste the day away.

This case was heard by a Queen's Counsel. This guy will have a brain like a planet and unimpeachable integrity. He will have given this case and every other case he touches an incredible ammount of forensic attention to detail.

and yet.........

we create and then get on these threads and try in our lame arsed untrained, street justice methods to question the process.

What a bunch of numbskulls!

the approach needs simplifing triangle.

I think you are showing way to much respect for that panel and this queens council dude that would rather be on the golf course

geoff998rugby wrote:It is an issue because a player doing the same thing got 4 weeks.

I dont think he should be banned but the inconsistency is a farce

Yeah thats my only gripe. The whole tip tackle thing is a farce anyways. In that regards I have no problem with Tuilagi getting let off a ban, he shouldn't be cited anyway in my eyes... but yes I am aggrieved at the inconsistancy, considering some other guys who have been banned and cited like Afoa and even Ferris being carded against Wales.

The whole thing is nonsence. It's a totally natural resultant occurance for a player to go off his feet and in the air due to the collision and impact generated by a text book legitimate rugby tackle.

The only way to 100% ensure a player doesn't get lifted, is to tackle them above their centre of gravity, which in some cases would be above chest height, which would lead to far more neck/head injuries in my opinion and goes against what kids are taught at school.

The farce would have been the ban for Manu. I can see that some of the Irish posters will be feeling hard done by given that Afoa got quite a hefty ban for a tackle that was only marginally worse (he brough the player down at a worse angle). The consistentcy of the application of the laws really needs to be looked at.

Queens Counsel FFS! - Hammer and drawing pin - get some rugby people involved instead of these meddling sychophants

OR
repeal all the recent "tip tackle " laws and deal with spear tackles under the dangerous play provisions. you know the system that worked for the last 120 years.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
OR
repeal all the recent "tip tackle " laws and deal with spear tackles under the dangerous play provisions. you know the system that worked for the last 120 years.

+ 1

mystiroakey wrote:the approach needs simplifing triangle.

I think you are showing way to much respect for that panel and this queens council dude that would rather be on the golf course

but where is the motivation to make a prejudice decision? He has a lot more to lose via a loss of reputation, job, peerage, etc than he would gain which is a big fat nothing.

Why do people assume that every citing should lead to a ban is another question. I saw this incident as similar to the Ferris one against Wales - illegal and worth a penalty, but not a banning incident.

The irb directive people talk about simply mentioned dropping them with no regard to their safety. That wasn't an issue in this case.

Islingtonv2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:the approach needs simplifing triangle.

I think you are showing way to much respect for that panel and this queens council dude that would rather be on the golf course

but where is the motivation to make a prejudice decision? He has a lot more to lose via a loss of reputation, job, peerage, etc than he would gain which is a big fat nothing.

I think the decision was fine, but so would any- there is no presedent set, you can go any way you want in tuilagis case and be correct. the laws need simplfying as i said

Was there not a case last year of Cueto getting a lesser ban than he should have and it finishing before he was due to play for England?

Mystiroakey

Probably more accurate to say there are too may precedents set. So much variance in how tip-tackles get punished that whatever you do you can point to a previous incident that justifies it.

rodders wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:It is an issue because a player doing the same thing got 4 weeks.

I dont think he should be banned but the inconsistency is a farce

Yeah thats my only gripe. The whole tip tackle thing is a farce anyways. In that regards I have no problem with Tuilagi getting let off a ban, he shouldn't be cited anyway in my eyes... but yes I am aggrieved at the inconsistancy, considering some other guys who have been banned and cited like Afoa and even Ferris being carded against Wales.

The whole thing is nonsence. It's a totally natural resultant occurance for a player to go off his feet and in the air due to the collision and impact generated by a text book legitimate rugby tackle.

The only way to 100% ensure a player doesn't get lifted, is to tackle them above their centre of gravity, which in some cases would be above chest height, which would lead to far more neck/head injuries in my opinion and goes against what kids are taught at school.

Unless they went to school in rugby league area.

Ironically though there was plenty of people griping about Tuilagis chest high tackle that slid up as well. He cant win.

With regard to the tip tackles though theres a big difference between the sort of static lift done by Warburton and the kind of driving tackle that Tuilagi was attempting. One the IRB guidleines are less harsh on because even when it tips players it rarely does so dangerously , the force being mostly horizontal. Im sure they used to have video examples on the IRB site but they seem to have been taken down ...the only one thats on there is the attempted murder of Tait in a really clear cut spear.

does anyone have a link to the Afoa footage?

Marty2086

He got nine weeks which ended his Sale season prematurely. Video looked bad but the person who was allegedly gouged gave testimony that there had been no actual pressure behind Cueto's fingers (and said that he had been gouged before himself), so the contact with the eyes was treated as accidental rather than gouging. Based on the report 9 weeks seemed fair.

thomh wrote:Marty2086

He got nine weeks which ended his Sale season prematurely. Video looked bad but the person who was allegedly gouged gave testimony that there had been no actual pressure behind Cueto's fingers (and said that he had been gouged before himself), so the contact with the eyes was treated as accidental rather than gouging. Based on the report 9 weeks seemed fair.

The issue was more that he was given time off the ban in mitigation, but the mitigation didn't take into account that the ban covered several weeks of off-season.

thomh wrote:Mystiroakey

Probably more accurate to say there are too may precedents set. So much variance in how tip-tackles get punished that whatever you do you can point to a previous incident that justifies it.

that just means there is no precedent set. a precedent would be followed almost religiously

The issue was more that he was given time off the ban in mitigation, but the mitigation didn't take into account that the ban covered several weeks of off-season

Tell that to Clarke at Saints who got a pretty massive ban for dragging back and breaking the elbow of another player but who will serve around half of that ban over the summer period.

That's just how the bans go.

I thought Cueto was pretty hard done by personally, when the alleged victim comes forward to say he wasn't actually aware of any wrong doing on Cueto's part there clearly wasn't a lot wrong. It was just one very damning still shot of a brawl that hit the press and looked horriffic that got Cueto banned.

kiwireddevil wrote:

The issue was more that he was given time off the ban in mitigation, but the mitigation didn't take into account that the ban covered several weeks of off-season.

Well whatever part of the ban was reduced would have been served during the off season as well. I don't see how that matters. If anything the few weeks mitigation had no impact at all, because he wouldn't have missed any more games had there been no mitigation.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

The issue was more that he was given time off the ban in mitigation, but the mitigation didn't take into account that the ban covered several weeks of off-season

Tell that to Clarke at Saints who got a pretty massive ban for dragging back and breaking the elbow of another player but who will serve around half of that ban over the summer period.

That's just how the bans go.

I thought Cueto was pretty hard done by personally, when the alleged victim comes forward to say he wasn't actually aware of any wrong doing on Cueto's part there clearly wasn't a lot wrong. It was just one very damning still shot of a brawl that hit the press and looked horriffic that got Cueto banned.

I was reading an article about Clarke's ban, and realised the same thing. Maybe it would be better to do as they do in football and ban for a certain number of matches, rather than weeks/months?

bambamwillis wrote:Maybe it would be better to do as they do in football and ban for a certain number of matches, rather than weeks/months?

That would be much better.

Haven't seen the replay yet but all I can say is that the reffing of the tackle area is an utter mess at present. Rugby is at its most beautiful when physical and shouldn't be allowed to become a "get him down gently, there's a good boy" tea party shambles.

I can't help but sense whinging brewing in the near future over hard yet perfectly legal hits, I've even seen some already over such instances as the North tackle on Farrell back in Feb. With the amount of misinterpretation such as the Ferris incident and similar, it's almost inevitable.

Added to this that the so-called guilty party is sometimes not to blame. Honestly do you feel half of the tip-tackles that are cited are intended as such? It's all to easy to come in so hard that you knock their body at an angle and most of the time nothing comes of it save the injustice of over-moderation. Occasionally though not often, the tackled party is more at fault for the angle his body ends up in. If Shane had ever done himself mischief from trying to hurdle a tackler, as he's known to do, he'd have had nobody but himself to blame.

About 90-95% of tip-tackles I see are non-deliberate and more often than not a simple case of bad luck. There's not always somebody to blame. In the heat of the moment when you're concentrating on tackling guys running straight at you you're not always going to be able to plan or have full control over exactly how the tackle is going to go...

One of the only pure, malicious cases I've ever seen was Bradley Davies and Dave Pearson made one of the stupidest man sausage-ups I've ever seen on that occasion. Sure he got eight weeks off afterwards but you can't tell me that Warburton's clumsy yet non-deliberate challenge was worse than Brad's careless thuggish toss.

Totally agree Knowsit!

thomh wrote:

kiwireddevil wrote:

The issue was more that he was given time off the ban in mitigation, but the mitigation didn't take into account that the ban covered several weeks of off-season.

Well whatever part of the ban was reduced would have been served during the off season as well. I don't see how that matters. If anything the few weeks mitigation had no impact at all, because he wouldn't have missed any more games had there been no mitigation.

I didn't have an issue with mitigation per se. I do have an issue with people "serving" bans when they're not actually playing.