Calum Clark

With any EPS & Saxons squad announcement I normally have a few grumbles (typically the continued over-looking of Nick Wood!), but this time round I have a real concern. I am extremely disappointed that Lancaster has seen fit to give a place to Calum Clark. I still feel his ban was incredibly lenient as his act of thuggery is as bad as I have ever seen on a rugby field. I do believe people should be given a 2nd chance, but Clark is still banned and we've seen no proof that he has seen the error of his ways. It also sets an incredibly bad example that a player would be picked whilst banned for such a reason and I feel Lancaster et al have made a real error of judgement here. The reality of the EPS system is that by the time the Saxons play there will no doubt be an injury somewhere in the 2 squads allowing for Clark to be promoted then - but at that point he'd be playing again.

So am I being over-sensitive here, or should Clark be nowhere near the England set-up?

I am not comfortable with the decision to include him in the Saxons squad. Lancaster may claim that as he was in the EPS squad in January he has effectively been dropped. but bearing in mind how Care was treated I am not sure this sends out the right message.

January should have been the earliest he was considered - a point when Clark and Hawkins would probably have been playing for a while.

LondonTiger wrote:I am not comfortable with the decision to include him in the Saxons squad. Lancaster may claim that as he was in the EPS squad in January he has effectively been dropped. but bearing in mind how Care was treated I am not sure this sends out the right message.

January should have been the earliest he was considered - a point when Clark and Hawkins would probably have been playing for a while.

+1

Nicely summed up LT.

He shouldnt have been selected. Care was one thing, but at least he was a player England needed.
5th choice at best lock, you can do the right thing and leave him on the sidelines even if youre swayed by long term practicalities above morals.

He shouldnt be in the squad, Indeed hes lucky hes being allowed to play any rugby this season

Is this a first? Total agreement on 606?!

Seems that way HKC. Any game Wood plays I will support the opposition, even if that means supporting the Welsh at Twickers.

That sort of behaviour is just wrong. A punch or some old fashioned rucking I could have understood but to purposefully break another players arm and try to actually damage his career that is unforgivably thuggish. You can't even put it down to the red mist as he would have heard Hawkins cry out as dragged his arm back, to then knowingly drag it back further was pure malice.

It depends. As I said on another post, he was given a rugby ban that was seen out. Care wasn't given one officially but was given an unofficial one by SL. They're completely different.

Now if you're saying should his ban have been longer? Then definately yes. I can't believe they fell for his story that he was just stopping Hawkins from slowing the ball (or protecting it, I can't remember who was in possession at the time). AND the thing with his red for the U20 was misrepresented as being for the U18 and longer ago.

But he's done his ban. I personally wouldn't touch him with a barge pole for a good few years of him proving himself. BUT I understand why SL has stuck with him.

Then definately yes. I can't believe they fell for his story that he was just stopping Hawkins from slowing the ball (or protecting it, I can't remember who was in possession at the time).

Hawkins was deliberatley slowing the ball down at the ruck for which he was penalised and then continued to hold onto it as the ruck started to break up so as to stop the quick one. Hence why I could understand a little use of the boot or maybe a jab to encourage the ball to be released.

"But he's done his ban."

Eh? I thought he was banned til November. Which is the point - he was selected yesterday, whilst still banned.

Personally I thought his action was more criminal than foul play.

The best he should have got was the next full season at his club to see if he's got the mentality to play test rugby.

Why do we need another bloomin six anyway, a thuggish banned one at that when we have 5 proven international class 6's !!
croft
haskell
robshaw
wood
johnson etc etc

Steffan armitage or even luke wallace if he has to be playing in england would make much more sense.

We should all realise by now that Lancaster like all coaches has his favourites. Dowson, JTH, Dickson, Clark are all beloved of him and he'd sooner cut off a limb then lose them.

In Clarks case it is a shocking statement and I wonder what the thoughts of the players will be if/when he does rock back up next year.

I believe in second chances, but this was the worst I've seen from a professional player. Poor decision.

Clark is lucky to have a career yet alone be picked to go anywhere near a national squad. He's a thug, plain and simple. That arm/shoulder lock was 100% done on purpose and he should be banned from the sport as far as i'm concerned.

Selecting him is a bad call.

Selecting Clark is indeed a bold step as there was quite the contreversy post LV Cup Final with Hawkins and several other Tigers players voicing their thoughts on Clark as he went over to apologise. I'm willing to bet that Tom Youngs was at the front of the queue as he has quite the temper (Cockers has compared his temper and aggression to that of Julian White). Which should be interesting come the Saxons get together. That was of course post the mouthfull he received off of Cockers post game but pre the rumoured Cockers and Westy arguement that saw West invite Cockers to step outside.

He deserves the chance to redeem himself and earn his shirt, but his ban was firstly not long enough, and secondly the guy seems like he can just walk into the England team without actually having to earn his shirt back and earn respect from the players and coaching staff. This is very poor. Wasn't Care dropped for drink driving, and he had to prove himself in order to get back with the team?

Again, if Clark can grow up and learn from what he did I have absolutely no problem with him playing for England, but it seems like he hasn't actually even had the chance to do so. His ban isn't even complete and he hasn't even had the chance to earn the respect from his players and coaches yet he gets selected. That is poor from Lancaster.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Seems that way HKC. Any game Clark plays I will support the opposition, even if that means supporting the Welsh at Twickers.

That sort of behaviour is just wrong. A punch or some old fashioned rucking I could have understood but to purposefully break another players arm and try to actually damage his career that is unforgivably thuggish. You can't even put it down to the red mist as he would have heard Hawkins cry out as dragged his arm back, to then knowingly drag it back further was pure malice.

Sorry dude...even if we picked Hannibal Lecter...i still couldnt do that....

Sam - if he clearly regrets what he does, and learns from his mistakes, surely you won't still feel that way? At this point though I agree he hasn't actually even had to serve much of a punishment, or been given the chance to earn his right to represent England.

He still isn't bigger than your country though. You don't have to support him as a player/person, but support your country mate. I don't really believe that you will support the opposition if he plays for England. Even if you might think you would now. You will still be passionate about the other players and the team you have been supporting all these years.

The fact of the matter is....IF he turns out to a player that England needs...ie an abrasive controntational flanker...that does it all..then most England fans will forget this episode...and dont pretend they wont.

It was a deplorable act...but he's not the only one who has performed a thug act and still managed to change peoples opinons of him...

Thats just fact guys...im not defending him.

GeordieFalcon wrote:It was a deplorable act...but he's not the only one who has performed a thug act and still managed to change peoples opinons of him...

Thats just fact guys...im not defending him.

Quite. There are plenty of spear-tacklers and gougers still out there. He deserves a second chance and it's not really his fault his ban was on the lenient side.

However, I'm convinced this could all have been avoided by not picking him as I don't think he offers much that we don't already have in his position.

Lancaster doesn't seem to be afraid of making controversial decisions anyway!

Sam - if he clearly regrets what he does, and learns from his mistakes, surely you won't still feel that way?

Don't know Rory, I don't think he was sorry. Walking away from the prone playing smirking was pretty classless and he didn't look embarrassed or apologetic as Cockers gave him a dressing down on the pitch post game. Maybe he will change my perception, maybe he won't. Maybe I hope he comes to WR next season and is given some old school rucking justice.

I think he'll be in for some reception at WR mind SAm...ouch i can feel his pain already...

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sam - if he clearly regrets what he does, and learns from his mistakes, surely you won't still feel that way?

Don't know Rory, I don't think he was sorry. Walking away from the prone playing smirking was pretty classless and he didn't look embarrassed or apologetic as Cockers gave him a dressing down on the pitch post game. Maybe he will change my perception, maybe he won't. Maybe I hope he comes to WR next season and is given some old school rucking justice.

I can totally understand why you feel that way, especially being a Tigers fan, his reaction to the whole thing didn't seem exactly.. apologetic. But after his ban is finished hopefully he can get himself back on track and apologise for what he has done. Do you know if he has apologised to Hawkins since the incident?

"sorry mate, I deliberately broke your arm without showing any remorse"

Bet that went down a treat

Just got back from work - actually my last procedure for the day was fixing a broken arm, how's that for irony? - and started reading this thread.

I suppose the question about Calum Clark, and others as well, is whether the punishment should continue after the ban expires. We have all seen bans we considered too short, and some of the eye gouging incidents of recent years come to mind here. But once complete, players typically go back where they were beforehand.

So, to me, I have no problem if he rejoins the Saxons team. My question to all is whether he was really good enough last season to justify a Saxons squad selection. As a Saints fan, I believe he has a lot of potential, but had he developed enough as a player? Not sure. And is his disposition mature enough at this point? Not sure. But these would clearly be grounds for keeping him out of the squad.

Clark is an idiot and no apology will excuse this.

sent off for some of the most stupid behavior v NZ he clearly hasn't changed and now he quite deliberately breaks a guys arm on the pitch.

Punch ups are fine as is needle in the scrum, but a punch is very different to what he gets up to and not only is he a dirty player he is a very stupid one

He doesn't belong on a rugby pitch if that is how he plays and in my view he will find he gets very special treatment for what he did.

Does anybody know whether he will be able to join up with the squads for training camps before his ban is up? It's my understanding that players can only be banned from participating in matches, which would suggest he'll be with the England squad for their pre season camps. This would be very very wrong.

I sit somewhere in the (relative) middle on this subject, pretty much agree with what most have said. He shouldn't be involved at all at this stage, he should have to start afresh back at club rugby and work his way into the squad on merit. But once his ban is served he shouldn't continue to be punished. If he serves his time and comes back, shows clear remorse and earns a place in the squad, I'd have no problem with him being there.

It was a despicable act, of that there is no question. But there are other equally despicable acts which have received less punishment and less of an outcry from fans, the main offence being gouging as Dr.G pointed out.

The question as to whether he is good enough anyway is a different matter. From what I'd seen of him he looks a decent prospect, but there are a lot of decent prospects in the back row. He won't be tarnished for life purely based on this one bad act at a young age, but the clear temperament issues highlighted are more of a long term concern. If anything like this ever happened again, I'd sack him and have him banned for life. I doubt anyone would be that stupid though.

For all the good PR work Lancaster has done for England this is a clanger. Clarke has never stood out as so exceptional a player that his inclusion was mandatory, at club or national level.

The comparisons with Danny Care's treatment by Lancaster ring very true. Make a mistake, serve your punishment and do all you can to rectify and apologise for your mistakes by playing your best. Danny came back to England as a shining light.

Picking Clarke during his ban and considering what his ban was for sends out the wrong message.

Too be honest I am surprised Saints or England still want him in their colours.

I wouldn't pick him because he isn't very good, let alone the fact that he deliberately broke another man's arm. Disgusting decision, sickening behaviour.

Jeff or Dr Gray can you let me know the last time a player gouged someone and put them out of the game for over half a season (if he ever makes it back, there are still worries)?

I understand where you're coming from but Clarks actions were literally the worst I've seen any player commit. He didn't get a long enough ban but that's not SL's fault and yes if he came back kept his head down and worked hard then he should be able to play for his country like anyone else but to still be picked and even worse for Lancaster to gloss over it and never mention him is sickening.

Especially after all Lancaster's self rightousness over Care and his repeated comments to the press about building the right attitude and culture. Turns out that when he chooses that's just a load of cobblers.

I read an article a year or so ago about an amateur club match (I think it was a couple of London clubs) where one of the players (a promising young South African number 8 I believe) was gouged. He lost his sight in that eye and probably wont play again. Gouging has the potential to cause that sort of injury. It shouldn't take a high profile incident to highlight such things. Endangering someone's career is one thing, but endangering their eyesight is surely worse. I'm not condoning Clark's actions in any way, merely applying some perspective to those saying it's the single worst act ever committed on a rugby pitch. It depends as to whether you judge the heinousness of a crime by the action or the consequence.

Here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8663226.stm

No not the worst act ever committed, it's the worst act i've ever seen committed.

It was fairly horrific to be honest, but again, if he learns his lesson and can earn his place and respect from his team mates, then he deserves a chance. The thing is he has been selected despite not even finishing his ban, which is rather poor by Lancaster.

Interesting hearing peoples opinions...generally in agreeance it was a horrific act..yet some will not forgive and others are prepared to show a little leniance IF he learns his lesson??

Where would people see Umaga and his pals deliberate act of dumping O'Driscol on his head?

Similar situation really, even if at the time it was horrific looking.

The thing is i'm happy for him to have the chance to play himself back in to contention, it's the fact that he's still named in the squad that I find appalling.

And the total media silence over it after all the hoo haa over Care.

Compare his actions in the NZ game with his actions leading to the ban...he hasn't learned, he has got much worse, is a thug and deserves a life ban..I actually think his actions were criminal and he should have been investigated

For me, its not so much as about forgiveness for Clark as about the punishment. If a player is banned, should the punishment continue after the ban is over?

For me, the worst thing on a Rugby pitch is an eye gouge. Yet players have received bans of only a few weeks in some cases. Is that either fair or consistent? Should any of those players have been allowed back in their nation's colours? Ever? Or at least for some period afterwards? I would apply the punishment in the same manner to Clark as I would to the gougers.

I agree about gouging

I am old school and have never understood the mentality that engages in it; for me rugby was the ultimate expression of man against man. It required skill and power and there were a few rules to be observed about how you conduct the battle but it was battle!

To do what Clark did, and what any gouger has done, sickens me. In Clark's case he had the guys arm off the ball, the whistle blew and then he snaps it back the wrong way. Why? what was the point? To me that is a straightforward assault and i am really surprised the Police never looked at it. Who does that in a game where there are so many opportunities to express your skill and strength....when you are a pro and you are being watched by a hundred cameras and a thousand eyes? why is it necessary to deliberately and seriously injure a fellow player?

I really think that someone shown ot have deliberately caused a significant injury like this should be banned for life; there is no place for it in our sport

Considering the mundane nature of the summer rugby editorial this weekends papers really missed what should have been a hot story...

Absolutely no reports...?

I do tnihnk SL has sent out the wrong message on this one.

Clarkes ban finishes on 1st November let him get back playing for Saints (if selected) and earn his place.

The first autumn international is on 10th November 2012 & the EPS agreement allows release 13-14 days prior to the Autumn Internationals.

Would this mean Clarke could 'potentially' be training with the EPS prior to his ban finishing?
It just doesnt sit right with me.

One thing occurs to me that SL could not pick him in the team squad and not release him back to his club - thereby effectively extending his ban.

The consensus here is that no player should be selected for his national squad if banned at the time of selection? I can agree with that. Maybe that will function as an additional incentive to stay away from dirty play?

This still seems to hark back to a lot of our discussions about consistency in punishment from incident to incident. And there is still a lot of room for improvement.

I can't imagine anyone wants to read about any more incidents like the one jeffwinger reminded us about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8663226.stm

doctor_grey wrote:The consensus here is that no player should be selected for his national squad if banned at the time of selection? I can agree with that. Maybe that will function as an additional incentive to stay away from dirty play?

This still seems to hark back to a lot of our discussions about consistency in punishment from incident to incident. And there is still a lot of room for improvement.

I can't imagine anyone wants to read about any more incidents like the one jeffwinger reminded us about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8663226.stm

Yeah I have read that before. It is pretty shocking to say the least.

doctor_grey wrote:The consensus here is that no player should be selected for his national squad if banned at the time of selection? I can agree with that. Maybe that will function as an additional incentive to stay away from dirty play?

This still seems to hark back to a lot of our discussions about consistency in punishment from incident to incident. And there is still a lot of room for improvement.

I can't imagine anyone wants to read about any more incidents like the one jeffwinger reminded us about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8663226.stm

Any player banned for something this serious should be thought about long and hard. As much as anything he wont have played any rugby for a long time.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:I do tnihnk SL has sent out the wrong message on this one.

Clarkes ban finishes on 1st November let him get back playing for Saints (if selected) and earn his place.

The first autumn international is on 10th November 2012 & the EPS agreement allows release 13-14 days prior to the Autumn Internationals.

Would this mean Clarke could 'potentially' be training with the EPS prior to his ban finishing?
It just doesnt sit right with me.

He's in the Saxons. The Saxons' first game is usually at the end of January.