No citings from the weekend then?

So the Rugby World and IRB are telling everyone we should all love Samoa because despite their many disadvantages their good performances seem to have levelled the playing field. Evident from their Aus win since before the RWC. So that means we should allow them to do the illegalities?

Bolox to that. Sort it out citing commisioners. There are at least 3 Samoan players who could be cited from their last game with the possibility of just the one receiving a ban. Sorry folks I want the pacific island teams to do well as much as the next rugby fan but I'm not part of this Samoa love-in.

Not since Saturday anyway

Wayne Barnes should not run the line or ref a game, the Ken Owens incident was clear to see, he has the brass nerve to say the guy trying to break is neck arm slipped up to Owens neck what a load of rubbish. Dan Biggar's incident was a cheap shot coming in the side with a swinging arm to his face, that smash won the game for the Samoan's by seeing off Biggar, I felt Biggar was assaulted. How many shoulder charges and swinging arms e.,g Halfpenny I can't believe there are no citings.

It would make no difference to the result, but I'm quite surprised not to see a citing or two.

Cyril, no idea who let you back in but I have not mentioned the result. The ref was poor, they should have seen a yellow but despite all of this there was no way we could breach their defence or deal with their attack and ball carriers. Despite the stuff I have highlighted they played some wonderful rugby.

Potentially there were 3 incidents where Samoan players could have justifiably been given a yellow card, and I can understand why Welsh fans would feel aggrieved that they didn't.

However, none of the challenges warranted a red in my opinion, and as that is the case, then it is entirely correct that there are no citings, as you can only cite for an incident that would have warranted a red card.

I thought that vicious elbow on Biggar was just pure violence

RubyGuby wrote:I thought that vicious elbow on Biggar was just pure violence

I agree with that.

Completely malicious really.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Potentially there were 3 incidents where Samoan players could have justifiably been given a yellow card, and I can understand why Welsh fans would feel aggrieved that they didn't.

However, none of the challenges warranted a red in my opinion, and as that is the case, then it is entirely correct that there are no citings, as you can only cite for an incident that would have warranted a red card.

Hey Ozzy

You realise Cyril is a multiple banned user on here as he is always trying to annoy people.

Thought you guys would have banned him already....?

formerly, SugarNSpikes, safeAsmilk, Tropical hotdog and Avalon.


Cheers

Maes

maesteg

why don't you stick to the topic and stop trying to stir the pot mate. The admin/mod team are well aware of who people are and will deal with anything that needs dealing with accordingly.

Ta

Yes and an elbow is a red card offence as it can be deemed a strike at the opposition player. Also, the shoulder charge on Hibbard can be cited. As can the player who tried to strangle Ken Owens. We've been severly let down here because everyone says Samoa are hard done-by. Think back to the RWC where Eliotta also got off lightly. I'm done with this Samoa love-in, unless they play by the rules they shouldn't get any help from our Union or any other. Scrap the proposed tour there in the next few years.

EDIT* the clearout that injured Biggar. It was almost identical to what Bakkies Botha did to Adam Jones during the 09 Lions tour. He was banned, as you probably know. Just another example for you ozzy.

Morgannwg wrote:Yes and an elbow is a red card offence as it can be deemed a strike at the opposition player. Also, the shoulder charge on Hibbard can be cited. As can the player who tried to strangle Ken Owens. We've been severly let down here because everyone says Samoa are hard done-by. Think back to the RWC where Eliotta also got off lightly. I'm done with this Samoa love-in, unless they play by the rules they shouldn't get any help from our Union or any other. Scrap the proposed tour there in the next few years.

Geesh, completely forgot about that. I was incensed when I saw the replay of that.

It's not even effective rugby, but is just brute thuggary. Similarly to Du Plessis when he tried to break Pocock in a similar way.

There's no need for that in the game.

We have nothing to gain playing these thugs and that's not sour grapes. I said it before the AI's - whoever was stupid enough to line up these games needs to rethink strategy - We should have played, Arg, Tonga, SA and NZ. What the feck are we doing playing Aus again!!! Get it sorted WRU

Sorry morgannwg, but I disagree entirely with that. The Pacific Island teams have a reputation for swinging arms and no arm tackles, and as a result any borderline challenge gets highlighted much more so than for any other nation.

My view having watched the game is that this is the case here. I don't think if this were France or Scotland or any other nations players making the challenges you mention, that there would be anyone calling for citings. I think people may feel aggrieved that yellows were not awarded, but that would be the limit of it.

Eben Etsbeth has been cited for contact with Laidlaw's eye area - Jeebus, big fella, wee Greig is not even half your size!

Ozzy - wrapping yourself around someones neck and physically dragging them backwards to the ground along with violently elbowing someone in the face are not borderline unless you're a bent copper

RubyGuby

You are slightly overdramatising the incidents in my opinion. They were things that happen on a rugby pitch and as I say, yellows would have been justified, no dispute, but I don't think any were red card challenges.

If they were, and reds were issued for those type of things we would see lots of games finishing 13 v 12 each and every week.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Sorry morgannwg, but I disagree entirely with that. The Pacific Island teams have a reputation for swinging arms and no arm tackles, and as a result any borderline challenge gets highlighted much more so than for any other nation.

My view having watched the game is that this is the case here. I don't think if this were France or Scotland or any other nations players making the challenges you mention, that there would be anyone calling for citings. I think people may feel aggrieved that yellows were not awarded, but that would be the limit of it.

Here comes another brass cliche. "let's let them off because that is how they tackle." No thanks. The same rules apply to everyone, yes perhaps it does highlight IRB consistentcies as has been previously documented. I posted an article back in the RWC asking where the consistentcy was because Pocock struck Woodcock (or Franks?) in the face. To top it off you have gone on to assume I have something against Samoa? That is just a poor and incorrect comment posted.

Ozzy3213 wrote:RubyGuby

You are slightly overdramatising the incidents in my opinion. They were things that happen on a rugby pitch and as I say, yellows would have been justified, no dispute, but I don't think any were red card challenges.

If they were, and reds were issued for those type of things we would see lots of games finishing 13 v 12 each and every week.

In suggesting yellows you are agreeing with me - we must never trivialise violence of that nature - I'm sorry if you disagree or find it dramatic - I was incensed to see that cowardly act on Biggar and I would ahve felt the same irrespective of who it was on. It was callous and intentional

Ozzy3213 wrote:maesteg

why don't you stick to the topic and stop trying to stir the pot mate. The admin/mod team are well aware of who people are and will deal with anything that needs dealing with accordingly.

Ta

Cheers Ozzy,

Just been taking a load of rubbish from him... its rather annoying.

Re the citings:-

It was a pretty harsh game by the look of it. Some of those tackles would have been cited in other matches. As with most rugby refereeing it is the inconsistency that is our biggest issue as fans and players.

Well I think some of the incidents highlighted in this thread have been a little exaggerated, I was a bit surprised that no one got cited as well.

if citings are only for red card incidents were any of those red cards? I am not at all sure

Perhaps if some people expended less energy on Penalties,coloured cards, suspensions and other sanctions, and instead concentrated on the actual requirements of the game of rugby they might find there's another side to this game.

Fiji got a bit dirty in the second half against Ireland including squeezing Luke Marshalls testicles. The late shoulder charge seems to be a Polynesian trait.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Eben Etsbeth has been cited for contact with Laidlaw's eye area - Jeebus, big fella, wee Greig is not even half your size!

No surprise there. Theres many more to come for him.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Perhaps if some people expended less energy on Penalties,coloured cards, suspensions and other sanctions, and instead concentrated on the actual requirements of the game of rugby they might find there's another side to this game.

?

TJ wrote:if citings are only for red card incidents were any of those red cards? I am not at all sure

But citings aren't strictly for red card offences and never have been.

One of the Fijians also removed Ian Henderson from a ruck by his head in much the same way as happened in the Wales v Samoa match.

And it looked like Mike McCommish might have had a bit of attention to his face at another ruck too.

Profitius

In your study of the game, have you ever seen non Polynesians execute late shoulder charges?

Morgannwg wrote: I'm done with this Samoa love-in, unless they play by the rules they shouldn't get any help from our Union or any other. Scrap the proposed tour there in the next few years..

+1000

Morgannwg wrote:

TJ wrote:if citings are only for red card incidents were any of those red cards? I am not at all sure

But citings aren't strictly for red card offences and never have been.

Yes they are. It is even called "The Red Card Rule!"

If you don't think an offence warranted a red card, don't refer it to the citing panel.

profitius wrote:Fiji got a bit dirty in the second half against Ireland including squeezing Luke Marshalls testicles. The late shoulder charge seems to be a Polynesian trait.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Eben Etsbeth has been cited for contact with Laidlaw's eye area - Jeebus, big fella, wee Greig is not even half your size!

No surprise there. Theres many more to come for him.

Wouldn't say it's a polynesian trait considering the Fijian people are melanesian. You could say they are all very physical.

And, SA may have just found the right replacement for Botha in the 2nd row then? With that said I do miss seeing Bakkies line-up for the opposition. Hell of a player.

MrsP wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:

TJ wrote:if citings are only for red card incidents were any of those red cards? I am not at all sure

But citings aren't strictly for red card offences and never have been.

Yes they are. It is even called "The Red Card Rule!"

If you don't think an offence warranted a red card, don't refer it to the citing panel.

So why have a number of yellow card offences in the past warranted citings and even bans?

If the ref gave a yellow but the citing commisioner thought it should/could have had a red they will refer it.

To me i knew the elbow on Biggar was malicious when the lock stood up after it looking at Biggar all mad eyed with his shoulders back and chest puffed up,
it showed he got what he intended.

Wales should do the rugby league style shoulder barge/hit that Samoa have endorsed,
they should do it this weekend and see how many yellows get dished out and citing's for doing it to the beloved brand All Blacks.

MrsP wrote:If the ref gave a yellow but the citing commisioner thought it should/could have had a red they will refer it.

Source?

Also didn't someone get cited lately for a string of consistent yellow cards not issued for foul play? (in the Aviva premiership).

I will find the reference for you later on the red card rule although I think others will confirm it.

The cumulative yellow thing I think is new this season and I'm not sure if it is just the RFU doing some internal housekeeping?

But the Red Card Rule has been in place for some time.

MrsP wrote:I will find the reference for you later on the red card rule although I think others will confirm it.

The cumulative yellow thing I think is new this season and I'm not sure if it is just the RFU doing some internal housekeeping?

But the Red Card Rule has been in place for some time.

I see. Thanks.

Perhaps this then highlights just how poor the officials were on the night. Much worse than I originally thought. God help Wales and the rugby world should an All Black succumb to a high tackle on saturday.

I only saw one of the incidents being discussed - the dragging of Hibberd(?) by an arm roun dthe neck. I was shocked it was penalised as all season I have seen similar things seen by officials and let go.

I agree it should have been penalised, and should have been a YC by the way I understand the laws - though as I say not by how they have been applied this season

Morgannwg,

Had a wee quick look and found this although the threshold for citing as an offence which could/should have warranted a red card is well known. As you can see it is actually called the Red Card Test. T'was ever thus AFAIK.

http://www.nowrugby.com/changes-to-the-citing-rules-for-english-premiership-and-championship/6562.htm#

Hope it helps.

There seem to have been three main incidents - the arm to Halfpenny, the clearout on Biggar and the weird neck thing with Owens. I think the arm was a penalty but no more, as there didn't seem to be intent. The Fa'asavalu / Owens thing had intent and I would have yellowed him. The clearout on Biggar didn't seem malicious but it was certainly reckless and he didn't seem to stay on his feet (the Samoan, that is; I think Biggar can be excused for not staying on his feet afterwards) I find this one the hardest to judge, I think depending on interpretation it could be anything from "let it go" to "red card".

Whilst we may well judge the acceptability of a players actions by trying to assess their "intent" I don't think it is something that a referee is supposed to use when deciding on whether to issue a card or not.

The citing panel may well try to quantify the "intent" of the offender but I think the ref is supposed to judge the act itself, not try to second guess what was going on in the offeder's head at the time.

Morgannwg wrote:

profitius wrote:Fiji got a bit dirty in the second half against Ireland including squeezing Luke Marshalls testicles. The late shoulder charge seems to be a Polynesian trait.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Eben Etsbeth has been cited for contact with Laidlaw's eye area - Jeebus, big fella, wee Greig is not even half your size!

No surprise there. Theres many more to come for him.

Wouldn't say it's a polynesian trait considering the Fijian people are melanesian. You could say they are all very physical.

And, SA may have just found the right replacement for Botha in the 2nd row then? With that said I do miss seeing Bakkies line-up for the opposition. Hell of a player.

Innocent until proven otherwise, lads

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:

profitius wrote:Fiji got a bit dirty in the second half against Ireland including squeezing Luke Marshalls testicles. The late shoulder charge seems to be a Polynesian trait.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Eben Etsbeth has been cited for contact with Laidlaw's eye area - Jeebus, big fella, wee Greig is not even half your size!

No surprise there. Theres many more to come for him.

Wouldn't say it's a polynesian trait considering the Fijian people are melanesian. You could say they are all very physical.

And, SA may have just found the right replacement for Botha in the 2nd row then? With that said I do miss seeing Bakkies line-up for the opposition. Hell of a player.

Innocent until proven otherwise, lads

...Says the man called ASBO!!!!

Morgannwg wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Sorry morgannwg, but I disagree entirely with that. The Pacific Island teams have a reputation for swinging arms and no arm tackles, and as a result any borderline challenge gets highlighted much more so than for any other nation.

My view having watched the game is that this is the case here. I don't think if this were France or Scotland or any other nations players making the challenges you mention, that there would be anyone calling for citings. I think people may feel aggrieved that yellows were not awarded, but that would be the limit of it.

Here comes another brass cliche. "let's let them off because that is how they tackle." No thanks. The same rules apply to everyone, yes perhaps it does highlight IRB consistentcies as has been previously documented. I posted an article back in the RWC asking where the consistentcy was because Pocock struck Woodcock (or Franks?) in the face. To top it off you have gone on to assume I have something against Samoa? That is just a poor and incorrect comment posted.

Just a couple of points.

1. Where have I said 'let them off, that's how they tackle? What I have said is that at times they are refereed on reputation rather than the actual incident, much as other teams are in other areas, such as perceptions about scrummaging ability earning penalties as opposed to what was actually happening in a particular scrum.

2. I have assumed nothing. I've not said you have anything against Samoa whatsoever, my comment was a general one in which I express the view that people call for citings and bans as aboive, by reputation rather than what's happened.

3. Just because somebody disagrees with you, it doesn't make the comment poor or incorrect, and posting that sort of response is quite frankly a little childish.

I stand by my points made previously. None of the incidents where outright red card offences and therefore were rightfully not cited.

[quote="maestegmafia"]

Ozzy3213 wrote:Potentially there were 3 incidents where Samoan players could have justifiably been given a yellow card, and I can understand why Welsh fans would feel aggrieved that they didn't.

However, none of the challenges warranted a red in my opinion, and as that is the case, then it is entirely correct that there are no citings, as you can only cite for an incident that would have warranted a red card.

You must be a hard man Ossy. The common assault on Biggar (for it was nothing less than that) would have resulted in a criminal prosecution had it been perpetrated on the street.

The Samoans are thugs and if they are not stopped they will at some point in the not too distant future inflict a life threatening injury upon some poor bugger who thinks he is playing a game.

dragonbreath. there was nothing that is not seen in many a game. Usually ruled a penalty, sometimes a yellow card. Sometimes cited.

I do not think any of the highlighted incident would certainly warrant a red card. thus no citings whilst surprising is not unreasonable.

The incidents mentioned in the welsh game

1) Halfpenny - the tackler connected with his arm on Halfpenny's head and shoulder, but kept his arm there and completed the tackle. So I am not too sure it was a 'swinging arm'. Also Halfpenny was ducking into the tackle, which caused his head to be lower. I am not too sure how bad the incident was. Also in what I believe was a worse incident earlier in the season (Stowers V Fenby) the decision was that it was not worthy of a ban.

2) Biggar - the Samoan went in carelessly into the ruck and did smash Biggar. I don't thin there was any more intent to injure him than there was from Roberts' head to head clash with Paul Williams (think that was his name, the centre who went to the blood bin).

3) Owens - When Barnes described it as 'clearing out that slipped up around the neck' I was expecting something far more innocent than that. It was rather brutal. However clearing out with a judo style does not seem to be a citable offence, so the only real question is whether he meant to do it by the neck. And whilst I believe he did, I am not too sure you would be able to prove that he did.

So really no citings makes sense.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Sorry morgannwg, but I disagree entirely with that. The Pacific Island teams have a reputation for swinging arms and no arm tackles, and as a result any borderline challenge gets highlighted much more so than for any other nation.

My view having watched the game is that this is the case here. I don't think if this were France or Scotland or any other nations players making the challenges you mention, that there would be anyone calling for citings. I think people may feel aggrieved that yellows were not awarded, but that would be the limit of it.

Here comes another brass cliche. "let's let them off because that is how they tackle." No thanks. The same rules apply to everyone, yes perhaps it does highlight IRB consistentcies as has been previously documented. I posted an article back in the RWC asking where the consistentcy was because Pocock struck Woodcock (or Franks?) in the face. To top it off you have gone on to assume I have something against Samoa? That is just a poor and incorrect comment posted.

Just a couple of points.

1. Where have I said 'let them off, that's how they tackle? What I have said is that at times they are refereed on reputation rather than the actual incident, much as other teams are in other areas, such as perceptions about scrummaging ability earning penalties as opposed to what was actually happening in a particular scrum.

2. I have assumed nothing. I've not said you have anything against Samoa whatsoever, my comment was a general one in which I express the view that people call for citings and bans as aboive, by reputation rather than what's happened.

3. Just because somebody disagrees with you, it doesn't make the comment poor or incorrect, and posting that sort of response is quite frankly a little childish.

I stand by my points made previously. None of the incidents where outright red card offences and therefore were rightfully not cited.

I can't remember what you disagreed with exactly now but;

1. Where you said

The Pacific Island teams have a reputation for swinging arms and no arm tackles, and as a result any borderline challenge gets highlighted much more so than for any other nation.

suggests to me it's the way they tackle so let them get on with it.

2. You said

I don't think if this were France or Scotland or any other nations players making the challenges you mention, that there would be anyone calling for citings.

. So you must assume I have something against Samoa for me to ask where the citings or YC's were for the forementioned offences, as you go on to assume if Irish/Scottish players commited the same offences I would stand idly by. No. I would highlight it regardless of who the opposition were, just like they would kick up the biggest fuss you have ever seen if I Welsh player made these offences against their players. The point about reputations is a fair one. Samoa have this reputation for high tackles, doesn't mean it's okay though. Neither were their acts of thuggery.

3. This is nothing to do with me being childish. You should carefully choose your words if you meant something entirely different. Wales have been done injustices via acts of bad officiating and assault. Strikes (such as an elbow) and strangling someone are red card offences. Hence we have been let down. And maybe the leniency showed is due to Samoa's reputation plus the general attitude towards the team all because they take advantage of people and bodies feeling sorry for them.

Samoan players have had some bad press due to on and off the field actions so this isn't the first time so action should have been taken. It's just a Samoa love-in to put it simply. The rugby world does not need it and now my team has to suffer because of it.

Morgannwg - many of us agree with you - let it go mate

RubyGuby wrote:Morgannwg - many of us agree with you - let it go mate

It looks as if I will have to, doesn't it? Not the first time we have been on the receiving end of injustice and certainly not the last. Same goes for many teams bar the number 1 and the ones who apply pressure to the IRB with their "we're hard done-by" catches. I was merely responding to Ozzy's accusations (on the back of questioning some earlier accusations).