Calum Clark

Reading through the England EPS/Saxons threads I can see that a lot of the debates, some a bit heated, are rounding back to Calum Clarks inclusion so I thought I'd try and keep these debates condensed into one topic.

As a quick overview of the situation, there are several reason many people are debating the inclusion of Clark:

1. His apparent inclusion as the 4th lock in the squad - not Clark's fault but a very odd choice in my mind!

2. His form this season - if he's been included as a second row (nonsense IMO) then his form definitely doesn't qualify selection, if he's been included as another flanker firstly you could argue we've got enough of them but primarily many think Kvesic is in better form.

3. The big one for many people, the arm breaking incident with Rob Hawkins last season.

Personally I wouldn't have selected him for a mixture of the things above (the arm breaking certainly not helping). The main one being that as a flanker I don't feel he has proven he deserve a place on form alone this season with Kvesic playing so well.

Another good point being made is that he's a very similar style of player to Robshaw and Wood in that he's viewed as a 6.5 rather than a 7. To me a '6.5' as people refer to them is simply a flanker with the poaching ability of an openside but lacking the link work between forwards backs that a traditional 7 should offer. In that sense he is a very similar player to Robshaw/Wood to me and as such we'd have been better of with another lock or Kvesic in the squad.

NB - You can vote for more than one option in the poll if your view is down to more than one of them.

No he shouldn't be included - based on current form and he's not a lock or 7.

The arm breaking incident was bad but he's served his ban.

The problem is that he's simply done nothing to warrant being in the EPS.

Clark is an interesting one in that so many ex pros and top level players who've been around Clark say he is a serious talent, tough and nails...and has that sheer mental strength required aswell. I havent seen a huge amount of him so ill take their word for it.

He's had a couple of unsavoury incidents...the big one being the incident with Hawkins. It was a deliberate thug act...and he has served a ban, which many felt wasnt long enough. Is this the same or worse as people eye gouging? which is itself an unsavoury act that Hartley has done yet seems to have been forgiven for?

However he has served his ban...and rightly or wrongly is up for selection. This raises more issues as:

As a 7, i think Fraser and Kvesic has shown better form...as a lock, well we all know he's not a lock and wouldnt play there...Palmer / Botha or Slater would come in from the Saxons, and as a 6 he wouldnt get past Haskell, Wood etc...so should he be there?

He has served his ban but I still can't get over the fact that there was not more Fall-out over how that was handled.

Either the disciplinary committee were lied to and they didn't realise it or, worse, they were lied to and overlooked it.

Absolutely disgraceful.

He's served his ban, therefore is a 'free' man. However, his sentence was far too lenient. Rough stuff and intimidation is part of the game - but deliberately snapping an arm is not. A full year out of pro rugby, plus another year out of international consideration. Pretty sure he was named in an EPS whilst still banned. Not Stuart 'the right attitude' Lancaster's finest moment.

Yeah Lancs does seem to be a little two faced over this particular player with regards to behaviour etc..

In my opinion, he's lucky that he wasn't charged with grevious bodily harm and received a custodial sentence.

He shouldn't be anywhere near the team based on the fact that he's a cowardly thug, that his ban was nowhere near long enough and the fact that he hasn't deserved it on form either.

Would you say that gouging should be treated the same Jimpy? Ie that is deliberately putting your fingers in someones eyees...trying to blind them...surely that should warrant MASSIVE bans aswell...yet those players who have done it...seem to be forgotten about

Jimpy only cares because Clark broke a Leicester player's arm. I doubt he would care if it was the other way round.

People serve bans and they come back. Look at Stevens,D.Richards,Hartley,T.WIlliams etc.

I definitely don't condone Clark's actions but Lancaster has the option to pick him because he's served his time.

The problem is that he doesn't deserve to be there solely based on form.

Sadly i think the higher the stakes go in sport, the less likely any player with ability will pay for his misdemeanors with his career. I may have the wrong end of the stick, but I interpret there is some discomfort amongst English fans for him being elevated based on his history. From an individual point of view it's fair enough, but from a taking sh.. from others point of view I wouldn't be too worried. I think most of us are on the same slope. Certainly, Quade and his laptops is pretty lame amongst our most cheered footy stars. It's not acceptable as a fan, but you really have little say in it.

He's certainly an odd selection- compounded by the fact that Lancaster seems determined that he will be covering lock at least occassionally.

Though I can never condone what he did to Hawkins, the man has served the ban that he was dealt, and you can't really ask more from him that that. If it were my decision, he would still be on the sideline.

Regardless, the coaching staff obviously see something in him. He certainly brings an abrasiveness, aggressive, and hardline dimension to the game, which could benefit England. I think he is potentially seen as our answer to the Southern Hemisphere's Botha, Burger, Thorn, Etzebeth....etc. Those players that don't take a step back and play right on the edge of the laws.

What Clark did on the 18th of March 2012 was terrible but it was done in the "heat of battle" on a rugby pitch.

What the RFU disciplinary committee did in the cold light of day in a Heathrow Hotel on the 29th of March 2012 was an absolute disgrace.

To allow a 50% reduction to his ban on completely false information is something which should not have been allowed to stand!

The kid made a mistake... he's still a youngster afterall.

Players don't always get picked on form... they also get picked on potential. From what I've read he's heard in high regard.

I'm sure half the posters wouldn't be so vocal if he hadn't made a mistake a few years back. It doesn't mean he's on a level peg to everyone else... he has to be whiter than white when it comes to on pitch events else he will pick up a label which ENG will not want in their side.

All the best to him.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Would you say that gouging should be treated the same Jimpy? Ie that is deliberately putting your fingers in someones eyees...trying to blind them...surely that should warrant MASSIVE bans aswell...yet those players who have done it...seem to be forgotten about

Personally I'd say gouging is as bad in that the intent to seriously harm someone is exactly the same. You could argue that there are degrees of gouging however: sometimes you see a players hand pass across someones face, as they try to get out a ruck for instance, and they act instinctively (and fairly disgustingly) with a gouge. The really horrible gouges IMO are the ones where you see a players hand looking for the face/eye - this was where I found Burger's gouge on Fitzgerald really disgusting.

Whereas with deliberately breaking someones arm you can't really argue the same thing, it's about as bad as it gets. It takes a pretty prolonged amount of force applied in a fairly disgusting way to do that. A 32 week ban for what would be a top level offense on par the worst gouges is pathetic in reality. Put it this way I'd say the adverse effects on rugby of someone getting drawn into drugs (Stevens) isn't nearly as bad as what Clark did yet Stevens had a 2 year ban. It does take a fairly horrendous action to do the sorts of things Hartley, Burger and Clark have done on the field yet their bans are much much shorter.

Obviously that view is filled with my personal opinion so if this offends anyone I apologise in advance!

beshocked wrote:Jimpy only cares because Clark broke a Leicester player's arm. I doubt he would care if it was the other way round.People serve bans and they come back. Look at Stevens,D.Richards,Hartley,T.WIlliams etc.

I definitely don't condone Clark's actions but Lancaster has the option to pick him because he's served his time.

The problem is that he doesn't deserve to be there solely based on form.

Stop talking nonsense for once in your life.

beshocked wrote:No he shouldn't be included - based on current form and he's not a lock or 7.

The arm breaking incident was bad but he's served his ban.

The problem is that he's simply done nothing to warrant being in the EPS.

Pretty much my thoughts as well, with the exception of the arm breaking. He has served his ban, and it is right he has a second chance in the Jeff, but playing for England is a different kettle of fish. He so far has played two months, which is not enough IMO to show prolonged form or temperament. Care was banished from the England squad for indiscretions which did not proclude him from the playing for Harlequins. Clark should have a similar trial period as well, maybe with Lancaster having a quiet word in his ear - you need to earn you right to represent England. Want to see you progress in the Saxons and know you are getting your career back on track, if you're still moving in the right direction come the end of the season you'll have a real shot at being included in the full EPS etc.

But then, I don't think he should be included on form or not being a 7 or lock as well.

Can certainly see why he would be included though if the coaches do see something in him, and that they want him round the EPS as much as possible to develop. His ban is done and dusted, it shouldn't be a reason not to pick him. I would have handled it differently, though, and would have wanted to see more before including him, but that's just me and probably why I didn't get the England managers job!

His selection leaves the EPS squad a bit short on blindside flankers !
Croft
Wood
Robshaw
Haskell
Clark
Lawes
Launchberry
Johnson

8 bloomin blindside flankers in the EPS alone...sheesh

I had a slight issue with Matt Stevens returning to the England fold. He'd been a role model and really let people down. But his 2 year ban made him well and truly learn a lesson (had it been performance enhancing he'd have to go for life imo). I fully supported him returning to rugby, but wasn't sure if it was right to go back at the international stage. In hindsight, I think it acts as an incentive in rehab and should any other player fall in such a manner it shows there can be redemption.

If you look at Clark, I consider his act infinitely worse than Stevens and a 32 week ban in comparison to 2 years is farcical. Stevens ban was right, but Clark's was exceptionally lenient. Nevertheless, the length of ban is not his doing and the powers at be need to hang their head in shame. Now he has served it and whilst I am still incredibly uneasy about him representing England, he should be allowed to; I've never been a fan of retrospective punishment, Clark got off lightly but he is clear now. However, the simple fact is he is not better than the alternative options at present. SL hasn't chosen on form, but has stuck with a player he knows well. You can't blame him for that, but I do feel in this instance when you take his form and his conduct into account he shouldn't be in the EPS.

HongKongCherry wrote:I had a slight issue with Matt Stevens returning to the England fold. He'd been a role model and really let people down. But his 2 year ban made him well and truly learn a lesson (had it been performance enhancing he'd have to go for life imo). I fully supported him returning to rugby, but wasn't sure if it was right to go back at the international stage. In hindsight, I think it acts as an incentive in rehab and should any other player fall in such a manner it shows there can be redemption.

If you look at Clark, I consider his act infinitely worse than Stevens and a 32 week ban in comparison to 2 years is farcical. Stevens ban was right, but Clark's was exceptionally lenient. Nevertheless, the length of ban is not his doing and the powers at be need to hang their head in shame. Now he has served it and whilst I am still incredibly uneasy about him representing England, he should be allowed to; I've never been a fan of retrospective punishment, Clark got off lightly but he is clear now. However, the simple fact is he is not better than the alternative options at present. SL hasn't chosen on form, but has stuck with a player he knows well. You can't blame him for that, but I do feel in this instance when you take his form and his conduct into account he shouldn't be in the EPS.

Whilst I agree that the committee were responsible Clark stood there and let his QC lie to them about his previous record. That should not have been allowed to happen but he could have corrected the error himself.

He's only in the EPS because he twisted Lancasters arm..

Ithankyou...

I robbed this from Facebook..sorry geat!

SL should've given him the elbow.

Breadvan wrote:He's only in the EPS because he twisted Lancasters arm..

Ithankyou...

I robbed this from Facebook..sorry geat!

First thing my old man said when he saw the EPS as well!

In fairness it's taken a bit of restraint for me not to fall into a bit of WUMing by suggesting Rob Hawkins on the "England players that can feel a little peeved" thread.

In order to wish him luck on his england debut..... "Break an arm"

beshocked wrote:Jimpy only cares because Clark broke a Leicester player's arm. I doubt he would care if it was the other way round.

People serve bans and they come back. Look at Stevens,D.Richards,Hartley,T.WIlliams etc.

I definitely don't condone Clark's actions but Lancaster has the option to pick him because he's served his time.

The problem is that he doesn't deserve to be there solely based on form.

Quite so Beshocked. Clark has served the penalty that was handed down to him. His behaviour was disgraceful and we will all have to hope it was an aberration on his part. What it is not our place to do is continue to hand out punitive judgements to the chap when he's been dealt with by the proper authority. I'm sure some people would prefer that we all take a vote on here to decree a player's punishment but that's what we have governing bodies for. If their decision is not respected then where would we be.

What's a far more compelling argument is that Clark just hasn't shown on any stage, that he's good enough to be in the EPS. I have watched Matt Kvesic develop over the past few years and would rather he was there instead. Having said that as GeordieF points out he does get some rave reviews from coaches and perhaps he will mature. There's no evidence of that so far though.

I said at the time, 32 weeks was too short a ban for the severity of the incident - frankly, it should have been a full year.

However, If the ban has been served, he should be eligible to play again. Coaches should pick on form rather than reputation (even bad reputation), particularly after a first offence of this type.

IanBru wrote:I said at the time, 32 weeks was too short a ban for the severity of the incident - frankly, it should have been a full year.

However, If the ban has been served, he should be eligible to play again. Coaches should pick on form rather than reputation (even bad reputation), particularly after a first offence of this type.

Another good reason why he should be nowhere near the EPS.

Jimpy wrote:

IanBru wrote:I said at the time, 32 weeks was too short a ban for the severity of the incident - frankly, it should have been a full year.

However, If the ban has been served, he should be eligible to play again. Coaches should pick on form rather than reputation (even bad reputation), particularly after a first offence of this type.

Another good reason why he should be nowhere near the EPS.

The point being that form should be the only reason.

deliberately snapping an arm

deliberately breaking someones arm

Do you guys really think that he set out to actually break Hawkins arm? I certainly think that Clark fully deserved his punishment and more, that what he did was well beyond acceptable, that he wanted to cause Hawkins pain, but I fall a fair bit short of believing that he was intending to cause the level of injury that he did.

Been hearing rumours that the RFU plan to issue Clark with a special shirt to ensure other players safety... [url=http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAMjWXRCYAA_Ryp.jpg:large ]http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAMjWXRCYAA_Ryp.jpg:large [/url]

GLove39 wrote:Been hearing rumours that the RFU plan to issue Clark with a special shirt to ensure other players safety... [url=http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAMjWXRCYAA_Ryp.jpg:large ]http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAMjWXRCYAA_Ryp.jpg:large [/url]

Where do I purchase one? How much do they cost?

HongKongCherry wrote:I had a slight issue with Matt Stevens returning to the England fold. He'd been a role model and really let people down. But his 2 year ban made him well and truly learn a lesson (had it been performance enhancing he'd have to go for life imo). I fully supported him returning to rugby, but wasn't sure if it was right to go back at the international stage. In hindsight, I think it acts as an incentive in rehab and should any other player fall in such a manner it shows there can be redemption.

Its interesting to compare Stevens with Mike Tindal. Stevens was never found guilty in law of any crime. Mike Tindal twice drove a car when drunk - not tipsy but drunk and was lucky not to get a custodial sentance. Stevens could not have harmed anyone but himself. Tindal could have done.

Stevens got a two year ban - Tindall - nothing.

I think Stevens was very harshly dealt with. should have been supported thru rehab not banned for two years.

Clarke - should have been dealt with thru the legal system as should other deliberate attempts to injure.

GLove39 wrote:Been hearing rumours that the RFU plan to issue Clark with a special shirt to ensure other players safety... [url=http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAMjWXRCYAA_Ryp.jpg:large ]http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAMjWXRCYAA_Ryp.jpg:large [/url]

Get Hartley one as well and the squad would look a bit kinder all of a sudden! Get one big enough for Manu and it could even up another bout between him and Ashton.

MrsP wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:I had a slight issue with Matt Stevens returning to the England fold. He'd been a role model and really let people down. But his 2 year ban made him well and truly learn a lesson (had it been performance enhancing he'd have to go for life imo). I fully supported him returning to rugby, but wasn't sure if it was right to go back at the international stage. In hindsight, I think it acts as an incentive in rehab and should any other player fall in such a manner it shows there can be redemption.

If you look at Clark, I consider his act infinitely worse than Stevens and a 32 week ban in comparison to 2 years is farcical. Stevens ban was right, but Clark's was exceptionally lenient. Nevertheless, the length of ban is not his doing and the powers at be need to hang their head in shame. Now he has served it and whilst I am still incredibly uneasy about him representing England, he should be allowed to; I've never been a fan of retrospective punishment, Clark got off lightly but he is clear now. However, the simple fact is he is not better than the alternative options at present. SL hasn't chosen on form, but has stuck with a player he knows well. You can't blame him for that, but I do feel in this instance when you take his form and his conduct into account he shouldn't be in the EPS.

Whilst I agree that the committee were responsible Clark stood there and let his QC lie to them about his previous record. That should not have been allowed to happen but he could have corrected the error himself.

They lied about his previous record in regards to him headbutting someone in the Eng U20's game didn't they? Still amazed that it was never ok picked up on, or if it was it got forgotten about conveniently...

They did Yappy.

I am just as amazed as you. This was a QC lying to a judge.

When you think of the WhooHa the Quins staff faced for lying it seems totally ridiculous that nothing ever came of it.

Yep the fact that the lie was conveniently not researched (or worse just accepted) did not reflect well on the disciplinary process at all.

It was a pretty poor state of affairs all round really:

-A despicable act from Clark in the 'heat of battle'.
-not picked up on by ref/touch judge (though this would've been very hard to do in fairness).
-an understandably heated but probably poorly timed interview from Cockerill, though that is his way.
-A poorly dealt with disciplinary process which ended with a ridiculously shortened suspension
-Finally a much questioned return to the EPS.

Whilst many of the above points aren't Clarks fault it does not in any way excuse his actions IMO. The thing that really pains me currently is that of all the people involved in the incident the one who seems to still be suffering from it most is Hawkins in that he's yet to find any significant form for the Tigers since his return. Had he been fit during the AI's you could even argue he would have been in the squad instead of Paice.

Firstly Clark is not playing well enough, secondly he hasn't been out of the England squad despite his deserved ban.

With regards to the incident, he has served the time and has been exemplary since. But as many people have said, his action was made in the "heat of the moment", yes it was and he reacted very very poorly. He did the wrong thing under pressure.

The incident shows that he doesn't know how to deal with a high pressure sporting environment, it's not as though he stamped on someone, or punched them, he broke the arm if a player who was pinned in a ruck for no reason whatsoever.

That is a pretty displickable act in the heat of any moment.

As a former soldier, i have been witness to and involved in many incidents that were less than savoury and committed 'in the heat of battle'. It didn't make those incidents any less paletable or any less serious.

And just in case anyone was still slightly confused. Rugby is a sport, not a battle.

I like what SL is doing regarding the pack. Like Lawes & Launchbury Clarke plays lock but can cover the back row.
In the Ulster v Saints match Clarke played well (at lock) & was good at the breakdown effectively acting as a back rower in these situations. Launchbury is the same great in the tackle breakdown area & has good hands & pace. I think this is the way to go as these players are so athletic,capable & strong it is not necessary to commit so many players to the breakdown or being too reliant on one so called 'proper 7'.

Big Trev...sorry but there is no way that Clark can be viewed as a Lock.

Everyone coach from Neil back to Lancs has said he's a 7...or 6 at a push.

If we wanted a quality up and coming Lock who can play great at 6 aswell..then they should have gone with Slater or Kruis...now they can play...and have some great recent form!

Poor selection. Clark isn't good enough. Lancaster has coached him since he was 14 and that has clouded his judgment. From time to time every leader makes a poor decision - this is one from SL. England are not short of excelent back rows and locks.

My position about Clark is mixed. Firstly, what he did was obviously unacceptable. But his ban, too short or just right, was served and he deserves his place in Northampton and England assuming the Saints and England management teams believe he has earned his spot. For me, I would have kept him at Northampton for the remainder of the season. To both play into true Saints and potentially England worthy shape and to prove to the wider community he is playing clean.

However, I don't believe what he did was more severe than an eye gouge. Clearly, a few weeks for a gouge is not sufficient. Fingers in the eye can cause permanent damage including blindness. To be overly simplistic: Bones and soft tissue usually heals. Eyes usually don't. I am not arguing Clark's suspension was too short. Just the opposite, gouging punishments are woefully inadequate.

doctor_grey wrote:My position about Clark is mixed. Firstly, what he did was obviously unacceptable. But his ban, too short or just right, was served and he deserves his place in Northampton and England assuming the Saints and England management teams believe he has earned his spot. For me, I would have kept him at Northampton for the remainder of the season. To both play into true Saints and potentially England worthy shape and to prove to the wider community he is playing clean.

However, I don't believe what he did was more severe than an eye gouge. Clearly, a few weeks for a gouge is not sufficient. Fingers in the eye can cause permanent damage including blindness. To be overly simplistic: Bones and soft tissue usually heals. Eyes usually don't. I am not arguing Clark's suspension was too short. Just the opposite, gouging punishments are woefully inadequate.

Clark's ban has now finished and he's playing again, apparently he's even good enough to be selected for England. Can you just remind me what Hawkins is doing with himself these days.... In other words, Hawkins is still suffering. Therefore, so should Clark be.

Using that method of thinking Jimpy...you could say Roy Keane clattered Busst (i believe it was or was it Haangeland) and shattered his leg. Busst had to retire Keane went on playing.

There are loads of other examples like that....what about Eubank and benn after paralysing Mclelan and Watson - extreme example but still the same. Should they have been done for attempted Murder...should they still be suffering becuase their opponents are?.
Sometimes theres a fine line in certain sports as the bodies are litterally on the line.
Please note im not condoning or defending Clark what he did was absolutely appalling....but should everyone who causes harm to another be banned for life?

If it was done intentionally, and lets not beat around the bush here, despite what Clark claimed, his act was deliberate - it should have been punished as such in a criminal court.

A ban should be commensurate with the injury inflicted, so Clark should still be watching rugby from his arm chair.

True Chjw131.

Geordiefalcon agreed.

Offload indeed correct.



If Clark was performing well then there would be less contention with this selection.

Plus does England need yet another 6? No.

A lock or 7 would have been far more useful.

Personally I would have picked another lock. Not sure who though.


If Clark shows good form no one will be talking about this unsavoury incident - does anyone really talk about the likes of Bloodgate,Hartley's gouging, Cudmore's numerous dirty incidences? No

Quins are one of the darlings of the rugby world. Dean Richards' murky past seems to be behind him with his success with Newcastle. Cudmore is part of Clermont who are favourites for the HC.

Ashton's discretions are less important this his rugby form. Manu Tuilagi's controversial moments are not important because he's doing the business on the pitch.

If players/teams perform well then their discretions are pushed under the carpet.

On the other hand if their form goes down everyone jumps on the bandwagon of criticism.

3 of cricket's most exciting batsman are controversial figures - Shane Watson,KP and Chris Gayle but their flaws can be forgiven when they do the damage.

Beshocked...what are you saying Deano has a murky past? I dont believe it .

But your totally correct what you say...often the very top of the games...any sport have been ruthless to get there...

beshocked wrote: - does anyone really talk about the likes of Bloodgate

It was bandied around quite a bit for a little while. It finally seemed to be put to sleep amongst the journo's in their write up of last years AP final play-off as . That makes a good 2-3 years it was being bought up.

As you say though if he was on-form it would be far less of an issue. As it stands he's perceived as a thug, who should have been in court, not just a disciplinary, and he's not even playing that well for the Saints. Well enough at club level just, but certainly not test level. He's done nothing to raise himself head & shoulders above others who haven't broken people's elbows and are playing well.

Very odd choice from Lancaster.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9794700/Northampton-flanker-Calum-Clark-says-judge-me-on-how-I-play-not-my-reputation.html

This bit caught my eye:
'Clark attempted to say sorry to Hawkins after the match, but feelings were running high. At the hearing, Clark revealed that he had intended to write to Hawkins. Had he done so? There was a long pause.

“That’s not really relevant,” said Clark in strained tones. '


He is clearly a long term call up with an eye on the future. Frankly he will have to play very well for me to view him as anything but a thug, but having said that quite a few of the England players aren't people I would want to share a beer with.

I hope he learns from this, keeps his head down now and just focuses on playing.

IF he is as good a 7 as so many seem to suggest then i want to see him fulfill his potential because it will be good to see. The future of the 7 shirt "could" end up between him and Kvesic...