Sergio to miss Wales encounter?

First topic message reminder :



Italy captain Sergio Parisse is set to miss Saturday's Six Nations match with Wales in Rome because of suspension.

The inspirational captain, who scored the first try in Italy's shock win over France, was sent off on Saturday while playing for club side Stade Francais.

Parisse was dismissed for allegedly insulting the match referee in the Top 14 match against Bordeaux-Begles.

A six-week suspension is the minimum 29-year-old Parisse can expect if found guilty of the offence.

Any suspension would apply to the Six Nations, meaning the number eight would be in danger of missing Italy's final three games in the competition.

Parisse's case is set to be heard before a French league disciplinary hearing in the coming days.

Under International Rugby Board laws that govern world rugby, the sanction for players found guilty of abusing a match official ranges from a six to 52-week suspension.

Parisse, who can appeal against the verdict within 72 hours of its delivery, denies insulting referee Laurent Cardona.

The 93-time capped forward wrote on Twitter: "Sorry to my team-mates and fans for the red card, which I find too harsh! I never insulted M. Cardona."

Parisse was sent off after 36 minutes of Stade's home match with Bordeaux-Begles, having scored a try in the fourth minute.

His side went on to secure a 30-14 victory despite playing for more than half of the match with a one-man disadvantage.

In light of Parisse's expected suspension, Italy coach Jacques Brunel has called veteran flanker Mauro Bergamasco into his squad to face Wales.

The 33-year-old was left out for the games against France and Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21492750

Jimpy wrote:

100%beefy wrote:As it happens i didn't check the rules, because I didn't have to, as clearly when using a generic term like 'using the boot' it can be understood to mean being used legally or illegally. You didn't differentiate.

Please can you explain this as it makes Noooooooo sense whatsoever....clearly when using a geenric term like 'using the boot' it can be understood to mean being used legally or illegally.

Er no, you said, and I quote, 'use of the boot is illegal' thus leaving no potential to allow for legal use of the boot as for example, in legal rucking which you later concede is legal. So which is it, is use of the boot illegal or not?

Or are you suggesting Mr Jimpy that you have to take your boots off to ruck...just checking?

Havent you got a DHS cheque to cash Taff?

And, you said, and I quote, 'use of the boot is legal' thus leaving no potential to allow for illegal use of the boot .......... So which is it, is use of the boot illegal or not?

See what i did there? Yes, I turned your own load of old tosh against you.

One is staggered by how ridiculous your statement is, you are really showing yourself up as being ou of touch and completely ignorant..................nobody in Wales gets their DHS by cheque anymore, it's all by direct debit.

100%beefy wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Can I Jimp on the bandwagon

No, it only has room for good looking intellectuals.

You have just summed me up to a tee

RubyGuby wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Can I Jimp on the bandwagon

No, it only has room for good looking intellectuals.

You have just summed me up to a tee

Good man, welcome aboard we just got a jimpy sized vacancy!

What's DHS by the way; they haven't taught my 2 boys anything about it at their independent school. Am I losing out here?

Ask Jimpy, he is the expert on the DHS in Wales.....Jimpy with your expert and intimate knwoledge can you assist?

thebluesmancometh wrote:So as a welshman I must not be a neutral because of my love of all things celt and hatred or all thing English?

Cyril not everyone is the opposing influence of you.

Barney, how many times have you seen an ankle and thought 'ooo snappy snappy'?
I don't know of one player who has admitted to wanting to snap anothers ankle, it isn't a well documented trick to eliminate a player from a game at all!!!

An eye gouge is intent to injure, and debilitate, hence the word gouge. Gouge is a word with intent. A clumsy hand in the face is a different story.

A stamp is just that, it's an attempt to hurt or sting a player and teach him not to do what he was doing again.

Did Healy want Cole injured for the tournament, lions tour and end his career? If you have to think about that answer for a second you need to get a life!

I'm not defending Healy, he deserves a ban but to suggest he did anything other than act out of turn, and out of character is pathetic.

Also has anyone had an ankle break, seen an ankle break or deal with them on a regular basis? It is immnsely easy to break an ankle, as I said before does anyone actually believe that Healy doesn't have the power to break Coles ankle at will?

Never thought or said oo snappy snappy before, maybe except once when i was a lad playing cards, so can't really comment.

2nd point - you're quite simply wrong, enuf said (from me)

Please enlighten me on who of the professional era is renowned for eliminating others from games with ankle breaks?

Not disappointed blues. I appreciate your stand point and understand where you're coming from now I've seen the concise explanation. I don't agree with the authorities for the length of ban but I do agree that we can't have refs spoken to inappropriately.

In the clip I've seen its pretty hard to hear what was said so I can't really comment on that but it must have been bad to warrant this length of ban.

With regards to Healey I did think he would get a longer ban but as you rightly say he doesn't have a dark history and dan coles was in the wrong place. I do think he was trying to injure coles but that is based on my experience in the front row. We will always try to get an advantage...

Actually eye gouge isn't a deliberate attempt to injury. How many people have you heard of being blinded by an eye gouge? There was guy from a hand off to the face but certainly not many due to an actual gouge. In France it's used as a tool to warn people off from illegal play, like shoeing or a dig here. It's to make them feel "uncomfortable' not injure.

You must be having a laugh Hammer - Two recent incidents a couple of seasons ago come to mind - One of the Quinell's losing an eye and a Cross Key's player also blinding someone in one eye. I suppose they were both hand offs and neither were attempts to injure?

Quinell was stamped on his head. It was a boot that did it not a hand. Wasn't that by a Cross-Keys players so both are the same incident? I honestly don't know of a single incident when someone was blinded by a gouge. I haven't actually looked either so there might actually be one (edit: or many).

John Danielle's book about playing in French talks about it. It's was common practice if someone pulls down a maul, they get a poking and don't do it again. Pull down a scrum and you get a poke in the eye and you don't do it again. He talks about the first time it happened to him and the first time he did it to someone else. Very good book actually.

Actually the Cross Keys player was the Quinell incident, the other being this:

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

According to this young man not only was it a deliberate attempt to maim but the player that did it was quite keen to see how much damage he had done.

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

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

If anyone is interested here's the RFU report that cleared (not enough evidence) the Maidstone 8

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgments2010-2011/judgmentsoffence/~/media/files/2009/discipline/2010-2011/judgments/iles%20maidstone%20judgment%20nov%2010%201%202.ashx

Anyone who claims gouging is just a little warning needs bending over my knee. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!!

Have you ever been gouged Hammer? I did once, unsuccesfully thank the lord. got into a bit of a scrap with an opposing lock and the flyhalf came from behind and went for my eye. There was no warning about it if he hadn't just scraped the wrong side it wouldve been bad. It was bad enough with the pink eye and pain I had off the scratch, if that had gone any further I dredd to think how much more painfull it wouldve been.

I have been stamped a hundred times, across the back, legs, arms and nothing compares to someone putting a target on the eye! A stamp can be an overreaction to someone doing something illegal, a gouge has to be partly at best premeditated. Going for an eye doesn't come naturally, and it has never once crossed my mind or anyone Ive played with, punch's and stamps are one thing, the odd fat lip, fracture can heal fully, a gouge is a 50/50 call of disabling someone for life!!!

If you really feel that way Hammer I feel sorry for you!

Oh thats ok then, if someones cleared then theres no crime, the old saying goes...

'No perpetraytor no crime' eh?

HammerofThunor wrote:If anyone is interested here's the RFU report that cleared (not enough evidence) the Maidstone 8

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgments2010-2011/judgmentsoffence/~/media/files/2009/discipline/2010-2011/judgments/iles%20maidstone%20judgment%20nov%2010%201%202.ashx

Hammer you are in danger of looking like a complete ______ ______ ______ if you carry on trying to suggest gouging is anything other than a despicable heinous offence that has no place in MMA let alone rugby

I don't think I ever suggested it was ever ok. I said that it isn't always a deliberate attempt to injure. You can't say that Healy wasn't attempting to seriously injury some one because he could of if he wanted to and then say gouging IS a deliberate attempt to injure since it very rarely actually causes serious injury. If someone gouged to cause injury there would be a hell of a lot more blind rugby players (if you follow the logic that if you want to injure someone you will).

I posted the RFU report out of interest. It shows, if anyone bothered reading it, that the accused guy, who was accused and "keen to see what damage he had done" quite probably wasn't even in the ruck when it happened. Also that the RFU believe it WAS a deliberate act but they just couldn't determine who had done it. I was showing how I was wrong.

And Bluesman, this is about intent not outcome. People, especially in France do not gouge or 'face wash' to injure (at least not usually). It doesn't make it right and I would be all in favour of a life ban for anyone who deliberatly puts their hands/fingers in someone's eyes. But it doesn't mean their intend is to injure.

PS I also don't think Healy was deliberately attempting to injure

You are splitting hairs and you know it. And by trviliazing it you are tacitly condoning it.

Gouging, by definition, is sticking your fingers in people eyes. Anyone who suggests that is not a deliberate attempt to injure, whether that injury even occurs or is serious or not, is off his rocker. How often do you stick your fingers in your eyes?

As far as intent is concerned, anyone who puts their fingers in someone's eye in a rugby match is attempting to injure.

I think its laughable to suggest that you support a life ban for something on the one hand yet on th eother suggest the act is not adeliberate attempt to injure.

Go stick your finger in your eye it might wake you up a bit

100%beefy wrote:You are splitting hairs and you know it. And by trviliazing it you are tacitly condoning it.

Gouging, by definition, is sticking your fingers in people eyes. Anyone who suggests that is not a deliberate attempt to injure, whether that injury even occurs or is serious or not, is off his rocker. How often do you stick your fingers in your eyes?

As far as intent is concerned, anyone who puts their fingers in someone's eye in a rugby match is attempting to injure.

I think its laughable to suggest that you support a life ban for something on the one hand yet on th eother suggest the act is not adeliberate attempt to injure.

Go stick your finger in your eye it might wake you up a bit

So are saying that it is possible to not injure someone you are deliberately trying to injure? Because the argument that Healy wasn't trying to injure Cole was the fact that he didn't and would have if he wanted to.

Edit: also what am I trivialising?

did we ever find out what he said?

Heaf wrote:did we ever find out what he said?

No. Apparent there was no record either.

HammerofThunor wrote:

100%beefy wrote:You are splitting hairs and you know it. And by trviliazing it you are tacitly condoning it.

Gouging, by definition, is sticking your fingers in people eyes. Anyone who suggests that is not a deliberate attempt to injure, whether that injury even occurs or is serious or not, is off his rocker. How often do you stick your fingers in your eyes?

As far as intent is concerned, anyone who puts their fingers in someone's eye in a rugby match is attempting to injure.

I think its laughable to suggest that you support a life ban for something on the one hand yet on th eother suggest the act is not adeliberate attempt to injure.

Go stick your finger in your eye it might wake you up a bit

So are saying that it is possible to not injure someone you are deliberately trying to injure? Because the argument that Healy wasn't trying to injure Cole was the fact that he didn't and would have if he wanted to.

Edit: also what am I trivialising?

Frankly I think it is pointless trying to explain to you why you are trvivializing it if you can't see for yourself....and we were not discussing Healy, we were specifically discussing your assertions about gouging.

100%beefy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

100%beefy wrote:You are splitting hairs and you know it. And by trviliazing it you are tacitly condoning it.

Gouging, by definition, is sticking your fingers in people eyes. Anyone who suggests that is not a deliberate attempt to injure, whether that injury even occurs or is serious or not, is off his rocker. How often do you stick your fingers in your eyes?

As far as intent is concerned, anyone who puts their fingers in someone's eye in a rugby match is attempting to injure.

I think its laughable to suggest that you support a life ban for something on the one hand yet on th eother suggest the act is not adeliberate attempt to injure.

Go stick your finger in your eye it might wake you up a bit

So are saying that it is possible to not injure someone you are deliberately trying to injure? Because the argument that Healy wasn't trying to injure Cole was the fact that he didn't and would have if he wanted to.

Edit: also what am I trivialising?

Frankly I think it is pointless trying to explain to you why you are trvivializing it if you can't see for yourself....and we were not discussing Healy, we were specifically discussing your assertions about gouging.

All I said is it's not always a deliberate attempt to injure someone. If you don't agree that's fine but I'm not trivialising it.