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

I am inclined to agree radge but comparing the two is pointless really. Fact is rugby relies on discipline and the respect for the ref has always been one of the underpinning characteristics of the game....slagging him off (i still odn't know what was said) seems so pathetic and perhaps the red was enough, but on the other hand he said somethign that could be heard on air so maybe that exacerbates it, together with Parisse's apparent lack of remorse.....by contrast a stupid dangerous stamp that did not cause a serious injury. Taken apart we might be commenting that Healy got off lightly and Parisse did not , juxtapose them and it seems crazy but there really is no comparison

I think the 2 “crimes” are difficult to compare since they are so different. However consistency is my biggest criticism. By all means we don’t want football style ranting at the Ref and I think the ref was 100% right to give Parrise his marching orders. Was a ban for 40 days really neccesary?

The leniency of Healy’s stamp is staggering when comparing Parrise’s tirade at the ref. The length of bans when considering the offences on a case by case basis seem woefully disproportionate.

If you are the citing commisioner and are presented with the facts and had to hand out a lengthier ban, who would you choose?

Player A : who deliberatly and savagly stamped on a prone players ankle, with clear intent to injure, but the act is not seen by any officials at the time.

Player B : Mouths off at a referee and was sent off at the time for his actions.

I know who I would hand out the longer ban to. Perhaps the IRB need to focus on the facts and footage and make better decisions.

From what I understand there is no physical evidence to clarify what or was not said to the ref?

So it is refs word v players word, yet they see fit to ban him for a month on one persons word?

Maybe if France had won and parisse not been Italian captain he would have got nothing

Jimpy wrote:6 Weeks for insulting a referee, a 2 match suspension for deliberately trying to injure another player.

Yeah, that would be right

My thoughts exactly. Ridiculous disparity in punishments. I know we have to protect the ref but surely the deliberate stamp is a worse offence

I am gutted Parisse won't be on the pitch Saturday, if for nothing else his ability to light up a game are unparalelled.

I disagree with the comments regarding the ban, he deserves the book thrown at him if for nothing else to discourage this whinging attitude we are seeing constantly from so many players!!!

And any describing Healy's actions as 'deliberatly and savagly stamped on a prone players ankle, with clear intent to injure, but the act is not seen by any officials at the time.' Is either way too emotionally invested, or clearly bloating the actions to their suiting! Plus they can't be compared.

This from Stephen Jones Sunday Times on Twitter last night....

"Sergio Parisse deserved a major reduction in his ban for all the times he had to interpret using his 4 languages for refs who only spoke one"

thebluesmancometh wrote:I am gutted Parisse won't be on the pitch Saturday, if for nothing else his ability to light up a game are unparalelled.

I disagree with the comments regarding the ban, he deserves the book thrown at him if for nothing else to discourage this whinging attitude we are seeing constantly from so many players!!!

And any describing Healy's actions as 'deliberatly and savagly stamped on a prone players ankle, with clear intent to injure, but the act is not seen by any officials at the time.' Is either way too emotionally invested, or clearly bloating the actions to their suiting! Plus they can't be compared.

How else would you describe it?

I don't give a monkeys about Ireland or England since I'm a Scottish fan... Healy was always going to be banned long enough to miss the game against us. I just think it was a despicable cheap shot and he deserved a lengthy ban.

Aye Radge Man,

imagine what Parisse could have said if it was that utter helmet Barnes out there ?

What did he say? Sorry if that has already been well covered.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:I am gutted Parisse won't be on the pitch Saturday, if for nothing else his ability to light up a game are unparalelled.

I disagree with the comments regarding the ban, he deserves the book thrown at him if for nothing else to discourage this whinging attitude we are seeing constantly from so many players!!!

And any describing Healy's actions as 'deliberatly and savagly stamped on a prone players ankle, with clear intent to injure, but the act is not seen by any officials at the time.' Is either way too emotionally invested, or clearly bloating the actions to their suiting! Plus they can't be compared.

How else would you describe it?

I don't give a monkeys about Ireland or England since I'm a Scottish fan... Healy was always going to be banned long enough to miss the game against us. I just think it was a despicable cheap shot and he deserved a lengthy ban.

Personally I think that it was a misguided attempt to move Dan Cole's leg out of the way. If he had been lying there with both legs on the ground and Healy had walked over and stamped on his ankle then, yes, it could be described as a cheap shot. However Dan Cole was lying there clearly looking at the ball and holding his leg up to prevent Murray from taking it off Best, Healy moved over, and to my mind, was trying to move his leg out of the way, could he have done it slightly less aggressively? Absolutely. Bear in mind that this was a forwards dominated game, it is likely that there was a lot going on that the cameras did not pick up on, so it is also likely that the pack on both teams were slightly wound up and not thinking straight. I also think it is telling that in Healy's second movement with his leg he applies backwards pressure rucking Cole's leg out of the way, if he had gone out to injure I'm fairly sure that this would not have happened and he would have stamped straight up and down.

Solid8 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:I am gutted Parisse won't be on the pitch Saturday, if for nothing else his ability to light up a game are unparalelled.

I disagree with the comments regarding the ban, he deserves the book thrown at him if for nothing else to discourage this whinging attitude we are seeing constantly from so many players!!!

And any describing Healy's actions as 'deliberatly and savagly stamped on a prone players ankle, with clear intent to injure, but the act is not seen by any officials at the time.' Is either way too emotionally invested, or clearly bloating the actions to their suiting! Plus they can't be compared.

How else would you describe it?

I don't give a monkeys about Ireland or England since I'm a Scottish fan... Healy was always going to be banned long enough to miss the game against us. I just think it was a despicable cheap shot and he deserved a lengthy ban.

Personally I think that it was a misguided attempt to move Dan Cole's leg out of the way. If he had been lying there with both legs on the ground and Healy had walked over and stamped on his ankle then, yes, it could be described as a cheap shot. However Dan Cole was lying there clearly looking at the ball and holding his leg up to prevent Murray from taking it off Best, Healy moved over, and to my mind, was trying to move his leg out of the way, could he have done it slightly less aggressively? Absolutely. Bear in mind that this was a forwards dominated game, it is likely that there was a lot going on that the cameras did not pick up on, so it is also likely that the pack on both teams were slightly wound up and not thinking straight. I also think it is telling that in Healy's second movement with his leg he applies backwards pressure rucking Cole's leg out of the way, if he had gone out to injure I'm fairly sure that this would not have happened and he would have stamped straight up and down.

All irrelevant when you consider that use of the boot is illegal. That was 'agressive rucking' in anybody's language and Healy rightly recieved a ban. Should have been longer though.

Use of the boot is not illegal, i suggest you read rule 16

I have played rugby for nearly 11 years. In every game I played I think I did a wee bit of rucking. In fact flankers on my team would be disapointed if they did not get a good rucking because it means they werent doing their jobs properly.

However, in all the time I played rugby it never occured to me to STAMP on a player's ankle with all the force I could muster.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I have played rugby for nearly 11 years. In every game I played I think I did a wee bit of rucking. In fact flankers on my team would be disapointed if they did not get a good rucking because it means they werent doing their jobs properly.

However, in all the time I played rugby it never occured to me to STAMP on a player's ankle with all the force I could muster.

100%beefy wrote:Use of the boot is not illegal, i suggest you read rule 16

Don't direct me to the rule book, does it make you feel superior? lets try and clear this up.

Use of the boot in the manner with which Healy used it, most definately is. I concede that rucking is allowed (but even that is questionable these days). Healy rightly got a ban.

What is at debate here is the disparity in punshments. The two offences are not the same and cannot be compared - to a point. But what can be compared is the a physical attack attracts a 2 match ban, a case of verbal abuse (alledged and we still don't know what was said) attracts a month ban.

At what point is a verbal attack worse than a physical one? If I staggered out of a club at 2am and verbally abused a copper and then subsequently walloped him, which offence do you think 'ought' to attract the most severe punishment?

"At what point is a verbal attack worse than a physical one"

It is known fact that most sufferers of domestic violence and abuse in childhood comment on how the verbal and psychological abuse is far more scarring and difficult to cope with long-term than the physical violence experienced.

Would you expect the same length of ban for stamping on a referees ankle as for a players?

I would expect an OBE for stamping on a referees ankle and a knighthood if it was Rollaind

RubyGuby wrote:"At what point is a verbal attack worse than a physical one"

It is known fact that most sufferers of domestic violence and abuse in childhood comment on how the verbal and psychological abuse is far more scarring and difficult to cope with long-term than the physical violence experienced.

Thanks for that, it sounds like you have first hand experience. I'm glad you put me right.

Always happy to educate someone Jimp

How would I describe Healy's actions (as a neutral) misguided attempt of being as agressive as he could within the law, a rush of blood by a normally decent player who, when trying to move a leg got carried away.

Anyone describing the actions as malicious, savage, or with intent to do anything but move a leg needs to reassess!!

thebluesmancometh wrote:How would I describe Healy's actions (as a neutral) misguided attempt of being as agressive as he could within the law, a rush of blood by a normally decent player who, when trying to move a leg got carried away.

Anyone describing the actions as malicious, savage, or with intent to do anything but move a leg needs to reassess!!

He is a big lad Blues, he is also an astute player. He knew exactly what he was doing and what he is capable of when he went lumbering in there foot stamping and arms swinging.

Teams and players get frustrated but a rush of blood to the head does not excuse such wanton thuggerry. I was quick to criticize Heartly for his antics and in my book a stamp of that force and intent is no different from an eye gouge. He went out to hurt.

To try colour the event any other way seems naive to me.

He knew exactly what he was doing and what he is capable of when he went lumbering in there foot stamping and arms swinging.

So essentially your claiming that...

A) your a mind reader and can tell for certain what was going through Healy's head!

B) That a fully pro prop attempted to break the leg of another!

C) That Healy wasn't powerfull enough to break an ankle when he attempted to do so!

I personally believe your not a mind reader and all knowing being, I don't believe pro sportsmen generally try to injure thier opposing players, especially as they may be team mates in the summer, and if a 13 yr old boy wanted to break a grown mans ankle he could!!!

Healy couldve broken Coles ankle very easily, yet it didn't!

I havn't tried to colour it any way, see unlike you I have no emotional tie to the incident and have no agenda.

I never comended the act, and condemned it, but I see it as it was, a rush of blood.

Using words like savage, intent, malicious are words that are presumptuous on the writers knowledge, and most who write these words are lacking in such knowledge IMHO!

All I can say Is I would not have done thusly. I think Healy made a big mistake and was lucky to escape worse punishment.

All I can say Is I would not have done thusly. I think Healy made a big mistake and was lucky to escape worse punishment.

I agree with this! But I could say similar about 99% of human decisions!

thebluesmancometh wrote:All I can say Is I would not have done thusly. I think Healy made a big mistake and was lucky to escape worse punishment.

I agree with this! But I could say similar about 99% of human decisions!

That's the whole point though blues. I was never a dirty player. It would never have occured to me to do what Healy did, anymore than it would occur to me to eye gouge another player.

It was a terrible action.

Terrible no, silly yes. An eye gouge for me is still far worse than a stamp.

Healy was silly, and has been punished, case closed IMHO.

Parisse similarly, although I am gutted he isn't playing Wales!!!

Geez is this still going on? Look it wouldn’t be so controversial if Healy hadn’t used a ploy that just about every player is well aware of as a means of putting a player out of a game - the ankle stamp. And with it a reckless disregard for Cole’s medium/long-term health as well. Obviously Healy wasn’t deliberately trying to end Cole’s career, but he knew what he was doing and he knew the risks – how do I know: because everyone knows the risks of an ankle-stamp, and he tried it twice. Cole deserved a raking, not a damaged ankle.

As for Parisse – a great player but clearly not a thinker in this case. Couldn't he have insulted the ref in one of the other languages in his repertoire? He might just have consigned his team to another loss.

I see no difference between a gouge and a stamp. Both are purposeful attempts to hurt another player.

If Healy had given Cole a decent rake to get his lardy tight head erse oot the way, he would have my backing. Even if he Stamped on his ample frame around the midsection I could have been more forgiving.

It's the nature of the stamp and the location of the stamp on the human anatomy that deserved a greater ban.

thebluesmancometh wrote:How would I describe Healy's actions (as a neutral) misguided attempt of being as agressive as he could within the law, a rush of blood by a normally decent player who, when trying to move a leg got carried away.

Anyone describing the actions as malicious, savage, or with intent to do anything but move a leg needs to reassess!!

You're not a neutral though, are you?

I have to say blues I'm a bit surprise at your approach to this. I'm really disappointed with the ban parisse received in comparison to some other offenses which have been physical in nature. Put it this way if Ryan Jones said something to the ref in Welsh and was sent off for swearing and subsequently banned would you feel the same way?

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?

mckay

Before you get dissapointed anymore I think you should re read my comments. I am gutted Parisse is out, but the IRb have to clamp down on all this backchat, gesturing and football like behaviour sooner or later. Parisse has been the unlucky victim of this, if it had been Jones I would be annoyed as any Italy fan is of this one, but as a neutral I can see it for what it is.

An out of context punishment for a behaviour thats creeping into the game.

I'm not claiming the length is justified at all, but lets put it into perspective.

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?

No, not as a Welshman or a Celt just as yourself. It's plain you have problems with the English and make snide comments and asides as well as twisting things to always side against the English. Using injuries, disciplinary issues, incidents from other nations or whatever to fuel your bias.

Since when have I made a snide remark about the English Cyril? And where exactly have I mentioned I am against the English on the Healy case?

Condemning those who claim that Healy is a super villain, out to mame and kill any player on the field is not going against the English at all. Infact I have failed to mention Coles intentions in the position he was in at all. That isn't part of the incident IMHO.

Cyril you have way too much of a chip, and get way too emotional when people criticise England or anything English. I criticise anyone I think deserves it, in this case however it's a certain few WUM merchants that I am arguing with happen to be English.

If you have a valid opinion I would love to hear it, but claiming things you or anyone else cannot be certain of is ridiculous.

Jimpy wrote:

100%beefy wrote:Use of the boot is not illegal, i suggest you read rule 16

Don't direct me to the rule book, does it make you feel superior? lets try and clear this up.

Use of the boot in the manner with which Healy used it, most definately is. I concede that rucking is allowed (but even that is questionable these days). Healy rightly got a ban.

What is at debate here is the disparity in punshments. The two offences are not the same and cannot be compared - to a point. But what can be compared is the a physical attack attracts a 2 match ban, a case of verbal abuse (alledged and we still don't know what was said) attracts a month ban.

At what point is a verbal attack worse than a physical one? If I staggered out of a club at 2am and verbally abused a copper and then subsequently walloped him, which offence do you think 'ought' to attract the most severe punishment?

Jimpy wrote:

100%beefy wrote:It is somewhat foolish ot compare Healy and Parisse's censure.

Respect for the referee is what sets rugby apart from other sports, on e in particular springs to mind, wtaching players kettle a ref and abuse him sickens me and Parisse's words, whatever the feck they were, must have crossed a line. That someone of his stature, and the Captain, should even engage in that sort of conduct suprises me but it is the thin end of the wedge and must be stopped before we have a situation where rugby becomes just like that other sport.

As for Healy, a disgraceful stamp, simple as that. I am not familiar with the rules used to determine sentences but I am sure that the intent and effect...resultant injury are considered but i doubt him stamping on a leg - even if it was the ankle - are regarded as too bad. Props stamping on props is like actors kissing each other on the cheeks, its a way of introducing yourself.

Blatant hypocrisy.

Use of the boot is illegal. Its very, very easy to understand.

Jimpy.

Clearly you have an inferiority complex if being directed to the rule book elicits such a defensive response.....but obviously you had to go check because you have backtracked from a reply to my post on another thread where you assert the following

1. 'Use of the boot is illegal'

to this thread where you state

2. I concede that rucking is allowed

So obviously you haven't found it that easy to understand. Anyway, glad I coudl be of assistance to you, i suggest you look up hypocrisy as well!

100%beefy wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

100%beefy wrote:Use of the boot is not illegal, i suggest you read rule 16

Don't direct me to the rule book, does it make you feel superior? lets try and clear this up.

Use of the boot in the manner with which Healy used it, most definately is. I concede that rucking is allowed (but even that is questionable these days). Healy rightly got a ban.

What is at debate here is the disparity in punshments. The two offences are not the same and cannot be compared - to a point. But what can be compared is the a physical attack attracts a 2 match ban, a case of verbal abuse (alledged and we still don't know what was said) attracts a month ban.

At what point is a verbal attack worse than a physical one? If I staggered out of a club at 2am and verbally abused a copper and then subsequently walloped him, which offence do you think 'ought' to attract the most severe punishment?

Jimpy wrote:

100%beefy wrote:It is somewhat foolish ot compare Healy and Parisse's censure.

Respect for the referee is what sets rugby apart from other sports, on e in particular springs to mind, wtaching players kettle a ref and abuse him sickens me and Parisse's words, whatever the feck they were, must have crossed a line. That someone of his stature, and the Captain, should even engage in that sort of conduct suprises me but it is the thin end of the wedge and must be stopped before we have a situation where rugby becomes just like that other sport.

As for Healy, a disgraceful stamp, simple as that. I am not familiar with the rules used to determine sentences but I am sure that the intent and effect...resultant injury are considered but i doubt him stamping on a leg - even if it was the ankle - are regarded as too bad. Props stamping on props is like actors kissing each other on the cheeks, its a way of introducing yourself.

Blatant hypocrisy.

Use of the boot is illegal. Its very, very easy to understand.

Jimpy.

Clearly you have an inferiority complex if being directed to the rule book elicits such a defensive response.....but obviously you had to go check because you have backtracked from a reply to my post on another thread where you assert the following

1. 'Use of the boot is illegal'

to this thread where you state

2. I concede that rucking is allowed

So obviously you haven't found it that easy to understand. Anyway, glad I coudl be of assistance to you, i suggest you look up hypocrisy as well!

And I suggest you go and take your smug face for a dump.

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.

I suggest you do a bit of dictionary, or English language reading yourself.

How did you know i had a smug face.....

Good lad, eloquent as ever.

When i do I will think of you!!

100%beefy wrote:

How did you know i had a smug face.....
Good lad, eloquent as ever.

When i do I will think of you!!

I didn't I was being kind, i actually thought you might have a fizzog like fire damaged lego.

Jimpy wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

How did you know i had a smug face.....
Good lad, eloquent as ever.

When i do I will think of you!!

I didn't I was being kind, i actually thought you might have a fizzog like fire damaged lego.

stop flirting you tart!!

100%beefy wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

How did you know i had a smug face.....
Good lad, eloquent as ever.

When i do I will think of you!!

I didn't I was being kind, i actually thought you might have a fizzog like fire damaged lego.

stop flirting you tart!!

Well, you're a 100% something, that's for sure.

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?

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.

Well this is going well....

Jimpy

Your letting yourself down now mate, I think it's time to bow out and concede defeat to a superior intelect!

thebluesmancometh wrote:Jimpy

Your letting yourself down now mate, I think it's time to bow out and concede defeat to a superior intelect!

And where would that be then? Certainly not from yer man.

Youve resported to near sight border racism mate, you've officially lost when your throwing insults at the person your arguing with!

Can I Jimp on the bandwagon

RubyGuby wrote:Can I Jimp on the bandwagon

No, it only has room for good looking intellectuals.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Jimpy

Your letting yourself down now mate, I think it's time to bow out and concede defeat to a superior intelect!

Know i will regret this ...... but intellect has two x l