Nick de Useless banned for 13 weeks

http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/02/3028/edinburghs-nick-de-luca-flips-tom-grabham-in-dangerous-tackle

If I was him i'ld appeal!

And take every video of every spear tackle that's had urine poor bans given to them and k for clarification as why Davis for wales against Ireland which was not even in a tackle situation is less? Why warbertons was less? Why ferris's was less and all the rest!

Just goes to show that the whole citing thing s a complete Frak!!

Parriese gets rushed through and banned with no evidence
Yachville gets his delayed till after the 6 nations
Healey gets two games for a stamp?
What next? Punch a player in the throat and get 1week reduced to a handshake for bringing your own biscuits

Absolutely right - 13 weeks is fair and an argument could be made for more.

I've read a lot of the comments on this on the Edinburgh Facebook page - many of them go along the lines of "That's ridiculous!! Player x only got y<13 weeks, and his tackle was much worse!"

I understand this argument and it has merit, but it just underlines the need for consistency.

In my opinion, dangerous tackles should be stamped out rigorously, so the bans handed out as punishment should be considerable. They should significantly disrupt a player's season and severely inconvenience his club.

I think 13 weeks was more than fair considering how horrific a tackle it was. However I can see it being reduced if they present other cases and the bans they received.

Might not be worth the effort though - he's now banned until the rest of the season and it would have to be reduced by 3 weeks just to get the final game of the season. Not really worth it!

What a stupid stupid thing to do - 5 minutes left, no chance of winning, and it wasn't a mistake - he deliberatly tipped the player up and dropped them on their head.

Stupid, stupid De Luca.

Knackeredknees wrote:If I was him i'ld appeal!

And take every video of every spear tackle that's had urine poor bans given to them and k for clarification as why Davis for wales against Ireland which was not even in a tackle situation is less? Why warbertons was less? Why ferris's was less and all the rest!

Just goes to show that the whole citing thing s a complete Frak!!

Parriese gets rushed through and banned with no evidence
Yachville gets his delayed till after the 6 nations
Healey gets two games for a stamp?
What next? Punch a player in the throat and get 1week reduced to a handshake for bringing your own biscuits

I hope you're joking.

Knackeredknees wrote:
Parriese gets rushed through and banned with no evidence
Yachville gets his delayed till after the 6 nations
Healey gets two one games for a stamp?
What next? Punch a player in the throat and get 1week reduced to a handshake for bringing your own biscuits

Fixed

Oh and I agree with RDW - it is a terrible challenge and 13 weeks feels right,

JmD wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:If I was him i'ld appeal!

And take every video of every spear tackle that's had urine poor bans given to them and k for clarification as why Davis for wales against Ireland which was not even in a tackle situation is less? Why warbertons was less? Why ferris's was less and all the rest!

Just goes to show that the whole citing thing s a complete Frak!!

Parriese gets rushed through and banned with no evidence
Yachville gets his delayed till after the 6 nations
Healey gets two games for a stamp?
What next? Punch a player in the throat and get 1week reduced to a handshake for bringing your own biscuits

I hope you're joking.

Not really, the whole process is beyond a joke, if you tip/spear you get a long ban! End of no reduction nothing.
You can't hand out a three week bad one week and a ten week ban the week after for the same offence

Right just like when you gently punch someone jokingly you get sent to jail for the same length of time as the man who beats his chum to death with sticks out of pure malice. Makes sense to me KK

PSW it's more to the fact that you get such a range of different bans for the same offense.
There should be no level of ban or reduction of ban, just a fixed ban end of.

Whole system needs overhauled, each offence should carry a set match ban (not weeks). Everyone knows where they are.

If you get a 3 game ban at an international it's 3 international games you miss and vice versa.

You can have a different charge that covers issues the board deem more serious than any of the laid out punishments, these would be exceptions and the board would have to clearly explained why its being used.

Guys be careful - the Knock on Nick fan club on here lurk, haunt and stalk ! Be afraid! Be very afraid !

13 weeks is justified, the issue most people are having is the lack of consistancy with other spear tackle bannings.

Nick de useless

Healy should have got similar without doubt, but you get the feeling that the powers that be wouldn't want a 'Lions certainty' missing out on so much match practice.

Must admit that I expected 6/8 week ban.Pleased to see 13 weeks as it was a shocker.As others have said,now we have the benchmark let us get some consistency

I love the conspiracy theories that float around here regarding these bans. While I agree there seems to be a large difference in punishments at times, that is because each case is taken on its own merits.

Like any judicial procedure evidence is given, the defendant pleads their case, video is shown (often clips not seen by the general public, I happen to know this was the case in Healy's hearing....he still should have got 6 weeks...) and the committee give their decision.

So although punishments are based on guidelines set down and spelt out at meetings and conferences throughout the year, each is dealt with on its own merits, not because 'he got this, so you get this also'.

I happen to know the powers that be are now regarding any tackle that results in the players legs going above their head, no mattter how they are then set down, is a citing offense, and the players have been told this, making this tackle all the more stupid and idiotic, and in my opinion, terribly dangerous.

Mac

There is a difference between a stamp and lifting a player and dropping him on his head, a broken ankle and a broken neck are hardly similar injuries!

13 weeks seems a touch harsh for me, he has lifted Grabham but the ferocity of the spin tends to highlight that Grabhams momentum contributed more than Delucas lift. It was clumsy and he shouldve known better, but I wouldn't have sniffed at 4 weeks, maybe even 8, 13 however... wow!

Taffineastbourne wrote:Must admit that I expected 6/8 week ban.Pleased to see 13 weeks as it was a shocker.As others have said,now we have the benchmark let us get some consistency

The problem with that logic, Taff, is that poor NdU (as he shall now be known - thanks PSW) is no more a benchmark than the last tip tackler who got 6 weeks or Bradley Davies, etc - and on we go ... So why should NdU be the benchmark. I'll happily take 13 weeks for him (it's the right ban IMO) if they retrospectively go back and review all similar tackles and amen those punishments ... And guess what, that's not going to happen. You sir are a complete hypocrite

13 weeks is clearly out of line with previous bans, 6-8 would have been in line.

England U21 Moriarty only got 7 weeks for something very very similar, maybe even worse than this. No consistency what so ever, I agree with about 13 weeks for this though, its not as bad as gouging but its the next worst thing.

PS

With regard to Ferris he got nothing because his tackle wasn't even a spear tackle or in anyway illegal, hence no ban, the citing committee apoligising for the citing and yellow card and Wayne Barnes being demoted for it at the time.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Must admit that I expected 6/8 week ban.Pleased to see 13 weeks as it was a shocker.As others have said,now we have the benchmark let us get some consistency

The problem with that logic, Taff, is that poor NdU (as he shall now be known - thanks PSW) is no more a benchmark than the last tip tackler who got 6 weeks or Bradley Davies, etc - and on we go ... So why should NdU be the benchmark. I'll happily take 13 weeks for him (it's the right ban IMO) if they retrospectively go back and review all similar tackles and amen those punishments ... And guess what, that's not going to happen. You sir are a complete hypocrite

Trust me.I am no hypocrite.Not sure how you slander me in this way.Pretty offensive,but hey ho all sorts on the world wide web.Truck on,sunshine.

I think looking de luca's tackle he made no attempt to guide the player safely down, he didn't go down himself in the tackle, just dropped the player on his neck, and you could tell from the way he went in it was going to be a bad challenge

Dire tackle, fair ban

TJ wrote:13 weeks is clearly out of line with previous bans, 6-8 would have been in line.

Previous bans werent for high end offences. This was, therefore is punished under a different range. Its really not complicated.

It was a bad tackle and dangerous, no great loss for Scotland national team. If he had an assistant him he would have been let off e.g Flood.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

TJ wrote:13 weeks is clearly out of line with previous bans, 6-8 would have been in line.

Previous bans werent for high end offences. This was, therefore is punished under a different range. Its really not complicated.

Nonsense. It was worse than others - some of whom got off some of whom got light bans but this ban is way out of line with previous. He dropped him he did not drive him into the ground so it is not the worst type of this tackle

For me its about right - but others got off very lightly in comparison

You can only look to the effect of what was done, rather than what was intended. It was a stupid, careless challenge. De Brainfart obviously was entirely uninterested as to where the player ended up as was evidenced by his reaction at being told to walk.

That was probably the worst tip tackle I have seen, however it seemed to be pretty accidental IMO. I have seen far worse (as far as deliberate) offences get off with next to no punishment at all. That said there was no arguing that he was going to be punished and it was going to be a big one, purely down to the fact it was caught so well on the video.

The whole citing system needs sorting out. As in recent weeks it just seems like a joke. Healey tries to break someones leg, intentionally, and is banned for three weeks (but that was only 1 game), Parrise gobs off at a ref and missed the rest of the 6Ns, and De Luca puts in an accidental, but very bad, tip tackle and is banned for 13 weeks. IMO his offence is in a similar bracket to Healey, so I would appeal if I were him.

Knackeredknees wrote:PSW it's more to the fact that you get such a range of different bans for the same offense.
There should be no level of ban or reduction of ban, just a fixed ban end of.

The joke is that bans can be reduced on past form. I appreciate a player like Stephen Jones can claim to have good form, he played for 14 years before picking up a yellow card, but they let lads in their first full season get lighter bans as they have a good track record. Total stupidity.

DeLuca was stupid, and the tackle I don't think was deliberate. I think the Ban is perhaps a bit harsh since he doesn't have a history of that sort of tackle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2RNrSdvZBQ&feature=player_embedded

This got a lesser ban than De Luca. Shocking as it was only a few weeks ago!

It was a shocking tackle, and deserves a lengthy ban. Also 13 weeks or 8 weeks makes no real difference anyway. The Pro12 finishes in about 8-9 weeks time, so even if it was slightly less it would still see him out for the rest of the season.

From an Edinburgh point of view, it makes little difference if he's involved in the remaining matches or not. We're not going to win, we most probably won't even put in a performance of any competence, with or without him. He may as well go on holiday now and try and forget everything that Bradley has coached him on, in the hope that whomever takes over is at least semi compentent (this therefore rules out Back)

ScarletSpiderman wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2RNrSdvZBQ&feature=player_embedded

This got a lesser ban than De Luca. Shocking as it was only a few weeks ago!

Surely that would have to be in the upper band as De Luca's was? He didn't have the ball, and drove him into the ground!

EWT, sorry, a bit off topic but were you referring to Neil Back? Has he been linked in any meaningful way with Edinburgh? Just curious, no point to make.

Is this ban long enough to cover the start of that tournie thing that we're doing in South Africa, or is that next year?

aitchw

I was yes. Just by himself as far as I know with this insane chat:
From the Scotsman


By DAVID FERGUSON
Published on Wednesday 27 February 2013 00:00

FORMER England and British and Irish Lions flanker Neil Back has thrown his hat in the ring for the vacant head coach job at Edinburgh.
Back was a surprise addition to the club as forwards coach last summer, when he took over from Tom Smith, the former Scotland and Lions prop, and was handed a two-year contract.

When the SRU board decided earlier this month that Edinburgh’s progress was stalling and change was required, they relieved head coach Michael Bradley of his position, although he agreed to continue until the end of the season. Defence coach Billy McGinty decided to go immediately but both men were on two-year deals that were up in June anyway.

There has been no indication from the SRU whether they see Back as a possible replacement for Bradley and they are looking far and wide for candidates.

But Back is clear that he would like the opportunity to step up. “Previously, I’ve been head coach,” said Back, “and, since I came here as assistant coach, I’ve done my best to support Michael in his playing philosophy. But I’ve got my own playing philosophy and I’d like the chance to work as a head coach in the future at Edinburgh rugby or elsewhere.

“It was disappointing [when Bradley was sacked]. I joined as assistant coach this year and hoped to spend more than a short time together. I think Michael has made some big improvements and, unfortunately, with that platform laid, he’s not going to see it through. But, hopefully I’ll have an opportunity in the future to progress the work he has put in.”

At present, Back has been told to continue as normal, working with Bradley to develop the team for the remaining games and also step in with Bradley on the defence side of coaching to fill the gap left by McGinty.

Back’s past experience as a coach was at Leeds and Rugby Lions, where he did have the head coach role but with mixed results. The former Premiership and Heineken Cup champion with Leicester is still cutting his teeth in coaching but is experienced enough to have seen, as Edinburgh’s losing run rattled on, Bradley’s departure coming.

However, he remains convinced that Edinburgh have the potential to return to the top echelons of the RaboDirect PRO12 and challenge in Europe, if there is patience with what remains a largely young squad.

“We are in a results business, so it’s not a massive shock,” he said. “Sometimes the work behind the scenes isn’t seen. This happens in our sport and many other sports, coaches and players move on.

“But I’m in an environment where I recognise the talent that is there and, if we keep the core of these players together, Edinburgh can have a great side in the future, and I’d like to be a part of that.

“I’m very passionate about coaching. I love it.

“I think this year, if you look away from the results, which I know is tough to do, there has been a lot of development of young players, through the SRU’s IPD [Individual Player Development] programme and that has been invaluable.

“There is no doubt that there is a lot of improvement to come. I keep mentioning it, but we do have a very young pack and the clubs we came up against in Europe – Saracens, one of the top sides in the Premiership, Munster, a top side in the Rabo, and Racing Metro with their finance – were tough and a lot more 
experienced.

“We also had the same side available all the way through the competition last season and that hasn’t been the case this year, due to injuries and whatever. But, as I’ve said, it has given a lot of 19 and 20-year-olds the opportunity to play against British Lions players, and that’s an invaluable experience and, hopefully, they can take on the lessons.

“There is a nucleus of players here that are good, not yet good enough, but who can be great in the future if we can keep them together and help them develop, and hopefully I can help them be great.”

Back insists that there has been no deal done behind the scenes to allow him to take over as soon as Bradley’s tenure ends with the last game of the season, and so dismissed questions on whether he would wish to bring in assistants he knows from England or look to local coaches if he took on the top job.

Preferring to focus on the job in hand, of getting Edinburgh back on a winning road in their final six games of the season, he praised Bradley’s desire to leave Edinburgh stronger than when he came in two years ago, with work on the re-signing of players and signing of new players.

Back added that the desire among the players had also survived the third change of head coach in four years, and that there was a feeling now that this season may prove to have been a necessary evil on the road back to title contention.

“The spirit is really high. From the outside, people will probably think it’s not like that but they are buoyant and really love their job, and they recognise that they are close to getting the win we need, but also stringing those wins together, and I’m very excited about the next six games and, hopefully, playing a part in putting down a playing philosophy for the future.”

Thanks EWT, I'll not risk the thread getting hi-jacked and will watch as things develop. Cheers and good luck with the rest of the season.

Its tackles like De Lucas that are the reason the tip tackle is what it is now, he seemed to have real malice in the way he dropped the guy on his head. It could have done a lot of damage

RDW_Scotland wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2RNrSdvZBQ&feature=player_embedded

This got a lesser ban than De Luca. Shocking as it was only a few weeks ago!

Surely that would have to be in the upper band as De Luca's was? He didn't have the ball, and drove him into the ground!

It was deemed a mid range, but they added a couple of weeks "as a deterrent" then took just one off for him being a good boy, not eating biscuits and cap doffing. Essentially the same was done with NDL except his was deemed high end with an entry point at 12 weeks

At a guess Id say the difference was the height the players head was at and the point of impact with the ground when tipped was part of the difference between the two panels interpretations of what at first look pretty similar tackles. In the Moriaty one its the players arm that takes the initial impact too. The NDL tackle sees the player lifted and fully tipped before being dropped head/neck first. But it is fine margins here, as is the fine margin between a legal tackle and a yellow card.