Ian Evans hearing...

Anyone heard anything ... I thought the hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, hence I would have expected some news by now...

Thursday.

Cheers... day too early, that explains why I cant find anything on line   

What time is it on today?

It appears he's been reprimanded but will face no ban, if twitter reports are true. Interesting call.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ospreys/status/243796223797125120?screen_name=ospreys

Not according to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25788297

Jeez thats fairly hefty isnt it!!!!

It was always possible he'd get the book thrown at him. I wonder what Nathan White will get?

Seemed a touch harsh to me.

Has he got form?

actually seems reasonable. wasnt the worst stamp i've seen cited, but then it wasn't the least of stamps either. and the punishments range from is it 3 weeks to 52 weeks? 12 doesnt seem unreasonable. the amount of blood made it unlikely he was going to get off lightly i though.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Has he got form?

he does have form, yes. so the welsh lads told me on the match thread. not sure that has an impact on the penalty though, does it? if it does, please correct me.

I have seen the tape

That is harsh

He is standing up right and locked into a maul, arguably cannot see the floor at all.

In fact it is not that easy to identify which boot makes contact

If the ban is true then he has been made an example of and i do think it is very harsh.

He'll be back in the summer though.

He pleaded guilty, so it was clearly not an accident! Had his ban reduced on that basis. It was always going to be a long one and quite rightly

He may have admitted connecting with McCarthy's head. McCarthy was aparently knocked out cold by the stamp and also had a nasty gash. It was a bad stamp.

If it was a Kiwi he would have said it was an accident and got off. Is there more integrity in NH rugby?

Scratch wrote:I have seen the tape

That is harsh

He is standing up right and locked into a maul, arguably cannot see the floor at all.

In fact it is not that easy to identify which boot makes contact

If the ban is true then he has been made an example of and i do think it is very harsh.

He'll be back in the summer though.

I agree he's completely un-sighted and whilst he would've felt something it feels like a collective warning. It certainly didn't seem to be the equivalent of forearm smashing a player in the neck from behind. But then ours is not to question why.

not worth arguing over too much.

but he did look down just prior. and he knew exactly what he was doing in my opinion - the looking away while rucking is pretty much a giveaway that he knew exactly were he was treading. he was perhaps unlucky to catch his forehead twice, but that's the risk he took. the ball was nowhere near either of them also.

i think the lesson there is don't ruck if you can't see what you are doing as that will not be considered a reasonable excuse.

It was a ruck so he shouldnt have been rucking at all anyway.

I think he got what he desrved to be honest. It is time they stamped out this type of behaviour.

Maybe this punishment of 12 weeks will send out a big messige. this sort of thing will not be tolerated.;

Anyone to say it wasn't a bad stamp is absurd.
Exactly what he deserves. It wasn't one stamp, he connected with his face 3 times; after the first two you would know that you should stop but no respect what so ever.
We have Alyn Wyn and Charteris to start so no loss; he is lucky we have depth at lock otherwise he would have put us in really shallow waters with Bradley being out as well.

His own fault IMO he has previous as well, so whilst I did suggest he would get about 8 weeks minimum he only has self to blame.

GunsGerms wrote:If it was a Kiwi he would have said it was an accident and got off. Is there more integrity in NH rugby?

I would say that's provocative. It's more likely that a kiwi wouldn't have carried out such a reckless and deliberate act of thuggery.

Getting a bit if a reputation for this kind if thuggery, aren't they, welsh players?

It is a bit provocative but I do believe that ABs standard response to foul play is that it was an accident regardless of whether it was or not. Horwell's stance was the same during the Lions tour. Is it possible that all foul play in the SH is an accident or are NH players more likely to accept responsibility for their actions.

I dont think Welsh players are any worse than any players to be honest.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:If it was a Kiwi he would have said it was an accident and got off. Is there more integrity in NH rugby?

I would say that's provocative. It's more likely that a kiwi wouldn't have carried out such a reckless and deliberate act of thuggery.

Getting a bit if a reputation for this kind if thuggery, aren't they, welsh players?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXJyDHFKn0


You would say that, as usual you would be wrong

I don't know. Anybody got stats on red cards issued per team in the last three or four years?

GloriousEmpire wrote:I don't know. Anybody got stats on red cards issued per team in the last three or four years?

Billtong sent it around recently no?

Remember when you said the French were the dirtiest team around.

I didn't say that, I suggested a link to an article that suggested eye gouging was endemic to French rugby, written by a player who admitted he was expected to gouge as part of his enforcer role. I just put it out there for debate, I laid no accusations.

Got a link to biltongs stas?

I didn't say that, I suggested a link to an article that suggested eye gouging was endemic to French rugby, written by a player who admitted he was expected to gouge as part of his enforcer role. I just put it out there for debate, I laid no accusations.

Got a link to biltongs stas?

You more or less did say the French were the dirtiest team in world rugby. Couldnt find the post. Just looked for it.

The player didnt admit he was "expected" to gouge. He admitted he started to gouge as he believed that was the culture in France.

Then Billtong posted stats to show France have been the least carded and penalised team in the last 10 years.

Agree to disagree.

quinsforever wrote:not worth arguing over too much.

but he did look down just prior. and he knew exactly what he was doing in my opinion - the looking away while rucking is pretty much a giveaway that he knew exactly were he was treading. he was perhaps unlucky to catch his forehead twice, but that's the risk he took. the ball was nowhere near either of them also.

i think the lesson there is don't ruck if you can't see what you are doing as that will not be considered a reasonable excuse.

watched it again, yes he does look down wtf? He's a simpleton.

He looked down, may not have been able to see what was under his feet but you'd have to be fairly thick to stand on a man's head and not realise from the feel of it.

If McCarthy had not put himself in the position he would not have got stood on and Evans is not superman an therefore cannot see through people. I'm not commenting wether the mens rea wasn't there, but prove it was! Evans has pleaded guilty, in my opinion under duress tht he could miss 52 weeks rugby otherwise.

Very poor behaviour by Evans he has really let himself down. Hopefully he will learn from this lesson and will be carful where he puts those massive feet in the future.

sheephead wrote:If McCarthy had not put himself in the position he would not have got stood on and Evans is not superman an therefore cannot see through people. I'm not commenting wether the mens rea wasn't there, but prove it was! Evans has pleaded guilty, in my opinion under duress tht he could miss 52 weeks rugby otherwise.

If he pleads Guilty then he is pleading to the mens rea and the actus reus

He's pleading guilty, yes. But if he does not the sanction is massively increased. In my opinion it's a way of keeping the disciplinary "easy". When was the last time int the NH a player pleaded not guilty?

Point is if he pleads guilty then both parts of the offense are there, he has accepted he intended to do it. shocker.

We all want rucking back but it is this sort of knobbish behavior that ensures it won't be allowed back any time soon.

My mistake in the earlier post. Should have been mens rea! Oops

sheephead wrote:When was the last time int the NH a player pleaded not guilty?

I just had a look

It was Dylan Hartley in May 2013. He was given 11 weeks for calling referee Wayne Barnes a cheat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10081445/Northampton-captain-Dylan-Hartley-handed-an-11-week-ban-after-being-found-guilty-of-verbal-abuse.html

To be honest I think we have all called Wayne Barnes far worse, but we are not captaining a team that Barnes is refereeing.

We'll still win the 6 nations, Evans or no Evans

i agree its probably more likely now, as evans wont be able to get himself sent off during the competition.

still dont think wales are going to win more than 2 games though. maybe 2 wins and a draw without evans.   

quinsforever wrote:i agree its probably more likely now, as evans wont be able to get himself sent off during the competition.

still dont think wales are going to win more than 2 games though. maybe 2 wins and a draw without evans.   

Why?

maestegmafia wrote:

sheephead wrote:When was the last time int the NH a player pleaded not guilty?

I just had a look

It was Dylan Hartley in May 2013. He was given 11 weeks for calling referee Wayne Barnes a cheat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10081445/Northampton-captain-Dylan-Hartley-handed-an-11-week-ban-after-being-found-guilty-of-verbal-abuse.html

To be honest I think we have all called Wayne Barnes far worse, but we are not captaining a team that Barnes is refereeing.

Maesteg butt, surely you've got young lady

In all seriousness though, we have a system of plead guilty or risk a heavier sentence. Unless you're Irish and the committe is IRFU you're fcuked!

Ireland may beat Wales and then it will be down to points difference.

maestegmafia wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i agree its probably more likely now, as evans wont be able to get himself sent off during the competition.

still dont think wales are going to win more than 2 games though. maybe 2 wins and a draw without evans.   

Why?

away matches vs ire and england. and france always do well after a lions tour

plus other factors like
- injuries and absentees, ryan jones, evans, roberts only just back, etc, etc.
- welsh scrummagers have really struggled to adapt to the new rules without the hit. (penalty tries vs toulon?) or have injury concerns.
- rrw vs wru debate cannot be considered a positive to team morale or cohesion
- pressure of going into the tournament as self proclaimed favourites, and targeting a 3rd consecutive win

not expecting anyone to agree. and not going to debate it. just putting down my reasons in response to being asked.

quinsforever wrote:not expecting anyone to agree. and not going to debate it. just putting down my reasons in response to being asked.

You forgot double champions and whooped yo asses 2/2 last meetings

You should be more worried about france who will exploit an uncertain untested back line and Scotland who will I think be the shock of this tourney

Thought it was odd that Sky only showed McCarthy walking off the pitch and there were no shots of him from the front. I was in the F
RDS and from my seat at the back of the south stand you could clearly see he was pumping bloody out of his face, but had you only been watching on TV you wouldn't actually see the extent of the injury.

Not that the severity of the injury should influence the period of suspension, just an observation...

I don't know Mick, these screenshots seem to give a fairly good view. Very nasty.

http://www.joe.ie/rugby/picture-leinsters-mike-mccarthy-was-absolutely-covered-in-blood-after-being-stamped-on/