Ian Evans hearing...

First topic message reminder :

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

Notch wrote: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/

Maybe they showed it at half time, I downloaded the match and re-watched over the weekend and from the copy I saw you wouldn't even know that he was cut (the commentators didn't even mention blood) but it might have come up at the half time analysis which was edited out of the copy I found.

At the time the pictures shown as he left the pitch were all of his non injured side but I would think that was just happenstance as to which camera covered what.

If you remember, Healy was down injured at the time and a lot of the cameras were focused on him. Even the Leinster medics seemed to be more concerned about Healy and I think it was the prop who pointed them in the direction of the bleeding McCarthy. At least that was how it looked to me.

Jhamer25 wrote: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.

To be honest I think he got off lightly. Remember Daf Jones got 6 Months for his head stamp, which was equally vicious. However Daf had a good disciplinary record, where as Ian Evans has been banned before for when he kicked out of the scrum, for no reason, straight onto Harry Ellis' knee cap (which IMO ended Ellis' career, even though he did try to make a comeback of sorts). Ianto should have had a good 6-9 months IMO.

MrsP wrote:At the time the pictures shown as he left the pitch were all of his non injured side but I would think that was just happenstance as to which camera covered what.

If you remember, Healy was down injured at the time and a lot of the cameras were focused on him. Even the Leinster medics seemed to be more concerned about Healy and I think it was the prop who pointed them in the direction of the bleeding McCarthy. At least that was how it looked to me.

Absolutely, I'm not claiming conspiracy, I just think that had you only seen the incident on tv and not seen the extent of the injury, you might not realise how bad it was!

I can't remember exactly when they showed it but they definately did at some stage because I was quite shocked at the injury when I saw it too.

Any word on how he is by the way?

MrsP wrote:I can't remember exactly when they showed it but they definately did at some stage because I was quite shocked at the injury when I saw it too.

Any word on how he is by the way?

He was stitched up and rubbing Cian Healy's face when Healy was announced as MOTM so I don't think it's going to keep him out of action. Just added a bit of character to his face...

He got what he deserved imo.

AFAIK facial injuries tend to bleed a lot so often look worse than they actually are (even then that pic does look very bad)

Meh, head wounds bleed like hell even from the smallest scratch, especially when you are all fired up. Just saying

munkian wrote:Meh, head wounds bleed like hell even from the smallest scratch, especially when you are all fired up. Just saying

Probably why its a good idea not to stand on someones head. Just saying.

For the good of the game Thugs like this should be banned for good.

Scrumpy how about you pick a decision regarding the ban and stick to it because so far er have had two different opinions from you on it today

Scrumpy wrote:He got what he deserved imo.

and

Scrumpy wrote:For the good of the game Thugs like this should be banned for good.

Which is it? A 12 week ban is what he deserves or being banned for good?

Personally like I said earlier he got away with it very lightly given previous bans players have received, and given his track record (Harry Ellis injury).

Not sure which is worse, a stamp (which a number of people are calling for to come back to the game), or sniffing fairy dust. I hear a certain rugby club has a reputation for the latter?

Whiteline fever ?

Its possible to have two opinions!
 
My own personal view as a former player is he got what he deserved, you simply can't get away with that these days.
 
But!
 
I'm also of the opinion, that for the good of the game Thugs should be banned from the sport.

Big difference between rucking a body and stamping on a head. Accidents happen but when they happen 2 or 3 times in a few seconds at the same place you have to ask yourself how much of an accident it is.

The Saint wrote:Not sure which is worse, a stamp (which a number of people are calling for to come back to the game), or sniffing fairy dust. I hear a certain rugby club has a reputation for the latter?

 
It's not stamping that is being called for, it is rucking. There's always been a problem with this perception in Britain. Indeed it was proposals from the NH unions that saw rucking outlawed. Which was closely followed by the era of English (in particular) ball killing ruck floppers. This was followed by laws allegedly preventing them from doing this without being penalised. However the recent refereeing trend to allow players to resume their ball flopping and play killing activity has IMO led to the return of this "thuggery", read act of frustration to retrieve quick ball.
 
Now either referees up north MUST EITHER adopt the SH zero tolerance for off-feet play which sees the southern game must quicker and cleaner and vastly fewer incidences of head stomping and read-carding. OR players must be empowered to ruck for the ball.  This does not require a law change as rucking is already legal under the current laws. However referees tend to penalise genuine ball rucking under "reckless use of the boot" foul play laws. A simple "interpretation suggestion" from the IRB to allow players who are off their feet and preventing the release of the ball to be rucked would clean up the situation in no time at all.

I actually agree (for once) with Brian Moore in his 2010 comments:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/6927871/Brian-Moore-when-and-why-did-old-fashioned-rucking-become-illegal.html

Scrumpy wrote:Its possible to have two opinions!
 
My own personal view as a former player is he got what he deserved, you simply can't get away with that these days.
 
But!
 
I'm also of the opinion, that for the good of the game Thugs should be banned from the sport.

The rugby world would be deprived of a lot of great players if all of these supposed thugs were banned from the sport.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

The Saint wrote:Not sure which is worse, a stamp (which a number of people are calling for to come back to the game), or sniffing fairy dust. I hear a certain rugby club has a reputation for the latter?

 
It's not stamping that is being called for, it is rucking. There's always been a problem with this perception in Britain.

I understand the ruling. But come on there isn't really much difference between stamping and rucking.

Are we saying Ian Evans is a great player?

The Saint wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

The Saint wrote:Not sure which is worse, a stamp (which a number of people are calling for to come back to the game), or sniffing fairy dust. I hear a certain rugby club has a reputation for the latter?

 
It's not stamping that is being called for, it is rucking. There's always been a problem with this perception in Britain.

I understand the ruling. But come on there isn't really much difference between stamping and rucking.

 
The law was "clarified" in April 2005 after a query from the IRFU. This (despite Brian Moore's apparent inability to uncover it) was the point when referees were given the guidance that the foul play law ALWAYS takes precedence over the rucking law - essentially negating the rucking law.
 
"RULING 1: 2005
Law Ruling by Designated Members of Laws Committee
April 2005
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 16-Ruck
1. To paraphrase the definition, it basically states that rucking can occur as long as players are not in
contravention of Law 10 Foul Play. In 16.3(f) it states that 'a player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on
the ground'. It also states that 'a player must not intentionally step on players who are on the ground, and that
'a player rucking must do so near the ball'.
Is this then taken to mean that there are no exceptions or qualifications to the Law, and that rucking which is
directed at a player to remove him as an obstruction or impediment to securing possession of the ball is illegal?
2. Can the Law also be taken to mean that so called 'mountain climbing' where a player is using his boots to
climb on a players back/body, is illegal?
3.Can the Law also be taken to mean that rucking can only occur when a player is in a ruck and bound correctly
{Law 16.2(b)} and that any player not caught in or bound in the ruck cannot be rucking for the ball and is
therefore liable to penalty for Dangerous Play and Misconduct under Law 10.4(b) and/or (c) and/or 10.4(k).
4. Additionally, would inadvertent or unintentional contact with players in a ruck as an incident of legitimate
rucking for the football (reckless and patently dangerous rucking apart) be considered legal and within the Laws
of the Game?
The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the questions raised:
Rulings
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes"
 
Which leads us to the bizarre and illogical conclusion that you can only clear a player who is dilberately and illegally killing the ball by rucking him out of the way if you do so by accident.

Scrumpy wrote:Are we saying Ian Evans is a great player?

He ain't bad. Would probably stroll into the Bath and England XVs.

It actually reffered to a number of past and present players.

GloriousEmpire wrote:
 
It's not stamping that is being called for, it is rucking. There's always been a problem with this perception in Britain. Indeed it was proposals from the NH unions that saw rucking outlawed. Which was closely followed by the era of English (in particular) ball killing ruck floppers. This was followed by laws allegedly preventing them from doing this without being penalised. However the recent refereeing trend to allow players to resume their ball flopping and play killing activity has IMO led to the return of this "thuggery", read act of frustration to retrieve quick ball.
 

Holy Poopie, I actually agree with GE. I am off to lie in a darkened room until this wears off.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/9673255/Ban-on-rucking-to-blame-for-All-Blacks-Adam-Thomson-trampling-on-Scotland-forward-Alasdair-Strokoschs-head.html

Again, same argument.

GloriousEmpire wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/9673255/Ban-on-rucking-to-blame-for-All-Blacks-Adam-Thomson-trampling-on-Scotland-forward-Alasdair-Strokoschs-head.html

Again, same argument.

.....and normality is returned.

Yep 2005. The IRB confirmed the death of rucking, although it had been evident since 2002 that rucking was seen as less preferable to the monotonous slow, tangle of flabby forwards falling over the ball in the centipede of slow man-cuddles that effectively handed England's oompah-loompah-stick-it-up-your-jumper game plan a RWC in 2003.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10116955

The Saint wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Are we saying Ian Evans is a great player?

He ain't bad. Would probably stroll into the Bath and England XVs.

It actually reffered to a number of past and present players.

Given the form of Launchbury and Lawes in the Autumn - no chance. Very good player but never going to be world class I don't think.

How could Evans have been rucking for a ball?

This was a maul!

Similar situation in that the player he stamped on was illegally stopping the maul.

But surely to be legal you can only ruck ON the ball?

If the ball is happily tucked under the arm of your hooker...

And...sorry for calling you Surley!

No. The ruck law allows you to ruck a player away from the ruck. However this rule has been deemed to be always subject to foul play laws stating the same action is apparently illegal.

thomh wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Are we saying Ian Evans is a great player?

He ain't bad. Would probably stroll into the Bath and England XVs.

It actually reffered to a number of past and present players.

Given the form of Launchbury and Lawes in the Autumn - no chance. Very good player but never going to be world class I don't think.

Can I jsut ask what you see in Lawes which make him such a good player?

I'm not having a go trust me but I just believe he is very very over rated and out of the 4 locks capable to England Parling, Laucnhbery, Attwood, Lawes he would be my fourth option.
Also this isn't in aid of Ian Evans because with Paring and Launchbery Ian Evans wouldn't walk into the England XV

I just want someone else opinion on the matter because I just don't see it myself.

Jhamer25 wrote:

thomh wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Are we saying Ian Evans is a great player?

He ain't bad. Would probably stroll into the Bath and England XVs.

It actually reffered to a number of past and present players.

Given the form of Launchbury and Lawes in the Autumn - no chance. Very good player but never going to be world class I don't think.

Can I jsut ask what you see in Lawes which make him such a good player?

I'm not having a go trust me but I just believe he is very very over rated and out of the 4 locks capable to England Parling, Laucnhbery, Attwood, Lawes he would be my fourth option.
Also this isn't in aid of Ian Evans because with Paring and Launchbery Ian Evans wouldn't walk into the England XV

I just want someone else opinion on the matter because I just don't see it myself.

Lawes is one of those players who's had his reputation built on one thing from a very early age. He has been over-hyped for his tackling and physicality for a long while coming in to the England set-up. His carrying was always criticised by genuine England fans and his physicality in the tight was sometimes found wanting.

Now though he's slowly transformed himself into an extremely capable second row who has the potential to go on and be a world class No.5. Settling his position has been key, certainly for England. Other posters on here such as Geordie Falcon have repeatedly pointed out he's been too lightweight for a 4 and lacked the line-out calling of a 5.

Now though he's added running the line-out, improved his carrying technique out of sight, has looked for more ways to get into the game and still tackles hard. He's genuinely physical in the tight and tackle and covers an enormous amount of ground for a SR. His kick-off reclaims and jumping in the line-out are exceptional and as I said he has the ability and athleticism to be a world class player. The trick is combining him with a complimentary 4 and 6.

Scrumpy wrote:For the good of the game Thugs like this should be banned for good.

He's no thug....unlike Calum Clark who is now leading an England side.

Scratch wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:For the good of the game Thugs like this should be banned for good.

He's no thug....unlike Calum Clark who is now leading an England side.

As Calum Clarke done any thing this bad?

you serious maj, you must be aware of this stuff

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

much worse

and this is an England shirt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNgWg8kGMWk

majesticimperialman wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:For the good of the game Thugs like this should be banned for good.

He's no thug....unlike Calum Clark who is now leading an England side.

As Calum Clarke done any thing this bad?

Oh dear.

What a thug. He should've gone after the punching incident.

However looking at that scoreline I can see what he might've for so frustrated. Looks like England took an absolute pummelling!

Scratch wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:For the good of the game Thugs like this should be banned for good.

He's no thug....unlike Calum Clark who is now leading an England side.

  

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yep 2005. The IRB confirmed the death of rucking, although it had been evident since 2002 that rucking was seen as less preferable to the monotonous slow, tangle of flabby forwards falling over the ball in the centipede of slow man-cuddles that effectively handed England's oompah-loompah-stick-it-up-your-jumper game plan a RWC in 2003.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10116955

Pots and kettles. Most NZ games I watch has a NZ player on the wrong side of most rucks, deliberately slowing opposition ball.

As for thuggery accusations -more pots and kettles. Jamie Joseph on Bracken, Umaga and Mealamu on BOD, Thomson on Strokosch* ( and he socked him one before the stamp) and Hore's cowardly rabbit punch on Bradley Davies.

Just a few I can remember.

* I seem to recall that the Thomson incident prompted comments that NZ are reffed more leniently than other teams when it comes to cards being issued and the length of ban (if any) handed out.

Evans was extremely reckless and had the ban reduced by 4 weeks for the guilty plea.

Given the serious looking nature of the head wounds, I think he's lucky.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11125923

an interesting take on how NZ views refereeing, this NZ commentator suggest refs just make mistakes, but not in 2007 obviously.

I'd forgotten Hore's short arm on Davies. Just another mistake probably.

Chjw131 wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:

thomh wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Are we saying Ian Evans is a great player?

He ain't bad. Would probably stroll into the Bath and England XVs.

It actually reffered to a number of past and present players.

Given the form of Launchbury and Lawes in the Autumn - no chance. Very good player but never going to be world class I don't think.

Can I jsut ask what you see in Lawes which make him such a good player?

I'm not having a go trust me but I just believe he is very very over rated and out of the 4 locks capable to England Parling, Laucnhbery, Attwood, Lawes he would be my fourth option.
Also this isn't in aid of Ian Evans because with Paring and Launchbery Ian Evans wouldn't walk into the England XV

I just want someone else opinion on the matter because I just don't see it myself.

Lawes is one of those players who's had his reputation built on one thing from a very early age. He has been over-hyped for his tackling and physicality for a long while coming in to the England set-up. His carrying was always criticised by genuine England fans and his physicality in the tight was sometimes found wanting.

Now though he's slowly transformed himself into an extremely capable second row who has the potential to go on and be a world class No.5. Settling his position has been key, certainly for England. Other posters on here such as Geordie Falcon have repeatedly pointed out he's been too lightweight for a 4 and lacked the line-out calling of a 5.

Now though he's added running the line-out, improved his carrying technique out of sight, has looked for more ways to get into the game and still tackles hard. He's genuinely physical in the tight and tackle and covers an enormous amount of ground for a SR. His kick-off reclaims and jumping in the line-out are exceptional and as I said he has the ability and athleticism to be a world class player. The trick is combining him with a complimentary 4 and 6.

Oh right then, maybe i am being a bit harsh on the man and he might have improved. It's just every time i watch him he only stand out form making 1 or 3 big hits (like you said) and you don;t here of him for the rest of the game. I just feel he doesn't have the edge that the likes of Parling has in the line out/tackle count and Launchbery in open play and work rate around the park.
When I compare him to players of other nations i just don;t think he comes close tot he likes of Alyn Wyn, Paul O'Connell, Richie Gray, Jim Hamilton, Parling, Launchbery.
Maybe he has improves though, guess i will see in the six nations and see where he is at now. He has all the attributes of a great athlete but just doesn't seem to get around the pitch enough, time will tell though.

Scrumpy wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:For the good of the game Thugs like this should be banned for good.

He's no thug....unlike Calum Clark who is now leading an England side.