Diving and playacting??

First topic message reminder :

What's the crack with all this playacting??!!

Habanas pathetic attempts last weekend and Mike McCarthy this weekend.

No place for that in this sport!!!

Your right Who care...one is different in its stopping potential broken necks etc.

HOWEVER, do you agree that the sort of behaviour shown by Hugens has no place in our sport whatsoever and he deserves to be banned?
And ongoing, a hefty ban for anyone else who fancies taking a ridiculous tumble.

Disagree whocares. It's still a punishable offence

As broadlandboy says it's unsportsmanlike conduct and brings the game into disrepute.

Far too many players particularly those from French clubs have got away with diving/play acting.

Beshocked, so you think diving and spear tackles are as bad as each other? Because that was whocares' point. He didn't say diving shouldn't be punished. Just that it's not a player welfare issue...which is true. These things are very difficult to prove (when I was a kid someone touched my back while I was running and I fell flat on my face, with the scars to show for it). So, whether there is a case where a player can be proved to have pretended to recieved contact that wasn't there, they should definately be punished. I wouldn't be against them just getting a week. At least it sends a message better than nothing at all.

Yes GF I agree it has nothing to do on a pitch but you need consideration when applying bans for all these offenses that allegedly "bring the game into disrepute" as seen in the Armitage case.  
Beshocked, if it was a clear cut punishable offense then why wasnt Huget cited? Also please cut the hollier than thou english arrogance when it comes to describing french players as thugs or cheats which would be fine if you take a look at your own mess before,

whocares wrote:Yes GF I agree it has nothing to do on a pitch but you need consideration when applying bans for all these offenses that allegedly "bring the game into disrepute" as seen in the Armitage case.  
Beshocked, if it was a clear cut punishable offense then why wasnt Huget cited? Also please cut the hollier than thou english arrogance when it comes to describing french players as thugs or cheats which would be fine if you take a look at your own mess before,

He wasn't....he said French Clubs....and theres no French players in them.....

Haha...

How about a fine instead of a ban? To my mind it'd do a lot more to actually make the player/club think about their actions and the money could go to a good cause (grass roots or something).

It's certainly not a French club thing - Mike McCarthy's dive after Gordon Reid slightly grazed his shoulder in the Pro 12 final was embarrassing.

https://twitter.com/GLove39/status/473040187812229121?s=03

Thank you geordiefalcon. That's true.

Habana isn't French for example.

Neither is Toby Flood and him trying to pull off Watson's head was one of the most dangerous parts of that incident if player safety is seen as so important. Pretty sure Watson went off injured and didn't return to the field.

Whocares you are right. Toulouse weren't punished - they should have been for at least one of those incidents. Doesn't mean that it's not a problem.

English players aren't perfect. Kruis deserved his ban for a tip tackle and Hartley for his elbow for example. Our players aren't squeaky clean.


You are right a tip tackle is different to a dive but I still think both should be punished.

I agree that a dive has to be clear cut - is there any real doubt with Yoann Huget?

I would like to see the IRB simply come out and state that diving/playacting has no place in rugby and that instances regarding such suspected actions will be reviewed and bans, Fines or both will be handed out retrospectively.

Its not a cultural thing, its simply a bad thing that is becoming all too familiar in our game.

I've not been bothered to read through all this yet.

It honestly doesn't bother me as much as it seems to other people on here.

I honestly wonder why there's condemnation of a players reaction to being struck, rather than condemnation of the player who lashed out. Striking another player is equally shameful in my book. And lets not forget what provoked the lashing out. Interference off the ball is also shameful.

For me, if you interfere off the ball, hold somebody back, pull a shirt, step into a player who is chasing a ball - then you are on equal standing of scumbaggishness as anyone who playacts. If you disagree you are a cheat yourself. ALL 'dark arts' should be rid from the game.

No a tip tackle is not comparible with a dive

No this thing is not restricted to french rugby

This kind of nonsense is starting to get out of hand though! It was never talked about as it so rarely happened but it is starting to creep its way into the sport.

My point is that there were no bans for tip tackles as there was no rule against them. A rule was then brought in and enforced. The exact same thing needs to happen with this carry on. The IRB need to bring in a rule to say that players should not bring the game into disrepute by "diving" or trying to con refs into penalties/cards/etc. Once the rule is written into the rule book, any eejit trying it should be dealt with accordingly.

tigertattie wrote:

The IRB need to bring in a rule to say that players should not bring the game into disrepute by "diving" or trying to con refs into penalties/cards/etc. Once the rule is written into the rule book, any eejit trying it should be dealt with accordingly.

This, I could not agree more with this.

Nachos Jones wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

The IRB need to bring in a rule to say that players should not bring the game into disrepute by "diving" or trying to con refs into penalties/cards/etc. Once the rule is written into the rule book, any eejit trying it should be dealt with accordingly.

This, I could not agree more with this.

Why you say 'con' what is your definition? There was no actual contact or action to react or protest to? As in pretending you got hit but you didn't?

What if you DID get hit? but 'Made a Meal Of It'? Is that equally punishable? And what happens to the player who made the contact when the citing panel views it? Does he get his rightful punishment also?

clivemcl,

I would say that a large number of posters on here have been involved in the game long enough both by playing and supporting it. There are certain instances where it is absolutely clear that a player is attempting to deceive a ref into awarding punishment to another player. Huget's on the weekend was one and was so pathetic that it warranted action.

There will always be a grey area in some instances but blatant instances like that should be punished thus discouraging others to take the chance of trying to deceive.

Nachos Jones wrote:clivemcl,

I would say that a large number of posters on here have been involved in the game long enough both by playing and supporting it. There are certain instances where it is absolutely clear that a player is attempting to deceive a ref into awarding punishment to another player. Huget's on the weekend was one and was so pathetic that it warranted action.

There will always be a grey area in some instances but blatant instances like that should be punished thus discouraging others to take the chance of trying to deceive.

Ok, finally watched it.

A couple of points:

a) Diving is wrong
b) Striking a player is wrong (I don't believe Agulla did in this case though)
c) Tackling a player around the neck like Flood did is wrong
d) Shirt pulling my Agulla on Huget five seconds earlier is wrong.


My point is, when there was no punch, it should most definitely be punished severely.

But I do think there's a difference if there has been contact. Even if a players swings a punch but misses, I still think the player should be punished for attempting a punch.

My issue is this - If play acting gets taken up by a citing panel, do they ignore the other ilegalities they see in the run up to the play-acting offense?

Personally, I put shirt pulling/ blocking/ holding on the same level of disgust as play-acting.

Just to clear things up - Huget wasn't trying to get Agulla punished for nothing - he was trying to get the punishment handed out for the prior incident the ref didn't see.

clivemcl,
Just to clarify my point.

I am not talking about foul play I general but I do believe that it should be looked at retrospectively as well.
What I am disgusted with is blatant diving/playacting. I don't believe that any player simulates for any other reason than to try and get an opponent punished. I really don't are what happens in the lead up to simulations, I just don't believe in simulation period.

Its like knowing who the person is who mugged your wife in the street but he didn't get charged because of no witnesses for example. Then at a later date you find yourself in a situation to frame the guy for some other fictional crime.

It's wrong that the person tries to get the guy punished for a fictional crime - but its also wrong that the guy was never punished for his previous crimes too...

The idea that we are all so moral as to not attempt to get somebody in trouble if we know they deserve it is laughable. You all angels then??

Ok, well that's taking it to a whole new tangent... Not eve going to touch that.

I think Huget has apologised.

If anyone can speak French and can translate, feel free to confirm!

Je m’excuse sincèrement pour ce geste de simulation inapproprié qui ne reflète pas du tout mon état d’esprit et les valeurs du rugby#sorry

At a guess:

I apologize sincerely for my inappropriate gesture of simulation and does not reflect on the spirit and values of rugby.

There's probably a few missing words in there, but I hope that is the gist!

I understand the #sorry part!

So is that it? He does a habana, says sorry and everyone moves on?

I'd say he "got away with it" but in all honesty he never really got anything in the first place (never got the player carded)

The iRB still need to look at this carry on.

In the example here I think the best thing to do is allow the refs to go to the video to look at the whole situation. Treat it like playing advantage!

Flood does a dangerous tackle. Penalty and a yellow card to flood.
Agulla pulls Hugets shirt - Penatly for obstuction - Original penalty stands, Agulla talked to and told next infringement and he gets a yellow.
Agulla, to me, doesnt throw a punch so that part is ignored.
Huget "dives" - Yellow card for Huget for being a plum. As the dangerous tackle is the more "serious" offence, that is the incedent that is ultimatly penalised. Had that tackle not occurred, I'd have penalised Agulla for the shirt pull but then over-turned that penalty for the "dive"

The issue is that rugby laws are bloomin complicated and open to referee interpretation. However, on the subjectof simulation, there are no rules to allow the ref to sanction anyone at the time.

the IRB will still need to look at this!

I don't think anyone is arguing that shirt pulls etc should be penalised. They defo should...but often these are things that are missed. It is part of the dark arts of not getting caught. Cheating yes it is...but to me its totally different to feigning a punch and play acting.

This is deliberately mocking your fellow players...and fans alike. Its pathetic and needs dealing with now!!

tigertattie can't argue with that assessment.

Consistency is a huge issue though.

Geordiefalcon I agree but I guess the big issue is that cheating in rugby has been around for years and years. No team is innocent - just some are better than others.

If Huget for example was a better actor he might have not been ridiculed.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing that shirt pulls etc should be penalised. They defo should...but often these are things that are missed. It is part of the dark arts of not getting caught. Cheating yes it is...but to me its totally different to feigning a punch and play acting.

This is deliberately mocking your fellow players...and fans alike. Its pathetic and needs dealing with now!!

But this the problem. Rugby seems to celebrate some forms of cheating and castigates others. The ironic thing for me is that the cheating that is celebrates (the "Dark arts") is responsible for the worst part of rugby at the moment (scrum and ruck messes). Whereas the diving, etc is a tiny minor part. don't get me wrong, I've already said that I think Huget should have been banned. But the double standards are strange (to me). But I'm from a football background and cheating in football is why I lost interest. Perhaps because I'm not from a rugby background I see ruck and scrum cheating as cheating.

hammerofthunor I think everyone wants to see the game cleaned up but it's difficult to enforce and most importantly be consistent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/sports_talk/2008347.stm - when I think of the ultimate moment of getting away with something in rugby this is it.

Huget has been given a 'formal warning'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30913041

Which counts as a retrospective yellow card

Doesn't rugby have something about "ungentlemanly conduct" like most other sports do? Surely that would cover simulation without having to create a new law? Refs could use that to penalise players (penalty, cards etc) during play.

Huget has indeed been done under existing laws.