Ulster vs Glasgow

First topic message reminder :

                      
Ulster Rugby v Glasgow Warriors
Saturday 11 October 2014
KO 17:05
Kingspan Stadium

Live on Sky Sports

Referee: Nigel Owens(WRU, 114th competition game)
Assistant Referees: Nigel Correll, Paul Haycock (IRFU)
Citing Commissioner: Murray White (IRFU)
TMO: Simon McDowell (IRFU)

A. Teams:

Ulster Rugby

15 Louis Ludik
14 Andrew Trimble
13 Jared Payne
12 Stuart McCloskey
11 Tommy Bowe
10 Ian Humphreys
9 Paul Marshall

1 Andrew Warwick
2 Rory Best (Captain)
3 Wiehahn Herbst
4 Alan O’Connor
5 Franco van der Merwe
6 Robbie Diack
7 Chris Henry
8 Nick Williams

16 Rob Herring
17 Callum Black
18 Bronson Ross
19 Lewis Stevenson
20 Roger Wilson
21 Michael Heaney
22 Stuart Olding
23 Craig Gilroy

Glasgow Warriors

15. Peter Murchie
14. Sean Maitland
13. Mark Bennett
12. Peter Horne
11. Tommy Seymour
10. Finn Russell
9. Henry Pyrgos

1. Gordon Reid
2. Fraser Brown
3. Euan Murray
4. Tim Swinson
5. Leone Nakarawa
6. Rob Harley
7. Chris Fusaro
8. Josh Strauss (Captain)

16. Dougie Hall
17. Jerry Yanuyanutawa
18. Zander Fagerson
19. Jonny Gray
20. Adam Ashe
21. Niko Matawalu
22. James Downey
23. Sean Lamont

B. Form - head to head:

29 Played 29
15 Wins 13
13 Losses 15
1 Draws 1
49 Tries 47
31 Conversions 33
78 Penalties 68
2 Drop Goals 7
547 Points 526
26 Avg. Age 26

C. Form - last season:

Friday 13 September 2013  
Ulster Rugby 12 - 13 Glasgow Warriors
Ravenhill Stadium

Friday 18 April 2014
Glasgow Warriors 27 - 9 Ulster Rugby
Scotstoun Stadium

Standulstermen wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:Its as I said. From the maul is formed we cannot tell where O'Connors arms are. If he starts high its fair to assume its a citing. If not its hard to prove.

In honestly I don't think Townsends comments were as inflammatory as the journalistic license in the article. But I tend to agree with Notch in that it seems something bad happened by accident. If video proves otherwise then fair enough

Surely if something bad happened then a citing and ban follows. We learned from the Payne/Goode incident it is irrelevant whether it was by accident.

i m coming from the point of view of what i would like to happen. In talking of potentially fatal collisions have we overlooked Louis ludik landing on his neck. If intent is irrelevant then we are talking a citing and facing a long ban for lamont. Imo it was an accident and appropriately dealt with

Yes, yes it was

Notch wrote:I would prefer if these things were settled in the changing rooms. Ask the guy was it intentional? If he says it wasn't and apologises afterwards, shake hands and move on. A bit of honour and sportsmanship could stop these cases even getting before a citing commission.

If there is evidence that it was intentional then cite. It seems to have crept into rugby that some clubs are happy to try and get guys banned if they lose. It seems like an unnecessarily vindictive culture. I'm wondering if there was even any dialogue between the two teams prior to this coming out.

Do you honestly think any player would admit to intentionally choking a player to unconsciousness, which would result in a lengthy ban right before the start of a European competition and in the year leading up to a RWC?

And I don't believe for a second a player is not aware of where their arms are.  If Bennett is trapped between two players then fair enough but if your arms are around the neck and you exert enough pressure to choke a player into unconsciousness you deserve a lengthy ban (12 months +).

Have to wait and see some more footage, didn't get much from the sky coverage but surely there are other angles available for the citing commission.

If he is a sportsman and a gentleman in the traditions of the game then yes, I absolutely would expect that. It is what I would do. Basically this is inconclusive so unless there is more definitive footage that hasn't been released it will come down to his word anyway.

As for 12 months plus... jesus wept. You still have provided absolutely nothing to prove there was any intent whatsoever and you are talking about twelve months plus. Apart from the fact that 'you don't believe' something. Thats the judicial process at work here. That just sums the reaction to this up. This is an utterly ludicrous witch hunt started by the Glasgow coaching staff, encouraged by the media and bought into by the fans and you are welcome to it. I have never come across such sore losers in my life.

We need to remember the responsibility to ensure that we do what we can to prevent another player being affected by this sort of "hold" with potentially disasterous consequences.

We need to make it clear that it is not acceptable to hold a player around the neck in a maul or at any other time.

The reason Bennett lost consciousness is almost certainly because he did not have enough blood getting to his brain. The body has an excellent way of dealing with that called "fainting" which usually gets your head at the same level as your heart which helps. If you are prevented from becoming horizontal the consequences are potentially devastating.

We need players to understand that the neck is off limits for very good reason and if citing O'Connor helps to do that then I as an Ulster fan am willing to take that hit.

Bigger picture here.

Notch wrote:If he is a sportsman and a gentleman in the traditions of the game then yes, I absolutely would expect that. It is what I would do. Basically this is inconclusive so unless there is more definitive footage that hasn't been released it will come down to his word anyway.

As for 12 months plus... jesus wept. You still have provided absolutely nothing to prove there was any intent whatsoever and you are talking about twelve months plus. Apart from the fact that 'you don't believe' something. Thats the judicial process at work here. That just sums the reaction to this up. This is an utterly ludicrous witch hunt started by the Glasgow coaching staff, encouraged by the media and bought into by the fans and you are welcome to it. I have never come across such sore losers in my life.

Dupuy received 24 week ban for gouging Ferris, Attoub got 70 weeks for gouging Ferris. Hartley got 8 weeks for biting Ferris' finger.

Choking someone to unconsciousness can cause brain damage for gods sake.

I didn't say it was deliberate, Sky didn't show any clear replays but there will be footage available for citing commissioner. If it shows the player with his arms around Bennett's neck then he deserves a serious ban.

You defending this is ridiculous.

We are talking about a guy here who is in his second ever game as a professional rugby player, he makes a minor error in tackling technique in a split second and it has unfortunate consequences. Thats what happens when players are this big and powerful. The game itself is of course unsafe and incidents like this will become more common. It is not possible for the game to be anything other than incredibly unsafe with players being the size they are nowadays. And I support any efforts to make it more safe, but I do not support scapegoating for any purpose. O'Connor seems to get his arms too high although the telling footage is not in the public domain. I do not see how anyone can possibly come to any conclusion from that footage. You expect mistakes from a rookie player, what you do not expect is for opposition management and fans to start a witch hunt to go after the poor guy. Any player could end up where he is now, with the absolute best will in the world. It could happen to anybody.

So lets make sure everyone knows that you shouldn't get a player around the neck, because that is obvious, but let's also not turn this into some kind of vindictive, persecutory campaign based on a mistake any player could have made in the heat of the moment. Similar to what happened to Payne- there has to be a scapegoat for every incident nowadays. This could all have been settled with a handshake.

reallybored wrote:

Notch wrote:If he is a sportsman and a gentleman in the traditions of the game then yes, I absolutely would expect that. It is what I would do. Basically this is inconclusive so unless there is more definitive footage that hasn't been released it will come down to his word anyway.

As for 12 months plus... jesus wept. You still have provided absolutely nothing to prove there was any intent whatsoever and you are talking about twelve months plus. Apart from the fact that 'you don't believe' something. Thats the judicial process at work here. That just sums the reaction to this up. This is an utterly ludicrous witch hunt started by the Glasgow coaching staff, encouraged by the media and bought into by the fans and you are welcome to it. I have never come across such sore losers in my life.

Dupuy received 24 week ban for gouging Ferris, Attoub got 70 weeks for gouging Ferris. Hartley got 8 weeks for biting Ferris' finger.

Choking someone to unconsciousness can cause brain damage for gods sake.

I didn't say it was deliberate, Sky didn't show any clear replays but there will be footage available for citing commissioner. If it shows the player with his arms around Bennett's neck then he deserves a serious ban.

You defending this is ridiculous.

There will be no players left with that logic. Never seen a guy duck into a tackle before? Sometimes the arms go above the neck with no intention of that happening whatsoever and if we are giving out year-long bans for that we might as well just say that no-one is going to play rugby anymore. A penalty? Yes, I would give a penalty if necessary. Owens had the perfect view and gave nothing, by the way, it will be interesting to see what he has to say about it.

The fact that you are comparing this incident with deliberate attempts to intentionally maim and injure is absolutely infuriating, because you have no evidence that is what happened here. I think you should be ashamed of yourself for running a players good name through the mud like that with nothing to back it up. If other evidence comes out then fair enough, but based on what I have watched over and over again there is absolutely no evidence that supports the view this was an intentional act of foul play whatsoever. Its really disgraceful for you to compare this to gouging. That is incredibly low.

I think there seems to be a bit of confusion about how a player can potenially lose consciouness in this sort of situation.

We are not talking about compressing the neck so he can not breathe. That does not fit the time frame we see between the maul forming and the player being unconscious.

The more likely mechanism is sinus syncope. That is a reflex slowing of your heart when a certain part of your neck is compressed and it dose not take much force at all. Some individuals are very sensitive to that particular effect.

That is a very very different thing than some folk here seem to imagine happened.

I just watched the clip on youtube, one of the benefits is that you can slow it down. To be honest I think O'Connor could be facing a ban. It looks to me that he has Bennett round the neck, once the maul goes down he still doesn't release him, in fact it looks as if he leans back and increases the pressure.

Notch wrote:

reallybored wrote:

Notch wrote:If he is a sportsman and a gentleman in the traditions of the game then yes, I absolutely would expect that. It is what I would do. Basically this is inconclusive so unless there is more definitive footage that hasn't been released it will come down to his word anyway.

As for 12 months plus... jesus wept. You still have provided absolutely nothing to prove there was any intent whatsoever and you are talking about twelve months plus. Apart from the fact that 'you don't believe' something. Thats the judicial process at work here. That just sums the reaction to this up. This is an utterly ludicrous witch hunt started by the Glasgow coaching staff, encouraged by the media and bought into by the fans and you are welcome to it. I have never come across such sore losers in my life.

Dupuy received 24 week ban for gouging Ferris, Attoub got 70 weeks for gouging Ferris. Hartley got 8 weeks for biting Ferris' finger.

Choking someone to unconsciousness can cause brain damage for gods sake.

I didn't say it was deliberate, Sky didn't show any clear replays but there will be footage available for citing commissioner. If it shows the player with his arms around Bennett's neck then he deserves a serious ban.

You defending this is ridiculous.

There will be no players left with that logic. Never seen a guy duck into a tackle before? Sometimes the arms go above the neck with no intention of that happening whatsoever and if we are giving out year-long bans for that we might as well just say that no-one is going to play rugby anymore. A penalty? Yes, I would give a penalty if necessary. Owens had the perfect view and gave nothing, by the way, it will be interesting to see what he has to say about it.

The fact that you are comparing this incident with deliberate attempts to intentionally maim and injure is absolutely infuriating. I think you should be ashamed of yourself for running a players good name through the mud like that with nothing to back it up. If other evidence comes out then fair enough, but based on what I have watched over and over again there is absolutely no evidence that supports the view this was an intentional act of foul play whatsoever. Its really disgraceful for you to compare this to gouging. That is incredibly low- disgraceful.

But unlike a spear tackle or even a shoulder charge, choking someone to unconsciousness doesn't happen in an instance.  It takes a few seconds of continued pressure.

And if you're in a contact area you know if you're holding a player by the head or neck because they'll be moving like crazy to get air.  When you're trapped in a ruck with some big duffer lying on top of your head or chest you work like crazy to get free because it's a genuinely scary experience.  

As I said in my original post, nothing can be proved until more footage is made available. O'Connor may have been unfortunate and had his arms trapped around Bennett by other players in the maul or been working to free the ball.  But if he is seen to be exerting pressure on Bennett's neck or head then he has a problem.

Comparing this to gouging is ridiculous, this is potentially a far more serious offence.

Another post filled with supposition and deciding what you're going to see before you look.

Notch wrote:Another post filled with supposition and deciding what you're going to see before you look.

No, I already said earlier that I wouldn't comment because I hadn't seen. Then someone was kind enough to post a youtube link on another forum. I watched it and I simply gave my opinion, because it goes against your interpretation doesn't mean my opinion is biased. I mean I could easily say the same thing to you, since you seem happy to defend it as nothing more than sour grapes.

Anyway Notch, I am not going to get into an arm wrestle with you over this, because we will just end up going round and round in circles, and frankly I can't be arsed. Let's wait and see what the result of the panel is.

It can happen in an instant.

Some people have such a sensitive carotid sinus that they can cause themselves to faint while shaving.

cakeordeath wrote:

Notch wrote:Another post filled with supposition and deciding what you're going to see before you look.

No, I already said earlier that I wouldn't comment because I hadn't seen. Then someone was kind enough to post a youtube link on another forum. I watched it and I simply gave my opinion, because it goes against your interpretation doesn't mean my opinion is biased. I mean  I could easily say the same thing to you, since you seem happy to defend it as nothing more than sour grapes.

Anyway Notch, I am not going to get into an arm wrestle with you over this, because we will just end up going round and round in circles, and frankly I can't be arsed. Let's wait and see what the result of the panel is.

Sorry, my post wasn't directed at you.

Notch wrote:Another post filled with supposition and deciding what you're going to see before you look.

I've watched the replay several times and it's hard to see what's happening. From the angle Sky showed it's tough to work out who's arms are where or where the ball is. Or even when O'Connor joined the tackle situation and where he grapples Bennett.

The Ulster 6 then blocks the view at the critical moment once the maul has collapsed.

You seem to have decided he's totally innocent and the fact that he didn't come forward and say he deliberately assaulted Bennett is proof of this.

Why are you so convinced there is no foul play?

Your depth perception must be awful.

MrsP, if Bennett did have such a sensitive carotid sinus don't you think this would have happened before.  He is a professional rugby player after all.

Notch wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

Notch wrote:Another post filled with supposition and deciding what you're going to see before you look.

No, I already said earlier that I wouldn't comment because I hadn't seen. Then someone was kind enough to post a youtube link on another forum. I watched it and I simply gave my opinion, because it goes against your interpretation doesn't mean my opinion is biased. I mean  I could easily say the same thing to you, since you seem happy to defend it as nothing more than sour grapes.

Anyway Notch, I am not going to get into an arm wrestle with you over this, because we will just end up going round and round in circles, and frankly I can't be arsed. Let's wait and see what the result of the panel is.

Sorry, my post wasn't directed at you.

cakeordeath wrote:I just watched the clip on youtube, one of the benefits is that you can slow it down. To be honest I think O'Connor could be facing a ban. It looks to me that he has Bennett round the neck, once the maul goes down he still doesn't release him, in fact it looks as if he leans back and increases the pressure.  

What makes you think so, cake? I just had another look at it on YouTube, and if you freeze it at 1:31:52 it shows O'Conners right arm under the arm of Bennett. The same arm of Bennett which is holding on to the ball. The drop of O'Conners shoulder also indicate that he is actually holding below Bennetts shoulder.

Am I missing something?

reallybored wrote:
Why are you so convinced there is no foul play?

I'm not convinced there is no foul play. I am convinced there is no evidence of foul play in the videos I've watched. Certainly there is not enough evidence to support a citing in those videos. Everything can be explained by the arms slipping slightly up in the original tackle which we have no footage of, but even that I'm not sure about. I don't even know that that is likely to have happened. Based on that video he can not be found guilty of anything. There is no evidence that he was aware the player was unconscious at any point or that the arms started high in the tackle- basically there is nothing there that supports a citing.

reallybored wrote:
I've watched the replay several times and it's hard to see what's happening. From the angle Sky showed it's tough to work out who's arms are where or where the ball is. Or even when O'Connor joined the tackle situation and where he grapples Bennett.

You describe exactly why you cannot possibly jump to the conclusions you have jumped to.

reallybored wrote:You seem to have decided he's totally innocent and the fact that he didn't come forward and say he deliberately assaulted Bennett is proof of this.

And then you ludicrously misrepresent my position.

I'm sorry, is innocent until proven guilty not a thing any more? I think the witch hunt aspect of this is the worst side of rugby. One bad defeat, one bad performance and one of our players names is being dragged through the mud on highly spurious grounds. A rookie with a completely clean disciplinary record and the novice players heightened emotion and corresponding propensity for the brain to not quite run as coolly as a more experienced player. And you want to ruin his career before it even starts based on what you think might have happened but you can't tell if it really did based on the same completely and totally inconclusive evidence I see that does not fundamentally show what happened?! You're goddamn right I'm angry.

MrsP wrote:I think there seems to be a bit of confusion about how a player can potenially lose consciouness in this sort of situation.

We are not talking about compressing the neck so he can not breathe. That does not fit the time frame we see between the maul forming and the player being unconscious.

The more likely mechanism is sinus syncope. That is a reflex slowing of your heart when a certain part of your neck is compressed and it dose not take much force at all. Some individuals are very sensitive to that particular effect.

That is a very very different thing than some folk here seem to imagine happened.

Or it could be windpipe compression or it could be blood vessel compression.

The only things we can be sure of at this time is he was tackled high and he lost consciousness. Distressed breathing as was reported afterwards is not usual in syncope.

I'm sorry, is innocent until proven guilty not a thing any more? I think the witch hunt aspect of this is the worst side of rugby. One bad defeat, one bad performance and one of our players names is being dragged through the mud on highly spurious grounds.

No it is not.  He tackled him high, Bennett lost consciousness.  It needs to be investigated hence a citing is right.  You seem to be claiming there is no grounds for a citing - thats ridiculous and you seem to be equating a citing with being found guilty. All a citing is is notification that the relevant people will look into the incident. You are completely overstating it Notch - both in your protestations of innocence and in you imagining that people are saying O'connel tried to kill him.

It is perfectly right and proper this is cited and then we can get an objective view.

TJ wrote:

MrsP wrote:I think there seems to be a bit of confusion about how a player can potenially lose consciouness in this sort of situation.

We are not talking about compressing the neck so he can not breathe. That does not fit the time frame we see between the maul forming and the player being unconscious.

The more likely mechanism is sinus syncope. That is a reflex slowing of your heart when a certain part of your neck is compressed and it dose not take much force at all. Some individuals are very sensitive to that particular effect.

That is a very very different thing than some folk here seem to imagine happened.

Or it could be windpipe compression or it could be blood vessel compression.

The only things we can be sure of at this time is he was tackled high and he lost consciousness.  Distressed breathing as was reported afterwards is not usual in syncope.

I'm sorry, but the video does not support that.

Notch wrote:
I'm not convinced there is no foul play. I am convinced there is no evidence of foul play in the videos I've. Certainly there is not enough evidence to support a citing in those videos. Everything can be explained by the arms slipping slightly up in the original tackle which we have no footage of. Based on that video he can not be found guilty of anything.

reallybored wrote:
I've watched the replay several times and it's hard to see what's happening. From the angle Sky showed it's tough to work out who's arms are where or where the ball is. Or even when O'Connor joined the tackle situation and where he grapples Bennett.

You describe exactly why you cannot possibly jump to the conclusions you have jumped to.

Watched the replay and at 1:31:57 I believe you can see O'Connor's left arm above Bennett's shoulder.  Problem is you can't make out where his other arm is, even where his left arm is going or whether he is exerting pressure.

I've been watching rugby for a couple decades and can't remember the last time I saw a player losing consciousness in a maul.  When was the last time you saw it?

TJ wrote:

So give me the time on the video that shows that then.

We have all seen it. Yo chose not to want to see it fine.

TJ, at what time in the video do you see Bennett being held high. I really don't see that. I see O'Conner's right arm holding Bennett under the armpit of Bennett.

reallybored wrote:

Notch wrote:
I'm not convinced there is no foul play. I am convinced there is no evidence of foul play in the videos I've. Certainly there is not enough evidence to support a citing in those videos. Everything can be explained by the arms slipping slightly up in the original tackle which we have no footage of. Based on that video he can not be found guilty of anything.

reallybored wrote:
I've watched the replay several times and it's hard to see what's happening. From the angle Sky showed it's tough to work out who's arms are where or where the ball is. Or even when O'Connor joined the tackle situation and where he grapples Bennett.

You describe exactly why you cannot possibly jump to the conclusions you have jumped to.

Watched the replay and at 1:31:57 I believe you can see O'Connor's left arm above Bennett's shoulder.  Problem is you can't make out where his other arm is, even where his left arm is going or whether he is exerting pressure.

I've been watching rugby for a couple decades and can't remember the last time I saw a player losing consciousness in a maul.  When was the last time you saw it?

That doesn't indicate guilt in any way. You can't even give me a cause never mind guilt.

TJ wrote:We have all seen it.  Yo chose not to want to see it fine.

Give me a timestamp. Put up or shut up.

I've watched the YouTube clip a couple of times now and you can't (or rather I can't ) see very much while the maul is standing and rolling. However when it hits the ground and play stops O'Connor is on his back with Bennett lying on top of him on his back. The thing for me is that Bennett's back is arched with his head towards O'Connor. It looks as if he is being pulled back by the neck. Or put it this way: he has already fainted so why isn't he limp? I think we may find that the citing panel feel that it's because the man under him has him by the neck.
Secondly, O'Connor doesn't shove or push blindly at a body which is pinning him to the ground. O'Connor is holding Bennett and looking at him, and I would suggest he knows exactly what he is doing when he throws him aside like a ragdoll (as Pete so graphically put it).


Notch wrote:
"Another post filled with supposition and deciding what you're going to see before you look."

Have a good look Notch. If O'Connor was holding him below the shoulders the natural movement for Bennett's head would be up and away from O'Connor. He has fainted so his body should be limp and inert and you would expect his head to be leaning to one side. Instead his neck is stretched and taut, arching back towards O'Connor. Why do you suppose that is?
Then look at the way O'Connor flips the unconscious body off of himself. Tell me that isn't deliberate. You talk about players being sporting and steeped in the traditions of the game, well I don't see anything in that incident which is either sporting or acceptable on a rugby field.
Seriously, if someone did that to your son on a rugby field how would you feel?

If it is so that he didn't get him by the neck then he is in the clear and what are you making all the fuss about?

Seriously - get a grip. A citing is to have an investigation. He has not been found guilty of anything yet. If he didn't do anything wrong then he will be absolved.

Munchkin wrote:TJ, at what time in the video do you see Bennett being held high. I really don't see that. I see  O'Conner's right arm holding Bennett under the armpit of Bennett.

From 1:31:57 for next couple seconds once maul has collapsed it appears that O'Connor's left arm is above Bennett's shoulder.

Someone want to do a screen grab?

Time stamp try watching from about 57 minutes into the game.

Standulstermen wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:Its as I said. From the maul is formed we cannot tell where O'Connors arms are. If he starts high its fair to assume its a citing. If not its hard to prove.

In honestly I don't think Townsends comments were as inflammatory as the journalistic license in the article. But I tend to agree with Notch in that it seems something bad happened by accident. If video proves otherwise then fair enough

Surely if something bad happened then a citing and ban follows. We learned from the Payne/Goode incident it is irrelevant whether it was by accident.

i m coming from the point of view of what i would like to happen. In talking of potentially fatal collisions have we overlooked Louis ludik landing on his neck. If intent is irrelevant then we are talking a citing and facing a long ban for lamont. Imo it was an accident and appropriately dealt with

I agree SU, but the issue I'm highlighting is there is NO consistency in the Citing process. If they are trying to be a watchdog for the game to penalise players into behaving differently, being inconsistent totally undermines that approach. Payne's red card hasn't changed Lamont's behaviour because both incidents were accidents and therefore unavoidable under the current Laws.

The O'Connor/Bennett incident has happened before in the Hines/O'Gara case where Hines wasn't cited despite O'Gara losing consciousness. The circumstances looked a lot more accusative of Hines in that case, yet O'Gara apologised to Hines afterwards admitting it was just an unfortunate pile of bodies that "choked" him.

So what is the purpose of the Citing commission? If every possible fatal collision were cited then tackles could soon be outlawed too given the number of concussions caused by that aspect of the game?

Notch wrote:
That doesn't indicate guilt in any way. You can't even give me a cause never mind guilt.

What?

I know that doesn't prove guilt in any way but it does suggest something out of the ordinary happened.

jimbopip wrote:I've watched the YouTube clip a couple of times now and you can't (or rather I can't ) see very much while the maul is standing and rolling. However when it hits the ground and play stops O'Connor  is on his back with Bennett lying on top of him on his back. The thing for me is that Bennett's back is arched with his head towards O'Connor. It looks as if he is being pulled back by the neck. Or put it this way: he has already fainted so why isn't he limp? I think we may find that the citing panel feel that it's because the man under him has him by the neck.
Secondly, O'Connor doesn't shove or push blindly at  a body which is pinning him to the ground. O'Connor is holding Bennett and looking at him, and I would suggest he knows exactly what he is doing when he throws him aside like a ragdoll (as Pete so graphically put it).


Notch wrote:
"Another post filled with supposition and deciding what you're going to see before you look."

Have a good look Notch. If O'Connor was holding him below the shoulders the natural movement for Bennett's head would be up and away from O'Connor. He has fainted so his body should be limp and inert and you would expect his head to be leaning to one side. Instead his neck is stretched and taut, arching back towards O'Connor. Why do you suppose that is?
Then look at the way O'Connor flips the unconscious body off of himself. Tell me that isn't deliberate. You talk about players being sporting and steeped in the traditions of the game, well I don't see anything in that incident which is either sporting or acceptable on a rugby field.
Seriously, if someone did that to your son on a rugby field how would you feel?

If someone did what exactly to my son, sorry? Because its pretty clear that you don't know what happened in that maul and neither do I. So I'm not in a position to say how I'd feel not knowing what went on. I'm not going to fill in the blanks with biased speculation. Something happened. It is not clear whose fault it is, if anyones.

A player pushes another player off himself. Of course its deliberate. He either realises he's unconscious or he doesn't. If he doesn't its a perfectly natural thing to do. Its 100% the wrong thing to do with reference to an unconscious player but your comments all hinges on O'Connor having the recognition that he is unconscious which is simply not something you are in a position to know! If a player was lying on top of another and he pushes him off after the maul is finished, I can't find any fault in that, because its pretty likely that as far as O'Connor knows thats all that happens. You have to prove he could tell he was unconscious before you throw around comments like unsporting etc. and the absolute best case scenario for your argument is you're just guessing whether he could tell. Guessing with conviction is still guessing.

I'm not saying that O'Connor is holding him below the shoulders at the end of the maul either. I'm saying we don't know if he was tackled above the shoulders. I have absolutely no idea if that was the case and if the evidence seems to suggest anything it seems to suggest the opposite. Stating that the player was tackled above the shoulders when we have no video showing the tackle whatsoever is remarkable to me. That is mud-slinging because we do not see the tackle at any point.

I do believe O'Connor is holding him above the shoulders at the end of the maul but Bennett is twisting and trying to get out of the grip and O'Connor is not letting him go and get to ground. Now there are two possibilities if the tackle didn't start above the shoulders; O'Connors arms ride up or Bennett tries to twist down and out. If the later then it is possible that O'Connor did not do anything wrong whatsoever.

reallybored wrote:

Notch wrote:
That doesn't indicate guilt in any way. You can't even give me a cause never mind guilt.

What?

I know that doesn't prove guilt in any way but it does suggest something out of the ordinary happened.

Obviously, and neither of us know the cause of it. So something you do not know the cause of should carry a years ban?

profitius wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The only prediction I'm going to make is that Glasgow fans will be complaining about Owens on the poor refs thread on Sunday.

Theres guaranteed to be whinging about the ref. Thats a hobby for many posters.  

The hobbyists will be pleased Prof.

Tough to see but here's what I think I can see.

The light blue stripe below Rory Best's head is Mark Bennett's left shoulder.  The skin to the right of this is O'Connor's left arm.

To me that looks like he's choking him.

That is absolutely absurd. All you can say is his arm is roughly where his neck is. You cannot infer any information about force or pressure or whether that arm is where he placed it or where it is as a result of Bennetts movement trying to escape or it getting trapped beneath Bests body.

reallybored wrote:

Munchkin wrote:TJ, at what time in the video do you see Bennett being held high. I really don't see that. I see  O'Conner's right arm holding Bennett under the armpit of Bennett.

From 1:31:57 for next couple seconds once maul has collapsed it appears that O'Connor's left arm is above Bennett's shoulder.

Thanks. I had yet another look, and yes, the left arm does appear higher, although not conclusive as Bennett's head is not visible. Still, might be right though? I guess a camera angle showing the position of the left arm at the initial contact would prove conclusive either way. I would think they have one. Hopefully so. Other than that, Bennett collapsed with the maul at a very awkward angle, and it's just possible that he had his head trapped in a position that rendered him unconscious? That's not an attempt at an excuse. I just really don't know, but the position of the left arm at the collapse is a concern, granted.

Think TJ must have blocked me Haven't a clue why, but each to their own I suppose.

The Great Aukster wrote:

profitius wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The only prediction I'm going to make is that Glasgow fans will be complaining about Owens on the poor refs thread on Sunday.

Theres guaranteed to be whinging about the ref. Thats a hobby for many posters.  

The hobbyists will be pleased Prof.

Absolutely... sadly I once viewed Glasgow as my second team. It pains me to see their fans drag their clubs name through the mud, it angers me they insist on dragging one of our players names with it. Thats it from me tonight.

Notch wrote:That is absolutely absurd.

What's absurd?

Notch wrote:That is absolutely absurd. All you can say is his arm is roughly where his neck is. You cannot infer any information about force or pressure or whether that arm is where he placed it or where it is as a result of Bennetts movement trying to escape or it getting trapped beneath Bests body.

His arm is around his neck and that player lost consciousness but you don't think there's any need for the citing commission to review the incident.

reallybored wrote:

Notch wrote:That is absolutely absurd.

What's absurd?

All you can say is his arm is roughly where his neck is. You cannot infer any information about force or pressure or whether that arm is where he placed it or where it is as a result of Bennetts movement trying to escape or it getting trapped beneath Bests body.

That is like someone drawing a stick figure with no features and me saying "To me, it looks like Albert Einstein". There is a level of inference and projection that is so far beyond what can actually be inferred from that information that it is literally absurd.

reallybored wrote:

Notch wrote:That is absolutely absurd. All you can say is his arm is roughly where his neck is. You cannot infer any information about force or pressure or whether that arm is where he placed it or where it is as a result of Bennetts movement trying to escape or it getting trapped beneath Bests body.

His arm is around his neck and that player lost consciousness but you don't think there's any need for the citing commission to review the incident.

No, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest wrongdoing and you haven't pointed me to any. You're starting from the point of what happened and working backwards. That can only lead to a witch hunt. And that is exactly what this is. The worst kind of witch hunt.

Notch, have you looked at the clip? Is Bennett's head drawn back towards O'Connor? Is that not exactly the opposite of what you would expect from an unconscious person? If someone was lying on top of you in a collapsed maul completely inert and motionless ( and one much earlier poster referred to the microphones on the officials immediately afterwards picking up his heavy, laboured breathing) would not feel you had a duty of care to see that he was alright?
If someone did what exactly to my son, sorry? If your son passed out in a maul and the person he was being held down by threw him away the way O'Connor did (look at the clip and describe it in your own words) how would you feel?

Notch wrote:

reallybored wrote:

Notch wrote:That is absolutely absurd. All you can say is his arm is roughly where his neck is. You cannot infer any information about force or pressure or whether that arm is where he placed it or where it is as a result of Bennetts movement trying to escape or it getting trapped beneath Bests body.

His arm is around his neck and that player lost consciousness but you don't think there's any need for the citing commission to review the incident.

No, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest wrongdoing and you haven't pointed me to any. You're starting from the point of what happened and working backwards. That can only lead to a witch hunt. And that is exactly what this is. The worst kind of witch hunt.

O'Connor has his arm above Bennett's shoulder in the image I posted, this in itself is not evidence of wrong-doing because as you pointed out in most matches you'll see players (especially at mauls) with arms around their necks and we've only seen one poor angle of the incident.

However in this case, the other player was left unconscious.  Therefore it is completely reasonable that the citing commission review the incident.

I think it's crazy that you think player safety isn't as important as a player's reputation.

jimbopip wrote:Notch, have you looked at the clip? Is Bennett's head drawn back towards O'Connor?  Is that not exactly the opposite of what you would expect from an unconscious person?  If someone was lying on top of you in a collapsed maul completely inert and motionless ( and one much earlier poster referred to the microphones on the officials immediately afterwards picking up his heavy, laboured breathing) would not feel you had a duty of care to see that he was alright?
If someone did what exactly to my son, sorry? If your son passed out in a maul and the person he was being held down by threw him away the way O'Connor did (look at the clip and describe it in your own words) how would you feel?

I have looked at the clip over and over again since approximately 5pm today. I would not be surprised if my viewings are now in triple figures. I have viewed it in slow motion, I have frozen it in several places, I have played it on repeat.

As for your emotive argument, if they apologised and explained that it was an unfortunate accident I would be forgiving. There might be anger initially but that anger is an emotive reaction, an absolutely understable one but that doesn't mean it's right. It's incorrect and is just transferred worry NOT justifiable anger. If he was unapologetic I would be justifiably angry. But you cannot hold a person responsible for not acting according to a circumstance he is unaware of at the time. If you do, you are unreasonable and unfair.

I think its worth pointing out that the one Ulster player who does realise he is unconscious, Rory Best, immediately does demonstrate that duty of care.

reallybored wrote:

Notch wrote:Another post filled with supposition and deciding what you're going to see before you look.

I've watched the replay several times and it's hard to see what's happening. From the angle Sky showed it's tough to work out who's arms are where or where the ball is. Or even when O'Connor joined the tackle situation and where he grapples Bennett.

The Ulster 6 then blocks the view at the critical moment once the maul has collapsed.

You seem to have decided he's totally innocent and the fact that he didn't come forward and say he deliberately assaulted Bennett is proof of this.

Why are you so convinced there is no foul play?

Your depth perception must be awful.

MrsP, if Bennett did have such a sensitive carotid sinus don't you think this would have happened before.  He is a professional rugby player after all.

Well I have seen international front row players faint from the effects of the Valsalva of pushing in the scrum. I agree it is unlikely that a pro player would have such an extremely sensitive carotid sinus but they could have a more sensitive than normal one.

And, heavy breathing after a faint is not at all unusual.