Rynard Landman straight red for elbowing Jack Carty

First topic message reminder :

Bit of a shocker, he'll be out for a while and probably cost his team this match, they only lost by 5 points despite playing most of the game with 14 men.

http://gfycat.com/HonestTinyIberianchiffchaff

Swarm?

So no-one is allowed to comment on this if they did not also comment on boththe Hogg and Russell cards?

Yes swarm. You can comment however you like, it doesn't detract from the fact that certain people are only interested because of the nationality of the person on the end of the attack. I wonder if so many people would have commented had Rynard Landman done it this weekend v Zebre? I haven't mentioned the Russell card either. I mentioned the Hogg red card, as there are similarities.

Pot Hale was obviously right!!

MrsP wrote:Pot Hale was obviously right!!

I've resisted until now, until this post came along, I don't know about his conspiracy theories, yet obviously the HYPOCRISY THEORIES are in full flow on here by SOME.
A couple of years ago Ian Evans had a ban for stamping when playing one of the provinces and rightly had a significant ban, I also mentioned I had a conversation with Ianto in our club shop where he was signing programs for youngsters and asked him couldn't he tell the difference between the body and the ground, and his reply was that the player shouldn't have been where he was and trying to pull down the maul.
Now to the HYPOCRISY, what was the reaction of some on here after the swinging arm of poor old Paulie when he poleaxed Jonathon Thomas, where Jon had tried to headbutt Paulies elbow, that action was 10 times worse than Landman's (not trying to justify Landman's actions in any way, he deserves all he gets), some of the holier than thou comments however beggars belief.

Oh yeah, good point wayne I had forgotten about that one. I think the term "Sir I barely touched him" was trending back then.

wayne wrote:

MrsP wrote:Pot Hale was obviously right!!

I've resisted until now, until this post came along, I don't know about his conspiracy theories, yet obviously the HYPOCRISY THEORIES are in full flow on here by SOME.
A couple of years ago Ian Evans had a ban for stamping when playing one of the provinces and rightly had a significant ban, I also mentioned I had a conversation with Ianto in our club shop where he was signing programs for youngsters and asked him couldn't he tell the difference between the body and the ground, and his reply was that the player shouldn't have been where he was and trying to pull down the maul.
Now to the HYPOCRISY, what was the reaction of some on here after the swinging arm of poor old Paulie when he poleaxed Jonathon Thomas, where Jon had tried to headbutt Paulies elbow, that action was 10 times worse than Landman's (not trying to justify Landman's actions in any way, he deserves all he gets), some of the holier than thou comments however beggars belief.    

Really?

The world really is a different one for every set of eyes

Jonathan Thomas was dragging out of Paulie - and Paulie, the angel, bless his little gentle soul, did wrong   He plumb did wrong - no excuses.  Shouldn't have reacted so aggressively.

Now who the hell was pulling out of Landman at the time of his sly dig?

SecretFly wrote:

wayne wrote:

MrsP wrote:Pot Hale was obviously right!!

I've resisted until now, until this post came along, I don't know about his conspiracy theories, yet obviously the HYPOCRISY THEORIES are in full flow on here by SOME.
A couple of years ago Ian Evans had a ban for stamping when playing one of the provinces and rightly had a significant ban, I also mentioned I had a conversation with Ianto in our club shop where he was signing programs for youngsters and asked him couldn't he tell the difference between the body and the ground, and his reply was that the player shouldn't have been where he was and trying to pull down the maul.
Now to the HYPOCRISY, what was the reaction of some on here after the swinging arm of poor old Paulie when he poleaxed Jonathon Thomas, where Jon had tried to headbutt Paulies elbow, that action was 10 times worse than Landman's (not trying to justify Landman's actions in any way, he deserves all he gets), some of the holier than thou comments however beggars belief.    

Really?

The world really is a different one for every set of eyes

Jonathan Thomas was dragging out of Paulie - and Paulie, the angel, bless his little gentle soul, did wrong   He plumb did wrong - no excuses.  Shouldn't have reacted so aggressively.

Now who the hell was pulling out of Landman at the time of his sly dig?

Fly, that is so very different to what you said back in the day, as I said I don't condone what Landman did, he'll rightly get what he deserves, as I said the force exercised in both instances don't compare. There was a good post on here this morning saying because it was a first offence, that shouldn't decry from the actions. Whether it's the first time or the tenth, there should be NO leniency for it. I endorse that.

Risca Rev wrote:Yes swarm. You can comment however you like, it doesn't detract from the fact that certain people are only interested because of the nationality of the person on the end of the attack. I wonder if so many people would have commented had Rynard Landman done it this weekend v Zebre? I haven't mentioned the Russell card either. I mentioned the Hogg red card, as there are similarities.

I don't really understand your point.

Is it really unexpected that rugby fans are more likely to see incidents that affect teams they support? Are rugby fans more likely to watch matches that involve teams they support? Is there something wrong with that? Are you more likely to comment on threads about matches involving teams you are interested in? Aren't most people? Is that bad?

Why can't people just discuss the incident without taking it as a personal insult?

Biltong wrote:

Shifty wrote:Personally I think Landman is the second best lock in Wales behind AWJ.  Silly incident but he's a fantastic player, average in South Africa but exceptional in Wales.
You can take the boy out of South Africa, but not South Africa out of the boy, that incident was Tuesday morning for Kobus Wiese

Talking about Kobus Wiese, I will never forget this as long as  live, Wiese was playing for the Lions (Transvaal then) and the Lions was on attack inside the Brumbies 22, there was a breakdown a few meters from the goal line and Gregan decided to tap Wiese around, WIese completely lost his cool, jumping over the ruck (that was a sight to behold) and chased after Gregan who was running away, I can't remember who the referee was but he stepped aside as he saw the lights go off in Wiese's eyes and decided he will leave this one up to fate. He never caught Gregan as he kept on running, but had Wiese caught Gregan on that day I believe the Assies' Glass jaw would have been exposed. )

Hold on a second, cowboy!  Kobus Wiese - THE Kobus Wiese - actually jumped?  Levitated THAT bulk off the ground?  How the heck did he defy all known laws of gravity and do that?  

I sent your post to my older son who was surprised to know Wiese actually played lock - he has only seen Wiese doing commentary on tv.  He came back with the comment that he wanted video evidence that Wiese actually jumped and that he actually ran.  He doesn't belive it is possible.  I told him Wiese was a pretty decent player back in the day.  Which of course started the usual commentary about me living in the cave man days, neanderthals wearing loin cloths battling animals with clubs, no internet, and so on.  See what your story did?  it was funny, though.

The Saint wrote:

MrsP wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:He shouldn't get too much I feel. Should maybe look at banning their ten too, as if Landman had really wanted to hit him, he'd have stayed hit. I thought the ten had been picked off by a sniper, he fell that heavily.

Seriously?

You probably remember the similar calls when someone wanted to award Heaslip an Oscar for his reaction to having 3 transverse processes broken.

The guy gets hit illegally on 3 counts,

(1) late
(2) to the head
(3) with a deliberate elbow

But you think the 10 was equally at fault?

And Grey?

No! Just no!

Funny that you were really quiet when just last week all the cretins said Biggar deserved a red card for being taken out in the air.

WOW- JUST WOW

wayne wrote:
Now to the HYPOCRISY, what was the reaction of some on here after the swinging arm of poor old Paulie when he poleaxed Jonathon Thomas, where Jon had tried to headbutt Paulies elbow, that action was 10 times worse than Landman's (not trying to justify Landman's actions in any way, he deserves all he gets), some of the holier than thou comments however beggars belief.    

secretfly wrote:

Really? The world really is a different one for every set of eyes

Jonathan Thomas was dragging out of Paulie - and Paulie, the angel, bless his little gentle soul, did wrong   He plumb did wrong - no excuses.  Shouldn't have reacted so aggressively.

Now who the hell was pulling out of Landman at the time of his sly dig?

wayne wrote:
Fly, that is so very different to what you said back in the day.

Really?  Then I'll like you to uncover what I said back in the day, wayne.  I don't keep notes in my briefcase and don't seem to be able to access that far back in 606 archives.

Help me out because I've forgotten what I said ... but know what I probably thought.  Paulie provoked into an over-reaction.  The fact remains, whatever I said about Landman here, I didn't say he could ever use provocation as a loose excuse.  So you comparing the POC and Landman incidents is a comparison that doesn't work.

But you will have seen me directly, without needing to be coaxed, call Healy's stamp some years back for what it was - a dirty vicious act.  And I even called out my GOD BOD for a dirty act he carried out a few years back too.

Maybe they'll be in your briefcase too?

Riskysports wrote:

The Saint wrote:

MrsP wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:He shouldn't get too much I feel. Should maybe look at banning their ten too, as if Landman had really wanted to hit him, he'd have stayed hit. I thought the ten had been picked off by a sniper, he fell that heavily.

Seriously?

You probably remember the similar calls when someone wanted to award Heaslip an Oscar for his reaction to having 3 transverse processes broken.

The guy gets hit illegally on 3 counts,

(1) late
(2) to the head
(3) with a deliberate elbow

But you think the 10 was equally at fault?

And Grey?

No! Just no!

Funny that you were really quiet when just last week all the cretins said Biggar deserved a red card for being taken out in the air.

WOW-  JUST WOW

Nobody has been able to deny the TRUTH as of yet.

Not sure I have seen anyone has said Biggar should get a red card for being taken out the air - would like some evidence

MrsP wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:Yes swarm. You can comment however you like, it doesn't detract from the fact that certain people are only interested because of the nationality of the person on the end of the attack. I wonder if so many people would have commented had Rynard Landman done it this weekend v Zebre? I haven't mentioned the Russell card either. I mentioned the Hogg red card, as there are similarities.

I don't really understand your point.

Is it really unexpected that rugby fans are more likely to see incidents that affect teams they support? Are rugby fans more likely to watch matches that involve teams they support? Is there something wrong with that? Are you more likely to comment on threads about matches involving teams you are interested in? Aren't most people? Is that bad?

Why can't people just discuss the incident without taking it as a personal insult?

I'm not remotely insulted, I just want the same level of disgust for any of these incidents. I just fully expect any player who does similar to get this kind of discussion and their own topic and I expect all the keyboard warriors (three I've seen, funnily enough from one country) to tweet the player who commits the foul play wishing him a lengthy ban too. Not much to ask, I didn't think.

I'm willing to bet Dragons didn't get as much attention in Ireland for their fine win in Dublin the week before, or Landman didn't get any tweets congratulating him on good captaincy from the same keyboard warriors.

I haven't shown any disgust.

I was confused by Pot Hale and your comments and described why in 2 posts.

Where is the disgust? Who tweeted?

SecretFly wrote:

wayne wrote:
Now to the HYPOCRISY, what was the reaction of some on here after the swinging arm of poor old Paulie when he poleaxed Jonathon Thomas, where Jon had tried to headbutt Paulies elbow, that action was 10 times worse than Landman's (not trying to justify Landman's actions in any way, he deserves all he gets), some of the holier than thou comments however beggars belief.    

secretfly wrote:

Really? The world really is a different one for every set of eyes

Jonathan Thomas was dragging out of Paulie - and Paulie, the angel, bless his little gentle soul, did wrong   He plumb did wrong - no excuses.  Shouldn't have reacted so aggressively.

Now who the hell was pulling out of Landman at the time of his sly dig?

wayne wrote:
Fly, that is so very different to what you said back in the day.

Really?  Then I'll like you to uncover what I said back in the day, wayne.  I don't keep notes in my briefcase and don't seem to be able to access that far back in 606 archives.

Help me out because I've forgotten what I said ... but know what I probably thought.  Paulie provoked into an over-reaction.  The fact remains, whatever I said about Landman here, I didn't say he could ever use provocation as a loose excuse.  So you comparing the POC and Landman incidents is a comparison that doesn't work.

But you will have seen me directly, without needing to be coaxed, call Healy's stamp some years back for what it was - a dirty vicious act.  And I even called out my GOD BOD for a dirty act he carried out a few years back too.

Maybe they'll be in your briefcase too?

Very Clever Fly, it doesn't wash with me, I don't need a briefcase I have my own marbles

No, Wayne - you call me out as having a past opinion that doesn't compute with the present one, then I'm afraid I'd need clarification of such in past quotes.

Otherwise, I'm a wronged man

SecretFly wrote:No, Wayne - you call me out as having a past opinion that doesn't compute with the present one, then I'm afraid I'd need clarification of such in past quotes.

Otherwise, I'm a wronged man

Fly, you are a clever man, but even a stupid person would find that the Topic referred to took place in DEC 2010 and 606v2 started in early 2011. I know you had a different viewpoint back in the day, I'm pretty clever as well.

I think the issue is, when something like this happens to a player on the team you support, it annoys you a lot more than if it happened to any other player so peoples views will be strong in both attacking the player and defending him somewhat.

As a neutral, I thought it was a nasty sneaky, stupid elbow and should be punished with a 6 week ban at least.

wayne wrote:

SecretFly wrote:No, Wayne - you call me out as having a past opinion that doesn't compute with the present one, then I'm afraid I'd need clarification of such in past quotes.

Otherwise, I'm a wronged man

Fly, you are a clever man, but even a stupid person would find that the Topic referred to took place in DEC 2010 and 606v2 started in early 2011. I know you had a different viewpoint back in the day, I'm pretty clever as well.  

No, I'm not letting this one lie.

I'm intrigued now.  My mind is activated.

This Internet gotta be good for something, right wayne.  There's bound to be a record of back then somewhere.

But thanks for the specific dates.  That helps because believe me I wasn't messing when I said I couldn't find anything in the 606 archives.  I have been looking.  My mind is activated

So are you saying to me that this attitude I had in the past might have been on the older BBC 606?  

The dates confuse me because I felt it was well into 606V2 time when that POC incident happened - but that's where I might have been wrong.

Nachos Jones wrote:I think the issue is, when something like this happens to a player on the team you support, it annoys you a lot more than if it happened to any other player so peoples views will be strong in both attacking the player and defending him somewhat.

As a neutral, I thought it was a nasty sneaky, stupid elbow and should be punished with a 6 week ban at least.

Nachos, Paulie got a 4 week ban for a much worse incident, so if Landman gets your 6, then the conspirators will have a field day and that will excite a few.

SecretFly wrote:

wayne wrote:

SecretFly wrote:No, Wayne - you call me out as having a past opinion that doesn't compute with the present one, then I'm afraid I'd need clarification of such in past quotes.

Otherwise, I'm a wronged man

Fly, you are a clever man, but even a stupid person would find that the Topic referred to took place in DEC 2010 and 606v2 started in early 2011. I know you had a different viewpoint back in the day, I'm pretty clever as well.  

No, I'm not letting this one lie.

I'm intrigued now.  My mind is activated.  

This Internet gotta be good for something, right wayne.  There's bound to be a record of back then somewhere.

But thanks for the specific dates.  That helps because believe me I wasn't messing when I said I couldn't find anything in the 606 archives.  I have been looking.  My mind is activated

So are you saying to me that this attitude I had in the past might have been on the older BBC 606?  

The dates confuse me because I felt it was well into 606V2 time when that POC incident happened - but that's where I might have been wrong.

Fly I wouldn't know, I went to the first page of V2 and it didn't show up, I didn't need to go any further I just KNOW

wayne wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:I think the issue is, when something like this happens to a player on the team you support, it annoys you a lot more than if it happened to any other player so peoples views will be strong in both attacking the player and defending him somewhat.

As a neutral, I thought it was a nasty sneaky, stupid elbow and should be punished with a 6 week ban at least.

Nachos, Paulie got a 4 week ban for a much worse incident, so if Landman gets your 6, then the conspirators will have a field day and that will excite a few.

As a Munsterfan, I really feel that POC got let off very lightly with only 4 weeks.

I said earlier in this thread that I don't believe in banning's being reduced for previous good behaviour. I believe that each incident should be looked at as it is, foul play and consistency should apply.

I know that sounds a bit odd but if every player was given a standard ban (with the increase for repeat offenders) and no reduction in bans for 'first offenders' then consistency can be achieved.

Nachos Jones wrote:

wayne wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:I think the issue is, when something like this happens to a player on the team you support, it annoys you a lot more than if it happened to any other player so peoples views will be strong in both attacking the player and defending him somewhat.

As a neutral, I thought it was a nasty sneaky, stupid elbow and should be punished with a 6 week ban at least.

Nachos, Paulie got a 4 week ban for a much worse incident, so if Landman gets your 6, then the conspirators will have a field day and that will excite a few.

As a Munsterfan, I really feel that POC got let off very lightly with only 4 weeks.

I said earlier in this thread that I don't believe in banning's being reduced for previous good behaviour. I believe that each incident should be looked at as it is, foul play and consistency should apply.

I know that sounds a bit odd but if every player was given a standard ban (with the increase for repeat offenders) and no reduction in bans for 'first offenders' then consistency can be achieved.

Nachos, further up the page I said i agreed with that sentiment, there should be NO reduction for a first offence, pleading guilty or showing remorse on Twitter or any other social media website and yes I agree POC should have had more, as I said on my first input into this debate Ian (Ianto) Evans had what he deserved, and hopefully Landman will as well, even for it to act as a dterrent

In South Africa he'd of been shot for getting caught on camera.

doctor_grey wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Shifty wrote:Personally I think Landman is the second best lock in Wales behind AWJ.  Silly incident but he's a fantastic player, average in South Africa but exceptional in Wales.
You can take the boy out of South Africa, but not South Africa out of the boy, that incident was Tuesday morning for Kobus Wiese

Talking about Kobus Wiese, I will never forget this as long as  live, Wiese was playing for the Lions (Transvaal then) and the Lions was on attack inside the Brumbies 22, there was a breakdown a few meters from the goal line and Gregan decided to tap Wiese around, WIese completely lost his cool, jumping over the ruck (that was a sight to behold) and chased after Gregan who was running away, I can't remember who the referee was but he stepped aside as he saw the lights go off in Wiese's eyes and decided he will leave this one up to fate. He never caught Gregan as he kept on running, but had Wiese caught Gregan on that day I believe the Assies' Glass jaw would have been exposed. )

Hold on a second, cowboy!  Kobus Wiese - THE Kobus Wiese - actually jumped?  Levitated THAT bulk off the ground?  How the heck did he defy all known laws of gravity and do that?  

I sent your post to my older son who was surprised to know Wiese actually played lock - he has only seen Wiese doing commentary on tv.  He came back with the comment that he wanted video evidence that Wiese actually jumped and that he actually ran.  He doesn't belive it is possible.  I told him Wiese was a pretty decent player back in the day.  Which of course started the usual commentary about me living in the cave man days, neanderthals wearing loin cloths battling animals with clubs, no internet, and so on.  See what your story did?  it was funny, though.

Haha, Doc I will see if I can find footage of him will send you the links.

wayne wrote:
Fly I wouldn't know, I went to the first page of V2 and it didn't show up, I didn't need to go any further I just KNOW

Found my Healy one:

SecretFly on Mon 11 Feb 2013, 6:24 pm

He was cited, he deserved it, he should get it tough and Ireland will probably pay a higher price for a dirty act than he probably will.

No excuses, no extenuating circumstances; just totally wrong, dangerous (in an already brutal game of rugby) and could have ended a player's career or certainly could have forced a player out of the game for a long time.

Pretty direct condemnations if I do say so myself. I'm impressed by me. I like that lad's integrity!

Not easy getting back info though. This internet isn't all it's cracked up to be!

SecretFly wrote:

wayne wrote:
Fly I wouldn't know, I went to the first page of V2 and it didn't show up, I didn't need to go any further I just KNOW

Found my Healy one:

SecretFly on Mon 11 Feb 2013, 6:24 pm

He was cited, he deserved it, he should get it tough and Ireland will probably pay a higher price for a dirty act than he probably will.

No excuses, no extenuating circumstances; just totally wrong, dangerous (in an already brutal game of rugby) and could have ended a player's career or certainly could have forced a player out of the game for a long time.

Pretty direct condemnations if I do say so myself.  I'm impressed by me.  I like that lad's integrity!

Not easy getting back info though.  This internet isn't all it's cracked up to be!

If a whippersnapper like yourself can't find, an old decrepit like myself never will, WE are NOT going to fall out over this, there were a number involved in that spat, it's not worth the hassle

What a load of guff that 2 pages of posts was (no offence!). I'll never get that time back!

Griff wrote:What a load of guff that 2 pages of posts was (no offence!). I'll never get that time back!

Yep, those Irish love a bandwagon don't they .

Griff wrote:What a load of guff that 2 pages of posts was (no offence!). I'll never get that time back!

You read all two pages?

You schmuck!

Only read the bits you're in, Griff - that's how actors make life easy for themselves.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:What a load of guff that 2 pages of posts was (no offence!). I'll never get that time back!

You read all two pages?

You schmuck!

Only read the bits you're in, Griff - that's how actors make life easy for themselves.

Griff wrote:What a load of guff that 2 pages of posts was (no offence!). I'll never get that time back!

You're welcome

Nachos Jones wrote:

wayne wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:I think the issue is, when something like this happens to a player on the team you support, it annoys you a lot more than if it happened to any other player so peoples views will be strong in both attacking the player and defending him somewhat.

As a neutral, I thought it was a nasty sneaky, stupid elbow and should be punished with a 6 week ban at least.

Nachos, Paulie got a 4 week ban for a much worse incident, so if Landman gets your 6, then the conspirators will have a field day and that will excite a few.

As a Munsterfan, I really feel that POC got let off very lightly with only 4 weeks.

I said earlier in this thread that I don't believe in banning's being reduced for previous good behaviour. I believe that each incident should be looked at as it is, foul play and consistency should apply.

I know that sounds a bit odd but if every player was given a standard ban (with the increase for repeat offenders) and no reduction in bans for 'first offenders' then consistency can be achieved.

See what I mean Nachos an Italian chairman with 2 Irish assistants judicate on a Welsh team player against an Irish team player and he gets 6 weeks for an elbow to the head, whereas Paulie only gets 4 weeks for a swinging arm, it is ludicrous, something needs to change.

Compared to more high profile red cards that have been handed out, this one seems extremely harsh.

wayne wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

wayne wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:I think the issue is, when something like this happens to a player on the team you support, it annoys you a lot more than if it happened to any other player so peoples views will be strong in both attacking the player and defending him somewhat.

As a neutral, I thought it was a nasty sneaky, stupid elbow and should be punished with a 6 week ban at least.

Nachos, Paulie got a 4 week ban for a much worse incident, so if Landman gets your 6, then the conspirators will have a field day and that will excite a few.

As a Munsterfan, I really feel that POC got let off very lightly with only 4 weeks.

I said earlier in this thread that I don't believe in banning's being reduced for previous good behaviour. I believe that each incident should be looked at as it is, foul play and consistency should apply.

I know that sounds a bit odd but if every player was given a standard ban (with the increase for repeat offenders) and no reduction in bans for 'first offenders' then consistency can be achieved.

See what I mean Nachos an Italian chairman with 2 Irish assistants judicate on a Welsh team player against an Irish team player and he gets 6 weeks for an elbow to the head, whereas Paulie only gets 4 weeks for a swinging arm, it is ludicrous, something needs to change.  

6 games, not 6 weeks. Hes actually got around 8 weeks because he also got banned for two down weeks. Bit of a farcical situation, banning somebody like that. If he was an international and needed in the 6 Nations, then I would be interested to see what he got as I feel that some internationals have conveniently found their bans finishing in time for the said tournament.

Big loss for us, but then I don't mind Cory Hill as a player anyway.

Are we appealing, or are we taking our medicine?

Is a six game ban really that harsh for an elbow to the temple area of the head, considering all the current focus on concussion and it being pre-meditated and so blatantly obvious?

Also regarding precedent, what are the commission trying to achieve? If the previous bans haven't worked as deterrents then will they just simply keep extending them until they do?

This looked malicious to me, if i was a Dragons fans i wouldn't complain much. I really thought his season could be over.

The Great Aukster wrote:Is a six game ban really that harsh for an elbow to the temple area of the head, considering all the current focus on concussion and it being pre-meditated and so blatantly obvious?

Also regarding precedent, what are the commission trying to achieve? If the previous bans haven't worked as deterrents then will they just simply keep extending them until they do?

Was Carty concussed then? I've not seen anything to say he was.

What is the difference between this and Hogg on Biggar last year then? That has to be classed as just as pre-meditated and blatantly obvious too. Yet that's considered half as bad. He didn't even directly connect to the head (he hit shoulders first).

The more likely story is it wasn't premeditated, he just did it without thinking.

Risca Rev wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Is a six game ban really that harsh for an elbow to the temple area of the head, considering all the current focus on concussion and it being pre-meditated and so blatantly obvious?

Also regarding precedent, what are the commission trying to achieve? If the previous bans haven't worked as deterrents then will they just simply keep extending them until they do?

Was Carty concussed then? I've not seen anything to say he was.

What is the difference between this and Hogg on Biggar last year then? That has to be classed as just as pre-meditated and blatantly obvious too. Yet that's considered half as bad. He didn't even directly connect to the head (he hit shoulders first).

The more likely story is it wasn't premeditated, he just did it without thinking.

If he wasn't thinking that makes it a lot worse - someone running around a rugby pitch hitting people without knowing what they are doing! Isn't that exactly what the Commission are trying to stamp out - unthinking thuggery? Players are so powerful now that they could hurt someone really badly and surely a "I didn't realise" isn't any sort of a defence? Players have to be responsible for their actions and pleas of insanity should be kept to the courtroom.

The Great Aukster wrote:Is a six game ban really that harsh for an elbow to the temple area of the head, considering all the current focus on concussion and it being pre-meditated and so blatantly obvious?

Also regarding precedent, what are the commission trying to achieve? If the previous bans haven't worked as deterrents then will they just simply keep extending them until they do?

Inconsistent.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Is a six game ban really that harsh for an elbow to the temple area of the head, considering all the current focus on concussion and it being pre-meditated and so blatantly obvious?

Also regarding precedent, what are the commission trying to achieve? If the previous bans haven't worked as deterrents then will they just simply keep extending them until they do?

Was Carty concussed then? I've not seen anything to say he was.

What is the difference between this and Hogg on Biggar last year then? That has to be classed as just as pre-meditated and blatantly obvious too. Yet that's considered half as bad. He didn't even directly connect to the head (he hit shoulders first).

The more likely story is it wasn't premeditated, he just did it without thinking.

If he wasn't thinking that makes it a lot worse - someone running around a rugby pitch hitting people without knowing what they are doing! Isn't that exactly what the Commission are trying to stamp out - unthinking thuggery? Players are so powerful now that they could hurt someone really badly and surely a "I didn't realise" isn't any sort of a defence? Players have to be responsible for their actions and pleas of insanity should be kept to the courtroom.

Don't be so wet. You tried banging on about concussion and got nowhere with that and now I don't know what you're on about.

wayne wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

wayne wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:I think the issue is, when something like this happens to a player on the team you support, it annoys you a lot more than if it happened to any other player so peoples views will be strong in both attacking the player and defending him somewhat.

As a neutral, I thought it was a nasty sneaky, stupid elbow and should be punished with a 6 week ban at least.

Nachos, Paulie got a 4 week ban for a much worse incident, so if Landman gets your 6, then the conspirators will have a field day and that will excite a few.

As a Munsterfan, I really feel that POC got let off very lightly with only 4 weeks.

I said earlier in this thread that I don't believe in banning's being reduced for previous good behaviour. I believe that each incident should be looked at as it is, foul play and consistency should apply.

I know that sounds a bit odd but if every player was given a standard ban (with the increase for repeat offenders) and no reduction in bans for 'first offenders' then consistency can be achieved.

See what I mean Nachos an Italian chairman with 2 Irish assistants judicate on a Welsh team player against an Irish team player and he gets 6 weeks for an elbow to the head, whereas Paulie only gets 4 weeks for a swinging arm, it is ludicrous, something needs to change.  

I wonder if it will be an Italian Chairman and 2 Welshmen adjudicating on the Ben Te'o citing for his forearm smash on Sam Davies last week, I wont hold my breath.

Risca Rev wrote:Don't be so wet. You tried banging on about concussion and got nowhere with that and now I don't know what you're on about.

It's in English honestly but thanks for telling me you don't understand it, so I'll just slip back into the pool and bid you goodnight.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:Don't be so wet. You tried banging on about concussion and got nowhere with that and now I don't know what you're on about.

It's in English honestly but thanks for telling me you don't understand it, so I'll just slip back into the pool and bid you goodnight.

Yeah, you realised you are getting nowhere with your discussion and so decided to belittle my command of the English language. Good one.

You ignored the rest of my post and went on my last line. You tried going on about concussion, which was completely irrelevant.

I'm not defending Landman, but I do want to see consistency in bans. I bet the Leinster fella gets next to nothing too. I am surprised I'm not seeing the swarming round what he has done. I think I'm done here anyway. I just wish Sam's name was Sam O'Davies and I dare say there would be a bit more interest.

Oh the old Irish conspiracy again. They're intentionally weakening the Dragons so they won't catch Connacht or make the playoffs.

Good one. Nice to see another one added to the swarm though.

wayne wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:

wayne wrote:

Nachos Jones wrote:I think the issue is, when something like this happens to a player on the team you support, it annoys you a lot more than if it happened to any other player so peoples views will be strong in both attacking the player and defending him somewhat.

As a neutral, I thought it was a nasty sneaky, stupid elbow and should be punished with a 6 week ban at least.

Nachos, Paulie got a 4 week ban for a much worse incident, so if Landman gets your 6, then the conspirators will have a field day and that will excite a few.

As a Munsterfan, I really feel that POC got let off very lightly with only 4 weeks.

I said earlier in this thread that I don't believe in banning's being reduced for previous good behaviour. I believe that each incident should be looked at as it is, foul play and consistency should apply.

I know that sounds a bit odd but if every player was given a standard ban (with the increase for repeat offenders) and no reduction in bans for 'first offenders' then consistency can be achieved.

See what I mean Nachos an Italian chairman with 2 Irish assistants judicate on a Welsh team player against an Irish team player and he gets 6 weeks for an elbow to the head, whereas Paulie only gets 4 weeks for a swinging arm, it is ludicrous, something needs to change.  

And there is the inconsistency again. I really do believe in what I said earlier, guilty... Standard ban with no regard given to previous good behaviour. Bans should only be increase (ala the sliding scale Biltong posted) for repeat offenders.

"Leinster's Ben Te'o has also been cited for allegedly striking with a forearm in the draw against the Ospreys.

Te'o's clash with Sam Davies led to the Ospreys fly-half being forced off.

Davies was feared to have been concussed in the incident but is now said to be recovering well and is expected to pass medical checks to play against Munster on Saturday.

Te'o was wearing a protective arm guard during the match after breaking his arm earlier in the season. "

From the BBC. Be interesting to see how this one goes, and also IF a ban is handed out what happens to the referee who passed the incident as acceptable?