Ben Te'o forearm smash - No ban, what a joke league we have !!!!

Ok, I have just mentioned this to MrsP on the Ulster thread, I am talking about the forearm smash that Ben Te'o gave Sam Davies on Friday night that John Lacey decided to ignore even though the TMO told him about it and he has now even been cited for it, the thing is, this is not an isolated incident, a few weeks prior, the same player did the same thing to Sam Warburton, both Warburton and Davies had to leave the field and neither player came back on because of concussion. Now, what I think is, that Ben Te'o has a massive plaster cast on his forearm when he is playing, now for me, if he has this then his arm clearly is not healed enough for him to be playing, so should he be allowed to take the field with this massive bandage on his forearm ? What is to stop players in the future padding their forearms up so that they can use them to smash people out of the way when running into them ? If he did not have this massive padding on his forearm, then perhaps he would not lead with it and cause people to leave the field with concussion.

What do others think about this ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31717203

Video of a similar incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHYl3WqVGlo

Surely the forearm padding isn't plaster though is it?

clivemcl wrote:Surely the forearm padding isn't plaster though is it?

Its enough to give you concussion, as we have seen with two players, firstly you should not lead with your forearm, secondly, if he needs that kind of padding on his arm, he should not be playing, and thirdly if he did not have that padding, he would be less likley to lead with his forearm.

There should be better rules for this. Seems like it's being used to an unfair advantage.

Nematode wrote:There should be better rules for this. Seems like it's being used to an unfair advantage.

I agree, but I would have liked to have thought that the ref would take a little responsabilty and tell them they cannot have a player who needs that much "padding" on the pitch as he needs to recover properly first.

The incident with Warburton doesn't look that bad as he has his arm across his body rather than leading with it for me before pushing him away. Guess the reason for them asking for the arm guard (whatever you want call it) is to decide whether it is padding or a harder material.

Guthro Steenkamp is the worst for putting a lot of padding on the arm. I'm surprised so much padding is allowed at all

No 7&1/2 wrote:The incident with Warburton doesn't look that bad as he has his arm across his body rather than leading with it for me before pushing him away. Guess the reason for them asking for the arm guard (whatever you want call it) is to decide whether it is padding or a harder material.

He led with his forearm against Sam Davies, either way if he did not have it, then he would be less likely to lead with his forearm.

I thought there were rules about what a player could and could not wear as a bandage?

Didn't Harinordoquy have to have special permission to wear something to protect his broken nose a few years back?

It was inevitable, it's not a hand off, it's not legal- yet he's been going into every second tackle like that. Was only a matter of time.

Theres two issues here.

Firstly the forearm smash is a bannable offence,and he will cop a ban for it.

The arm guard is another. To wear it he has to get permission on medical grounds, which he has to protect the arm. Whether this is then encouraging him to go in like a tw@t and take cheap shots or if hes just that much of a thug by nature I dont know. It is fair to say though that this kind of "protection" isnt normally allowed for exactly what has happened, it can increase the risk of injury from both legal and illegal contact.
On that basis I do feel any bans he receives for illegal striking with it should be extended. It undermines the argument for allowing players safety gear at all if they misuse it so blatantly. The only way to cut this out is to leave players knowing the sanctions will be harsh, or to put injured players (the majority innocent) at greater risk by denying them protection or even keep them out of the game longer.

I tell a lie. The previous draft of a story on the citings/bans on BBC website referenced it. When I go back nothing!

There should be a ban.

Gooseberry wrote:Theres two issues here.

Firstly the forearm smash is a bannable offence,and he will cop a ban for it.

The arm guard is another. To wear it he has to get permission on medical grounds, which he has to protect the arm. Whether this is then encouraging him to go in like a tw@t and take cheap shots or if hes just that much of a thug by nature I dont know. It is fair to say though that this kind of "protection" isnt normally allowed for exactly what has happened, it can increase the risk of injury from both legal and illegal contact.
On that basis I do feel any bans he receives for illegal striking with it should be extended. It undermines the argument for allowing players safety gear at all if they misuse it so blatantly. The only way to cut this out is to leave players knowing the sanctions will be harsh, or to put injured players (the majority innocent) at greater risk by denying them protection or even keep them out of the game longer.

Totally correct that he got a ban for the Davies incident. He used that technique/motion in RL (again not saying it's okay, it is correct that he got a ban). When he was doing it in RL he didn't have any strapping on his arm. He broke his arm in the first half of playing rugby union just before Christmas (trying to think of the date), he has had the strapping on it since he came back. His use of the forearm (illegal use) came from before him having strapping on the arm. Any strapping/bandaging has to be cleared by officials as part of their prematch protocol on equipment inspection.

Rightly got the ban for the incident in that game. He better learn.

What ban? It says on twitter he is free to play this weekend...

Found guilty but deemed a yellow card offence.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:What ban? It says on twitter he is free to play this weekend...

first draft of the bans story on BBC had a line on Te'o - article appears to have been updated now. you are correct.

He should have received a ban.

I'd be very interested to see the rationale used by the independent disciplinary panel on this one.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:What ban? It says on twitter he is free to play this weekend...

I'd be very interested to see the rationale used by the independent disciplinary panel on this one.

So would I

Presumably that theres nothing in the current guidance that suggests they should upgrade for using a legal plaster cast and that similar strikes are deemed yellow card offences *shrug*

I guess they can't hold a player responsible for having a cast or padding on that has been approved by the ref. In light of the two incidents, where it's obvious that the arm protection contributed to significant injuries to two different players, the refs should be cautioned and there needs to be a revised view on the legality of the protection he is using. Like Dowlais says, if you need that much protection, it's not safe for you to be playing at all.

No ban then, I suppose you can put what ever you want on your forarm and just go hitting people with it as and when you like in rugby these days.

Player for Mick team gets off a ban in a league dominated by Mick Blazers.

Who saw this coming?

LordDowlais wrote:No ban then, I suppose you can put what ever you want on your forarm and just go hitting people with it as and when you like in rugby these days.

There should definitely be an update to the rules on the use of the forearm in contact.

gcBlues wrote:Player for Mick team gets off a ban in a league dominated by Mick Blazers.

Who saw this coming?

Why not blame the all Scottish disciplinary panel that deemed it to be foul play, but not warranting a sending off.

gcBlues wrote:Player for Mick team gets off a ban in a league dominated by Mick Blazers.

Who saw this coming?

Top class analysis. You must be a very clever man.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:No ban then, I suppose you can put what ever you want on your forarm and just go hitting people with it as and when you like in rugby these days.

There should definitely be an update to the rules on the use of the forearm in contact.

And what you are allowed to wrap around it (the forearm) to protect yourself in the process, the amount of bandage and tape and plaster on that cast should not be allowed when you are playing rugby, if you need that much protection, then you are not fit enough to play.

gcBlues wrote:Player for Mick team gets off a ban in a league dominated by Mick Blazers.

Who saw this coming?

||Classless pr1ck uses racist language on forum.

Who saw this coming?

This place has really gone to the dogs!

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Classless pr1ck uses racist language on forum.

And you reply with that.

So I agree, this place realy has gone to the dogs.

gcBlues wrote:Player for Mick team gets off a ban in a league dominated by Mick Blazers.

Who saw this coming?

Same day as two incredibly harsh bans for 'Mick' players for Ulster- open the other eye!

Yet another thread descending into mud flinging and hysteria

If the protective equipment is warn due to a previous injury, and it is being used to a tactical advantage, can officials refuse its usage pre game. I'm not on about just Te'o but also the like of Matthew Rees (and even Quinnell brother in the past).

LordDowlais wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Classless pr1ck uses racist language on forum.

And you reply with that.

So I agree, this place realy has gone to the dogs.

The pr1ck comment was probably not needed, but classless/xenophobic he was. Not sure how you can have an issue with Jennifer calling him out on that to be honest.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:If the protective equipment is warn due to a previous injury, and it is being used to a tactical advantage, can officials refuse its usage pre game.  I'm not on about just Te'o but also the like of Matthew Rees (and even Quinnell brother in the past).

Yes. All non-standard protective gear has to be agreed by the ref. they can refuse.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Yet another thread descending into mud flinging and hysteria

If the protective equipment is warn due to a previous injury, and it is being used to a tactical advantage, can officials refuse its usage pre game.  I'm not on about just Te'o but also the like of Matthew Rees (and even Quinnell brother in the past).

Scarlet, there is a bit of a difference between the bandage around Matthew Rees's forearm and that massive padding Ben Te'o puts around his forearm, I think the ref needs to look at this before they take the field, if all that padding is needed, then perhaps they are not fit enough to be playing.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Yet another thread descending into mud flinging and hysteria

Ignore.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Yet another thread descending into mud flinging and hysteria

No Scarlets, read again. There is only one side making the classless comments here..

There isn't. There are individual posters making some very offensive comments, and there are numerous people replying to that comment in equally offensive ways. Then there is the good old school playground, 'Well he started it' nonsense that follows.

LordDowlais wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Yet another thread descending into mud flinging and hysteria

If the protective equipment is warn due to a previous injury, and it is being used to a tactical advantage, can officials refuse its usage pre game.  I'm not on about just Te'o but also the like of Matthew Rees (and even Quinnell brother in the past).

Scarlet, there is a bit of a difference between the bandage around Matthew Rees's forearm and that massive padding Ben Te'o puts around his forearm, I think the ref needs to look at this before they take the field, if all that padding is needed, then perhaps they are not fit enough to be playing.

I'm not too sure there is much diference to be honest. After all these things need to be checked they are to regs pre game.

LondonTiger - cheers for that, just a technicality I wanted to check on.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Guthro Steenkamp is the worst for putting a lot of padding on the arm. I'm surprised so much padding is allowed at all

I believe there is actually a rule for the thickness of padding used, it was mentioned by the commentators of a prem game

I think a bit calming down is needed here, the problem to me, is the fact that Lacey asked the TMO (DEREK BEVAN) to look at the incident, who said it was a forearm smash, and I believe he was going to order a sanction, the Citing Commisioner thought it warranted a RED CARD and put it through due process, then the all Scottish Panel (good to see a truly Independent Panel used) said he was guilty, but basically it only warranted a yellow card, which obviously should have been awarded at the time, and if Teo needs that cast, he shouldn't be playing, as some have been saying in this and other topics, what now happens to John Lacey and other referees who make these basic errors. Don't get me wrong I think John Lacey is an outstanding Referee, one of the very few IMO in the NH, yet some accountability has to be shown to have been done in this and other incidents.

Does anyone know what sort of support he has on his arm?

I would be surprised if anything as inflexible as a "cast" would be allowed.

I have not seen the incident so I need some thoughts from you guys as to whether the forearm would have caused injury without any support on the arm?

As I suspected, rigid material is not permitted.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=4&language=EN

Notch wrote:

gcBlues wrote:Player for Mick team gets off a ban in a league dominated by Mick Blazers.

Who saw this coming?

Same day as two incredibly harsh bans for 'Mick' players for Ulster- open the other eye!

Haven't seen the Luke Marshal incident.
But don't think you can complain about Wilson getting the week off for his uppercut to John Barclay's face.

If Irish take offence to Mick then you guys really are touchy. At the end of the day this league is made up of taffs, jocks, paddy's/micks, Italians and crap ref's.

GLove39 wrote:

Notch wrote:

gcBlues wrote:Player for Mick team gets off a ban in a league dominated by Mick Blazers.

Who saw this coming?

Same day as two incredibly harsh bans for 'Mick' players for Ulster- open the other eye!

Haven't seen the Luke Marshal incident.
But don't think you can complain about Wilson getting the week off for his uppercut to John Barclay's face.

Here now stick to the facts.....it was a right hook.

rodders wrote:

GLove39 wrote:

Notch wrote:

gcBlues wrote:Player for Mick team gets off a ban in a league dominated by Mick Blazers.

Who saw this coming?

Same day as two incredibly harsh bans for 'Mick' players for Ulster- open the other eye!

Haven't seen the Luke Marshal incident.
But don't think you can complain about Wilson getting the week off for his uppercut to John Barclay's face.

Here now stick to the facts.....it was a right hook.

Good point

The Saint wrote:If Irish take offence to Mick then you guys really are touchy. At the end of the day this league is made up of taffs, jocks, paddy's/micks, Italians and crap ref's.

Exactly.

Sensitive Micks, chin up.