Hughes 3 week ban

First topic message reminder :

Couldn't believe Nathan Hughes got a red card, now he has a three week ban. Sometimes I despair at the way this game is heading. Unfortunate for North - but rugby carries risk. I think this is officials rallying around a young ref.

Hound of Harrow wrote:With controversial incidents like this I often ask people who hold a very minority view - i.e. the Welsh posters in this case - 'what would your view be if the situation was reversed and North had injured Hughes?'

I bet you their stance would change.

Anyway, a poll I have just seen had 84% voting the ban to be wrong

Hound - not all Welsh posters. I'm the OP, think the decisions with this incident have been awful, and I support Wales.

offload - I was referring to those who held the opposite view from the majority. Sorry if it didn't come across that way

Let's all hope George recovers and the people concerned make the right decision about his welfare. He has a lot of years ahead of him.

I hate to agree with Saint and the rest of the Welsh contigent, but I thought Hughes extended his left leg a bit more than he usual would, not to avoid contact. I don't think he intended head contact, but I do think he intentionally made contact.

He wassn't committed to a tackle, aka Lawes. He was running towards the ball carrier and not flat out. In my opinion if he had wanted to avoid contact he could have, he only had to move a foot to his right. I have seen him step a lot more than that when he has wanted to.

I feel sorry for Hughes here. This ban and the red seem to only have occurred because of the end result, not how it happened.

Interestingly it's just come out that after the weekend Kyle Sinckler will now miss the rest of the season due to a reckless and very suspect no arms knee high tackle by Burger, who then got away without even a penalty for it and no further sanction. If it had broken Kyles leg at the time I bet they'd have changed their tune though.

I think Nathan Hughes has carried the can for his challenge a bit, due to result in knocking George North out, but an injury from a reckless challenge post try scoring has been coming from a while. I remember Liam Williams doing a naughty one against Ireland in 2014 (can't remember if he got sin binned or not) for going in with the knees, and there have been plenty of other instances too so I think something like this has been coming. And whilst I feel sorry for Hughes to the extent that he is the first one to be punished when there have been other offenders, and I don't for one second believe he intended to cause the damage he did, but I think it was reckless and he deserves a ban and hopefully it will stop people committing these needless challenges.

The thing is they're not needless challenges though. They serve to put some doubt in the mind of the would-be scorer regarding his safety. That might make him take a hesitant step or stop going under the posts so there is reward for those who perpetrate hits on try scorers.

The problem with bans is there is no consistency, because they all depend on the outcome. It doesn't matter if someone is hurt accidentally if the result is an injury. The logical conclusion of that is that citing should also apply to team mates colliding, if one of them has been running recklessly or took his team mate out in the air etc. That is how ridiculous the process is becoming.

I think it was reckless though. North had gone low to score the try and Hughes was in no position to make a tackle. I think you can stop the player for going under the posts whilst not taking a reckless position. Especially pertinent for the Liam Williams challenge I mentioned, sliding in knees first. Dangerous and reckless, and should have been punished. I do agree that bans are being handed out inconsistently though, and that Hughes is unlucky in the sense that he is carrying the can for other challenges of this nature too.

Have to agree with JDizzle here about the needless hits after a try has been scored and eventually someone going to be the first to get cited and banned for it.

I think that Hughes is unlucky as it did not look that bad and he only did what lots of other players have done. The only real issue I have now, is will these incidents be consistently ruled on?

Overturned on appeal. NO ACT OF FOUL PLAY.

Sense at last but shame he had to miss the Toulon game. There are a few posters on here that I hope never get to influence a disciplinary panel!

offload wrote:Overturned on appeal.  NO ACT OF FOUL PLAY.

Sense at last but shame he had to miss the Toulon game.  There are a few posters on here that I hope never get to influence a disciplinary panel!

Godd news. A more experienced ref who was not being bullied by Hartley and Dickson would not even have given a penalty.