Henderson's red card overturned - those damned TMOs.

by clivemcl Wed 13 May 2015, 2:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

Basically creating this thread for Chunky so he can lay into TMOs when they make dodgy calls.....
Don't pull your punches this time Chunky!

On a more serious note though, like I've always asked - what happens in these cases behind the scenes???

Effectively - the panel has come out and said 'Errrr that was a wrong call'.

So, how many folks on here work in jobs where they do something wrong and the bosses shrug and say 'meh!'.

Not many I imagine.

Are refs and officials held to a high enough standard, that makes the tradition of respecting the ref easy to maintain?

If I sound like I have an agenda - it's probably because I do.

Do Nigel Owens or Kevin Beggs get penalised anyway for their incorrect call, do they at least get a 'refresher course' on this area of play. Or does nobody say anything, and allow them to continue earning a salary without question??

by MunsterMac Thu 14 May 2015, 12:13 pm

rodders wrote:Rubbish - if O'Mahoney doesn't understand how to ruck then he should stay on the wing.

Ah I see. It was ROM's fault all along.

Thanks for that insightful interjection rodders.

by Guest Thu 14 May 2015, 12:13 pm

BOD doesn't think it was a red either:

"Brian O'Driscoll @BrianODriscoll · 17h 17 hours ago
The game's gone mad with this & the Iain Henderson one! It's not tag they're playing... http://www.ultimaterugby.com/news/_/289707 "

Couldn't agree more your BODness Very Happy

by SecretFly Thu 14 May 2015, 12:19 pm

BOD, the player that never left the Cot, also said POC should rush at the chance to get another European medal by leaving Munster and going to Toulon.

Yep, BOD has become a bit of a fecking WUM Wink

Ban the basteraude!

by Guest Thu 14 May 2015, 12:30 pm

Yes, it was a strange thing to say about going to France. I suspect he was under the influence of an evil French spirit. Can happen to anyone angel

He is right about the red cards though. I know because he agrees with me king

It was a yellow card at most. Nothing more. The fact that an all Welsh citing panel have determined it wasn't a red should be more than enough to end the debate, but obviously there remains those who have harder evidence than that of the citing panel. They're just keeping that evidence for themselves. Selfish mad

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 12:43 pm

Munchkin wrote:The fact that an all Welsh citing panel have determined it wasn't a red should be more than enough to end the debate

What has nationality got do with it ? I think a red card was correct, he was reckless and could have caused a serious injury, but at the same time I would not have said anything had just a yellow been given, what I cannot understand is why the citing panel have chosen not to punish reckless play, unless they thought the red was enough of a punishment anyway. But I will go with what others are saying on here, he got off with a technicality.

by Guest Thu 14 May 2015, 12:47 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Munchkin wrote:The fact that an all Welsh citing panel have determined it wasn't a red should be more than enough to end the debate

What has nationality got do with it ? I think a red card was correct, he was reckless and could have caused a serious injury, but at the same time I would not have said anything had just a yellow been given, what I cannot understand is why the citing panel have chosen not to punish reckless play, unless they thought the red was enough of a punishment anyway. But I will go with what others are saying on here, he got off with a technicality.

Because if it was an all Irish panel, or if there was any Irish on the panel, you and Chunky would have spontaneously combusted.

by SecretFly Thu 14 May 2015, 12:47 pm

LordDowlais wrote:

What has nationality got do with it ?

...Keeping 606 alive these past two years? Wink

by SecretFly Thu 14 May 2015, 12:48 pm

Munchkin wrote: you and Chunky would have spontaneously combusted.

OH????

Hmmmmmmm

Cool

Ok, I'll stop.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 12:55 pm

Munchkin wrote:Because if it was an all Irish panel, or if there was any Irish on the panel, you and Chunky would have spontaneously combusted.

I do not care about the nationality of refs, if they were fair and reffed games properly. What I am against is potential bias from the refs, the Irish ones are not allowed/do not ref games where the team comes from their branch, yet they are still allowed to ref other Irish sides, there is either potential bias or there is not.

I am also against how comfy the refs are when they come from the same branch as the provinces, they are both too comfy with each other for my liking, a little bit when a husband sees his wife be a little too friendly with some one they work with, you do not like to say it, but there looks as though there could be something going on. Wink

by Guest Thu 14 May 2015, 12:57 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Because if it was an all Irish panel, or if there was any Irish on the panel, you and Chunky would have spontaneously combusted.

I do not care about the nationality of refs, if they were fair and reffed games properly. What I am against is potential bias from the refs, the Irish ones are not allowed/do not ref games where the team comes from their branch, yet they are still allowed to ref other Irish sides, there is either potential bias or there is not.

I am also against how comfy the refs are when they come from the same branch as the provinces, they are both too comfy with each other for my liking, a little bit when a husband sees his wife be a little too friendly with some one they work with, you do not like to say it, but there looks as though there could be something going on.

Sure.....

by SecretFly Thu 14 May 2015, 12:59 pm

LordDowlais wrote:a little bit when a husband sees his wife be a little too friendly with some one they work with, you do not like to say it, but there looks as though there could be something going on.

or....or.... OR Lord!!!!............... the husband might be a Screw-loose dangerous, psychopathic, paranoid, delusional schizophrenic?

It's Possible! warning

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 1:02 pm

Munchkin wrote:Sure.....

Oh here we go then, in the past I have praised John Lacey, I think he is a good ref, and I think he will be up there with Nigel Owens, and could even surpass him, on the other hand I have no time for Patterson, Pearson, Clancy, Fitzgibbon and Mitrea is borderline ok for me.

But if you want to call me xenophobic again you are free to, because after all, you can get away with calling somebody that on here, but if you call somebody mental you get the red pen.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 1:03 pm

SecretFly wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:a little bit when a husband sees his wife be a little too friendly with some one they work with, you do not like to say it, but there looks as though there could be something going on.

or....or.... OR Lord!!!!............... the husband might be a Screw-loose dangerous, psychopathic, paranoid, delusional schizophrenic?

It's Possible!

Yes there could be that as well. Whistle

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 14 May 2015, 1:04 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Munchkin wrote:The fact that an all Welsh citing panel have determined it wasn't a red should be more than enough to end the debate

What has nationality got do with it ? I think a red card was correct, he was reckless and could have caused a serious injury, but at the same time I would not have said anything had just a yellow been given, what I cannot understand is why the citing panel have chosen not to punish reckless play, unless they thought the red was enough of a punishment anyway. But I will go with what others are saying on here, he got off with a technicality.

I don't think it was reckless,he went in to move O'Mahoney but as he dipped to hit the ruck the Ulster fullback rolled O'Mahoney.Hendersons target moved a yard back from where he was aiming and this led to him hitting the player illegally.It was a Lemoney Snickett but at most a penalty imo,in the same way that a it's a penalty if you run into your own player by mistake,it's a technical offense.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 1:13 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:I don't think it was reckless,he went in to move O'Mahoney but as he dipped to hit the ruck the Ulster fullback rolled O'Mahoney.Hendersons target moved a yard back from where he was aiming and this led to him hitting the player illegally.It was a Lemoney Snickett but at most a penalty imo,in the same way that a it's a penalty if you run into your own player by mistake,it's a technical offense.

Yes ok you could look at it like that, but as soon as you go off your feet to clear somebody out your in reckless country, and that is what we want out of our game, reckless and dangerous play, he should have never left the ground when going in to clear the player out, because that is when you loose control.

by SecretFly Thu 14 May 2015, 1:18 pm

LordDowlais wrote:

Yes ok you could look at it like that, but as soon as you go off your feet to clear somebody out your in reckless country, and that is what we want out of our game, reckless and dangerous play, he should have never left the ground when going in to clear the player out, because that is when you loose control.

Aha! You've just proven that Jumpers should get the red card and not the poor defender flailing underneath them, allegedly under orders not to defend but to keep the gymnasts safe when coming down.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 1:23 pm

SecretFly wrote:Aha! You've just proven that Jumpers should get the red card and not the poor defender flailing underneath them, allegedly under orders not to defend but to keep the gymnasts safe when coming down.

The difference in that is, jumping up in the air towards a rugby ball, and jumping through the air at a person, you cannot recklessly injure a rugby ball.

by clivemcl Thu 14 May 2015, 1:24 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Aha! You've just proven that Jumpers should get the red card and not the poor defender flailing underneath them, allegedly under orders not to defend but to keep the gymnasts safe when coming down.

The difference in that is, jumping up in the air towards a rugby ball, and jumping through the air at a person, you cannot recklessly injure a rugby ball.

What if there are players in the 'drop zone'? Are they not people too?

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 14 May 2015, 1:26 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:I don't think it was reckless,he went in to move O'Mahoney but as he dipped to hit the ruck the Ulster fullback rolled O'Mahoney.Hendersons target moved a yard back from where he was aiming and this led to him hitting the player illegally.It was a Lemoney Snickett but at most a penalty imo,in the same way that a it's a penalty if you run into your own player by mistake,it's a technical offense.

Yes ok you could look at it like that, but as soon as you go off your feet to clear somebody out your in reckless country, and that is what we want out of our game, reckless and dangerous play, he should have never left the ground when going in to clear the player out, because that is when you loose control.

This is where we'll just have to agree to disagree,I think you can't take accidents out of the game and in any contest where two players are looking to occupy the same space there will be collisions and injuries.Imo that is part of the game and every player knows it when they take the field,if every ruck from now on is a penalty for going off your feet then fair enough but that won't happen and we'll just have a situation where the odd random player is punished for actions that many more people get away with.

by SecretFly Thu 14 May 2015, 1:28 pm

I was only being mischievous with logic there, anyway.

Get back to Henderson!!! Don't let me distract another thread.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 1:28 pm

clivemcl wrote:What if there are players in the 'drop zone'? Are they not people too?

There is a massive difference though, Henderson jumped towards the player with the INTENT of making contact with him, so Henderson knew he wanted to hit him, there is a difference between going for a person, and going for a ball. If your intent is to make contact with somebody,you must do it safely.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 1:30 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote: every ruck from now on is a penalty for going off your feet then fair enough

Yes, that is the LAW.

by SecretFly Thu 14 May 2015, 1:38 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote: every ruck from now on is a penalty for going off your feet then fair enough

Yes, that is the LAW.

I guess he's saying it happens a lot when no pointedly dangerous incident occurs. So if the theory became the practice...... the game would be even slower with far more penalty kicks. Crowds getting annoyed.......

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 14 May 2015, 1:38 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote: every ruck from now on is a penalty for going off your feet then fair enough

Yes, that is the LAW.

Yep but it's not applied because if it was there would be a penalty at every ruck.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 1:41 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Yep but it's not applied because if it was there would be a penalty at every ruck.

Well I have seen it applied on many occasions in lots of games, there are certain degrees of recklessness whilst doing it though, and that is why we see red cards like on Saturday, but in nearly every game I watch I see pens given for players going off their feet at the rucks.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 14 May 2015, 1:54 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:Yep but it's not applied because if it was there would be a penalty at every ruck.

Well I have seen it applied on many occasions in lots of games, there are certain degrees of recklessness whilst doing it though, and that is why we see red cards like on Saturday, but in nearly every game I watch I see pens given for players going off their feet at the rucks.

3

Yes but you don't see penalties for every time a player goes off his feet at a ruck.That's the problem,Hendersons actions are replicated by himself and others multiple times in every game with no consequences but when an unlucky set of circumstances sees him hit a vulnerable player then it's an issue.Players are trained to ruck this way as it's an effective way to move an opponent and it's rarely blown up by refs,if we want to remove this type of rucking it must be blown up every time imo.This lucky dip version of when to apply the laws doesn't work.

I must also state that imo the only reason Henderson went off his feet is because O'Mahoney was moved by Ludik,if O'Mahoney was where Henderson thought he would be when he went in then we'd have seen another brilliantly effective clear out from Henderson.This is why I don't think it should be a card,Henderson is being punished for something that he can't control.His only way to avoid this is not to enter the ruck at all and he if he did that he wouldn't be much use on a rugby pitch.

by **rodders** Thu 14 May 2015, 2:00 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:I don't think it was reckless,he went in to move O'Mahoney but as he dipped to hit the ruck the Ulster fullback rolled O'Mahoney.Hendersons target moved a yard back from where he was aiming and this led to him hitting the player illegally.It was a Lemoney Snickett but at most a penalty imo,in the same way that a it's a penalty if you run into your own player by mistake,it's a technical offense.

Yes ok you could look at it like that, but as soon as you go off your feet to clear somebody out your in reckless country, and that is what we want out of our game, reckless and dangerous play, he should have never left the ground when going in to clear the player out, because that is when you loose control.

This is where we'll just have to agree to disagree,I think you can't take accidents out of the game and in any contest where two players are looking to occupy the same space there will be collisions and injuries.Imo that is part of the game and every player knows it when they take the field,if every ruck from now on is a penalty for going off your feet then fair enough but that won't happen and we'll just have a situation where the odd random player is punished for actions that many more people get away with.

Good man asore - totally agree.

by The Great Aukster Thu 14 May 2015, 2:01 pm

Thankfully the debate has been settled. The Citing panel who are independent and have the best angles and evidence to call upon have deemed the incident not worthy of a further ban and therefore by implication deemed that the incident wasn't worthy of a red card. The court has been in session and the defendant acquitted - that is all the ruling needed on this particular incident.

Of course for those claiming that the incident should have been red carded for reckless as opposed to foul play - do you understand the implications of that?

For example if a player runs at full speed into another player that could (and has) been deemed as reckless - Is tackling not the same thing? What happens if it's a collision between team mates - should both be carded and cited?
Three or four hundred kilos falling on top of a player is dangerous - should the player who recklessly brings down a rolling maul be carded?
Kicking someone in the face or even kicking a ball into someone's face must be reckless - should a fly half pull out of a kick in case he catches the flanker trying to charge him down?
Lifting a 110 kg player 4m in the air without proper anchored support - that must be dangerous and therefore reckless?
The very essence of the game is dangerous - that's what makes it fun. Going onto the pitch is a reckless act, because players are recklessly exposing themselves to unpredictable danger.

What Henderson did was illegal (in the same way that all Law breaking is illegal), but crucially the Citing Panel have deemed that it wasn't foul play.

by **Notch** Thu 14 May 2015, 2:04 pm

SecretFly wrote:BOD, the player that never left the Cot, also said POC should rush at the chance to get another European medal by leaving Munster and going to Toulon.

Yep, BOD has become a bit of a fecking WUM

Ban the basteraude!

He did, and appreciate your facetiousness, but would anyone really resent POC a year in the sun to top things off?

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 2:11 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Yes but you don't see penalties for every time a player goes off his feet at a ruck.

Yes I do,I see it often. What I will agree with is the ref does not always see it.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Players are trained to ruck this way as it's an effective way to move an opponent and it's rarely blown up by refs

Again, what I am watching does not support this, I always see refs blowing up for people going off their feet, and they should not be trained to go off their feet as it is illegal.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:I must also state that imo the only reason Henderson went off his feet is because O'Mahoney was moved by Ludik,if O'Mahoney was where Henderson thought he would be when he went in then we'd have seen another brilliantly effective clear out from Henderson.

So what you are saying, Henderson went off his feet because of Ludik moving O'Mahoney. Are you seriously saying that the actions of another player caused Henderson to subconsciously decide to jump towards his target rather than stay on his feet and push him ? That takes a lot of believing.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:This is why I don't think it should be a card,Henderson is being punished for something that he can't control.His only way to avoid this is not to enter the ruck at all and he if he did that he wouldn't be much use on a rugby pitch.

But he can control how he enters a ruck, he can decide whether he jumps at a person, or he stays on his feet and pushes which is the correct way, he did not do that he left the ground thus he was reckless. So he needed to be penalised, I would not have argued over a yellow, but I can understand why a red was used. There is no way on earth I will believe that he jumped because of somebody else, only the person who is jumping can decide if he is going to jump or not, and you are not allowed to jump in the ruck at any time, no matter who is doing what elsewhere.

by Don Alfonso Thu 14 May 2015, 2:21 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:Thankfully the debate has been settled. The Citing panel who are independent and have the best angles and evidence to call upon have deemed the incident not worthy of a further ban and therefore by implication deemed that the incident wasn't worthy of a red card.

There's no "by implication" about it - the card has been reported as having been "overturned".

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 14 May 2015, 2:31 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:Yes but you don't see penalties for every time a player goes off his feet at a ruck.

Yes I do,I see it often. What I will agree with is the ref does not always see it.

We'll have to agree to disagree,imo refs let it go if it doesn't have a material effect on who would have won the ruck

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Players are trained to ruck this way as it's an effective way to move an opponent and it's rarely blown up by refs

Again, what I am watching does not support this, I always see refs blowing up for people going off their feet, and they should not be trained to go off their feet as it is illegal.

You don't always see it,that would imply that refs never missed players going off their feet at the ruck,you sometimes see it.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:I must also state that imo the only reason Henderson went off his feet is because O'Mahoney was moved by Ludik,if O'Mahoney was where Henderson thought he would be when he went in then we'd have seen another brilliantly effective clear out from Henderson.

So what you are saying, Henderson went off his feet because of Ludik moving O'Mahoney. Are you seriously saying that the actions of another player caused Henderson to subconsciously decide to jump towards his target rather than stay on his feet and push him ? That takes a lot of believing.

Try hitting a tackle bag at full speed with a player behind it.Do it ten times and ask the player to stand behind it and take the tackle 5 times and ask him to move at the last second 5 times at random.If you do this honestly then the times he moves you will land flat on your face as there is no resistance where you expected it.This is imo why Henderson went off his feet.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:This is why I don't think it should be a card,Henderson is being punished for something that he can't control.His only way to avoid this is not to enter the ruck at all and he if he did that he wouldn't be much use on a rugby pitch.

But he can control how he enters a ruck, he can decide whether he jumps at a person, or he stays on his feet and pushes which is the correct way, he did not do that he left the ground thus he was reckless. So he needed to be penalised, I would not have argued over a yellow, but I can understand why a red was used. There is no way on earth I will believe that he jumped because of somebody else, only the person who is jumping can decide if he is going to jump or not, and you are not allowed to jump in the ruck at any time, no matter who is doing what elsewhere.

I think my last point addressed this.

by **Notch** Thu 14 May 2015, 2:37 pm

We should appreciate also that the panel overturning a red card decision is something of a rarity. In fact, the trend has been towards doling out harsher sanctions than the one given during the match.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 2:37 pm

It does not matter why Henderson went off his feet, the simple facts are, you are not allowed to do it. YOU MUST STAY ON YOUR FEET when entering a ruck, no matter how others are subconsciously making you go off your feet, if you can do that, if you are going to make contact with the ruck you are not to leave the ground. That is the laws of the game, not my laws, not my interpretation of them, that is the actual LAW.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 2:39 pm

Notch wrote:We should appreciate also that the panel overturning a red card decision is something of a rarity. In fact, the trend has been towards doling out harsher sanctions than the one given during the match.

It was a technicality, nothing more, nothing less. If he injured the player, we would be having a different conversation right now. What he did was illegal, but he got off on a technicality.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 14 May 2015, 2:40 pm

LordDowlais wrote:It does not matter why Henderson went off his feet, the simple facts are, you are not allowed to do it. YOU MUST STAY ON YOUR FEET when entering a ruck, no matter how others are subconsciously making you go off your feet, if you can do that, if you are going to make contact with the ruck you are not to leave the ground. That is the laws of the game, not my laws, not my interpretation of them, that is the actual LAW.

So are you conceding that Henderson went off his feet unintentionally?

If the game was reffed strictly to the laws then it would have died out years ago as an unwatchable and unplayable farce.If the laws were applied like you have suggested there would be a penalty at almost every ruck.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 14 May 2015, 2:43 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Notch wrote:We should appreciate also that the panel overturning a red card decision is something of a rarity. In fact, the trend has been towards doling out harsher sanctions than the one given during the match.

It was a technicality, nothing more, nothing less. If he injured the player, we would be having a different conversation right now. What he did was illegal, but he got off on a technicality.

That would be very wrong,why would the same action by Henderson warrant a different sanction due to something he can't control?

by Chunky Norwich Thu 14 May 2015, 2:43 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:Thankfully the debate has been settled. The Citing panel who are independent and have the best angles and evidence to call upon have deemed the incident not worthy of a further ban and therefore by implication deemed that the incident wasn't worthy of a red card.

Presumably, the Ulster fans are equally complimentary of the citing panels' decisions for the Marshall, Wilson and Williams decisions now are they?

Or are the citing panels only doing their job correctly when the Ulster players don't get suspended?

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 2:44 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:If the game was reffed strictly to the laws then it would have died out years ago as an unwatchable and unplayable farce.If the laws were applied like you have suggested there would be a penalty at almost every ruck.

It does not matter, ok players going off their feet and not making any difference might get looked at with a blind eye, but Henderson was reckless and another player was involved so that one needed addressing.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 14 May 2015, 2:45 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:If the game was reffed strictly to the laws then it would have died out years ago as an unwatchable and unplayable farce.If the laws were applied like you have suggested there would be a penalty at almost every ruck.

It does not matter, ok players going off their feet and not making any difference might get looked at with a blind eye, but Henderson was reckless and another player was involved so that one needed addressing.

He wasn't reckless imo,he went in with his usual technique which is excellent but due to no fault of his own his target moved.Not reckless.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 14 May 2015, 2:46 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:Thankfully the debate has been settled. The Citing panel who are independent and have the best angles and evidence to call upon have deemed the incident not worthy of a further ban and therefore by implication deemed that the incident wasn't worthy of a red card.

Presumably, the Ulster fans are equally complimentary of the citing panels' decisions for the Marshall, Wilson and Williams decisions now are they?

Or are the citing panels only doing their job correctly when the Ulster players don't get suspended?

Turnabout is fair play,presumably you object to the citing panel's decisions in these instances as much as you do this one?

by Chunky Norwich Thu 14 May 2015, 2:49 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Chunky Norwich wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:Thankfully the debate has been settled. The Citing panel who are independent and have the best angles and evidence to call upon have deemed the incident not worthy of a further ban and therefore by implication deemed that the incident wasn't worthy of a red card.

Presumably, the Ulster fans are equally complimentary of the citing panels' decisions for the Marshall, Wilson and Williams decisions now are they?

Or are the citing panels only doing their job correctly when the Ulster players don't get suspended?

Turnabout is fair play,presumably you object to the citing panel's decisions in these instances as much as you do this one?

I've always thought they are a joke. Suddenly the Ulster fans say what a good hob of this one they made.

What a shocker.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 2:50 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:That would be very wrong,why would the same action by Henderson warrant a different sanction due to something he can't control?

OMG, I cannot believe that you believe what you are saying !!!!!

Come on, these players KNOW they are not allowed to leave their feet whilst entering a ruck, Henderson CHOSE to do this, nobody MADE him jump, it was his choice.

You are right, he could not control his actions, because he was in the air, and it was HIS choice to be in that position, thus he was reckless. Irrespective of what other players are doing, Henderson STILL left his feet, he should not have and he could have caused a serious injury, what point of this are you not seeing ?

by Guest Thu 14 May 2015, 2:51 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:Thankfully the debate has been settled. The Citing panel who are independent and have the best angles and evidence to call upon have deemed the incident not worthy of a further ban and therefore by implication deemed that the incident wasn't worthy of a red card.

Presumably, the Ulster fans are equally complimentary of the citing panels' decisions for the Marshall, Wilson and Williams decisions now are they?

Or are the citing panels only doing their job correctly when the Ulster players don't get suspended?

No we aren't. We are used to the panel treating our players more harshly than would normally be expected. That's why we are surprised, delighted, at this ruling. True justice has prevailed.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 2:51 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:He wasn't reckless imo,he went in with his usual technique which is excellent but due to no fault of his own his target moved.Not reckless.

He left the ground and aimed himself at the player, THAT IS RECKLESS.

by **Notch** Thu 14 May 2015, 2:51 pm

I still think they are by and large a joke as well. They came to the right decision, possibly the wrong way, but that doesn't mean the process is suddenly perfect.

I agree LD- we would be, and wrongly so. An action should not be solely judged by its consequences.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 2:53 pm

Munchkin wrote: True justice has prevailed.

No not justice, he was just being punished for the wrong thing, he got off on a technicality.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 14 May 2015, 2:54 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:That would be very wrong,why would the same action by Henderson warrant a different sanction due to something he can't control?

OMG, I cannot believe that you believe what you are saying !!!!!

Come on, these players KNOW they are not allowed to leave their feet whilst entering a ruck, Henderson CHOSE to do this, nobody MADE him jump, it was his choice.

You are right, he could not control his actions, because he was in the air, and it was HIS choice to be in that position, thus he was reckless. Irrespective of what other players are doing, Henderson STILL left his feet, he should not have and he could have caused a serious injury, what point of this are you not seeing ?

This is where I fundamentally disagree with you,do the experiment I suggested and see if you can keep your feet.When you are running at something flat out and there is no resistance where you expect it you will leave your feet and fall flat on your face.Your opinion is that he did it deliberately,mine is that he went in perfectly but due to circumstances outside his control he was unable to do what he intended,no recklessness just an unfortunate series of events.

by LordDowlais Thu 14 May 2015, 2:55 pm

Notch wrote:I still think they are by and large a joke as well. They came to the right decision, possibly the wrong way, but that doesn't mean the process is suddenly perfect.

I agree LD- we would be, and wrongly so. An action should not be solely judged by its consequences.

So do you agree Notch, what Henderson did was reckless and illegal ?

by Guest Thu 14 May 2015, 2:56 pm

They are, Notch. One right doesn't excuse the wrongs. Lack of consistency is the issue.

Having said that, maybe this latest ruling is a sign of change for the better? I doubt it, but I can hope.

by Sponsored content