David Pocock is in trouble

Oh well, it looks like Pocock could be looking at a long time on the sidelines after a almost choking an opponent to sleep:-

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/david-pocock-faces-potentially-long-11132870


Is he known for being dirty ? I find this a bit alarming:-


"Leitch can be seen frantically tapping the arm of Pocock to make him aware of his difficulties. When the maul finally collapses, a groggy Leitch lies on the pitch holding his neck and clearly in great discomfort as medics tend to him." 


So he was trying to make Pocock aware yet he just kept on tightening.

All in the heat of the moment and I'm sure that Pocock was sorry.....

LordDowlais wrote:Is he known for being dirty ?

No - there is no great ambassador in rugby than Pocock.

Yea real shame.

I watched the game at the time and got to say when taken in isolation it looks bad. As part of a maul it's a bit of bad luck/reckless from Pocock.

I expect something like 12 weeks with a reduction for good record, accepting guilt etc so maybe 6 week max

Pococks comment 'Oh, it's rugby' and then didn't want to make any more of it....

Either he literally has no idea what he did, or he's aware and doesn't give a to$$.

It matters little, he'll get a rest for a few weeks regardless.

Fanster wrote:Pococks comment 'Oh, it's rugby' and then didn't want to make any more of it....

Either he literally has no idea what he did, or he's aware and doesn't give a to$$.

It matters little, he'll get a rest for a few weeks regardless.

Isn't it leitch who said oh it's rugby not pocock?

Whichever of the two said it, they're both wrong anyway.

It ain't rugby - it's MMA.

And I have the feeling too many rugby players are watching MMA on their down time.... or worse - playing the damn thing on their infernal gaming engines! Too much free time.

carpet baboon wrote:

Fanster wrote:Pococks comment 'Oh, it's rugby' and then didn't want to make any more of it....

Either he literally has no idea what he did, or he's aware and doesn't give a to$$.

It matters little, he'll get a rest for a few weeks regardless.

Isn't it leitch who said oh it's rugby not pocock?

That makes so much more sense

I'll blame the journalistic stylings of the WOL writiers, thats always a pretty safe out.

Out of interest, Leitch, isn't he the Japanese 8 who had a cracking RWC? Game changed v Scotland when he went off.

Japanese Tongan 6 . And their captain.

Fanster wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

Fanster wrote:Pococks comment 'Oh, it's rugby' and then didn't want to make any more of it....

Either he literally has no idea what he did, or he's aware and doesn't give a to$$.

It matters little, he'll get a rest for a few weeks regardless.

Isn't it leitch who said oh it's rugby not pocock?

That makes so much more sense

I'll blame the journalistic stylings of the WOL writiers, thats always a pretty safe out.

Out of interest, Leitch, isn't he the Japanese 8 who had a cracking RWC? Game changed v Scotland when he went off.

I think it's safe to assume no one at WOL has ever been called a journalists

GeordieFalcon wrote:Japanese Tongan 6 . And their captain.

Ah of course, I was thinking it was their Tongan? Japanese no. 8, he was a wrecking ball in the world cup, where has he ended up, didn't he get signed to a prem team?

You have to be careful with the neck. We're now seeing neck-rolls penalised more harshly than even 12 months ago. It's obvious Pocock has the neck, so it's reckless and a penalty at absolute best.

Much more than that, I don't think Pocock would have been deliberately trying to choke him out, and I don't think you would pay much note to someone tapping you in a maul, as bad as that may be.

If the maul had collapsed sooner and Pocock had therefore released sooner and Leitch hadn't have been in so much pain/discomfort, then I doubt this incident would have got that much attention. However, if you apply a bit of outcome bias, as often happens, then this could end up being a fairly significant ban.

He held the neck, held the neck and held the neck...........

Do rugby players need doctors to come in and explain to them the relationship between the neck, the brain, the lungs, the blood supply and the spine?  Do they actually realise just how important and fragile a neck is in the grand scheme of human survival?

Are they that dumb that they need to be told repeatedly that holding a player hard around the neck for an extended period is increasing tenfold the dangers to the health and wellbeing of the player...AND, that the deterioration can be instant.... one moment the player is struggling robustly, the next possibly limp and dead?

No excuses for Pocock.  He just didn't want to release that hold and never really considered the possible implications.  Too busy playing rugby, mate.  We're not fancy scientists or nothing.

The thing thats potentially ging to hurt Pocock is that if he's attempting to slow, or stop the maul momentum he's in a totally wrong position to produce any counter force, and not only is he knowingly holding the neck, he's pulling back and up, which could be seen as counter productive to slowing the maul, and thus delibrately trying to hurt the player.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Japanese Tongan 6 . And their captain.

Fijian.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Japanese Tongan 6 . And their captain.

Fijian.

Better not call him tongan then....

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Japanese Tongan 6 . And their captain.

Fijian.

My mistake. Fijian Japanese Captain.

Edit: I see he has lived in Japan since he was 15.

lostinwales wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Japanese Tongan 6 . And their captain.

Fijian.

Better not call him tongan then....

Just imagine if you'd called him a gypsy?

Yep that is probably worthy of a lengthy ban, but hopefully Pocock will apologise to Leitch and show full remorse for his actions. I would say a 15 week ban or something.

bsando wrote: I would say a 15 week ban or something.

Just long enough to miss the England tour.

Pocock will probably get one week as the Brumbies have a bye next week, the person who should get a 15 week ban is the TMO.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Japanese Tongan 6 . And their captain.

Fijian.

My mistake. Fijian Japanese Captain.

Edit: I see he has lived in Japan since he was 15.

His father is a a NZ, his mum is Fijian. He's more a Kiwi than a Fijian. The coffee shop he has in Tokyo is called +64, which is the international dialling code for NZ.

https://www.facebook.com/plus64cafe

He's Japanese, though, since he naturalized a few years ago. His wife is also Japanese.

2 game ban for Pocock. That punishment doesn't fit the crime. The player nearly passed out.

Very lenient.

bumble wrote:2 game ban for Pocock. That punishment doesn't fit the crime. The player nearly passed out.

Very lenient.

We are on the same side of this particular argument. Regardless of his prior record, two games is really short for that offence.

Any reference to previous chokes? O'Gara was choked out once if I recall.

fa0019 wrote:Any reference to previous chokes? O'Gara was choked out once if I recall.

Do you mean in the Scotland game? Hines was accused by Eddie O'Sullivan but O'Gara denied there was any choking.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/o-gara-breaks-silence-on-murrayfield-choke-claim-to-finally-put-hines-in-clear-1-1433607

That Pocock one looks really nasty. Such inconsistency in bans lengths being handed out.

not sure I agree with Pococks being above and beyond. I'm not so sure he knew what he was doing. I don't think there was malicious intent.

Cyril wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Any reference to previous chokes? O'Gara was choked out once if I recall.

Do you mean in the Scotland game? Hines was accused by Eddie O'Sullivan but O'Gara denied there was any choking.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/o-gara-breaks-silence-on-murrayfield-choke-claim-to-finally-put-hines-in-clear-1-1433607

That Pocock one looks really nasty. Such inconsistency in bans lengths being handed out.

I remember that. Eddie O'Sullivan made a complete fool of himself.

Cyril wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Any reference to previous chokes? O'Gara was choked out once if I recall.

Do you mean in the Scotland game? Hines was accused by Eddie O'Sullivan but O'Gara denied there was any choking.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/o-gara-breaks-silence-on-murrayfield-choke-claim-to-finally-put-hines-in-clear-1-1433607

That Pocock one looks really nasty. Such inconsistency in bans lengths being handed out.

It happened to Mark Bennett during a game against Ulster. With the added bonus of the ulster player (was it Henderson) tossing him aside like a rag doll as he lay unconscious

Seems fair enough, precedent set. We all know the neck is a no go area at the ruck and now it's crystal clear it's a serious offence at the maul, players will be more careful from now on.

mid_gen wrote:Seems fair enough, precedent set. We all know the neck is a no go area at the ruck and now it's crystal clear it's a serious offence at the maul, players will be more careful from now on.

Well, it seems to be regarded as less serious than contact with the eye area, given the respective length of Pocock and Francis' bans.

Be interesting to see whether asphyxiation is regarded as more serious than hurting people's feelings or not.

O'Gara said there was no choking.

He was unconscious at the time, maybe he wasn't the right witness?

Yes, he absolved Hines. But something happened in there to drop him into a sleep - perhaps all accidental but who is ever to know. It wasn't only O'Sullivan that reacted - players much closer to the action felt O'Gara got more attention than needed in that melee.

SecretFly wrote: O'Gara said there was no choking.  

He was unconscious at the time, maybe he wasn't the right witness?  

Yes, he absolved Hines.  But something happened in there to drop him into a sleep - perhaps all accidental but who is ever to know.  It wasn't only O'Sullivan that reacted - players much closer to the action felt O'Gara got more attention than needed in that melee.

was that the one when Hayes intervened?

Yeah Hayes went to work quick.

Just thinking back now....God, we do have some peppered encounters with our friends up in Scotland. This year had a barroom brawl element too.

SecretFly wrote:Yeah Hayes went to work quick.

Just thinking back now....God, we do have some peppered encounters with our friends up in Scotland.  This year had a barroom brawl element too.  

Fastest I've ever seen him!!

He had his contract extended just because of that moment. "See what you can do if you try!"

cakeordeath wrote:

Cyril wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Any reference to previous chokes? O'Gara was choked out once if I recall.

Do you mean in the Scotland game? Hines was accused by Eddie O'Sullivan but O'Gara denied there was any choking.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/o-gara-breaks-silence-on-murrayfield-choke-claim-to-finally-put-hines-in-clear-1-1433607

That Pocock one looks really nasty. Such inconsistency in bans lengths being handed out.

It happened to Mark Bennett during a game against Ulster. With the added bonus of the ulster player (was it Henderson) tossing him aside like a rag doll as he lay unconscious

It was Alan O'Connor who was 'choking' Bennett, and he got a three week ban for the so-called 'dangerous tackle'.

The problem is that if the player stays conscious then generally no sanction is applied and so most games will have incidents where someone is caught in the neck area with no punishment. Imposing red cards and long bans will only encourage players to start milking these incidents by feigning unconsciousness.

The maul and the tackle are two areas that need addressed by World Rugby sooner rather than later.

Feigning unconsciousness should then be a LIFETIME ban in my eyes - no excuses, you're gone- forever (how would we prove feigning btw?) - but if blatant then the ban should be the harshest as feigning would be unforgiveable considering the seriousness of real incidents.

However suggesting players would act up because of red card potential is no reason for saying leniency should always win the argument when a player neck holds and his opponent goes unconscious.

SecretFly wrote:Feigning unconsciousness should then be a LIFETIME ban in my eyes - no excuses, you're gone- forever (how would we prove feigning btw?) - but if blatant then the ban should be the harshest as feigning would be unforgiveable considering the seriousness of real incidents.

However suggesting players would act up because of red card potential is no reason for saying leniency should always win the argument when a player neck holds and his opponent goes unconscious.

It would be a bit stupid to feign going unconscious. Surely you would have to go off the field?

Why would a player have to go off the field? Being rendered unconscious would not be a result of concussion so wouldn't have to follow the HIA protocol.

If someone says they were choked irrespective of being subconscious at all - should that not be enough evidence or does it only count if someone else witnesses them being choked?

The Great Aukster wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

Cyril wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Any reference to previous chokes? O'Gara was choked out once if I recall.

Do you mean in the Scotland game? Hines was accused by Eddie O'Sullivan but O'Gara denied there was any choking.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/o-gara-breaks-silence-on-murrayfield-choke-claim-to-finally-put-hines-in-clear-1-1433607

That Pocock one looks really nasty. Such inconsistency in bans lengths being handed out.

It happened to Mark Bennett during a game against Ulster. With the added bonus of the ulster player (was it Henderson) tossing him aside like a rag doll as he lay unconscious

It was Alan O'Connor who was 'choking' Bennett, and he got a three week ban for the so-called 'dangerous tackle'.

The problem is that if the player stays conscious then generally no sanction is applied and so most games will have incidents where someone is caught in the neck area with no punishment. Imposing red cards and long bans will only encourage players to start milking these incidents by feigning unconsciousness.

The maul and the tackle are two areas that need addressed by World Rugby sooner rather than later.

I think its fair to say that a lot of feigning isnt going on when a player is in a wrestling hold around the neck, for 11 seconds and is having his head twisted up and back.

Another point which not many others are picking up on is that Pocock is charged with playing the man without ball, when you are defending the rolling maul there isnt a lot you can do that wouldnt fall into that definition, whether dangerous or not.

2 game ban, WHAT A JOKE!

fa0019 wrote:not sure I agree with Pococks being above and beyond. I'm not so sure he knew what he was doing. I don't think there was malicious intent.

So he was choking him in a friendly way?

Isn't it about as reckless as you can get? If you don't know you're choking someone you're not in control of your actions in any way and are a huge danger to everyone on the field.

Leitch was repeatedly slapping Pocock on the side to signal to him he was in trouble.

Scottrf wrote:

fa0019 wrote:not sure I agree with Pococks being above and beyond. I'm not so sure he knew what he was doing. I don't think there was malicious intent.

So he was choking him in a friendly way?

Isn't it about as reckless as you can get? If you don't know you're choking someone you're not in control of your actions in any way and are a huge danger to everyone on the field.

I think what fa is trying to do is put this incident into context of the play that was occuring at the time. when it comes to a rolling mall, the odds are really stacked against the defending team. They are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

They cant just tackle the ball carrier because he is protected by a human shield of players in front of him, you cant come in the side to the ball carrier as that is another penalty. you cant go for the legs of any of the opposition as you get penalised for collapsing the mall. rather than bind onto the neck of Leitch, Pocock maybe should have bound onto the torso, but in turn that was obscured. I dont think Poey is a malicious player either he was just hanging on for the duration of the rolling mall, trouble was that after a few seconds the situation genuinely became very dangerous.

His full apology. http://www.davidpocock.com/davidpocock/

The guy's a class act.