Aviva Premiership - Round 3

by **LondonTiger** Wed 14 Sep 2016, 12:38 pm

First topic message reminder :

Table

POS	TEAM	-PL-	-W-	-D-	-L-	-PF-	-PA-	-DIFF-	-TF-	-TA-	-TB-	-LB-	-PTS-
1	Saracens	2	2	0	0	69	16	53	9	1	2	0	10
2	Bath Rugby	2	2	0	0	76	19	57	8	3	1	0	9
3	Wasps	2	2	0	0	59	42	17	7	4	1	0	9
4	Northampton Saints	2	1	0	1	46	28	18	6	1	1	1	6
5	Sale Sharks	2	1	0	1	36	29	7	3	2	0	1	5
6	Leicester Tigers	2	1	0	1	60	65	-5	7	8	1	0	5
7	Harlequins	2	1	0	1	31	38	-7	3	4	0	0	4
8	Newcastle Falcons	2	1	0	1	24	75	-51	2	10	0	0	4
9	Gloucester Rugby	2	0	1	1	54	61	-7	6	8	1	1	4
10	Worcester Warriors	2	0	1	1	26	58	-32	3	6	0	0	2
11	Bristol Rugby	2	0	0	2	29	53	-24	4	6	0	1	1
12	Exeter Chiefs	2	0	0	2	33	59	-26	3	8	0	1	1

Fixtures

FRIDAY 16TH SEPTEMBER 2016

19:45 Sale v Gloucester BT Sport
The organised, but dare I say it slightly dull, Sale Sharks entertain the more mercurial but also much more dysfunctional Gloucester. Both teams had influential back rowers flattened by opponents subsequently receiving their marching orders last week. Sale especially would like skipper Beaumont to have passed the concussion protocols and be ready to play. In the end I suspect that Sale’s organisation and teamwork will win the day as they grind out a win.

SATURDAY 17TH SEPTEMBER 2016

15:00 Bath v Worcester
Having failed to score a try in Round 1, Bath ran in a whopping 8 in their crushing victory over Falcons in round 2. George Ford won the plaudits from opposing DoR Dean Richards, but special mention must be given to Max Clark, whose direct running and good hands allow time for the internationals either side of him. It is hard to say how well Bath played as by all accounts Falcons capitulated, but the tight 5 went well, back row better than expected and Fotuali’I looked a lot more like the 9 that Ospreys fans will remember (rather than Saints fans).
Worcester were perhaps unlucky to only draw last week, yet with the amount of mistakes made by Gloucester in that game they have only themselves to blame. They need players like Hougaard and Heem back. They need a better 10 than Ryan Lamb. With Bath’s back row still in disarray, even with Houston returning, someone is going to capitalise. Cannot see it being Worcester though.

15:00 Exeter v Harlequins
Having started the season with the worst two fixtures possible, last season’s runner up find themselves at the bottom of the table. Two defeats is not unexpected, but Rob Baxter will have been unhappy about the way the matches were lost and the number of tries conceded. Something is not quite working both in the pack and behind in the backs – but Baxter will be analysing everything in great detail to come up with an answer.
Quins fans are in despair. A squeaky win over new boys Bristol was followed by defeat away to Sale. That they lost in Salford is no surprise, but the manner of defeat with apparently a number of players looking almost disinterested is the main reason for the fans dissatisfaction. Travelling down to Devon is probably not the ideal trip – but maybe going as underdogs will allow Quins to relax and play their own game?
Exeter should, despite misfiring, have too much for Quins.

15:00 Saracens v Northampton BT Sport
Heavyweight clash in Barnet this week. George v Hartley, Mako v Brookes/Hill, Itoje v Lawes, Billy v Louis. Some contests to savour – but this match will be won by the collective not individuals. Sarries are slowly grinding their way into form, while pulverising opponents as they do it. Saints should not fold as Worcester and Exeter did but can they match the Allianz Juggernaut?
Having played poorly for most of the game in Round 1, their defence has largely stayed intact. Like their hosts just 1 try conceded in the two games so far is testament to their hard work. However can they create enough to truly scare Sarries? Gut feel is Saints will need the champions to be a touch off-colour if they are to get anything from this game.

SUNDAY 18TH SEPTEMBER 2016

14:30 Wasps v Bristol
Wasps host Bristol with two wins already under their belt. Dai Young will know that they are some way below their best so far but he will be pleased that the results are coming anyway. Last season they usually lost when not at their best.
Bristol are likely to make this a 3rd defeat in a row and despite showing early promise need to actually start getting results. Maybe next week.

15:00 Newcastle v Leicester BT Sport
Two teams who were happy after Round 1 and distraught after round 2. Two teams who need to play a lot better, show more application and dedication if they are to achieve their potential. Both sets of players should be truly embarrassed by their performances last week.

by formerly known as Sam Wed 21 Sep 2016, 9:36 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:I am surprised at 13 weeks considering his past.

Past makes no difference in sentencing. You get a 50% reduction for previous good behaviour after the sentence which Ashton doesn't have and may be given additional reduction for admission of guilt and good behaviour during the hearing. Pleading not guilty rules you out of that as well.

The 13 weeks will be based upon how severe the foul play was. So we're looking for damage caused, malicious intent, was there provocation etc...

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Sep 2016, 9:37 am

Ah, thanks Sam.

by beshocked Wed 21 Sep 2016, 9:38 am

Always baying for blood and when you get it, wanting more.

Ashton is not lucky.... Waller is.

Not getting any punishment is significantly better than 13 weeks...

by **LondonTiger** Wed 21 Sep 2016, 9:43 am

As three officials (Ref, TMO, Citing Officer) deemed there was no reason for Waller to get a red card, what should he be banned for?

As it was Waller got a YC that had a direct impact on the game's result, while Ashton stayed on the pitch to help his team win. Saints arguably lost far more from the judicial decisions than Saracens will.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Sep 2016, 9:43 am

What's wrong beshocked? Baying for blood how? I was surprised at the lightness of the sentence, which Sam above, has kindly offered up an understanding I didn't have. More understandable now, he got an additional week for not admitting to it.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 21 Sep 2016, 9:47 am

Round 4 preview may be a little bit late this week, but hope to get it done today.

by beshocked Wed 21 Sep 2016, 9:50 am

Headbutt on George and hitting Ashton in the face. Of course it's acceptable to do so...

Consistency would be nice.

Of course if the officials miss it, it must be okay.

no 7 & 1/2 Being dissatisfied that 13 weeks isn't enough.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Sep 2016, 9:54 am

I was surprised as I thought that there was an addition of weeks for previous, as it is Sam has told me it's the opposite so less surprised now. So, on the low side of things but understandable.

by lostinwales Wed 21 Sep 2016, 10:20 am

Seems silly to talk about magnitude of the offense in situations like this and of course Ashton does have previous, but I would have thought it would make sense to reduce the tariff when a hand or arm is shoved in the mouth (a defensive bite?) and up the tariff when the offender is deemed to be looking for a chance (offensive in more ways than one)

by offload Wed 21 Sep 2016, 10:48 am

This isn't difficult is it? Just keep your mouth shut.

by doctor_grey Wed 21 Sep 2016, 11:41 am

LondonTiger wrote:As three officials (Ref, TMO, Citing Officer) deemed there was no reason for Waller to get a red card, what should he be banned for?

As it was Waller got a YC that had a direct impact on the game's result, while Ashton stayed on the pitch to help his team win. Saints arguably lost far more from the judicial decisions than Saracens will.

And let's not forget that some jackass bit Waller. Maybe we get a bit jaded by the Rugby conversation, but he was bitten. And who is to say it didn't impact his play.

Some players have their issues, some get help, and get over them. Some simply appear to mount up and keep going.

by beshocked Wed 21 Sep 2016, 11:57 am

doctor_grey wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:As three officials (Ref, TMO, Citing Officer) deemed there was no reason for Waller to get a red card, what should he be banned for?

As it was Waller got a YC that had a direct impact on the game's result, while Ashton stayed on the pitch to help his team win. Saints arguably lost far more from the judicial decisions than Saracens will.
And let's not forget that some jackass bit Waller. Maybe we get a bit jaded by the Rugby conversation, but he was bitten. And who is to say it didn't impact his play.

Some players have their issues, some get help, and get over them. Some simply appear to mount up and keep going.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Waller who was trying his best to aggravate the opposition.

Waller was involved in 3 separate incidents. You don't do that if you're an innocent party.

Anyway it's done now. Ashton is out for 13 weeks.

Waller got his man ultimately but on the day cost his team.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Sep 2016, 12:08 pm

George was involved in 2 we know of so far. Should he have got his just desserts?

by beshocked Wed 21 Sep 2016, 12:15 pm

Which 2 were George involved in? I only know of one which George was almost planted into the ground by Waller and headbutted by him.

I know you like to be annoying just for the sake of it but do you seriously think George warranted a YC?

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Sep 2016, 12:36 pm

Nope. And Waller didn't deserve a red one.

by Jimpy Wed 21 Sep 2016, 12:37 pm

beshocked wrote:Which 2 were George involved in? I only know of one which George was almost planted into the ground by Waller and headbutted by him.

I know you like to be annoying just for the sake of it but do you seriously think George warranted a YC?

I've defended Ashton in the past. But this was vile. He pleaded not guilty - should have had upwards of a 24 week ban IMO (the laws allow for it) - he's got lots of previous. Petulent scumbag he is.

Waller did nothing wrong, hence he was not implicated.

I'm not sure how you can even defend your stance on the incident.

by Jimpy Wed 21 Sep 2016, 12:38 pm

offload wrote:This isn't difficult is it? Just keep your mouth shut.

Kind of apt with certain Saracens supporters defending Ashton....

by beshocked Wed 21 Sep 2016, 12:44 pm

no 7 & 1/2 well I disagree.

Jimpy I don't think I've ever heard you defend Ashton. Though it's not the first time I've heard people pretending to advocate a player.....

Waller did nothing wrong? Hitting someone in the face and headbutting are acceptable in your eyes?

What exactly do you think I am defending? I think Ashton deserved the ban. Waller did hit Ashton in the face and was consistently trying to aggravate the opposition though.

The only difference is that I think 13 weeks is fine whereas the hang him, flog him brigade aren't satisfied. Plus you are happy to ignore Waller's misdemeanors.

by HongKongCherry Wed 21 Sep 2016, 1:26 pm

Whilst not advocating violence, we are in danger of turning the game into non-contact. It is grasping at straws to caller what Waller did a headbutt, it was nothing more than 2 players grappling and under normal circumstances deserved nothing more than having their handbags confiscated. Again not condoning it, but a front row player knows what a headbutt is, as every single one of them will have thrown a proper one when scrumming down; ow one of those definitely deserves a ban! kiss

On the other side of the coin, Ashton has rightly received 2 lengthy bans. The difficulty is that, quite rightly, contact with eyes and biting are absolutely heinous and not in the spirit of the game, they are largely offences that cannot happen accidentally. He received low end bans for both in recognition of the severity, but both were absolutely justified and the behaviour of other players involved in no way mitigates the seriousness.

by formerly known as Sam Wed 21 Sep 2016, 1:28 pm

Jimpy wrote:
beshocked wrote:Which 2 were George involved in? I only know of one which George was almost planted into the ground by Waller and headbutted by him.

I know you like to be annoying just for the sake of it but do you seriously think George warranted a YC?

I've defended Ashton in the past. But this was vile. He pleaded not guilty - should have had upwards of a 24 week ban IMO (the laws allow for it) - he's got lots of previous. Petulent scumbag he is.

Neither his previous nor his decision to plead not guilty should effect the length of the initial sentence. They should and have affected the amount of ban he will serve as with a better previous he could have applied for a reduction (normally 50%).

I've not seen the incident but I presume from what I've heard there was both mitigation and ni damage done to Waller. A lot worse has been done and been given more lenient bans.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 21 Sep 2016, 1:54 pm

Waller did not headbutt anyone. Not according to the authorities, who saw it as George wrapping his arm around Wallers head and tugging it forward. It would be like sending off a player for kicking someone in the head when his follow through on kicking the ball caught the player trying to charge down.

by beshocked Wed 21 Sep 2016, 2:05 pm

HongKongCherry wrote:Whilst not advocating violence, we are in danger of turning the game into non-contact. It is grasping at straws to caller what Waller did a headbutt, it was nothing more than 2 players grappling and under normal circumstances deserved nothing more than having their handbags confiscated. Again not condoning it, but a front row player knows what a headbutt is, as every single one of them will have thrown a proper one when scrumming down; ow one of those definitely deserves a ban!

On the other side of the coin, Ashton has rightly received 2 lengthy bans. The difficulty is that, quite rightly, contact with eyes and biting are absolutely heinous and not in the spirit of the game, they are largely offences that cannot happen accidentally. He received low end bans for both in recognition of the severity, but both were absolutely justified and the behaviour of other players involved in no way mitigates the seriousness.

HKC you seem to be advocating violence, the ref lost control of the game and allowed both teams to get away with niggles. It's not grasping at straws, Waller did headbutt George but the ref allowed it because of mitigating circumstances.

You cannot on one hand talk about mitigating circumstances for one player then not another.

Londontiger he did headbutt George. Waller got away it for the reason you said.

Anyway I've talked about this enough.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 21 Sep 2016, 2:13 pm

FFS there is a major difference between contact between two heads and a headbutt.

If I grab someone by the ears and slam their head into mine, have they headbutted me?

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Sep 2016, 2:21 pm

To be fair when George was last headbutted it wasn't too much more contact and resulted in a ban.

by Jimpy Wed 21 Sep 2016, 2:40 pm

Do banned players get paid during the ban period?

I am sure any impact on players' salaries would depend on the wording of individual contracts. There seems to be no mention in the salary cap regulations of the treatment of banned players' remuneration. I would assume that payments to a banned player, reduced or otherwise, would continue to be included in the cap (unless a marquee player of course). Some clubs might argue it should be otherwise.

Saracens will no doubt simply (continue to) ignore any bearing on the cap.

by Jimpy Wed 21 Sep 2016, 2:43 pm

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy I don't think I've ever heard you defend Ashton. Though it's not the first time I've heard people pretending to advocate a player.....

Thinking about it you're right.

I haven't defended him, mainly because he's a petulant, violent, unintelligent and arrogant co*k womble.

by beshocked Wed 21 Sep 2016, 2:49 pm

LondonTiger wrote:FFS there is a major difference between contact between two heads and a headbutt.

If I grab someone by the ears and slam their head into mine, have they headbutted me?

It wasn't a mere contact of heads. You can see Waller moving his head to clash with George. He might have been pulled towards him but he doesn't need to bring his head clashing onto George's.

Now maybe it was instinctively, still a headbutt.

A bit like Ashton still bit Waller, even though Waller had his arm and hand in Ashton's face.

Jimpy you're wumming has not been missed. When do you ever have any constructive to say?

by doctor_grey Wed 21 Sep 2016, 3:00 pm

beshocked wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:As three officials (Ref, TMO, Citing Officer) deemed there was no reason for Waller to get a red card, what should he be banned for?

As it was Waller got a YC that had a direct impact on the game's result, while Ashton stayed on the pitch to help his team win. Saints arguably lost far more from the judicial decisions than Saracens will.
And let's not forget that some jackass bit Waller. Maybe we get a bit jaded by the Rugby conversation, but he was bitten. And who is to say it didn't impact his play.

Some players have their issues, some get help, and get over them. Some simply appear to mount up and keep going.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Waller who was trying his best to aggravate the opposition.

Waller was involved in 3 separate incidents. You don't do that if you're an innocent party.

Anyway it's done now. Ashton is out for 13 weeks.

Waller got his man ultimately but on the day cost his team.

If someone aggravates you, do you really believe it is OK to bite them? Really?

by Jimpy Wed 21 Sep 2016, 3:04 pm

beshocked wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:FFS there is a major difference between contact between two heads and a headbutt.

If I grab someone by the ears and slam their head into mine, have they headbutted me?

Jimpy you're wumming has not been missed. When do you ever have any constructive to say?

I have plenty constructive to say, but on this occasion, Ashton is proving too good an opportunity to miss - see what I did there?

Anyway, I thought you claimed you'd said enough on this matter?

by doctor_grey Wed 21 Sep 2016, 3:04 pm

Jimpy wrote:Do banned players get paid during the ban period?

I always presumed banned players were not paid during their suspension. It would be good to know for certain. I don't believe time off is a sufficient penalty without the corresponding suspension of pay. And, again my opinion, it should not be deducted from any salary cap calculations (if followed). This makes the financial side of the penalty felt by the player and the team.

by Jimpy Wed 21 Sep 2016, 3:05 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
beshocked wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:As three officials (Ref, TMO, Citing Officer) deemed there was no reason for Waller to get a red card, what should he be banned for?

As it was Waller got a YC that had a direct impact on the game's result, while Ashton stayed on the pitch to help his team win. Saints arguably lost far more from the judicial decisions than Saracens will.
And let's not forget that some jackass bit Waller. Maybe we get a bit jaded by the Rugby conversation, but he was bitten. And who is to say it didn't impact his play.

Some players have their issues, some get help, and get over them. Some simply appear to mount up and keep going.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Waller who was trying his best to aggravate the opposition.

Waller was involved in 3 separate incidents. You don't do that if you're an innocent party.

Anyway it's done now. Ashton is out for 13 weeks.

Waller got his man ultimately but on the day cost his team.

If someone aggravates you, do you really believe it is OK to bite them? Really?

Or pull them into touch by their hair - or knee them in the back whilst they're on the floor, or gouge an opponent's eyes....

by No 7&1/2 Wed 21 Sep 2016, 3:07 pm

The bad thing from Saracens perspective here is that until waller had his rush of blood himself the rile them tactic was working. Northampton were probably just shading it. I suspect that Saracens will get some more niggle like that in games now but unless they are playing a team with similar ability to front up they're unlikely to react.

by HongKongCherry Wed 21 Sep 2016, 4:21 pm

beshocked wrote:
HongKongCherry wrote:Whilst not advocating violence, we are in danger of turning the game into non-contact. It is grasping at straws to caller what Waller did a headbutt, it was nothing more than 2 players grappling and under normal circumstances deserved nothing more than having their handbags confiscated. Again not condoning it, but a front row player knows what a headbutt is, as every single one of them will have thrown a proper one when scrumming down; ow one of those definitely deserves a ban!

On the other side of the coin, Ashton has rightly received 2 lengthy bans. The difficulty is that, quite rightly, contact with eyes and biting are absolutely heinous and not in the spirit of the game, they are largely offences that cannot happen accidentally. He received low end bans for both in recognition of the severity, but both were absolutely justified and the behaviour of other players involved in no way mitigates the seriousness.

HKC you seem to be advocating violence, the ref lost control of the game and allowed both teams to get away with niggles. It's not grasping at straws, Waller did headbutt George but the ref allowed it because of mitigating circumstances.

You cannot on one hand talk about mitigating circumstances for one player then not another.

Londontiger he did headbutt George. Waller got away it for the reason you said.

Anyway I've talked about this enough.

Its rugby not badminton! I am being facetious, but the reality is that in a physical game you're going to get niggles, just not nibbles! Wink

by kingelderfield Wed 21 Sep 2016, 4:48 pm

Was a bloody awful game to be fair and for all the 'niggle' and 'violence' displayed I thought the nastiest injury was born by poor Burrell who had the misfortune to stumble into a tackle knocking himself out on Barritt's hip.

So there goes the Malinder Burrell centre option for a while a least.

by offload Wed 21 Sep 2016, 10:44 pm

beshocked wrote: It wasn't a mere contact of heads. You can see Waller moving his head to clash with George. He might have been pulled towards him but he doesn't need to bring his head clashing onto George's.

Now maybe it was instinctively, still a headbutt.

A bit like Ashton still bit Waller, even though Waller had his arm and hand in Ashton's face.

Your support of your club is admirable, but you seem to have lost all perspective and judgement. There was no clear head butt. Your prejudice is seeing things that aren't there.

by BamBam Wed 21 Sep 2016, 10:46 pm

Don't you have to have something in the first place before you can lose it?

Thought for the day

by Jimpy Thu 22 Sep 2016, 8:02 am

offload wrote:
beshocked wrote: It wasn't a mere contact of heads. You can see Waller moving his head to clash with George. He might have been pulled towards him but he doesn't need to bring his head clashing onto George's.

Now maybe it was instinctively, still a headbutt.

A bit like Ashton still bit Waller, even though Waller had his arm and hand in Ashton's face.

Your support of your club is admirable, but you seem to have lost all perspective and judgement. There was no clear head butt. Your prejudice is seeing things that aren't there.

McCall thinks Gnashton was hard done by, so he's not the only one without perspective or judgement.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 22 Sep 2016, 8:16 am

At the hearing Saracens accused Waller of ~~lying~~ being mistaken. The defence was that there was no bite. There was aggressive cross examination late into the night by their legal team.

I would love to see their bill for legal fees for a year Very Happy

by Exiledinborders Thu 22 Sep 2016, 9:34 am

LondonTiger wrote:As three officials (Ref, TMO, Citing Officer) deemed there was no reason for Waller to get a red card, what should he be banned for?

Trying to neck roll Ashton prior to bite.
Tip tackle off the ball for which he was yellowed.
Head butt.

Glad that Ashton is banned but Waller should have got one too.

by Jimpy Thu 22 Sep 2016, 9:39 am

Exiledinborders wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:As three officials (Ref, TMO, Citing Officer) deemed there was no reason for Waller to get a red card, what should he be banned for?
Trying to neck roll Ashton prior to bite.
Tip tackle off the ball for which he was yellowed.
Head butt.

Glad that Ashton is banned but Waller should have got one too.

Rubbish. Waller was not trying to neck roll Gnashton. He may have had him in a robust grip, but he quite clearly wasn't trying to neck roll him.

Waller got a yellow card for the tip tackle - so not sure what your point is - Waller was punished for that.

Head butt, schmedbutt.

The citing Commission have had all the time in the world to review the evidence and exonerated Waller.

End of story.

by yappysnap Thu 22 Sep 2016, 9:40 am

Don't know if he needs a ban but he needs to be told to chill out and calm down, he was acting a Muppet and will only land himself in more trouble in the future.

by beshocked Thu 22 Sep 2016, 9:51 am

Thank you Exiledinborders, I have the same stance as you. Ashton deserved ban but I thought Waller got away with it.

by Jimpy Thu 22 Sep 2016, 1:16 pm

beshocked wrote:Thank you Exiledinborders, I have the same stance as you. Ashton deserved ban but I thought Waller got away with it.

You can't both be blind surely?

by kingelderfield Thu 22 Sep 2016, 8:56 pm

Lots of Muppet comments on this thread.

Hopefully the officials will be a lot sharper going forward and no other game is allowed to descend the way this one did.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 23 Sep 2016, 12:03 pm

"We put forward what we thought was a strong case for both charges to be dismissed," boss Mark McCall said. "But the decision to suspend Chris is one that we accept."

Do they release full details of what the strong case was anywhere? I'm assuming it would have been that Waller was trying to fore arm smash Ashton and caught his tooth.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 23 Sep 2016, 12:26 pm

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/Governance/Disclipine/01/32/05/39/AshtonSaracensJudgmentSep16_Neutral.pdf

by **LondonTiger** Fri 23 Sep 2016, 12:29 pm

10. The panel heard the Player’s account. We were then invited to take into
account the Player’s good character. That character evidence came in the
form of three witness statements or references provided by Mark McCall,
Mrs Anne Spencer and Mr Nick Gilbert. In the main these references spoke to
the Player’s good character off the field detailing with his charitable work, his
work within a school and his behaviour at home as a new parent. They also
spoke of his behaviour as a rugby player and his positive contribution to
Saracens RFC. The panel accepted this evidence and took it into account in
favour of the Player when considering the reliability of the evidence he gave
to the panel.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 23 Sep 2016, 12:41 pm

I was taking the mick when I said forearm smash but the BBC quote is 'The 29-year-old former rugby league player denied he had bitten Waller, arguing that he had twisted his head after the player's arm was lodged in his mouth in a ruck.'

by Sponsored content