[2015 Six Nations] Scotland vs Wales (Round 2)

[ae15]

https://vine.co/v/OPVVH5Hd3g3

Thankfully Hogg managed to get through without a broken neck.

Would you please stop littering the forum with your cry baby nonsense. Every team in the Six Nations has a player or two who are dirty, and will have an instance or two when they lose their heads and do things they don't have in their character. The greatest example is Hogg last year, not in his character, but it was brainless, disgusting and he still did it! So rather than trying to pick the blame on the Welsh for everything, and being still being sore about losing three days after the game, get back up and start thinking about the Italy game, and improving on the errors that ultimately still cost you the game.

 

[Jbobo]

&@#!$

So essentially a 1 match ban as it is unlikely he would play this weekend. Utterly disagree with their assessment a) it should of been a red card, b) what he did was reckless

Of course it was reckless. As they said, it wasn't intentional but definitely reckless. Biggar could have had a broken neck!

Jesus, it's getting boring now. As a lengthy side note - One guy even had the nerve to blame biggar to an extent.

Russell made a mistake and he is paying (in context of what it could have been) a pretty small price. Those saying that Davies should receive the same treatment seem to be missing some basic grasp of common sense. I didn't think Russell should be banned, but then again, I haven't seen a more dangerous 'challenge' in a good few months, actually any challenge would be better. If Biggar has been seriously hurt (than god he's hard as nails and managed to get his arm down) the guy would have seen Red and would be facing 6 weeks+ deservedly or not (not for me). Just because you don't mean to make a mistake or take someone out, does not instantly absolve you of the blame and thus consequences. The fact he did not intend to hurt Biggar has clearly been taken into account.

Also, Scots (most in this thread, absolutely discounting a few) . Please stop going on about the Ref's decisions. I have myself pointed out how Scotland have infringed and could have picked up three more yellow cards and possibly even Red. There were far more 'professional' fouls from the Scots than Welsh, and if Wales got away with a yellow, you should thank your lucky stars that you received the same lack of competent refereeing. Also if you're going to make accusations about a 'Dirty' Welsh side, don't just sit and ignore people's extremely well thought out and written responses (Dullonien's post was spot on) and just carry on without seeming a glance. It's silly especially considering the poor record the Scots have against us recently in terms of discipline and temperament. Don't see us proclaiming the Scottish team to be dirty?

Thanks, and i'll look forward to the consequences of this admittedly hastily written post.

 

[Will]

It's a fair point. You're all so keen to point out just how 'dangerous' Russell's action was, and yet not a peep on that point.

Tremendous.

And in no way am I suggesting that Scotland don't have an issue with their discipline. And I have already addressed their wastefulness in the Wales game and in general. I'm not suggesting that it's all the 'referee's fault' but I am suggesting that there are other issues that also played their part.

 

[ncurd]

Of course it was reckless. As they said, it wasn't intentional but definitely reckless. Biggar could have had a broken neck!

Jesus, it's getting boring now. As a lengthy side note - One guy even had the nerve to blame biggar to an extent.

Russell made a mistake and he is paying (in context of what it could have been) a pretty small price. Those saying that Davies should receive the same treatment seem to be missing some basic grasp of common sense. I didn't think Russell should be banned, but then again, I haven't seen a more dangerous 'challenge' in a good few months, actually any challenge would be better. If Biggar has been seriously hurt (than god he's hard as nails and managed to get his arm down) the guy would have seen Red and would be facing 6 weeks+ deservedly or not (not for me). Just because you don't mean to make a mistake or take someone out, does not instantly absolve you of the blame and thus consequences. The fact he did not intend to hurt Biggar has clearly been taken into account.

---snip---

Thanks, and i'll look forward to the consequences of this admittedly hastily written post.

How do you define it as a reckless action?

Rugby is contact sport you can break bones in a perfectly legal challenge if things go wrong and there are laws to prevent that from happening. Russell was found guilty of

(i) Tackling the jumper in the air.
A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

No mention of red, yellow cards or bans there.

Here are the guidelines on high tackles and red/yellow cards, can't find anything tackling in the air.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?highlight=red card&domain=9&guideline=3

Under the same guidelines I'd suggest Russell would of had to have shown no regard to players safety to considered taking a reckless action as the committee put it. Considering he has mere a second or two to regard the players safety I'd argue he is unable to take any action except under pure instinct which is protect himself from flying welshman.

However like you said he shouldn't facing a ban, so why on Earth are you bothering to argue with me about this? We disagree on interpretations of the event but agree on what should of been the outcome.

 

[TommiG88]

How do you define it as a reckless action?

Rugby is contact sport you can break bones in a perfectly legal challenge if things go wrong and there are laws to prevent that from happening. Russell was found guilty of

(i) Tackling the jumper in the air.
A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

No mention of red, yellow cards or bans there.

Here are the guidelines on high tackles and red/yellow cards, can't find anything tackling in the air.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?highlight=red card&domain=9&guideline=3

Under the same guidelines I'd suggest Russell would of had to have shown no regard to players safety to considered taking a reckless action as the committee put it. Considering he has mere a second or two to regard the players safety I'd argue he is unable to take any action except under pure instinct which is protect himself from flying welshman.

However like you said he shouldn't facing a ban, so why on Earth are you bothering to argue with me about this? We disagree on interpretations of the event but agree on what should of been the outcome.

You did say biggar was reckless...

 

[ncurd]

You did say biggar was reckless...

...yes I did...

Poor choice of words on my part and a bit of a sweeping statement he's reckless if he knows full well he'll collide with Russell. However there's no evidence to show he did as has been pointed out to me what he did was perfectly normal and I accept he most likely looking the ball not where he'll land.

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

2 WEEKS! IS THIS A JOKE http://scottishrugby.org/news/15/02/18/scottish-rugby-appeal-russell-suspension

 

[g6mcg]

Perhaps not relevant to this situation, as Biggar probably was as unaware of Russell's presence as Russell was of his, but I think it's reasonable to say the laws should be changed in future to place some responsibility on the chaser. Currently they're incentivised to jump and expect anyone in their path to disappear. This isn't the only incident where a standing player has been unaware of the chaser, and unintentionally contacted/been contacted by them.

Essentially, current application of laws is not doing enough to remove these dangerous incidents.

 

[Tricky]

You are a broken record, sir.

But a correct one.

1. The only reckless conduct in the Russell incident was Biggar in leaping into the air on top of another player. Russell actually did nothing ! The yellow card was wrong, and the citing and ban is plain daft. Watch the footage.
2. The Welsh prop's clear out of Hogg using a shoulder on his neck is disgusting and should have been cited since it wasn't seen by the ref in the match.

I don't think this ref cost us the match, but there were a series of wrong decisions and a lack of good ones at crucial moments.

Hopefully we'll get by against Italy without Russell.

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

But a correct one.

1. The only reckless conduct in the Russell incident was Biggar in leaping into the air on top of another player. Russell actually did nothing ! The yellow card was wrong, and the citing and ban is plain daft. Watch the footage.
2. The Welsh prop's clear out of Hogg using a shoulder on his neck is disgusting and should have been cited since it wasn't seen by the ref in the match.

I don't think this ref cost us the match, but there were a series of wrong decisions and a lack of good ones at crucial moments.

Hopefully we'll get by against Italy without Russell.

um excuse me but i think your from scotland correct ?, why dont you have your proud flags like i do ?

 

[goodNumber10]

But a correct one.

1. The only reckless conduct in the Russell incident was Biggar in leaping into the air on top of another player. Russell actually did nothing !

Lol! Don't be ridiculous.

Bigger was at the apex of his jump when hit, he was ahead in the space.

Regardless of intent that's what matters and is why Russell has copped a ban.

If Russell was standing still and Bigger had jumped into him then he would be reckless and in the wrong.

It's 3 days since this happened, and people are just repeating themselves surely it's time to move on folks...

 

[ncurd]

--snip--

It's 3 days since this happened, and people are just repeating themselves surely it's time to move on folks...

I agree I was merely commenting on the ban itself and mostly how they came decide Russell was being reckless as there is no explanation. Probably a little silly reactive post I made to the news.

 

[Tricky]

um excuse me but i think your from scotland correct ?, why dont you have your proud flags like i do ?

Is this better ? Thanks for the prompt, and I've finally worked out the technology. I'm new to this forum but enjoying it fine including the misguided views of one or two Welshmen......

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

Is this better ? Thanks for the prompt, and I've finally worked out the technology. I'm new to this forum but enjoying it fine including the misguided views of one or two Welshmen......

its no bother . I'm glad that you are enjoying your time here

 

[Will]

Interesting to see Gregor Townsend's take on the Finn Russell matter.

 

[LiRFCMatt]

Interesting to see Gregor Townsend's take on the Finn Russell matter. View attachment 3700

Will Carling rightly said that the rules are a mess right now, we need some clarification on the issue, and this 2 week ban doesn't solve any of the problems and seems needless.

 

[TommiG88]

Never seen such furore over something so little in my life. Accept it and move on, he's only banned for the Italy game. Everyone keeps going on about the decision, however it was widely agreed that a yellow card was the right decision, the ban is a bit over board for my liking but rugby has gone down that road in the last few years.

The incident that happened to Hogg happens at least once in every game. I know it doesn't make it right but it happens so it's needless to go on about it.

Hopefully we can see some happy scots after you batter the Italians <ok>

 

[Jbobo]

EDIT - Just seen TommiG88's last post. Agreed. Let's leave it here

 

[ncurd]

As a side note has anyone seen the video's the NHL make when they cite someone? Example here http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=147177
I think when player serve ban something like this would be hugely beneficial to the fans compared to the statement provided, as it details their interpretation of what happened through out the entire play. We may disagree with those interpretations but at least we understand why.

 

[LiRFCMatt]

As a side note has anyone seen the video's the NHL make when they cite someone? Example here http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=147177
I think when player serve ban something like this would be hugely beneficial to the fans compared to the statement provided, as it details their interpretation of what happened through out the entire play. We may disagree with those interpretations but at least we understand why.

It would certainly clarify things for the masses, can't see any harm in it.