Aviva Premiership Round 18

[ncurd]

Bit of an embarrassing scoreline for Bath, though.

Yeah I'll take a win a week out from a big European match.

Welsh probably buoyed up by new coach as well.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Ford can't come back soon enough. :lol:

 

[goodNumber10]

good to see Bath's observing their long standing tradition of collapsing Mid-season.

To be fair a bonus point win is a bonus point win, i doubt they'll be too bothered having not played for a few weeks.

Also good to see Welsh are finally relegated - good riddance.

 

[ratsapprentice]

good to see Bath's observing their long standing tradition of collapsing Mid-season.

If anything that's an improvement, bearing in mind the last time we played them at home we gifted them their sole league point with our first choice team. :lol:

 

[goodNumber10]

haven't seen the game, how'd KE & SB go in the midfield?

what do you think the line up next week will be?

 

[ratsapprentice]

JJ and Kyle next week.

"It was one of the those games"... truly terrible conditions for most of the game so lots (and lots) of dropped balls.
I wasn't watching particularly closely as it was on the BET365 player.

 

[91jmay]

Burgess scored didn't he? Decent try?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Breaking News: Stuart Barnes says something sensible!


Then there is sheer bad luck which can happen to anyone at any level. Alas, it struck North in the form of Nathan Hughes' leg. It was an awful moment for North and it wasn't great for Hughes, who was shown one of the most ridiculous red cards I have ever seen. I have watched the replay endless occasions and cannot find the penalty let alone the red card.

I heard one of the commentators mention the word 'outcome' after a conversation with an assistant referee. Any officials who think the outcome of an incident should impact upon a decision should think again, and if not then they should be told by respective officiating bodies. This is a philosophy driven by the witch-hunt mentality. To 'outcome' believers I recommend a trip to the theatre to see Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible' or better still, get a DVD immediately. The sport is running out of time to stamp on this deranged thinking.

Had North been fine and gone on to score four tries would the 'incident' have been any the less? Outcome is the death of logic and triumph of the thin veneer of perception. It would be a good start for Hughes to be released to play this weekend, with the daft red card more than enough of a punishment for an accident with unintended consequences.

 

[big ginger 8]

I hear Brendan Macken made his debut for Gloucester this week, any Glaws or Sale fans able to tell me how he got on?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I hear Brendan Macken made his debut for Gloucester this week, any Glaws or Sale fans able to tell me how he got on?

Decent enough.
Ran some good lines and carried/defended hard.
One of Gloucesters best backs, but that's not saying a massive amount.
Not sure if he's euro registered (did he play for Leinster at all?) But if Glaws have managed to add him to their squad then he deserves to start the next game.

 

[ncurd]

Breaking News: Stuart Barnes says something sensible!


Then there is sheer bad luck which can happen to anyone at any level. Alas, it struck North in the form of Nathan Hughes' leg. It was an awful moment for North and it wasn't great for Hughes, who was shown one of the most ridiculous red cards I have ever seen. I have watched the replay endless occasions and cannot find the penalty let alone the red card.

I heard one of the commentators mention the word 'outcome' after a conversation with an assistant referee. Any officials who think the outcome of an incident should impact upon a decision should think again, and if not then they should be told by respective officiating bodies. This is a philosophy driven by the witch-hunt mentality. To 'outcome' believers I recommend a trip to the theatre to see Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible' or better still, get a DVD immediately. The sport is running out of time to stamp on this deranged thinking.

Had North been fine and gone on to score four tries would the 'incident' have been any the less? Outcome is the death of logic and triumph of the thin veneer of perception. It would be a good start for Hughes to be released to play this weekend, with the daft red card more than enough of a punishment for an accident with unintended consequences.

Just watched it for the first time, once in real-time......my god that's a red card?!?!?! Yellow if that clearly nothing intentional of malicious about it.

Like the Russel incident we have to stop punishing players for really doing nothing or showing a lack of anticipation of where other players may be.

If that's a red card so is Lawes tackle a few week ago as he clearly didn't anticipate the ball would of left the hand of the player by the time he got there.

I know the Warbs incident got brought up again but the only difference there is whilst he didn't intend it, he clearly intended to make a tackle so his technique is wrong lead to the incident. Equally bad is fact Warb drops the player making no effort to do anything to stop the player injuring himself once the event begins to unfold (which he has control of).

 

[big ginger 8]

Decent enough.
Ran some good lines and carried/defended hard.
One of Gloucesters best backs, but that's not saying a massive amount.
Not sure if he's euro registered (did he play for Leinster at all?) But if Glaws have managed to add him to their squad then he deserves to start the next game.

Thanks.

As far as I can remember he din't play in Europe this year but he could well be in the squad.
He's somewhat limited but definitely a capable strike player.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Just watched it for the first time, once in real-time......my god that's a red card?!?!?! Yellow if that clearly nothing intentional of malicious about it.

Like the Russel incident we have to stop punishing players for really doing nothing or showing a lack of anticipation of where other players may be.

If that's a red card so is Lawes tackle a few week ago as he clearly didn't anticipate the ball would of left the hand of the player by the time he got there.

I know the Warbs incident got brought up again but the only difference there is whilst he didn't intend it, he clearly intended to make a tackle so his technique is wrong lead to the incident. Equally bad is fact Warb drops the player making no effort to do anything to stop the player injuring himself once the event begins to unfold (which he has control of).

Pretty much...
And what's worse is that the RFU's unwillingness to to admit that the original decision was wrong will lead to a ban which means that as a club, in our first European quarter final for however many years, will likely be without our first choice number 8, away against Toulon. As a club, that's a huge huge blow to our already remote chances and it all comes back to a referee who seemingly wasn't ready for the big-time.

 

[91jmay]

It's a penalty and a yellow card for sure IMO regardless of North's injury or lack of. You can't be that reckless on the field, there has to be SOME kind of duty of care to other players. Not a red though.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

It's a penalty and a yellow card for sure IMO regardless of North's injury or lack of. You can't be that reckless on the field, there has to be SOME kind of duty of care to other players. Not a red though.

It's only reckless insofar as owning big legs is reckless, though.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's only reckless insofar as owning big legs is reckless, though.

If you think he did it on purpose - it's reckless.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

If you think he did it on purpose - it's reckless.

Exactly

Edit: actually to me, recklessness doesn't involve intent. Its generally taken as a more active form of negligence where you take responsibility despite a lack of design. In contrast, you wouldn't describe a deliberate murder for extreme example, as reckless.

Fundamentally agree with you though.

 

[ncurd]

reckless
utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually followed by of)

...not sure what to say I suppose it's to argue where true recklessness begins quite a few actions on the rugby field imply recklessness due to it being a contact sport and every contact has it's dangers. Minimising those dangers within the context of the sport is what players and referee's responsibilities are.

I think players should only be red carded/banned for deliberate foul play or reckless behavior that could better prevented based on the action at the time.

Lawes' tackle for example could be described as reckless (as he was unable to pull out regardless of what happened next) but he was already fully committed to the action when the player still had the ball at time when the action was legal.

Another example is Russell was told he should of anticipated the player entering the air despite before that moment everything he was doing being perfectly legal within the laws of the game. Once that happened he was unable to do anything.

This again is another example of that a player is already committed to an action, unaware North's head is there, in turn he is unable to pull out of the collision in time to prevent it or minimize impact.


If a player is unable to pull out of what otherwise been a legal action after events unfolded it is not reckless just unfortunate.

Players are gonna get knocked about in rugby, knee will hit heads as long as players are not deliberately injuring players or doing there best not to once they can see what is going to happen they shouldn't be penalised.

- - - Updated - - -

Infact this exactly what yellow cards are for, deliberate dangerous foul play is a red, unintentional dangerous foul play is a yellow.

The only time it should be increased from yellow to red is if the player is seen to be aware of his unintended actions and not taken a course of action to prevent it.

- - - Updated - - -

I like Haskell's comments at the end

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/31/wasps-nathan-hughes-dai-young

 

[Raggs]

If Hughes was trying to kick the ball, it's a red and a ban for outcome.

I don't believe he was. To me he looks like he's trying to stop running, and simply can't do it in time. His right leg (that hits North) is nowhere near the ball, and North gets turned into him, there's no way he could be thought to have been kicking at the ball. If he's not kicking at the ball he's either kicking at North, or trying to stop. The fact Lawes pats him on the back suggests Lawes, who was very well placed in real time, saw nothing wrong with it. The fact no Saints went for Hughes really suggests to me they 100% believe there was nothing more than an accident.

 

[ncurd]

Yet of course it's a 4 week ban With one week off for previous good behavior....

Not intentional but 'reckless' we're really going to shoot ourselves in the foot with these decisions soon.

I really really hate reckless being the be all word for this rubbish as nothing is explained about what reckless about their actions. Same happened with Russell.