Cardiff Blues v Northampton Saints

Discussion in 'European Champions & Challenge Cup' started by Teh Mite, Dec 13, 2010.

  1. TrueSlawter

    TrueSlawter Bench Player

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    584
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Bullitt when rush was commited to the tackle lawes was still standing it literally a second or two before the hit that lawes hits so I dont see how you can say its rush's fault, if he pulled out he would've ran right into lawes of which at the speed he's traveling and the time to react would've been hard to pull off..

    Franklin - Eye gouging is seen as more serious as you can blind someone I guess, not entirely sure why its ban's are longer than intentional dangerous tackles
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. Teh Mite

    Teh Mite TRF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,890
    Location:
    Northampton, England
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    ********.

    The judgement in full:


    Xavier Rush, the Cardiff Blues player (No 8), appeared before an independent Disciplinary Hearing in Bristol today (Wednesday, 22 December, 2010) as a result of the red card he received during the Heineken Cup Pool 1 match against Northampton Saints at Cardiff City Stadium on Sunday, 19 December, 2010.

    The red card was issued in the 55th minute of the second half by referee Jerome Garces (France) for a dangerous tackle above the line of the shoulders on Northampton Saints lock Courtney Lawes (No 4) in contravention of Law 10.4 (e).

    Mr Rush was accompanied by Cardiff Blues Chief Executive Robert Norster and, after reviewing all angles, the match officials’ reports and hearing from the player and his representative and ERC Disciplinary Officer Roger O’Connor, the independent Judicial Officer, Christopher Quinlan (England), determined that the tackle was at the low entry point of two (2) weeks.

    The independent Judicial Officer found it was a recklessly effected tackle with no intent by Mr Rush to make contact as high as he did. There was also no intent to cause injury, and Mr Lawes appeared to almost be on one knee at the time of impact.


    The independent Judicial Officer considered there were no aggravating factors and he accepted that Mr Rush pleaded guilty, that he had an excellent record, that he showed remorse and that he conducted himself well at the hearing. This mitigation resulted in a one (1) week reduction from the entry point of two (2) weeks.

    Mr Rush is therefore suspended for one week up to and including 27 December and is free to play on 28 December.

    Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous tackle - A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously
    Under the IRB Recommended Sanctions for Offences Committed within the Playing Enclosure, Law 10.4 (e) – Dangerous tackle carries the following penalties: Lower End: 2 weeks. Middle Range: 6 weeks. Top End: 10+ weeks. Maximum Sanction: 52 weeks
     
  4. franklin

    franklin Academy Player

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    once again rees is not being done for gouging!!!can nobody grasp my point look at both incidents video of both is on here.which is worse answer rush's tackle who will get the longer ban answer rees. this is the problem i have...
    its common sense not too many people would deem rees actions worse than rush's so why do the authorities.
    say what you like and laugh if you like rush could have killed lawes can you say the same about rees on hartley???.
    its about time bans were dished out from the evidence not a rule book!!!!!!! thats my point.
     
  5. TRF_Olyy

    TRF_Olyy English Arrogance

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    35,725
    Location:
    Lichfield(ish), UK
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Sale

    Hartley could've gone blind/lost an eye.
    Having fingers digging around in your eye/dragging you backwards by it is not pleasant…
     
  6. Dougydeluxe

    Dougydeluxe Academy Player

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    408
    Country Flag:

    Canada

    Club or Nation:

    Scotland

    Rush got off easy. It should have been two weeks.
     
  7. franklin

    franklin Academy Player

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    my last comment on this.

    if the rugby laws deem rees challenge worse than rush's then the law is an ass.

    ps
    as for the bit in the judgement about rush showed remorse and conducted himself well,what did they expect him to do run round the table giving each of them a courtney lawes clothes line.......laughable.
     
  8. Bluemoon

    Bluemoon First XV

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,724
    Location:
    Cardiff
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Club or Nation:

    Cardiff

    I think that Rush had committed to the tackle and it was unlucky that Lawes had dropped to one knee causing the high hit. As said earlier if Lawes hadn't dropped we'd all be saying what a great hit it was!

    It did hit him high though and I have no conplaints about the Red as that was the descion made by the touch judge and referee.
     
  9. Shaggy

    Shaggy First XV

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    3,095
    Location:
    Golden Bay, New Zealand
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    New Zealand

    I don't care who the player is, or what team they play for

    ... Fingers do not belong around or in anyone else's eye socket

    ... heads have know business butting other heads

    ... high tackles, spear tackles, tackling with no arms

    They are all dangerous and illegal, and should be dealt with appropriately - whether any of these actions are intentional or not, should only have relevance to how much time a player gets suspended for, not whether they should get suspended or not.

    Rush's punishment is so light because he got punished on the field already with the red card, and because of his previous good record
     
  10. TRF_Cymro

    TRF_Cymro Cymro The White

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    13,903
    Location:
    Wales
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Club or Nation:

    Barbarians

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/my_club/cardiff_blues/9310287.stm

    Rees has been charged for gouging. Rees will get punished and for me if there is more evidence than that video that Bullitt posted, to which I presume there is then his ban will be a lengthy one and a long one it should, I presume you have never been gouged in your life? I can tell you taking a big hit is not as bad as a gouge, gouging can lead to loss of sight.

    Also please point out my excuses for Rush. The tackle was high, end of :)
     
  11. Teh Mite

    Teh Mite TRF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,890
    Location:
    Northampton, England
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    Don't believe the BBC article as gospel - They are notorious for being sensationalist and lazy in their reporting. The charge is "Making contact with the eye area", not "gouging".
     
  12. franklin

    franklin Academy Player

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    well i have tried telling cymro this but for some reason its not registering with him.
    if what rees is doing is gouging i would have that done to me everytime rather than that shameful hit from rush.
     
  13. TRF_Cymro

    TRF_Cymro Cymro The White

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    13,903
    Location:
    Wales
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Club or Nation:

    Barbarians

    Well just like to point out to both of you that I have on good merit from a good source down at the Blues that Rees could face the maximum 156 weeks because the incident is 'making contact with the eye area'

    http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17090730_8711.pdf - if you type in gouging .... its not there if you type in 'Contact with Eyes' it will appear.

    The laws of rugby union define foul play as: "Anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game". Specifically, they state that "A player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent".

    International Rugby Board Regulations provide for punishment for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent.

    Although this is usually called "eye-gouging" by the media, fans and players, the term "gouging" is not used in the IRB's laws or regulations, which do list degrees of gravity of the offence. The IRB themselves have used the term in a 2009 statement: "The IRB are firmly of the view there is no place in rugby for illegal or foul play and the act of eye-gouging is particularly heinous"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-gouging_(rugby_union)#cite_note-REG17-2

    Therefore gouging is making contact with the eye :)
     
  14. Teh Mite

    Teh Mite TRF Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,890
    Location:
    Northampton, England
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    Let's clear this up Rob, being as you love to argue now for the sake of it now there's a bug up your arse.

    Examples of Gouges by definition:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Making contact with the eye area:
    [​IMG]

    Big difference. A gouge is a deliberate attempt to hook the eye out. Contact with the eye area is just that. Lazy journalists and sensationalists try to blend the pair.
     
  15. TRF_Cymro

    TRF_Cymro Cymro The White

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    13,903
    Location:
    Wales
    Country Flag:

    Wales

    Club or Nation:

    Barbarians

    Fine ok whatever, the IRB Regulations still call it 'Contact with Eyes or the Eye Area' and not gouging :)
     
  16. franklin

    franklin Academy Player

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    right cymro all the pictures above are gouging clearly not what rees is doing.

    now you have in a previous post stated that sorces at cardiff blues say rees is looking at a 156 week ban.

    if that is the case then i rest my case 156 weeks for a push in the face and 1 week for GBH. somethings not right is it.
     
  17. TRF_Olyy

    TRF_Olyy English Arrogance

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    35,725
    Location:
    Lichfield(ish), UK
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Sale

    Now you're just putting words in his mouth,
    He said a MAXIMUM of 156weeks, which is maximum for "making contact with the eyes"
    The rulebook doesn't differentiate between making contact and actualy fish-hooking the eye, hence the maximum being the same for the two offences, it's upto the citing commision to differentiate and hand out an appropriately lengthed ban
     
  18. franklin

    franklin Academy Player

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    156 weeks or 6 weeks my point is still the same he will be banned for longer than rush for half the crime..
     
  19. TRF_Olyy

    TRF_Olyy English Arrogance

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    35,725
    Location:
    Lichfield(ish), UK
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Sale

    Could be (probably has been) argued that Lawes slipped into the tackle whereas Hartley didn't jam his face into Rees hands, but hey ho,
    Let's wait to see what Rees gets before arguing about it,
    If he gets no ban at all, then maybe we can all unite in the spirit of Christmas and project our hatred towards the ERC Citing Officers? :p
     
  20. franklin

    franklin Academy Player

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Northampton

    i agree but i do fear for rees i have a feeling rush has used up all the blues luck with the erc.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page

-->