Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
England Training Squad
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Peat" data-source="post: 728307" data-attributes="member: 42330"><p>I am in agreement with this.</p><p></p><p>Managers have taken players they knew would miss games to the World Cup before. It is an option. In any case, Lancaster's statement has completely left the door open on Hartley joining the squad during the World Cup should there be an injury and he match fit, regardless of his discipline issues and last warning. There is nothing of principle in that.</p><p></p><p>So far, he has had three players have suspensions that would mean they would miss international duty; Clark and Hartley x 2. None of them have served anything more than what the citing officer gave them, despite one man being given a ludicrously, unjustly short ban, and the other being on a final warning. Or, to put it another way, I do not believe the evidence shows Lancaster has *ever* banned or punished a player based on their on field misdemeanours. Even the current case of Hartley only lasts as long as his ban.</p><p></p><p>As for Tuilagi - I agree with anyone looking at Phillips and Savea and saying "What real difference?" I do see a genuine case for asking whether any other union would have taken that stance.</p><p></p><p>I believe I've said this before, but I'll say it again - I believe England's moral stance here is sponsor-driven rather than Lancaster-driven. Even if Lancaster really, truly believes with all his soul in this, which I find hard to buy given his attitude to on the field disciplinary issues but am willing to believe for the sake of argument, the sponsors were in the RFU's ear before Lancaster was ever appointed; England's stance was created before Lancaster ever took over.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Peat, post: 728307, member: 42330"] I am in agreement with this. Managers have taken players they knew would miss games to the World Cup before. It is an option. In any case, Lancaster's statement has completely left the door open on Hartley joining the squad during the World Cup should there be an injury and he match fit, regardless of his discipline issues and last warning. There is nothing of principle in that. So far, he has had three players have suspensions that would mean they would miss international duty; Clark and Hartley x 2. None of them have served anything more than what the citing officer gave them, despite one man being given a ludicrously, unjustly short ban, and the other being on a final warning. Or, to put it another way, I do not believe the evidence shows Lancaster has *ever* banned or punished a player based on their on field misdemeanours. Even the current case of Hartley only lasts as long as his ban. As for Tuilagi - I agree with anyone looking at Phillips and Savea and saying "What real difference?" I do see a genuine case for asking whether any other union would have taken that stance. I believe I've said this before, but I'll say it again - I believe England's moral stance here is sponsor-driven rather than Lancaster-driven. Even if Lancaster really, truly believes with all his soul in this, which I find hard to buy given his attitude to on the field disciplinary issues but am willing to believe for the sake of argument, the sponsors were in the RFU's ear before Lancaster was ever appointed; England's stance was created before Lancaster ever took over. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
England Training Squad
Top