• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England vs USA

O

O'Rothlain

Guest
So that makes it alright then, does it?

IT WAS A DANGEROUS TACKLE. STOP TRYING TO DEFEND IT BECAUSE YOU CANT.


There see what you've made me do now. I've gone and used block capitals. [/b]
Nate...it was reckless. End of story. [/b]

<strike>There is such massive difference between what the kiwis did to O'Driscoll and Emmerick did to Barker. That is all I'm saying. I don't believe, if you really examine the tackle that he went in with intent to do that. It was a textbook tackle...he got low and lifted up...unfortunately Barkley went topsy turvey and Emmerick released him instead of dropping him.
See it how you want...we'll obviously disagree...I can see how you'll always fight for your own countryman.
I just don't bleieve it was intentional, and I applaud Emmerick for releasing him as to not injur Barkley...it could have been a much, much worse scene had he held on to Olly and slammed him as our All Black friends did to my beloved Irish Legend.

</strike>Okay, Okay...EDIT...
I've watched the clip over and over now...and yes...from that angle, you can definately see it was dangerous.
So, I don't do it often, so lap it up, I was wrong. Bad way to end a great performance. I still stand by my statement that it's fortunate that Emmerick relased barkley and didn't slam him, but it was dangerous and you can see he intended to dump him.
 
S

SaintsFan_Webby

Guest
sure it was dangerous but please dont call foul play after you cheated us a try. [/b]



If you can't see the difference between missing out on a try and the chance of sustaining serious neck injury you really are in trouble.



Not one English fan has condoned Vickery's actions, but that incident doesn't mitigate the dangerous play of Emerick.
 
A

Ashton

Guest
sure it was dangerous but please dont call foul play after you cheated us a try.
[/b]

The plastic paddies are out in force today - pathetic.

Yeah not quite on the same level though were they? A girly trip and he rolled around like hed been shot.
 
D

DC

Guest
im not saying anything vs how severe the actually play was

but by laws of the game i'd say the emerick trip was much worse in how it took away all momentum from us, and the sure to be try.

and listen ******** if youre reffering to me as a "plastic paddy" you can go f*** yourself, honestly if you want to refer to me as a "plastic paddy" maybe you should get your ass off this forum.

f***ing c***.

and if either of you, webby or you ********, decided to read a few pages back you'd see that i am talking about it in the context of the laws of the game not the danger of the play. i dont condone spear tackles.
 
B

Bullitt

Guest
Listen <strike>lora</strike> Dustin, you're going on as if Vickery has gone unpunished for what happened. Observe the 2 game ban (although, if England were to really be punished, they'd have allowed the useless twat to continue playing).

Now, what you are implying is Vickary did, which was in no shape or form condolable although happens all the time at all levels of Rugby, was a case of gamesmanship and breaking the laws. What Emmick did however was not only break the laws, but nearly break another mans neck.

Paint it whichever colour you want (which will proberbly be <strike>Green</strike> Red next time <strike>Ireland</strike> Wales play), but the two incidents are completely incomparible and if anything else Emmick has got off extremely lightly only getting a 5 week ban. I've seen players get season long bans for much less.
 
A

AllezWasps

Guest
Is this still rumbling on?

Both players got punished, both were stupid mistakes (one more so than the other) and that should be the end of it.
 
S

shtove

Guest
Debatable whether Emerick intended to slam the head in to the ground, but he deliberately upended Barkley to show who was boss.

There was an incident in one of the warm up matches (Italy or Arg?), where a player took out a guy in the air as he was jumping - equally dangerous - and one of the attacking support players ignored the breaking ball to catch the guy before his head hit the ground. Players know how bad that stuff is, and the perp should show some honour and accept the full punishment without fuss.

Fans can huff and puff, but **** happens in the heat of the moment and if one of your players goes out through suspension then that's too bad.

The irritating thing is when the authorities pretend that nothing happened - that's why the Umaga Moment ****** off so many people. The ref and linesmen didn't see it, fair enough - but everyone else did, and nothing was done. Bad bad example.
 
K

klinthicum

Guest
If you think that looked like a rugby tackle then you, sir, are an idiot.


Don't try to pretend that you have any class addressing someone as sir and calling them an idiot in the same sentence.



Emerick, unlike Robinson and Vickery, approached the tackle with his shoulder-which is usually how rugby tackles occur. He actually placed his body on the line and got in front of the opposition and at least can claim to have approached the tackle as if it is was a rugby tackle.

Yes, he got carried away and appropriately was suspended.

I still think Robinson's tackle was more dangerous than Vickery's- which was more cheap and unfair than dangerous.


Yeah not quite on the same level though were they? A girly trip and he rolled around like hed been shot.


Travelling at full speed and cleats going directly into your leg... That hurts.

Girly? How about England's front row leader to scared to place a body on the amateur backline player.
 
B

Bullitt

Guest
If you think that looked like a rugby tackle then you, sir, are an idiot.


Don't try to pretend that you have any class addressing someone as sir and calling them an idiot in the same sentence.



Emerick, unlike Robinson and Vickery, approached the tackle with his shoulder-which is usually how rugby tackles occur. He actually placed his body on the line and got in front of the opposition and at least can claim to have approached the tackle as if it is was a rugby tackle.

Yes, he got carried away and appropriately was suspended.

I still think Robinson's tackle was more dangerous than Vickery's- which was more cheap and unfair than dangerous.


Yeah not quite on the same level though were they? A girly trip and he rolled around like hed been shot.


Travelling at full speed and cleats going directly into your leg... That hurts.

Girly? How about England's front row leader to scared to place a body on the amateur backline player. [/b]

Don't be a ***. Emmick used an illegal tackle (I'm starting to get fed up of informing what's illegal to yanks and what isn't) while Vickery shuck his leg out at someone who wrong footed him. Being as that was the only way the lazy fat c*** was going to get his man, he made the trip which was a colission of calf muscle to shin ("cleat to shin", my arse).

Besides, with the 3 defenders baring down on Emmick who was still outside the 22, he was never going to cross the whitewash, and even then an additional 7 points wouldn't have affected the result.
 
S

Substitute

Guest
To put it in simple terms think back to your school days. A trip in the playground was no big deal even if it stopped the kid acheivng something. Teachers might warn the child but the kids would generally sort it out.

Upending a kid and dropping on his head would not only have had the children enraged but the teachers as well, regardless of how good the dumper's technique was. And that's not teachers acting out of proportion, they are fully aware dropping someone on their head is more dangerous than tripping someone.

Emerick may have shaped up perfectly, he may have had perfect technique but that still does not excuse anyone dropping someone on the head, and does not measure to a trip; which Vickery was, quite rightly, also suspended for. Foul play isn't measured in how many points are cost, I hope it's something like the severity of injuries it could cause.

As for Vickery being girly, I think he is a crap rugby player, but he wasn't wussing out, he was beaten so he cheated, which again I do not condone.
 
S

stormmaster1

Guest
Debatable whether Emerick intended to slam the head in to the ground, but he deliberately upended Barkley to show who was boss.

[/b]



Sometimes foul play happens with little intent e.g. reflex putting your arm out after being beaten by a nifty side step can cause a nasty, if slightly unintentional high tackle. If bad tackles are more dangerous than intended, then punishment is still due, but more weeks suspension will clearly be given for intentional dangerous play.
 
J

jking151

Guest
I can't believe the guy who "speared" barkley is getting suspended. For all of the rugby is tougher and rougher than american football talk that i constantly hear being an american in NZ, there sure are a lot of restrictions on how you can "tackle" in rugby. suspended for tripping, LOL...just lol
 
O

O'Rothlain

Guest
I can't believe the guy who "speared" barkley is getting suspended. For all of the rugby is tougher and rougher than american football talk that i constantly hear being an american in NZ, there sure are a lot of restrictions on how you can "tackle" in rugby. suspended for tripping, LOL...just lol [/b]
There aren't restrictions in Football? This is where you are wrong...there are as many restrictions in our US game as Rugby. All sorts of rules on clipping on blocking techniques, ect, ect.
I've played both and Rugby is indeed the tougher of the two. Endurance + Physicality...it's jus a super intense sport. And...it's the better of the two.
 

Latest posts

Top