Huget stamp, deliberate or not?

[FrenchFan]

yes what a hullabaloo over his one footie dive in an entire season

imagine if he gets tap tackled around the ankle on Saturday and has the cheek of going to ground, the whole stadium will rise in one voice: HE DIVED

what would happen to his twitter account then?

 

[Jbobo]

Christ, he did a dive once so have plenty of other people, it's rubbish but let it go already...

But dude, you're the one replying to literally every post on here. We know your position. Why don't you let it go?

Isn't always needing to have the last word considered a mental illness by some psychologists?

 

[YoungScud]

Jamie Cudmore picked up two suspensions in the 2010-11 season for Clermont - a 70-day ban for stamping on Jacques Burger and a 40-day ban after being found guilty of punching Perpignan's Gregory Le Corvec on the ground. Well, I never.

 

[bertiec]

hmmm

But dude, you're the one replying to literally every post on here. We know your position. Why don't you let it go?

Isn't always needing to have the last word considered a mental illness by some psychologists?

not married are you.

 

[Jbobo]

not married are you.

Nope. You'll understand my lack of patience for it then haha.

 

[TommiG88]

There's been some dodgy decisions regarding players of late.

I remember the Irish crying about Pape's knee though their player gets away with just a sin bin.

It's been a bad week or so for the integrity of rugby.

With the World Cup coming up, the unions are avoiding bans to keep their players free for it.

Hartley's head but was a tickle compared to huget's stamp.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

There's been some dodgy decisions regarding players of late.

I remember the Irish crying about Pape's knee though their player gets away with just a sin bin.

It's been a bad week or so for the integrity of rugby.

With the World Cup coming up, the unions are avoiding bans to keep their players free for it.

Hartley's head but was a tickle compared to huget's stamp.

I am suprised at the disparity, in Hertley's case he probably did little more than exchange dandruff with George yet he gets 4 weeks. Huget tries his hand (foot) at facial reconstruction and gets nothing at all.

 

[YoungScud]

I am suprised at the disparity, in Hertley's case he probably did little more than exchange dandruff with George yet he gets 4 weeks. Huget tries his hand (foot) at facial reconstruction and gets nothing at all.

I'd think the beaks are tired of seeing the embarrassment that is Hartley. It's hardly his first offence. He was actually cited and found guilty of something, something moreover which he actually did. In Huget's case, it's at least a matter of debate whether he deliberately offended or not. Further, they were being dealt with by different authorities. If you're really surprised, as opposed to just making a point, then you're not paying attention to the way things work in the world of rugby.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'd think the beaks are tired of seeing the embarrassment that is Hartley. It's hardly his first offence. He was actually cited and found guilty of something, something moreover which he actually did. In Huget's case, it's at least a matter of debate whether he deliberately offended or not. Further, they were being dealt with by different authorities. If you're really surprised, as opposed to just making a point, then you're not paying attention to the way things work in the world of rugby.

The thing is previous history should have no bearing on whether a citing happens or not, only on the length of the punishment. Stamping down hard on someones face is extremely dangerous and should automatically be looked at, regardless of whether you think there is intent or not. If Hartley is cited when there is obviously no harm done because they are strict on stuff relating to the head then they really should have looked at the Huget incident immediately.

 

[TommiG88]

The thing is previous history should have no bearing on whether a citing happens or not, only on the length of the punishment. Stamping down hard on someones face is extremely dangerous and should automatically be looked at, regardless of whether you think there is intent or not. If Hartley is cited when there is obviously no harm done because they are strict on stuff relating to the head then they really should have looked at the Huget incident immediately.

Agreed, I don't care if it's deliberate or not. You do not stamp on someone's head on like that.

Hughes got sent off for his accidental contact with north and huget was a lot worse.

 

[goodNumber10]

The thing is previous history should have no bearing on whether a citing happens or not, only on the length of the punishment. Stamping down hard on someones face is extremely dangerous and should automatically be looked at, regardless of whether you think there is intent or not. If Hartley is cited when there is obviously no harm done because they are strict on stuff relating to the head then they really should have looked at the Huget incident immediately.

AFAIA, It was looked at and deemed an accident, so he wasn't cited within the window so now he can't be cited post.

 

[TommiG88]

AFAIA, It was looked at and deemed an accident, so he wasn't cited within the window so now he can't be cited post.

I don't care if it's an accident. Pape's knee to the back looked more of an accident than that.

If Hartley had stamped there he would have been banned for a fair few number of weeks. Most premiership players would have been cited and subsequently banned. No doubt about it.

 

[YoungScud]

I don't care if it's an accident. Pape's knee to the back looked more of an accident than that.

If Hartley had stamped there he would have been banned for a fair few number of weeks. Most premiership players would have been cited and subsequently banned. No doubt about it.

Of course there's doubt about it. There might not be in your mind but there is in others. The fact we're debating it says that.

 

[JJFlash]

I am a Toulouse supporter and I consider Huget to be a very good winger, but ...... there is something about him I don't like. For instance, his "dive" against Bath, I think was unforgiveable and should have been dealt with strongly by his club. This stamping appeared to be deliberate, although maybe he didn't intend to connect with the player's face, as he did seem aware of the fact afterwards by appearing to apologise to the player.

 

[Tony Manx]

There's been some dodgy decisions regarding players of late.

I remember the Irish crying about Pape's knee though their player gets away with just a sin bin.

It's been a bad week or so for the integrity of rugby.

With the World Cup coming up, the unions are avoiding bans to keep their players free for it.

Hartley's head but was a tickle compared to huget's stamp.

Pape..........And a three week ban and reckon that seemed touch harsh but accepted!

 

[smartcooky]

The thing is previous history should have no bearing on whether a citing happens or not, only on the length of the punishment. Stamping down hard on someones face is extremely dangerous and should automatically be looked at, regardless of whether you think there is intent or not. If Hartley is cited when there is obviously no harm done because they are strict on stuff relating to the head then they really should have looked at the Huget incident immediately.

And you are quite rignt,. I post this earlier, in the Dylan Hartley thread

"The Citing Officer must make his decision based purely on the circumstances of the incident he is considering for citing.

Even when the cited player gets to the Judicial Hearing, the JO must not look at his disciplinary record until, if and after he has decided that he is guilty, and has settled on the entry level for the offence; Low End, Mid Range, Top End. (see Regulation 17 Appendix 1 for a list of ranges and offences)

It is only when they are considering the actual length of suspension tp be imposed that the player's record can be examined as it contents will help determine aggravating or mitigating factors."

 

[YoungScud]

Hartley has been a pro player for around ten years. It's staggering to think that, having served his latest ban, he will have spent over ten percent of that time (54 weeks, over a year!) being banned from playing, and having been found guilty of what amounts to a Grand Slam of serious offences. To paint him as anything short of a disciplinary nightmare beggars belief. He is the very worst kind of player, and four weeks, frankly, is lenient.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Hartley has been a pro player for around ten years. It's staggering to think that, having served his latest ban, he will have spent over ten percent of that time (54 weeks, over a year!) being banned from playing, and having been found guilty of what amounts to a Grand Slam of serious offences. To paint him as anything short of a disciplinary nightmare beggars belief. He is the very worst kind of player, and four weeks, frankly, is lenient.

Nobody is painting Hartley as anything but that, but that still doesn't have anything to do with Huget except that Hartley gets punished for a very minor incident involving heads whilst Hugets gets away completely with what looks like a deliberate stamp to someones face. With the 2 Irish players getting away with crap in the Baabaas game, it makes a mockery of the disciplinary proceedings.

 

[YoungScud]

Nobody is painting Hartley as anything but that, but that still doesn't have anything to do with Huget except that Hartley gets punished for a very minor incident involving heads whilst Hugets gets away completely with what looks like a deliberate stamp to someones face. With the 2 Irish players getting away with crap in the Baabaas game, it makes a mockery of the disciplinary proceedings.

It looked deliberate to me at first glance, but I've come to see it otherwise. What counts is what it looked like to a citing officer.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

It looked deliberate to me at first glance, but I've come to see it otherwise. What counts is what it looked like to a citing officer.

What counts is consistency, who is punished and how harshly is incredibly inconsistent in rugby, both in terms of bans and just on pitch refereeing. It needs to be sorted out. If you watch the Huget video slower, it definitely looks like a deliberate stamp. I know they say slow mo always looks worse but it gives you time to see him stamping down without being off balance.