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
Rugby Union
United Rugby Championship
Pro12: Round 20
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="psychic duck" data-source="post: 564744" data-attributes="member: 48703"><p>Citing commissioner is an utter disgrace.</p><p></p><p>From RaboPro12: "The incident was viewed by citing commissioner Eddie Walsh to be careless and nothing more. It was decided that he was making a genuine attempt to kick the ball, and there was no deliberate intent."</p><p></p><p>Fair enough ... but then why doesn't that is complete double standards to other incidents that have bans.</p><p></p><p>This was given a 4 week ban. Yet why didn't what's the difference? Why couldn't this be ruled as "careless and nothing more, it was decided that he was making a genuine attempt to tackle the player, and there was no deliberate intent".</p><p></p><p><img src="http://images4.hiboox.com/images/0212/diapo1f3aecdd4bdf2b0cd84efe4641ae6e29.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>Or why when this was given a 4 week ban? There was no deliberate intent here and he was making a genuine attempt to make a tackle. Same with Warburton tackle on Clerc, that was just "careless and nothing more" with "no deliberate intent". So why should a kick to the head be different? </p><p></p><p><img src="http://oi41.tinypic.com/5n6sxw.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>I would have no problem with them not banning POC as he didn't have deliberate intent, but then they have to be consistent as well. But it seems there is one rule for kicking a player in the head and another for tackling.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Precisely.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No his foot 100% hit Kearney's head first. See the gif, that is Kearney' head before the ball.</p><p></p><p><img src="http://i45.tinypic.com/25iacf8.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="psychic duck, post: 564744, member: 48703"] Citing commissioner is an utter disgrace. From RaboPro12: "The incident was viewed by citing commissioner Eddie Walsh to be careless and nothing more. It was decided that he was making a genuine attempt to kick the ball, and there was no deliberate intent." Fair enough ... but then why doesn't that is complete double standards to other incidents that have bans. This was given a 4 week ban. Yet why didn't what's the difference? Why couldn't this be ruled as "careless and nothing more, it was decided that he was making a genuine attempt to tackle the player, and there was no deliberate intent". [IMG]http://images4.hiboox.com/images/0212/diapo1f3aecdd4bdf2b0cd84efe4641ae6e29.gif[/IMG] Or why when this was given a 4 week ban? There was no deliberate intent here and he was making a genuine attempt to make a tackle. Same with Warburton tackle on Clerc, that was just "careless and nothing more" with "no deliberate intent". So why should a kick to the head be different? [IMG]http://oi41.tinypic.com/5n6sxw.jpg[/IMG] I would have no problem with them not banning POC as he didn't have deliberate intent, but then they have to be consistent as well. But it seems there is one rule for kicking a player in the head and another for tackling. Precisely. No his foot 100% hit Kearney's head first. See the gif, that is Kearney' head before the ball. [IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/25iacf8.gif[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
United Rugby Championship
Pro12: Round 20
Top