Thursday, March 27, 2008
Deacon Manu suspended for hit on Robin Sowden-Taylor
Sowden-Taylor may now need a shoulder operation and will have a scan on Thursday following an inconclusive X-ray.
The tackle, by former Chiefs & New Zealand Maori prop Manu, was deemed dangerous by the WRU Disciplinary Committee, although it was at the 'lower end' of the scale.
I'd say the suspension was more than likely influenced by the fact that Sowden-Taylor was unfortunate to get badly injured as a result. Good hit nine out of ten times. One problem though - he didn't have the ball, so it was badly mistimed by Manu.
Posted at 7:54 am | 42 comments
|
|
|
Viewing 42 comments
rolando March 27, 2008 7:22 am
Sowden-Taylor never actually got the ball!! He was tackled way before the ball arrived.. The tackle was clean and hard, and 100% legal if only Sowden-Taylor would have had the ball in his hands already..It was a mistimed tackle.. borderline yellow card in my opinion, at least a penalty, as he is just tackling a player without the ball.. you have to time it correctly!
rolando March 27, 2008 7:22 am
Sowden-Taylor never actually got the ball!! He was tackled way before the ball arrived.. The tackle was clean and hard, and 100% legal if only Sowden-Taylor would have had the ball in his hands already..It was a mistimed tackle.. borderline yellow card in my opinion, at least a penalty, as he is just tackling a player without the ball.. you have to time it correctly!
Sharky March 27, 2008 7:30 am
Yeah you're right about the bad timing actually Rolando. Mistiming a legal tackle shouldn't result in a two week suspension though should it? Just a thought.
Sharky March 27, 2008 7:30 am
Yeah you're right about the bad timing actually Rolando. Mistiming a legal tackle shouldn't result in a two week suspension though should it? Just a thought.
rolando March 27, 2008 7:46 am
Oh I completely agree with you Sharky.. I think it should have been a penalty.. maybe maybe a yellow card.. and nothing else.. Like the original poster said, the suspension is probably biased on the fact that Sowden-Taylor got injured on the play.. but maybe if he would have had the ball and got hit the same way, he would have probably gotten injured too anyways.. So the suspension is a little harsh to say the least!Greetings from sunny San Jose, Costa Rica where our small rugby culture is growing everyday!!
rolando March 27, 2008 7:46 am
Oh I completely agree with you Sharky.. I think it should have been a penalty.. maybe maybe a yellow card.. and nothing else.. Like the original poster said, the suspension is probably biased on the fact that Sowden-Taylor got injured on the play.. but maybe if he would have had the ball and got hit the same way, he would have probably gotten injured too anyways.. So the suspension is a little harsh to say the least!Greetings from sunny San Jose, Costa Rica where our small rugby culture is growing everyday!!
hackneygriffin March 27, 2008 8:15 am
Think Manu has been punished for injuring a prospective Welsh player rather than the hit, which is a nonsense.If we want to see hits like those put in by Chabal, Howlett and Lima, we have to accept that players will try to arrive as the ball arrives without thinking about playing it. As they have every right to. I'd imagine the reason a penalty was not awarded was that the ref thought the timing was extremely close. Which it was. There's no way, for me, that this is a yellow card, and certainly not a suspension.
hackneygriffin March 27, 2008 8:15 am
Think Manu has been punished for injuring a prospective Welsh player rather than the hit, which is a nonsense.If we want to see hits like those put in by Chabal, Howlett and Lima, we have to accept that players will try to arrive as the ball arrives without thinking about playing it. As they have every right to. I'd imagine the reason a penalty was not awarded was that the ref thought the timing was extremely close. Which it was. There's no way, for me, that this is a yellow card, and certainly not a suspension.
Sander March 27, 2008 8:15 am
RST probably got injured because he was tackled without the ball; he probably wasn't expecting to be hit yet.It would've been a good tackle, if he had the ball. It was stupid, but I don't know if a suspension was in order.
Sander March 27, 2008 8:15 am
RST probably got injured because he was tackled without the ball; he probably wasn't expecting to be hit yet.It would've been a good tackle, if he had the ball. It was stupid, but I don't know if a suspension was in order.
Will Topps March 27, 2008 8:41 am
I absolutely agree with Sharky and Rolando (wasn't that a cartoon?).Ever so slightly early, penalty nothing more, maybe, maybe a very harsh yellow.Great work by the Maori Turk!
Will Topps March 27, 2008 8:41 am
I absolutely agree with Sharky and Rolando (wasn't that a cartoon?).Ever so slightly early, penalty nothing more, maybe, maybe a very harsh yellow.Great work by the Maori Turk!
Fridge March 27, 2008 9:14 am
Very harsh. Bad bit of refing, should have been a penalty for tackling the man without the ball and nothing else. Perfect tackle otherwise, and to ban him is ridiculous!
Fridge March 27, 2008 9:14 am
Very harsh. Bad bit of refing, should have been a penalty for tackling the man without the ball and nothing else. Perfect tackle otherwise, and to ban him is ridiculous!
geraint March 27, 2008 11:30 am
Apart from being early the tackle wasn't that bad. It has to be said though that Manu shouldn't even be playing at this level anyway. He's rubbish.
geraint March 27, 2008 11:30 am
Apart from being early the tackle wasn't that bad. It has to be said though that Manu shouldn't even be playing at this level anyway. He's rubbish.
No.7 March 27, 2008 12:35 pm
What was the actual reason for it being deemed dangerous? (if someone could say the reason given rather than their opinion...)because other than the fact it looked slightly mistimed i wouldnt have said it warrented a two match ban.....unless of course the citing commisioner believed that he should have recieved a yellow and had to make an impact....interesting topic!
No.7 March 27, 2008 12:35 pm
What was the actual reason for it being deemed dangerous? (if someone could say the reason given rather than their opinion...)because other than the fact it looked slightly mistimed i wouldnt have said it warrented a two match ban.....unless of course the citing commisioner believed that he should have recieved a yellow and had to make an impact....interesting topic!
nick March 27, 2008 1:29 pm
this tackle is AWSOME why the hell is he suspended?
nick March 27, 2008 1:29 pm
this tackle is AWSOME why the hell is he suspended?
Sharky March 27, 2008 1:49 pm
No.7, it was apparently because he 'led with the head'.. something like that.
Sharky March 27, 2008 1:49 pm
No.7, it was apparently because he 'led with the head'.. something like that.
rich March 27, 2008 4:18 pm
when he makes the tackle he doesnt even look for the ball just lines him up and smashes him. thats why i think it was deemed dangerous
rich March 27, 2008 4:18 pm
when he makes the tackle he doesnt even look for the ball just lines him up and smashes him. thats why i think it was deemed dangerous
Anonymous March 27, 2008 4:33 pm
I can't agree with you about this tackle been "Good hit nine out of ten times". The tackler did use his arms AND THAT'S ILLEGAL.
Anonymous March 27, 2008 4:33 pm
I can't agree with you about this tackle been "Good hit nine out of ten times". The tackler did use his arms AND THAT'S ILLEGAL.
Anonymous March 27, 2008 6:05 pm
no way does that deserve a bana caution and maybe a yellowanother screw up by the IRB
Anonymous March 27, 2008 6:05 pm
no way does that deserve a bana caution and maybe a yellowanother screw up by the IRB
No.7 March 27, 2008 8:04 pm
Ah thanks Sharky!actually now you mention it id be inclined to agree.Rich im afraid you are mistaken in this sense:"when he makes the tackle he doesnt even look for the ball just lines him up and smashes him. thats why i think it was deemed dangerous"To do this is not actually illegal at all, there are many hits which show players having no intention of getting the ball....most of brian lima's to be honest. also having done a few tackles without looking for the ball myself i know the referee's have no problem with it.There was this one time........nah i wont bother actually lol!
No.7 March 27, 2008 8:04 pm
Ah thanks Sharky!actually now you mention it id be inclined to agree.Rich im afraid you are mistaken in this sense:"when he makes the tackle he doesnt even look for the ball just lines him up and smashes him. thats why i think it was deemed dangerous"To do this is not actually illegal at all, there are many hits which show players having no intention of getting the ball....most of brian lima's to be honest. also having done a few tackles without looking for the ball myself i know the referee's have no problem with it.There was this one time........nah i wont bother actually lol!
geraint March 27, 2008 9:39 pm
Won't be surprised if this is in the next "try savers rib breakers"(shoulder breakers) compilations.
geraint March 27, 2008 9:39 pm
Won't be surprised if this is in the next "try savers rib breakers"(shoulder breakers) compilations.
G-unit March 27, 2008 10:09 pm
I agree, my vote is for penalty, yellow? for bad timing? maybe. Two week suspension...ridiculous! if, he'd hit 1/2 a second later, when it touched RS-Taylor's hands, it would of been perfectly legal! all i got to say is Manu's Lawyer! sucks! or the citing commisioner is RST's uncle...
G-unit March 27, 2008 10:09 pm
I agree, my vote is for penalty, yellow? for bad timing? maybe. Two week suspension...ridiculous! if, he'd hit 1/2 a second later, when it touched RS-Taylor's hands, it would of been perfectly legal! all i got to say is Manu's Lawyer! sucks! or the citing commisioner is RST's uncle...
Digger March 28, 2008 10:17 am
Tackling the player without the ball, shoulder charge and not wrapping the player, leading with his head. Numerous offenses warranting the card, but more importantly, Manu should be taught how to properly tackle! Not only did he injure Sowden-Taylor, but he also could have seriously injured himself in the process. His head is almost below his hips, which is also illegal and could have resulted in a paralytic cervical injury.
Digger March 28, 2008 10:17 am
Tackling the player without the ball, shoulder charge and not wrapping the player, leading with his head. Numerous offenses warranting the card, but more importantly, Manu should be taught how to properly tackle! Not only did he injure Sowden-Taylor, but he also could have seriously injured himself in the process. His head is almost below his hips, which is also illegal and could have resulted in a paralytic cervical injury.
sharky March 31, 2008 1:13 am
digger, are you a farmer? cos seriously that was a load of bullshit right there!
sharky March 31, 2008 1:13 am
digger, are you a farmer? cos seriously that was a load of bullshit right there!
Kiwiback April 01, 2008 12:14 pm
I think a suspension is fair. As we saw a guy weighing in at 118kg, when mistimiming a tackle can cause serious damage. You can see that RST is looking at the ball and Manu just hits him so hard.If someone is injured as badly as RST is I think the other player has to be punished. You have to time your tackle so you hit the guy when he holds the ball and not a second or anything sooner!
Kiwiback April 01, 2008 12:14 pm
I think a suspension is fair. As we saw a guy weighing in at 118kg, when mistimiming a tackle can cause serious damage. You can see that RST is looking at the ball and Manu just hits him so hard.If someone is injured as badly as RST is I think the other player has to be punished. You have to time your tackle so you hit the guy when he holds the ball and not a second or anything sooner!
Commenting as Guest | Register or Login