Viewing comments for xxxwookie« back to profile

Ian Evans facing suspension after red card for stamp on Mike McCarthy

'intent' is much more a question for the disciplinary panel to ascertain. The citing commissioner is there to ascertain if something may be considered foul play, but I think some of them are just lazier than others.

With regards to stamping and trampling the laws are fairly clear. law 10.4b indicates that players should not stamp on or trample the opposition. There's obvious lee-way, as there is with anything and referees will allow players to use their boot to try to remove players covering the ball and the referee will ping anything they deem excessive with a penalty. However, more direct and obvious attacks, putting weight into it, stamping on sensitive areas like the head/knees/ankles or hands usually draws more interest, particularly towards the cards and bans (think the Cían Healey stamp on Dan Cole's ankle).

I thought the stamp on Barrit in the Connaught match deserved more attention than it got. It was almost certainly in the head area and was reckless and I think warranted a longer look by a disciplinary panel.

The rule that a lot of people have to be aware of here, including Ian Evans is 10.4L - A player shall not retaliate. Even if the opposition is doing something illegal they must not do anything to endanger them

2 Months, 3 Weeks ago

Ian Evans facing suspension after red card for stamp on Mike McCarthy

He wasn't in the wrong place illegally - like I say, he binds straight on the ball carrier, in the process of the tackle the ball is passed back. He had every right to make that tackle and go to ground.

2 Months, 3 Weeks ago

Ian Evans facing suspension after red card for stamp on Mike McCarthy

Apologies, I've been looking at the wrong boots (number 4 needs looking at too.)

Looking at Evans' body position though, in that position, you'd be going for closer to a seated postion with your feet a long way in front of your body, pushing in with your heels, not straight down as his feet go. He starts off doing it right as youcan see, but when he comes to McCarthy, he takes the opportunity.

2 Months, 3 Weeks ago

Ian Evans facing suspension after red card for stamp on Mike McCarthy

McCarthy grabbed the ball carrier and pulled him to the ground. It's a tackle and completely legitimate, but the catcher puts the ball back quickly.

Look at the way Evans' foot goes down. When you're mauling, your feet go down at a backward angle to drive forwards in short steps. The gains are inch by inch. You also don't want to be on one foot. What you see of Evans' foot is for one he massively over reaches. His foot (striped boot) goes forward, rakes at the face a few times and then you see it go much further back as he continues with a normal forward drive, miles away from McCarthy's face.

I'm in no doubt he's gone out of his way to give a shoeing, he's connected with the face and that makes it reckless and a long way against the rules. It's not new that stamping isn't cool. 15 years ago, Austin Healey got an 8 week ban for a simiilar stamp that connected with someone's face. Rugby is a tough sport, but it's also a gentleman's sport. Face up to someone if you want to do something, don't do it while they're prone on the floor and you think you might get away with it. That's a footballer thing to do.

2 Months, 3 Weeks ago

Ian Evans facing suspension after red card for stamp on Mike McCarthy

McCarthy joins first and strips off the front of the maul as an individual which is legitimate. The maul then runs over him.

If there's one boot to the head, it's possibly an accident as the maul drives over. However, there are too many shots to argue a reasonable defence. It's also not a natural manner for him to be driving forward. Standing on one foot repeatedly sudding someone's head without putting weight into it. Whether he's looking or not, he knows he's stamping. Best option - plead guilty, hope the red card is considered in mitigating circumstances and take a 6 week ban.

2 Months, 3 Weeks ago

Tevita Kuridrani receives five week suspension for dangerous tackle

Under the laws, Lifting somebody through the horizontal is a penalty. Bringing them to ground such that their head or shoulders come into contact first is a yellow. Driving into the ground or dropping them is a red.

12 comes in on the tackle and keeps a leg to bring the player to the ground. 13 proceeds to take the other leg and lift, ensuring the player moves through the horizontal. He continues to hold the leg driving the head into the ground.

Dangerous, red card ban followed up approprietly.

4 Months, 3 Weeks ago

Midweek Madness - Damien Traille takes a dive and gets player sinbinned

Tap and go, absolutely no attempt to return to an onside position before making a tackle, that's a 10/10 yellow card.

7 Months, 3 Weeks ago

Bakkies Botha injures Marcos Ayerza with big charge towards tryline

Actually, it does. It is proper procedure. You're saying there is no case based on the lack of evidence from precisely no TV angle where there is a decent view of it. Procedure is that if a coach makes a complaint and requests that an incident be reviewed, he reports it to a citing commissioner. The citing commissioner viewed it and decided it was worth looking into. The panel rejected it based on not looking at it any further. You got me wrong in assuming I said there was evidence from those angles. What I was clearly pointing out is that there isn't and Cockerill's complaint should have the panel at least look to see if there is a case

Again, Lomu was an utterly different situation. He legitimately handed off Mike Catt, England did not complain, no review was required. In this case, right or wrong, Cockerill thinks there was an incident of foul play you review it. If there's no case to answer after a review, then nothing happens, but I can understand Cockerill being frustrated that it's not even been looked at beyond the citing commissioner who agreed from footage that it was worth looking at.

Leicester are not the first team to report an incident themselves and getting Botha banned does not help them one bit, but it does give them closure as to whether or not a foul was commited that has put a player out for the rest of the season.

1 Year, 1 Day ago

Bakkies Botha injures Marcos Ayerza with big charge towards tryline

Wow, massively blown what I said out of proportion. Clever that, try reading what I said instead. End of the day, Cockerill went down the channels, reported it to the citing commissioner who reported it to the disciplinary committee who didn't bother to look at it at all. And no one can see why he's frustrated?

You can't see much from the initial TV angles, but the committee, should they look into it, would have access to more angles to decide what happened. Cockerill has a view that something illegal took place, maybe from his seat it looked worse. Why not look into it, it's just proper procedure. Better to check something out for foul play and it turn out not to be than to let it go ignored.

1 Year, 2 Days ago

Bakkies Botha injures Marcos Ayerza with big charge towards tryline

I think people are being overly harsh on Cockerill here. At the end of the day, Marcos is one of his guys and he is thoroughly disappointed for him. Breaking a collarbone is a season ender, in two places, the fear would be a career ender. I understand his frustration and disappointment. Also, he was very gracious in defeat for those saying he's a sore loser. He lost, he accepted it and was proud of the team. This is a separate issue from the loss altogether.

I can see what he's getting at, there could be something, other angles could further highlight it. The decision to not look further into it after the citing commissioner agreed it was worth looking into though is a further reason for his frustration, especially when they've looked so closely at someone spitting which left Peter Stringer wiping his eye.

I'm not saying Bakkies did anything wrong, but the decision to ignore it has riled Cockerill up and I think rightly so.

1 Year, 5 Days ago

 
Site Meter