Sorry, this story is unavailable
@ sandal - you could well be right. I hope not, but a cynic (or conspiricy theorist) would argue otherwise. With good reason too.
One thing's for sure, what we all want is consistency across the board. Regardless of who, when or where, the outcome should be consistent. I appreciate that every incident is unique, but there are some which are very similar, yet receive very different results. THAT'S where the issue is.
Posted 16:47 01st June 2012
Common sense? Let's hope so.
But if the committee made the right decision, there are plenty of precedents to suggest that they made it for the wrong reasons.
Posted 10:47 01st June 2012
@ crunchfit - "Clearly there's something influencing the citing panel." Yep. It's called common sense. Nice change, isn't it?
Posted 11:27 31st May 2012
I'm not sure how citing panels work in terms of their jurisdiction.
The incident happened in an RFU controlled game, internationals are IRB and European by ERC (although they all seem to have Jeff Blackett's fingerprints on the judgement documents)
Is it reasonable to assume that each governing body has their own set of rules. I disagree that the RFU are inconsistent with their rulings but may be out of step with IRB or ERC rulings and vice versa. I wonder if those panels work to different guidelines?
Posted 11:01 31st May 2012
@ sandal - neither are WE used to such sensible decisions..! Which is why this should be applauded and held out as a lone beacon in the mire that is Rugby Disciplinary panels.
@ lawynd - try as I might, I couldn't find a way to agree with the decision, yet still blame Cockers for all of the world's evils. Bear with me, though, I'm still working on it... ;-)
Other than those obvious England-bashers, it appears that we all agree. It was a hard but fair tackle, with no malice or attempt to deliberately hurt. This is what we all love about rugby, surely?! Crunching tackles; great off-loads, fleet-of-foot line-breaks; hard-fought scrums; and so on. So why the nonsense here? It was a great tackle. Any difference between that and Laulala's hit on Farrell? Not a lot, except for who Farrel plays for, eh..?!
Posted 10:18 31st May 2012
At the current standards, that tackle is a red card and probably a ban. Manu was let off very lightly before and it's happened again. There's been bans for much less worse tackles. Clearly there's something influencing the citing panel.
That said, I really want to see him play. I just think this situation shows that citing panels are influenced by outside forces.
It would be great to see a better way of penalising these tackles. Too bad I can't think of any...
Posted 10:14 31st May 2012
to coin a round-ball expression "I've seen em given".
When I got into rugby the referee was considered the final arbiter of fact on the field of play. You went on to the pitch knowing that, right or wrong, his attitude was the only one that mattered. You just prayed that he would apply it consistently allowing you the opportunity of at least managing your own play within his opinion.
I've long since stopped playing but it seems that, now we have hi-motion replays, citing commissions and referee review panels it seems that referees not only have to judge incidents by their own standards but that of their peers too. The IRB have tried to remove any doubt by issuing "directives" but that has meant that referees have no choice meaning nonensical decisions such as the Warburton one (ref was right, rule was wrong) and indecision from officials whos' personal opinions are directly at conflict with IRB directives (Barnes, Ireland v Wales).
Personally I think that citing should only be used if the commissioner feels that the act was deliberate or malicious.
In my opinion, the Tuilagi tackle was clumsy but a product of big heavy object hitting smaller lighter object rather than a deliberate lift, no-one was hurt and no-one appears to have complained unduly on the park. Barnes did the right thing by having a quick word, it would appear that Lancaster has taken it a step further by having a few more words.
Common sense has prevailed.
Posted 22:51 30th May 2012
Can't believe people think this was even worthy of a ban. Seen worse get a yellow card and nothing more. Yeah, really biased by the rfu there!!!
Posted 16:41 30th May 2012
For once I agree with kenttaff, he's spot-on. It wasn't even worthy of note during the game, let alone after it. Any opportunity for a pop though, at England or Tigers, eh chaps?
Posted 14:03 30th May 2012
I'm a South African and i think that that is a great tackle. He doesn't drive Care into the ground, he realises he has gone too high and brings him down totally safely. Conspiracy theorists on the internet? Quelle surprise...
Posted 13:37 30th May 2012
I think all nations enjoy these sorts of decisions from time to time:
Tana Umaga and Keven Mealamu on O'Driscoll?
Schalk Burger on Luke Fitzgerald?
Just two high-profile examples. Then you have various South Sea Island teams' brand of 'tackling' without wrapping the arm around that often goes unpunished.
Besides I'm not sure that Manu is bolt-on to even get into the starting 15 - he hasn't had the best of seasons and Lancaster does tend to pick on form - we shall see. For once we have options in the backs and for me this tour is as much about experimentation and finding combinations as it is about actually coming away with a series win.
And I think most of the English rugby public would agree - which takes pressure off the team and hopefully helps the process.
Plus if our RFU can help us a bit - why not! It is nothing that any other RFU wouldn't do!
All we need to do now is get Steffon Armitage back playing after the tour for the 6 Nations and I think England will be in a very, very good place (win, lose of draw to the Saffas).
Posted 13:08 30th May 2012
You might be right in all you say.
But consider that players with the rooster or the springbok or the silver fern on their jersey are not accustomed to such good sense from judicial committees in your neck of the woods. So they, at least, might be disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Consider, too, that of late the fixtures calendar seems to have been a common determinant in settling penalties for those who bear the red rose.
Still, it would be nice if you are right.
Posted 13:08 30th May 2012
APV1, you're wasting your time. The anti English brigade are not interested in good reasoning. They feed off your outrage. Ignore them.
Posted 12:34 30th May 2012
It shouldn't be this messy, but if you let the media bully you, have about a million different people doing the same job with different philosophies on the severity of the issue, then inconsistance will rule and its going to be a god awful mess. next weekend a referee is going to be in a more beligerent state of mind and it WILL be a red card. People are individuals.
Posted 11:56 30th May 2012
anyone know where I can see the tackle without having to watch the whole game.
The photo on PR looks very similar to the Ferris tackle against Wales. seem to remember Wayne Barnes getting an absolute slating for that decision.
Posted 11:36 30th May 2012
At least the old farts have got one key role in English rugby - turning a blind eye on disciplinary issues when important matches are imminent seems to be their speciality.
Posted 10:35 30th May 2012
All of those who critisise the decision, need to review the footage again. I was expecting a ban, not because he deserves one but because the disciplinary system is a shambles. But on this occasion, they got it right.
You all want there to be a conspiricy, especially as it's another opposrtunity to bash England and English rugby. But this was the correct decision. In the past the decisions have been bonkers, but this time it was right.
I'm trying to think of any other ways I can express the same sentiment...
History = poor decisions.
Yesterday = good decision.
Watch footage = informed opinion.
I'm not going to claim that I'm not pleased that he's available to tour, but I'm more pleased with the disciplinary panel coming to the correct decision.
@ Dafydd29 - where's Toby Faletau from again..? Pots. Kettles. Very dark colours. Idiot trolling posters. These are the things that spring to mind.
Posted 10:14 30th May 2012
As an Englishman I am appalled but not surprised at the decision. The RFU disciplinary panel have proven themselves to be utterly gutless yet again.
However, as he does consistantly for Tigers, now watch him give away penalty after penalty on tour. He's worth 6-9 points for any opposition!
What a waste of potential...
Posted 09:40 30th May 2012
Good call Manu is the only real weapon in the English squad. Still sa should easily take this.
Posted 09:32 30th May 2012
have people gone soft or something. i cant believe he was even cited, that was not a dangerous tackle, neither was the way he brought him down in the split second he had to make a decision. are people forgetting its a contact/collision sport?
Posted 09:22 30th May 2012