England

APV1 says...

@ 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

APV1 says...

@ 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

APV1 says...

@ 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

jamesliveinhope says...

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

lawynd says...

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

JamieTheProp says...

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

heart_of_oak says...

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

jamesliveinhope says...

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

APV1 says...

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

Melkiwi says...

Good call Manu is the only real weapon in the English squad. Still sa should easily take this.

Posted 09:32 30th May 2012