It is currently Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:05 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending 
Author Message
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:39 pm
Posts: 35268
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
Abertawe Leinster wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
The citing panel clearly felt it was an accident. If they didn’t then the sentence would surely have been far worse.


It was an awful challenge Icey and he deserves the ban.

Sean

Yes I agree and I think I’ve already said as much. Im not debating the validity of the card or length of the ban. I’m simply making the point that it doesn’t have to be intentional to warrant a ban.

_________________
The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses - behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights. Muhammad Ali


Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:24 pm
Profile
World XV Player

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:50 am
Posts: 5989
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
ICEverything wrote:
The citing panel clearly felt it was an accident. If they didn’t then the sentence would surely have been far worse.

How can you penalise someone for an accident?


Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:32 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:41 pm
Posts: 30331
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
BigRed wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
The citing panel clearly felt it was an accident. If they didn’t then the sentence would surely have been far worse.

How can you penalise someone for an accident?
He should be penalized for bloody incompetence, deserves everything he 's got.

_________________
You cannot enslave my mind, therefore I will always be a free man.
I can count my true friends on the hairs on the palms of my hands.


Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:36 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:25 pm
Posts: 4418
Location: North of England
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
BigRed wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
The citing panel clearly felt it was an accident. If they didn’t then the sentence would surely have been far worse.

How can you penalise someone for an accident?


You penalise them for the consequences they cause.

The other guy didn't do it to himself.

Sean


Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:37 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:39 pm
Posts: 35268
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
BigRed wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
The citing panel clearly felt it was an accident. If they didn’t then the sentence would surely have been far worse.

How can you penalise someone for an accident?

It happens all the time. Let’s name some, I’ll start...

Warburton red v France in RWC...

_________________
The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses - behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights. Muhammad Ali


Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:43 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:25 pm
Posts: 4418
Location: North of England
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
ICEverything wrote:
BigRed wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
The citing panel clearly felt it was an accident. If they didn’t then the sentence would surely have been far worse.

How can you penalise someone for an accident?

It happens all the time. Let’s name some, I’ll start...

Warburton red v France in RWC...


Was it Payne got a red card in Belfast, a few years back?

Sean


Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:46 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:39 am
Posts: 11657
Location: Neath Valley
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
ICEverything wrote:
Abertawe Leinster wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
The citing panel clearly felt it was an accident. If they didn’t then the sentence would surely have been far worse.


It was an awful challenge Icey and he deserves the ban.

Sean

Yes I agree and I think I’ve already said as much. Im not debating the validity of the card or length of the ban. I’m simply making the point that it doesn’t have to be intentional to warrant a ban.



Im sorry but that makes no sense, it was clearly an awful challenge, however the laws of the game are to blame and not the player. The player is taking responsibility for the fact that the law of averages make such incidents inevitable and unavoidable due to the nature of such incidents, eyes up watching the ball fast moving, coached to jump.

_________________
"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”
"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for


Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:49 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:08 pm
Posts: 3396
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
Blindside wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
Abertawe Leinster wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
The citing panel clearly felt it was an accident. If they didn’t then the sentence would surely have been far worse.


It was an awful challenge Icey and he deserves the ban.

Sean

Yes I agree and I think I’ve already said as much. Im not debating the validity of the card or length of the ban. I’m simply making the point that it doesn’t have to be intentional to warrant a ban.



Im sorry but that makes no sense, it was clearly an awful challenge, however the laws of the game are to blame and not the player. The player is taking responsibility for the fact that the law of averages make such incidents inevitable and unavoidable due to the nature of such incidents, eyes up watching the ball fast moving, coached to jump.


The player has the choice not to make the challenge... he should have been more aware and tackled the opposing player when they hit the ground

These issues are worse when two players are not directly under the ball as the sideways momentum cause the problems.


Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:58 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:39 pm
Posts: 35268
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
Blindside wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
Abertawe Leinster wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
The citing panel clearly felt it was an accident. If they didn’t then the sentence would surely have been far worse.


It was an awful challenge Icey and he deserves the ban.

Sean

Yes I agree and I think I’ve already said as much. Im not debating the validity of the card or length of the ban. I’m simply making the point that it doesn’t have to be intentional to warrant a ban.



Im sorry but that makes no sense, it was clearly an awful challenge, however the laws of the game are to blame and not the player. The player is taking responsibility for the fact that the law of averages make such incidents inevitable and unavoidable due to the nature of such incidents, eyes up watching the ball fast moving, coached to jump.

Which bit doesn't make sense? You could say the laws of the game are to blame and allow for every poor challenge other than deliberate foul play.

_________________
The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses - behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights. Muhammad Ali


Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:07 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:39 am
Posts: 11657
Location: Neath Valley
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
ICEverything wrote:
Blindside wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
Abertawe Leinster wrote:
ICEverything wrote:
The citing panel clearly felt it was an accident. If they didn’t then the sentence would surely have been far worse.


It was an awful challenge Icey and he deserves the ban.

Sean

Yes I agree and I think I’ve already said as much. Im not debating the validity of the card or length of the ban. I’m simply making the point that it doesn’t have to be intentional to warrant a ban.



Im sorry but that makes no sense, it was clearly an awful challenge, however the laws of the game are to blame and not the player. The player is taking responsibility for the fact that the law of averages make such incidents inevitable and unavoidable due to the nature of such incidents, eyes up watching the ball fast moving, coached to jump.

Which bit doesn't make sense? You could say the laws of the game are to blame and allow for every poor challenge other than deliberate foul play.


It doesnt make sense because he could have made a good challenge for the ball but the other player made a fantastic challenge for the ball and you would have the same result. It doesnt make sense because it is avoidable, by stopping players jumping for the ball. When people set out to challenge they are not aware if it will be a successful challenge a poor challenge or a mistimed challenge, so percentagely you can never prevent this kind of collision completely. Once he left the floor he had no means of changing his direction, he was committed and could not pull out. When you jump to a ball you are forced to focus on the ball and not your opposition.

The dangers involved are very high, jumping for the ball is not an integral part of the game and if it was outlawed would not have a particularly detrimental effect on the game. If you allow people to jump unintentional outcomes are inevitable, its obvious and i cant see why everyone cant see it.

_________________
"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”
"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for


Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:38 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:37 pm
Posts: 11785
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
It is a prime event for potential serious injury.

It is, imo, right to encourage players to take prime care and attention when doing so.

I believe that the current approach is the correct one.

It belongs e.g with no arms tackles especially with shoulder emphasis ...again under increased scrutiny.

Both competition for the ball and tackling are integral parts of the game but penalising rashness and consequence of action is, imo, valid.

My reading of the incident was that Evans did not have compeitive height in the confrontation, the opponent was significantly nearer possesion and Evans took the legs clean away with or without intent. A potentially serious injury was mercifully avoided.

I don't think that there was intention to foul or incur injury but I do think it was ill advised and deserved the immediate penalty and the consequence.

And ...it was directly in line with current referee guidelines and emphasis

_________________
ImageEasy to consider past and present, it's the future and associated plan and strategy to achieve that takes the talent ..


Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:44 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:39 am
Posts: 11657
Location: Neath Valley
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
Tony Panties wrote:
It is a prime event for potential serious injury.

It is, imo, right to encourage players to take prime care and attention when doing so.

I believe that the current approach is the correct one.

It belongs e.g with no arms tackles especially with shoulder emphasis ...again under increased scrutiny.

Both competition for the ball and tackling are integral parts of the game but penalising rashness and consequence of action is, imo, valid.

My reading of the incident was that Evans did not have compeitive height in the confrontation, the opponent was significantly nearer possesion and Evans took the legs clean away with or without intent. A potentially serious injury was mercifully avoided.

I don't think that there was intention to foul or incur injury but I do think it was ill advised and deserved the immediate penalty and the consequence.

And ...it was directly in line with current referee guidelines and emphasis



To tackle with no arms is a decision you take, it may be to protect yourself or to injur but it is a decision you have control total control over. To challenge for the ball in the air is a high end skill, you do not see it outside of professional rugby. It is easy to mistime and misjudge, in effect it is an accident waiting to happen. That it was in line with guidelines i dont dispute at all. My point is that current guidelines are putting players at unacceptable risk. Both players are the victims ot the laws.

_________________
"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”
"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for


Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:50 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:37 pm
Posts: 11785
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
Blindside wrote:
Tony Panties wrote:
It is a prime event for potential serious injury.

It is, imo, right to encourage players to take prime care and attention when doing so.

I believe that the current approach is the correct one.

It belongs e.g with no arms tackles especially with shoulder emphasis ...again under increased scrutiny.

Both competition for the ball and tackling are integral parts of the game but penalising rashness and consequence of action is, imo, valid.

My reading of the incident was that Evans did not have compeitive height in the confrontation, the opponent was significantly nearer possesion and Evans took the legs clean away with or without intent. A potentially serious injury was mercifully avoided.

I don't think that there was intention to foul or incur injury but I do think it was ill advised and deserved the immediate penalty and the consequence.

And ...it was directly in line with current referee guidelines and emphasis



To tackle with no arms is a decision you take, it may be to protect yourself or to injur but it is a decision you have control total control over. To challenge for the ball in the air is a high end skill, you do not see it outside of professional rugby. It is easy to mistime and misjudge, in effect it is an accident waiting to happen. That it was in line with guidelines i dont dispute at all. My point is that current guidelines are putting players at unacceptable risk. Both players are the victims ot the laws.


and the alternative?

I dislike the current shape of the game à la RL continual breakdown with lines drawn irrespective of numbers on the back but so be it ...

If we start to radically change more of the game it will become less recognisable than ever.

One could say that the physique, fitness, muscular nature of the game has outstripped the laws of the game?

I suspect so and the injury aspect is worrying and differentials between positions and function and the numbers on the back are disappearing.

Apologies for broadening the extent of the subject of this thread but ultimately it cannot be treated in isolation?

_________________
ImageEasy to consider past and present, it's the future and associated plan and strategy to achieve that takes the talent ..


Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:08 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:39 am
Posts: 11657
Location: Neath Valley
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
Tony Panties wrote:
Blindside wrote:
Tony Panties wrote:
It is a prime event for potential serious injury.

It is, imo, right to encourage players to take prime care and attention when doing so.

I believe that the current approach is the correct one.

It belongs e.g with no arms tackles especially with shoulder emphasis ...again under increased scrutiny.

Both competition for the ball and tackling are integral parts of the game but penalising rashness and consequence of action is, imo, valid.

My reading of the incident was that Evans did not have compeitive height in the confrontation, the opponent was significantly nearer possesion and Evans took the legs clean away with or without intent. A potentially serious injury was mercifully avoided.

I don't think that there was intention to foul or incur injury but I do think it was ill advised and deserved the immediate penalty and the consequence.

And ...it was directly in line with current referee guidelines and emphasis



To tackle with no arms is a decision you take, it may be to protect yourself or to injur but it is a decision you have control total control over. To challenge for the ball in the air is a high end skill, you do not see it outside of professional rugby. It is easy to mistime and misjudge, in effect it is an accident waiting to happen. That it was in line with guidelines i dont dispute at all. My point is that current guidelines are putting players at unacceptable risk. Both players are the victims ot the laws.


and the alternative?

I dislike the current shape of the game à la RL continual breakdown with lines drawn irrespective of numbers on the back but so be it ...

If we start to radically change more of the game it will become less recognisable than ever.

One could say that the physique, fitness, muscular nature of the game has outstripped the laws of the game?

I suspect so and the injury aspect is worrying and differentials between positions and function and the numbers on the back are disappearing.

Apologies for broadening the extent of the subject of this thread but ultimately it cannot be treated in isolation?



I think it can be treated in isolation with the possible exception of the lifting players to take a kick off, however, i think that collision is avoidable of you exercise a duty of care, where the other is not. Its not even a traditional part the game, did JPR jump for the ball. The game would be safer without it if there is a life-changing injury the in a televised game it will be changed.

_________________
"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”
"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for


Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:19 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:37 pm
Posts: 11785
Post Re: Steff Evans: Scarlets wing given four-week ban after sending
Blindside wrote:
Tony Panties wrote:
Blindside wrote:
Tony Panties wrote:
It is a prime event for potential serious injury.

It is, imo, right to encourage players to take prime care and attention when doing so.

I believe that the current approach is the correct one.

It belongs e.g with no arms tackles especially with shoulder emphasis ...again under increased scrutiny.

Both competition for the ball and tackling are integral parts of the game but penalising rashness and consequence of action is, imo, valid.

My reading of the incident was that Evans did not have compeitive height in the confrontation, the opponent was significantly nearer possesion and Evans took the legs clean away with or without intent. A potentially serious injury was mercifully avoided.

I don't think that there was intention to foul or incur injury but I do think it was ill advised and deserved the immediate penalty and the consequence.

And ...it was directly in line with current referee guidelines and emphasis



To tackle with no arms is a decision you take, it may be to protect yourself or to injur but it is a decision you have control total control over. To challenge for the ball in the air is a high end skill, you do not see it outside of professional rugby. It is easy to mistime and misjudge, in effect it is an accident waiting to happen. That it was in line with guidelines i dont dispute at all. My point is that current guidelines are putting players at unacceptable risk. Both players are the victims ot the laws.


and the alternative?

I dislike the current shape of the game à la RL continual breakdown with lines drawn irrespective of numbers on the back but so be it ...

If we start to radically change more of the game it will become less recognisable than ever.

One could say that the physique, fitness, muscular nature of the game has outstripped the laws of the game?

I suspect so and the injury aspect is worrying and differentials between positions and function and the numbers on the back are disappearing.

Apologies for broadening the extent of the subject of this thread but ultimately it cannot be treated in isolation?



I think it can be treated in isolation with the possible exception of the lifting players to take a kick off, however, i think that collision is avoidable of you exercise a duty of care, where the other is not. Its not even a traditional part the game, did JPR jump for the ball. The game would be safer without it if there is a life-changing injury the in a televised game it will be changed.


BS That is possible but collision at speed still a danger?

PS I mentioned the no arms tackle because I think that the change in the shape of the game has allowed more of it even accidental.

Again if we go back to the modern rugby ...recycling, breakdown, 2 parallel lines or quick ball and confrontational attack ...line speed is of the essence and teams dont lie so deep now ...collisions occur quicker and even intent to tackle often results in bruising charges...often atttack encourages confrontation to break gain line and further recycle. Also backs have to commit more to this type of play and not left to the donkeys :D

The game is changing considerably and the laws can't cope with it ... prime example ...breakdown, mayhem rules and referee interpretations change regularly and laws still written are just abused and not actioned.

One could say out of control?

_________________
ImageEasy to consider past and present, it's the future and associated plan and strategy to achieve that takes the talent ..


Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: