rugbyunion
Latest News:

The COML Message Board

The place for discussion, debate and nonsense about Bath Rugby.

Join our new Facebook Group today!

New visitors please read the house rules before posting

Test your prognostications at our Prediction League


Thommy_s
Thommy_s (IP Logged)

Freddie Burns
10 October, 2017 19:54
3 week ban

 
wlatavg006
wlatavg006 (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
10 October, 2017 19:57
TB was expecting 4 weeks, anything less was a bonus.

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
10 October, 2017 20:00
4 week entry point, 25% for saying sorry etc... 2 weeks would have been nice, but no complaints from me!



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD

 
MESSAGES->author
spongey (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
10 October, 2017 20:40
Perhaps a tad harsh but I can't complain, was always going to be 2 or more and we've seen far bigger bans given out for similar things. It's a shame because I loved how we looked when we tried to attack with Freddie at 10, Hopefully Rhys will be back for the Scarlets which I'm sure he'll be up for.

 
MESSAGES->author
Rawce (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
10 October, 2017 21:12
Daft and pointless tackle, no problems with either the card or the ban. Looking forward to see what Josh can offer.

 
fat lock
fat lock (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
10 October, 2017 21:21
Well that's something he's got over GF.
No issue with the ban - a tackle that went wrong but still shouldn't have happened.
Quick apology serve your time and move on.
Still glad we've got him

 
opti
Optimist (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 08:20
Given that the ref could have given a yellow and not many people would have complained, a red card in itself was quite a big punishment - missing the entirety of 3 further games seems to me quite a lot for a player with afaik an unblemished record in terms of foul play.

 
robhumperson
Humpo (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 08:34
The entry level ban for a tip tackle has gone from 4 to 6, hence why Freddie was given a 3, not 2 week ban (50% off for clean record and remorse).

Shame, but them be the rules.

 
annie blackthorn
annie blackthorn (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 09:07
Very harsh for something that had no 'intention' behind it, and from a senior player with a good reputation. 2 weeks would have been enough. The worry is that this will set a precedent or all things being equal which they are not, should!



Adoptee for 2017/18 James Phillips - newly arrived and bringing a wealth of experience in the Prem!

 
cb2
cb2 (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 09:52
Why do players continue to do this? Could it be that it is simply impossible to avoid in certain situations or is it poor technique? The refs have made it very clear but we keep on seeing these things happen. I think Optimist is correct in his belief but wrong in the way the laws are being used at the moment.

 
opti
Optimist (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 10:00
In fact, a red card is an actual punishment for the player and the team, whereas a 3-match ban is just squad rotation.

For non-malicious acts such as this, a suitable fine, paid into the PRA injured players fund would be much more to the point, and would avoid devaluing games and stretching squads to the limit.

 
gaz59
gaz59 (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 10:40
Interesting idea Opti and I fully get the thinking but how do you consistently and fairly assess an action as non-malicious?

The RFU simply want dangerous play reffed out of the game and so red card and ban is the quickest route - the fact that it is consequently fails to distinguish the intention of the culprit or provide a sanction linked to the potential effects of the action are minor collateral damage

 
Bath Hammer
Bath Hammer (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 10:55
Quote:
gaz59
The RFU simply want dangerous play reffed out of the game and so red card and ban is the quickest route - the fact that it is consequently fails to distinguish the intention of the culprit or provide a sanction linked to the potential effects of the action are minor collateral damage

+1

 
MESSAGES->author
Which Tyler (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 11:25
Quote:
Humpo
The entry level ban for a tip tackle has gone from 4 to 6, hence why Freddie was given a 3, not 2 week ban (50% off for clean record and remorse).
Shame, but them be the rules.
Didn't k owe that, thank you, gets the full 50% reductions then, which makes sense



A man who cannot change his mind, cannot change anything
http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=377
RAEBURN SHIELD

 
opti
Optimist (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 11:30
"how do you consistently and fairly assess an action as non-malicious?" - imperfectly, just as disciplinary committees do now. If it were a fines-based punitive system, I'd make the tariff a percentage of the players' salary.

"red card and ban is the quickest route"

In fact, red (and yellow) card is the quickest route, because that has an immediate impact on the player, the player's team-mates and very often, the result of the match, whereas a ban is basically just one more injury.

If the IRB want to ref dangerous play out of the game, then they should simply instruct referees to issue more cards. There are only two consequences of more cards being issued - both of them positive. Either players avoid dangerous play, or. more players are removed from the pitch, which means more space, more tries, and fewer injuries.

For self-evidently intentional and malicious foul play, then you just go straight to a really long ban.

 
cb2
cb2 (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 11:57
They could also look at other punishments. A red card resulting in the player being removed from the pitch and a penalty try being awarded to the opposition, or losing 1 point from the points total in the league per red card. Rugby is about winning and points punishments tend to make teams think more.

 
fat lock
fat lock (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 15:58
Presumably there is a financial impact on the player too?
I'd expect most contracts to have a clause regarding salary reduction if unavailable to play due to their own actions, including being banned.

 
Beergoggles
Beergoggles (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
11 October, 2017 21:09
Is it 3 weeks from the red card or from the hearing ? Any chance Freddie will be available for Glaws on the 29th ?

I still think it's preposterous that exactly the same action can either trigger 10 mins in the bin or 3 weeks+ in the bin. If tip tackles are so dangerous then surely it should be a straight Red regardless of whether the tackled player is able to break his fall or not.

 
gaz59
gaz59 (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
12 October, 2017 06:46
Nope, he is free to play from Oct 31st

 
P G Tips
P G Tips (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
12 October, 2017 13:05
A red card was correct in the law and if World Rugby wants to stamp out foul play the offence will probably remain a red.

However, there needs to be both consistency in how the law is applied and between laws covering foul and dangerous acts.

In the same weekend, Leicester's Gareth Owen upended L Irish Greig Tonks in a similar fashion in the tackle and let him go in the air. Fortunately for him, Tonks landed on his back not his head -but that was chance, not by any care taken by Owen.
Result? Yellow card, but no citing.

Pablo Socio of Falcons used the forearm to the head of Ian Whitten instead of a handoff.
Result? Yellow card, cited -and banned 2 weeks.

To me there are 2 inconsistencies here:

1. Both tip tackles could have had the same effect, but the law judges on outcome. The outcome is a matter of chance. This does not incentivise the tackler to take care to land the tackled player safely.

2. The tip tackles were reckless, the decision to hand off in an illegal manner is a conscious one. Surely a forearm smash at the head is a dangerous act and deserves similar sanction to a tip tackle?


PG



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2017 13:06 by P G Tips.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
12 October, 2017 13:28
I think a penalty for lifting a player off their feet would suffice. Ultimately that's what we want to stop. As soon as you pick a player up you are potentially in a dangerous position because, as happened with Freddie, other parts of the game (including, but not limited to, the tackled player himself) can turn that currently innocent act into a red card and 3 weeks without the tackler being able to do much about it.

If a penalty resulted from lifting a player off his feet, 3 points or 20-30 metres would soon stop players doing it. Problem gone. Really easy for refs to see, the only possible doubt is did the ball carrier jump (which has long been consider dangerous play, albeit rarely policed). No need to skew an entire game, or 3 maybe in our case.

Would the game really be poorer for not being able to pick players up? I don't really see it. You can put in big hits without having to lift a player.

 
Mike the Taxi
Mike the Taxi (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
12 October, 2017 14:59
So would you get penalised for lifting a player in the line-out?(Sm55)

 
opti
Optimist (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
12 October, 2017 15:27
"I think a penalty for lifting a player off their feet would suffice"

I see what you mean, and I think that makes sense. Cut the whole thing off at an earlier stage. That still leaves refs and citing officers the option to issue cards/sanctions for foul play (ie not just lifting a player off their feet, but dropping them, driving them etc).

That means any momentum in a tackle simply has to be on the horizontal plane, not the vertical, so does not preclude big, well-timed hits. (Just edited this because I got horizontal/vertical mixed-up!!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2017 16:41 by Optimist.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
12 October, 2017 15:29
Sorry, I meant to say, lifting an opponent.

I did notice that no one blinked an eye in a game this week when a player accidentally did something (I forget what) to a player on his own team that would have been a red card (however accidentally) had he done it to the opposition.

 
DanWiley
DanWiley (IP Logged)

Re: Freddie Burns
12 October, 2017 15:43
Absolutely opti. As you say, just because it is fundamentally just a pen, doesn't mean a ref can't escalate it for increase danger or repetition.

Also, as you point out, there's no reason why you need to lift in a tackle. It's a good tackling strategy, but would de-powering that tackle be a bad think? Lighter, more controlled impacts and more trys would seem to be the worst of it.

I can recall being introduced to lifting a leg during the tackle at colts, that was about 20 years ago. It seemed at the time that it was a new (ish) idea, but it might have just been new to me. Either way, there was it seems to me there was a period before that where I'd guess most of us experienced high quality, robust rugby that didn't involve picking any part of a player up in the tackle.

If people were to introduce such an idea, I'd emphasise that jumping into contact is dangerous, and its the jumping player creating the danger. You can do it, but, like being on the floor, you can't play the game there and you have to be back on your feet immediately.

The player on their feet is king. just like you can fall on the ball, you can't be played on the ground, but you must get up immediately. You can jump for the ball, you can't be played in the air, but you must come back down immediately (in fairness gravity helps here).


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?