Quote:Quins4life
Interesting post match comments from kingston on the matter.
[www.bbc.co.uk]
"... I'm not here to cast dispersions, but ..."
Quote:MrOtherQuote:Quins4life
Interesting post match comments from kingston on the matter.
[www.bbc.co.uk]
"... I'm not here to cast dispersions, but ..."
Luv it!
(And I'm not casting aspersions in JK's direction. If you ask me, this delightful nonsense is the work of some numpty beeb journo who can't write down what's said to them.)
Quote:T-Bone
Hmmm, can't really see anything from that vid.
Quote:ArchQuin
Healy & Dallaglio stick their damning opinions in so he will definitely get a long ban now 🤐
Quote:akb1
Wouldn't be surprised to see him get a ban. Why would he put his hands back in there after he's already pulled of his scrum cap?
Quote:I like your thinking DOK.DOKQuote:akb1
Wouldn't be surprised to see him get a ban. Why would he put his hands back in there after he's already pulled of his scrum cap?
Looked like he was trying to push the scrum cap back over the players' face so he wasn't holding it.
Quote:Scamble
Idiot. Deserves a good ban for that one. Doesn't matter if he was aiming to gouge or not.
Quote:Scamble
Watch the video. If you can defend that then so be it.
As for Ward, he says he doesn't know what happened, so no, I don't.
Grow up
Quote:Quinky Kin
Ah, trial by Twitter. Case closed then.
Quote:DOK
Sinckler can expect a ban
Interesting comment "Intention doesn't come into it. It's whether the event happened or not".
Quote:Scamble
No he won't, don't be silly, because Dave Ward
Quote:Jammy Git
Scamble's right, of course. Sinckler may escape a ban because these things are inconsistent, but it looks bad for Kyle who did something unnecessary then followed it up by putting his hand back in the guy's face.
Quote:higgy365
While you make a distinction between gouging and contact with the eye / eye area, T Bone, they have effectively become interchangeable in contemporary discussions, certainly the press and social media.
Did KS set out to literally blind Paterson? No, I don't believe that for a second.
Did KS make contact with Patersons eye/eye area? I think so. The panel tomorrow will have more angles/pictures etc to help them make their determination. If they agree that he did a ban should follow.
Quote:higgy365
While you make a distinction between gouging and contact with the eye / eye area, T Bone, they have effectively become interchangeable in contemporary discussions, certainly the press and social media.
Did KS set out to literally blind Paterson? No, I don't believe that for a second.
Did KS make contact with Patersons eye/eye area? I think so. The panel tomorrow will have more angles/pictures etc to help them make their determination. If they agree that he did a ban should follow.
Quote:DOK
Should imagine the citing officer had a look to see if he could pin down the Dave Ward's eye incident.
Quote:blucherquin
They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.
Quote:higgy365Quote:blucherquin
They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.
Of course not. But there may well be shots that were not shown at the time. Wouldn't be the first time.
Whether that helps or hinders Sincklers position will all come out in the wash.
Quote:higgy365
While you make a distinction between gouging and contact with the eye / eye area, T Bone, they have effectively become interchangeable in contemporary discussions, certainly the press and social media.
Did KS set out to literally blind Paterson? No, I don't believe that for a second.
Did KS make contact with Patersons eye/eye area? I think so. The panel tomorrow will have more angles/pictures etc to help them make their determination. If they agree that he did a ban should follow.
Quote:Quinky KinQuote:higgy365Quote:blucherquin
They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.
Of course not. But there may well be shots that were not shown at the time. Wouldn't be the first time.
Whether that helps or hinders Sincklers position will all come out in the wash.
This is also an interesting conundrum - if no new evidence come to light, and the officials on the day ruled that there was nothing conclusive, could Kyle still be banned?
Quote:TOKSQuote:Quinky KinQuote:higgy365Quote:blucherquin
They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.
Of course not. But there may well be shots that were not shown at the time. Wouldn't be the first time.
Whether that helps or hinders Sincklers position will all come out in the wash.
This is also an interesting conundrum - if no new evidence come to light, and the officials on the day ruled that there was nothing conclusive, could Kyle still be banned?
Yes, Chris Ashton was banned even after the referee and TMO studied the incident long and hard for many minutes afterwards and decided nothing was untoward.
There is no doubt at all that lawyers who have never played the game are infinitely better qualified to make these decisions that experienced international referees (Jerome Garces in this particular case).
On a more serious note it does seem that "manning up" like Ward did gets you nowhere, and that bleating to the referee does. In the Ashton incident you would have thought Luke Marshall's head had come off as opposed to the light stroking of his cheek that actually occurred. Still the cheek is somewhere near the eye and that did for Ashton.
Of course the fact that England internationals are on the horizon could also work in Sinkler's favour. Remember Martin Johnson and some of his conveniently-timed "bans"?
Quote:ScrumheadQuote:TOKSQuote:Quinky KinQuote:higgy365Quote:blucherquin
They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.
Of course not. But there may well be shots that were not shown at the time. Wouldn't be the first time.
Whether that helps or hinders Sincklers position will all come out in the wash.
This is also an interesting conundrum - if no new evidence come to light, and the officials on the day ruled that there was nothing conclusive, could Kyle still be banned?
Yes, Chris Ashton was banned even after the referee and TMO studied the incident long and hard for many minutes afterwards and decided nothing was untoward.
There is no doubt at all that lawyers who have never played the game are infinitely better qualified to make these decisions that experienced international referees (Jerome Garces in this particular case).
On a more serious note it does seem that "manning up" like Ward did gets you nowhere, and that bleating to the referee does. In the Ashton incident you would have thought Luke Marshall's head had come off as opposed to the light stroking of his cheek that actually occurred. Still the cheek is somewhere near the eye and that did for Ashton.
Of course the fact that England internationals are on the horizon could also work in Sinkler's favour. Remember Martin Johnson and some of his conveniently-timed "bans"?
To be honest, it's indefensible ... I'm not excusing a punch or whatever it was that caused Ward's eye injury, but gouging or even an attempt to do so is on a whole different level of nastiness and unfortunately, the close-ups are pretty damning ... I don't think Paterson was 'bleating'. I would have done if I were him.
There was no reason for him to go near the headgear, let lone the eyes and when the inevitable ban comes, it won't be undeserved. If even the second (most contentious) grab at the face was accidental, he deserves to be banned for pure stupidity.
Quote:Dogger_
I want our players to be tough. To take no nonsense. To be highly physical and dominate the game in every way.
I do not want our players to play dirty. I do not want our club to be tarnished with accusations of foul play.
The video/stills evidence does not look good. It would seem likely that, given the definitions above, Kyle will receive some form of ban. As also discussed above, he was stupid to have put himself in such a position and should have known better.
However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had Kyle intended to purposefully hurt Paterson in this way he would have succeeded and the recipient would have been very badly injured. Thankfully this indisputably did not happen.
Quote:Bedfordshire BoyQuote:ScrumheadQuote:TOKSQuote:Quinky KinQuote:higgy365Quote:blucherquin
They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.
Of course not. But there may well be shots that were not shown at the time. Wouldn't be the first time.
Whether that helps or hinders Sincklers position will all come out in the wash.
This is also an interesting conundrum - if no new evidence come to light, and the officials on the day ruled that there was nothing conclusive, could Kyle still be banned?
Yes, Chris Ashton was banned even after the referee and TMO studied the incident long and hard for many minutes afterwards and decided nothing was untoward.
There is no doubt at all that lawyers who have never played the game are infinitely better qualified to make these decisions that experienced international referees (Jerome Garces in this particular case).
On a more serious note it does seem that "manning up" like Ward did gets you nowhere, and that bleating to the referee does. In the Ashton incident you would have thought Luke Marshall's head had come off as opposed to the light stroking of his cheek that actually occurred. Still the cheek is somewhere near the eye and that did for Ashton.
Of course the fact that England internationals are on the horizon could also work in Sinkler's favour. Remember Martin Johnson and some of his conveniently-timed "bans"?
To be honest, it's indefensible ... I'm not excusing a punch or whatever it was that caused Ward's eye injury, but gouging or even an attempt to do so is on a whole different level of nastiness and unfortunately, the close-ups are pretty damning ... I don't think Paterson was 'bleating'. I would have done if I were him.
There was no reason for him to go near the headgear, let lone the eyes and when the inevitable ban comes, it won't be undeserved. If even the second (most contentious) grab at the face was accidental, he deserves to be banned for pure stupidity.
The tone of your post suggests tat you believe that gouging or an attempt to gouge actually took place which is a big step away from having hands in the area of the eyes.
Quote:COYQ_2017
Quote from the BBC from JK ref the 7 week ban for KS -
"Harlequins director of rugby John Kingston said that the club would work with the whole squad to improve discipline."
Let's see if he delivers on this - my expectation is he won't and our discipline will actually get worse.
#JKOut