rugbyunion
Latest News:

Quinssa WebsiteQuins News from News NowQuins Official Site


Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Sinckler
Quanks (IP Logged)
30 September, 2017 19:02
Someone's put the eye gouge review up on Youtube - here.

I agree that it wasn't conclusive enough to take action on the day, but I'm sure the Citing Commissioner will take a look.

Ban lengths are:

Contact with Eye:
Low - 12
Medium - 18
Top - 24+

Contact with the Eye area:
Low - 4
Medium - 8
Top - 12+

Wouldn't be too surprised if Kyle gets something on the softer "Eye area" charge.

 
Re: Sinckler
Dark Pies (IP Logged)
30 September, 2017 21:21
Watching the live stream I thought he just whipped the scrum cap off, but looking at that clip again closely I have to say it looks like he touched the guy's temple and/or eye socket as he tried to adjust his grip on the cap and (irony) couldn't see what he was doing.
Obviously not going for the eyes on purpose but i think that will be a citing for 'area' contact unfortunately.

On top of taking no pts from the match that's not what we needed. Fingers crossed but Sink does have a bit of a reputation so we may not be seeing him for a while....

 
Re: Sinckler
Madtyke (IP Logged)
30 September, 2017 23:22
Trial by tv commentary yet again. Both ref and TMO couldn't see any evidence of gouging so pen only. No further action required imho.



[www.arborfieldoldboys.co.uk]

 
Re: Sinckler
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
30 September, 2017 23:25
Can't see many good reasons why, after grabbing the scrum cap, he'd put his hand back in the guy's face like that. Wouldn't be surprised if he copped a ban.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Sinckler
Quins4life (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 00:26
Interesting post match comments from kingston on the matter.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

"Unequivocally, it was not a gouge. Absolutely not. Kyle said he made contact with [Michael] Paterson's head gear. He can't do that.

"There was a purge on it a couple of years ago because it's the sort of thing that cheeses people off, so leave headgear alone.

"I have to say, and I'm not here to cast dispersions, but my hooker [Dave Ward] has got a rather nasty eye and I know how it happened because he's told me and I believe him.

"I'm pretty disappointed about that and he's not happy about it."


If this is true, then there has to be serious questions and inquest in to why Luke pearce checked the sinckler incident and not the one for Ward, when both teams asked for it to be looked at and reviewed. I can take poor decisions, its part of any sport especially in a complicated one like rugby, but this is clear favouring one side. Foul play is foul play, whether it be a gouge or a punch to the eye; look what happened to ward's face compared to paterson's. What kingston is saying is quite alarming to me.

 
Re: Sinckler
JohnI (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 04:54
"Foul play is foul play, whether it be a gouge or a punch to the eye; look what happened to ward's face compared to paterson's." What kingston is saying is quite alarming to me"

I have to agree with you about alarming comments because reading his comments there is Kingston trying to imply that ward was punched and hence that's why his eye is like that because the action watching on tv just before he gained his injury didn't show any such claim?

 
Re: Sinckler
01 October, 2017 08:07
Almost certainly an accident, but a very silly boy!!! A ban methinks, 4-6 weeks.....EJ won't be impressed!!!

 
Re: Sinckler
SiBolton (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 08:53
Would like to see the Dave Ward incident as that looked much worse

 
Re: Sinckler
Mobbs (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 09:14
Saints fan in peace as they say.....

Ward - no idea how he got his black eye, bad things do happen in the front row but clearly neither player nor coach is happy about it but seemingly not calling for action though I'm sure Dave will have made a note in his black book.

Sinckler - Looked pretty inconclusive to me but pulling off a scrum cap from the front is a risky manoeuvre. On the evidence we saw at the ground, Pearce got it right, penalty and no card. Notwithstanding what happens next week, your man was very wound up after the Tuala try about five minutes before, he is a bit of a live wire !

Close game for which Quins deserved some reward which they would have received but for a silly challenge at the death.

 
Re: Sinckler
MrOther (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 10:18
Quote:
Quins4life
Interesting post match comments from kingston on the matter.
[www.bbc.co.uk]

"... I'm not here to cast dispersions, but ..."

Luv it! (Sm6)

(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.)

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 11:00
Quote:
MrOther
Quote:
Quins4life
Interesting post match comments from kingston on the matter.
[www.bbc.co.uk]

"... I'm not here to cast dispersions, but ..."

Luv it! (Sm6)

(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.)

Sounds well qualified to work for the Beeb then!

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 12:05
Hmmm, can't really see anything from that vid. Stupid from Kyle. Really hope it was just stupid and ripping the cap off and nothing worse.

Why has JK said they won't ask citing officer to review ward incident? Nonsense

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 11:58
I'm sure saying they won't mention it will be enough to get the citing officer to check it.

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 12:08
True

 
Re: Sinckler
Dark Pies (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 12:38
Quote:
T-Bone
Hmmm, can't really see anything from that vid.

Here's the still from that video of Sink wrapping his fingers around the side of Paterson's head *near* his eyes. You then see Paterson's hand go up to shield his eyes a split second later.

Still from the video

 
Re: Sinckler
Roaming Quin (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 13:33
Ban coming Sinks way.

 
Re: Sinckler
ArchQuin (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 13:45
Healy & Dallaglio stick their damning opinions in so he will definitely get a long ban now 🤐

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 15:09
Quote:
ArchQuin
Healy & Dallaglio stick their damning opinions in so he will definitely get a long ban now 🤐

Same people who thought that salvi flying into a ruck off his feet and leading with a combo of head and shoulder was unfortunate. "definitely no malice there". So they are now psychiatrists as well as pundits. Healey us actually decent but sadly dallaglio has always been a very good player but not a clever individual. Doubt the various substances he abused helped either

 
Re: Sinckler
Dave L (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 15:15
He shouldn't be putting himself in that situation. Keep off faces! Regardless though, BT are starting to lead the disciplinary process too much for my liking.

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 15:57
Agreed sinck was stupid to do whatever he did. Really hope he did nothing untoward

Dallaglio showing his impartiality by questioning tmo over bath try. Prat

 
Re: Sinckler
SiBolton (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 15:55
He's up in front on the citing commission on Tuesday at Bristol

 
Re: Sinckler
Stockers (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 16:34
And a citing commissioner's warning for Mr Merrick.

No mention of Dave Ward's injury by the citing commissioner......

 
Re: Sinckler
akb1 (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 17:11
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?

 
Re: Sinckler
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 17:31
Dallaglio autocorrects to fallacious on my phone.

 
Re: Sinckler
DOK (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 17:44
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?

Looked like he was trying to push the scrum cap back over the players' face so he wasn't holding it.

 
Re: Sinckler
akb1 (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 17:50
Quote:
DOK
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?

Looked like he was trying to push the scrum cap back over the players' face so he wasn't holding it.
I like your thinking DOK.

 
Re: Sinckler
DOK (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 17:57
Honestly, that was my first reaction seeing the close up replay. Yes, fingers are near the eyes but I couldn't see any sign of "downward pressure" as it were. If the player felt those fingers near his eyes, then it might explain why he was so adamant he'd been gouged, but there were no marks on his face.

Kyle can be a bit hot headed, but I don't think a sneaky attack on someone's eyes is his style at all.

 
Re: Sinckler
Robertquin (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 17:58
Bearing in mind Joe Marler got in trouble for messing about with someone else's headgear and squirting water you'd think he'd have had more sense. It's just so unnecessary.

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 18:37
I don't think Kyle could see what he was doing. His arm was outstretched with his head on the other side of the ruck. When his hand was on the face it looked like he was still holding the scrum cap.

You'd think that if there had been any contact you'd see a mark, or some bruising or swelling. That might want to make a referee think some foul play had occurred. Maybe he'd want to review an incident if a player was showing bruising or swelling around a rapidly closing eye. Or maybe not.

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 19:21
Idiot. Deserves a good ban for that one. Doesn't matter if he was aiming to gouge or not.

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 19:38
Quote:
Scamble
Idiot. Deserves a good ban for that one. Doesn't matter if he was aiming to gouge or not.

Could you explain your logic. Deserves a bin whether you was innocent or guilty? Presumably whoever left ward with a black eye deserves to be shot?

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 19:39
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

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 19:41
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

JK says Ward told him he knew what happened. Someone else says Ward didn't know how it happened.

Yet you choose to believe A N Other... Or did Ward tell you himself?

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 19:46
I've not seen what happened to Ward. If he fell on an elbow then it's tough. If someone punched him then they deserve everything they get. If there's no video then tough.

This is about Sinkler. The video is damning and he will get a decent ban and he deserves it.

The collective myopia round here is hilarious.

Honestly.

 
Re: Sinckler
SiBolton (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 19:47
What's being defended?
The ref watched the video and so did the TMo and they found no evidence
So how are we to know better/ see more?

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 19:50
Will that do for you?

[twitter.com]

 
Re: Sinckler
DOK (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 19:54
Sinckler can expect a ban

Interesting comment "Intention doesn't come into it. It's whether the event happened or not".

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 19:54
Ah, trial by Twitter. Case closed then. (Sm119)

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 20:04
Well we'll see, won't we.

Clearly not guilty if he is found guilty, right?

 
Re: Sinckler
blucherquin (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 20:44
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Ah, trial by Twitter. Case closed then. (Sm119)

No, it happens to be on twitter - itís video evidence of him making contact wth the face and possibly the eye being discussed by former rugby players on a rugby programme.

I hope he wasnít trying to gouge - because if so I donít want to see him in a Quins shirt for a long time. Either way - the rules donít require intention and even if itís jusr face not eye heís getting a ban.

It looks bad - hereís hoping the pictures are misleading.

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 20:51
Yep, looks like a fairly lengthy ban based on previous incidents, even if it's deemed unintentional.

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 21:00
No he won't, don't be silly, because Dave Ward

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 22:44
deleted as unnecessary



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2017 11:06 by T-Bone.

 
Re: Sinckler
OldMarovian (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 06:42
Quote:
DOK
Sinckler can expect a ban
Interesting comment "Intention doesn't come into it. It's whether the event happened or not".

As Chris Ashton would tell you. Lets see if Sinckler ends up with 10 weeks?

A week ago I was annoyed at Eddie Jones for leaving Sinckler out. Now regardless of whether he meant to do it or not Sinckler has given Jones further ammunition for the "Sinckler hot-headed" file. I think you want your front row to be a bit niggly but for cryng out loud if he wants a scrum-cap so badly (first Haskells now Pattersons) can't Quins just buy him one smiling smiley

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 07:52
Quote:
Scamble
No he won't, don't be silly, because Dave Ward

The panel decided on a four week ban, based on a Twitter image. However this was then increased to 8 weeks because an internet forum poster named Scamble said he deserved a longer ban. It has yet to be confirmed whether this is long enough.

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 08:35
I don't think you understand how this media thing works do you?

 
Re: Sinckler
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 10:09
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.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 10:20
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.

I actually don't think he'll escape punishment. Stills are not 100% reliable due to camera angles etc. But Kyle has a bit of a reputation and when there is this much public outcry then it seems like someone has to be made an example of. Whether it's deserved or justified is another matter.

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 11:11
I've watched the various videos and seen the stills. I am trying to be objective and unbiased but I honestly can't see from these vids and stills whether he did anything which would actually constitute the old definition/understanding of gouging. I really hope he didn't, as it's indefensible.

He certainly has a case to answer for contact with / near the eye area. It was completely unnecessary and stupid to pull his headgear off, and can't see any reason for moving his hand back after he's already got the scrumcap.

I can't see how he can escape punishment for contact near the eye area, but from those videos and pics I really can't see anything which clearly shows anything worse than that. So while I'm sure he'll get some sort of ban, I'm not sure he deserves a long one.

I guess we'll find out tomorrow. Either way, it was stupid to pull the cap off in the first place given the fuss around Joe doing it before, and doing that always means you'll run the risk of having your hand somewhere where it could look very bad for you.

 
Re: Sinckler
higgy365 (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 13:03
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.

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 13:16
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.

This is true. It does make you wonder whether they looked into the incident that caused Ward's eye injury. Clearly something made contact with his eye area!

 
Re: Sinckler
blucherquin (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 13:23
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.

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.

 
Re: Sinckler
DOK (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 14:04
Should imagine the citing officer had a look to see if he could pin down the Dave Ward's eye incident.

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 14:21
Quote:
DOK
Should imagine the citing officer had a look to see if he could pin down the Dave Ward's eye incident.

I would hope so. D you think it would have made a difference if he'd remonstrated like the Saints player did? I may be mistaken, but after the Sinkler incident when the ref was explaining his actions, Ward seemed to be saying something like "What about my injury in the first half?"

 
Re: Sinckler
higgy365 (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 15:51
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.

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.

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 15:53
Quote:
higgy365
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.

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?

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 15:59
Of course. TMOs are notoriously rubbish.

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 16:16
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.

Yes, I appreciate that there is no separate offence of gouging now, so it's hard to see how he's not guilty of the offence of making contact with the eye / eye area. Just pointing out, more in response to some of the rubbish I've seen on twitter and facebook than on here, that from what I've seen I genuinely don't think anyone could say with any certainty that he's done something truly unpleasant and poked someone's eyes. I realise that is not what the offence covers though.

At the time, as well as saying "well what about what happened to my eye" Ward was asking the ref to request a close up of Paterson's eyes to show that there were no marks.

 
Re: Sinckler
TOKS (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 17:18
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
higgy365
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.

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"?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2017 17:26 by TOKS.

 
Re: Sinckler
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 18:59
Bit of a myth, that one: MJ had one vaguely conveniently timed ban, and while it did end in time for the 6N, it was a longer ban than was standard at the time.

Now, the Kiwis on the other hand... smiling smiley



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Sinckler
Scrumhead (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 19:10
Quote:
TOKS
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
higgy365
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.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2017 19:11 by Scrumhead.

 
Re: Sinckler
Dogger_ (IP Logged)
02 October, 2017 23:03
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.

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 00:14
On the subject of indiscipline, we are leading the way by quite some distance in penalties conceded.

 
Re: Sinckler
Bedfordshire Boy (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 08:13
Quote:
Scrumhead
Quote:
TOKS
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
higgy365
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.

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.

 
Re: Sinckler
Boonie (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 08:17
We'll know more this evening. Somehow, I doubt they will believe he was trying to give the Saints player his scrum cap back, but we'll see.



"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to bleat about it all over the internet"

 
Re: Sinckler
HonkyTonk (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 08:51
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.

Thumbs up from me.

 
Re: Sinckler
LFCRules (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 19:55
21:00 as I type, still no news, I assume we'll get it announced tomorrow maybe.

My opinion, he did wrong, and has to accept any punishment given, and hopefully learn from it. Others have done it, and unfortunately will continue, and won't always be seen or reported, but this time it was, it's on camera.

I enjoy cheering on Kyle from the stands, and the other players, and will continue to do so, even when he returns.

Live, learn, repeat!

 
Re: Sinckler
higgy365 (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 20:10
7 weeks. Plead guilty. Discuss.

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 20:14
Must be because I wrote about it or Twitter or Dave Ward or something....

 
Re: Sinckler
akb1 (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 20:26
[www.quins.co.uk]
Club statement

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 20:27
[quote Scamble]Must be because I wrote about it or Twitter or Dave Ward or something....[/quote

Did they check with you that the ban was long enough?

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 20:35
Rather sums you up

 
Re: Sinckler
Scrumhead (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 20:46
Quote:
Bedfordshire Boy
Quote:
Scrumhead
Quote:
TOKS
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
higgy365
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.

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.

Not really. I hope he didn't do it deliberately, but I do think the second go after the headgear was ripped off needs a very good explanation.

I guess my reaction was more at the suggestion that Paterson 'bleating' when the guy clearly thought there was an attempted gouge.

 
Re: Sinckler
COYQ_2017 (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 21:00
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

 
Re: Sinckler
SiBolton (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 21:01
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

Is there any thread you can't turn into one about JK?
Don't bother answering
And you've used the same quote on two threads....bravo

Really sorry to see a 7 week ban, but unfortunately inevitable, Hands in face etc



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2017 21:02 by SiBolton.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2

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?