rugbyunion
Latest News:

Quinssa WebsiteQuins News from News NowQuins Official Site


Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
 
Re: Sinckler
Quaking Quin (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 22:02
Stop being rose-tinted.

Whatever Jk or Sinkler say by way of mitigation, the offence was gouging.

7 weeks was lenient. Let's hope Carl and other hot heads learn from the ruling.

 
Re: Sinckler
Navyquin (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 22:09
Quote:
Quaking Quin
Stop being rose-tinted.
Whatever Jk or Sinkler say by way of mitigation, the offence was gouging.

7 weeks was lenient. Let's hope Carl and other hot heads learn from the ruling.

Just because some don't agree it spent necessarily mean they are looking through rose tinted glasses, others are allowed an opinion without being accused of bias.

 
Re: Sinckler
COYQ_2017 (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 22:34
Quote:
SiBolton
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


It's very depressing to see posters like you continue to support such an inappropriate person acting as if he's a DOR of a premiership rugby club. Bravo for such stupidity Si!

 
Re: Sinckler
blucherquin (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 22:26
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

You are such a silly little boy

 
Re: Sinckler
Quaking Quin (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 22:26
Sorry but you are looking from a Quins perspective.

If the charge had been against a Saints forward then the reaction by many on this website would have been very different and taken the higher ground.

 
Re: Sinckler
blucherquin (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 22:28
Quote:
COYQ_2017
Quote:
SiBolton
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


It's very depressing to see posters like you continue to support such an inappropriate person acting as if he's a DOR of a premiership rugby club. Bravo for such stupidity Si!

Did mummy tell you off again? Its ok to be angry - just dont take it out on the pets dear, theyll think youre a nut job.

 
Re: Sinckler
SiBolton (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 22:29
I'm not supporting anyone, just questioning you and your agenda
Still moving on

Gutted about Sinck, so over 20 players not available now is it?
But whilst gutted about it, it was to be expected

 
Re: Sinckler
blucherquin (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 22:32
Quote:
Quaking Quin
Sorry but you are looking from a Quins perspective.
If the charge had been against a Saints forward then the reaction by many on this website would have been very different and taken the higher ground.

Edited because shouldnt have let the troll wind me up (not you)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2017 08:37 by blucherquin.

 
Re: Sinckler
COYQ_2017 (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 22:45
Quote:
blucherquin
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

You are such a silly little boy

I'll ignore this very silly comment - there's no need for it.

 
Re: Sinckler
Adi Nako (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 22:45
7 week ban.

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 23:05
Quote:
blucherquin
Quote:
Quaking Quin
Sorry but you are looking from a Quins perspective.
If the charge had been against a Saints forward then the reaction by many on this website would have been very different and taken the higher ground.

Nope I�m talking to the other retard who thinks it�s sometting to do with Kingston.

Sinckler is a disgrace.

A disgrace?

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 23:07
Quote:
Quaking Quin
Stop being rose-tinted.
Whatever Jk or Sinkler say by way of mitigation, the offence was gouging.

7 weeks was lenient. Let's hope Carl and other hot heads learn from the ruling.

Not sure where to start with this. Not knowing players' names, ignorance of laws, etc

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 23:04
Quote:
Quaking Quin
Stop being rose-tinted.
Whatever Jk or Sinkler say by way of mitigation, the offence was gouging.

7 weeks was lenient. Let's hope Carl and other hot heads learn from the ruling.

The offence wasn't gouging and it's silly to use such a word.

 
Re: Sinckler
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
03 October, 2017 23:38
Yeah, sorry guys but if it was "gouging" he'd have copped a far longer ban than that. The offence is as they say it is, and it's an offence for a reason - the face is an absolute no-go area. Kyle's an idiot, he's been an idiot far too often, and he needs to cop on.

There's a lot been spoken about his willingness to learn from others, his upbringing, his attempts to keep his temper in check - this didn't look like a loss of control. It was something a lot more stupid than that. He'd better put that willingness to learn to good use, as he's got plenty of time on his hands now.



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

 
Re: Sinckler
RleQuin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 01:27
When will these people learn?
They are paid professional sportsmen - role models to lots of people.
Except they behave like a bunch of kids from school of hard knocks; perhaps Will and Scott can knock some sense into them?
Sinckler needs to grow up and stop acting like a dick!!
Are we now carrying more hurt from the disciplinary hearing to the next game?
RleQ

 
Re: Sinckler
arqueroo (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 05:53
Typical Battersea thug . Deserves a longer ban than that . Oh he will be avail for autumn internationals, what a surprise

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 06:31
Quote:
arqueroo
Typical Battersea thug . Deserves a longer ban than that . Oh he will be avail for autumn internationals, what a surprise

Or not, as the case may be....

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

 
Re: Sinckler
Dave L (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 07:14
He won't be available for the Autumn internationals. The guardian have the word gouging on their article title. Typical Grauniad.

Stupid from Kyle but we can't say it wasn't coming at some point.

 
Re: Sinckler
blucherquin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 08:54
Quote:
arqueroo
Typical Battersea thug . Deserves a longer ban than that . Oh he will be avail for autumn internationals, what a surprise

Lets all hope you mean that youve got a longstanding view that Battersea Ironsides are a tough team and play rugby in a way you dont like.

 
Re: Sinckler
blucherquin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 08:55
Quote:
COYQ_2017
Quote:
blucherquin
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

You are such a silly little boy

I'll ignore this very silly comment - there's no need for it.

Oh yeah, its my comments there are no need for.

Come on - stop trolling this board.

 
Re: Sinckler
Ayerza wannabe (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 08:57
The rugby powers don't use the term gouging they use the term contact with the eyes. Gouging is just what everyone else uses.

It was contact with eyes so the press can rightly use the term gouge.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2017 08:58 by Ayerza wannabe.

 
Re: Sinckler
blucherquin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 08:58
Quote:
T-Bone
Quote:
blucherquin
Quote:
Quaking Quin
Sorry but you are looking from a Quins perspective.
If the charge had been against a Saints forward then the reaction by many on this website would have been very different and taken the higher ground.

Nope I�m talking to the other retard who thinks it�s sometting to do with Kingston.

Sinckler is a disgrace.

A disgrace?

Well no - mainly angry that the troll wound me up. But Im not happy with Sinckler and hes now seriously damaged his reputation.

Hes he lead story in the Times sport as gouging - not what I want from a Quins player.

 
Re: Sinckler
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 09:50
Quote:
Ayerza wannabe
The rugby powers don't use the term gouging they use the term contact with the eyes. Gouging is just what everyone else uses.
It was contact with eyes so the press can rightly use the term gouge.

The offence is contact with the eye area - you don't even need to touch the eye.

Gouging is an attempt to hook the fingers into the eyes and put dangerous pressure / scratching on the eyeball. You can rest assured that any player found guilty of that would face a much larger ban.



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

 
Re: Sinckler
Ayerza wannabe (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 09:58
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Ayerza wannabe
The rugby powers don't use the term gouging they use the term contact with the eyes. Gouging is just what everyone else uses.
It was contact with eyes so the press can rightly use the term gouge.

The offence is contact with the eye area - you don't even need to touch the eye.

Gouging is an attempt to hook the fingers into the eyes and put dangerous pressure / scratching on the eyeball. You can rest assured that any player found guilty of that would face a much larger ban.

He was accused of contact with the eye/eye area and found guilty of contact with the eye he even accepted the charge of contact with the eye. Gouging is contact with the eyes using fingers it can be a pressing motion aswell as a hook.

Sinckler accepted the charge of contact with the eye and was given a seven week suspension by the independent panel. He is free to play again on the 21 November 2017


[www.premiershiprugby.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2017 10:00 by Ayerza wannabe.

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 10:07
Quote:
Scamble
Rather sums you up

In ways that you wouldn't understand.

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 10:38
Quote:
blucherquin
Quote:
T-Bone
Quote:
blucherquin
Quote:
Quaking Quin
Sorry but you are looking from a Quins perspective.
If the charge had been against a Saints forward then the reaction by many on this website would have been very different and taken the higher ground.

Nope I�m talking to the other retard who thinks it�s sometting to do with Kingston.

Sinckler is a disgrace.

A disgrace?

Well no - mainly angry that the troll wound me up. But Im not happy with Sinckler and hes now seriously damaged his reputation.

Hes he lead story in the Times sport as gouging - not what I want from a Quins player.

Fair enough. Silly headlines. Sinckler has been a complete prat and rightly punished for it, but as others have said, if the panel thought it had been a deliberate "gouge" taken in the old sense, the Schalk Burger sense, he'd be out for much, much longer

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 10:39
Quote:
RleQuin
When will these people learn?
They are paid professional sportsmen - role models to lots of people.
Except they behave like a bunch of kids from school of hard knocks; perhaps Will and Scott can knock some sense into them?
Sinckler needs to grow up and stop acting like a dick!!
Are we now carrying more hurt from the disciplinary hearing to the next game?
RleQ

Ha ha ha, very good

 
Re: Sinckler
T-Bone (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 10:40
Quote:
Jammy Git
Yeah, sorry guys but if it was "gouging" he'd have copped a far longer ban than that. The offence is as they say it is, and it's an offence for a reason - the face is an absolute no-go area. Kyle's an idiot, he's been an idiot far too often, and he needs to cop on.
There's a lot been spoken about his willingness to learn from others, his upbringing, his attempts to keep his temper in check - this didn't look like a loss of control. It was something a lot more stupid than that. He'd better put that willingness to learn to good use, as he's got plenty of time on his hands now.

Completely agree

 
Re: Sinckler
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 11:32
Quote:
Ayerza wannabe
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Ayerza wannabe
The rugby powers don't use the term gouging they use the term contact with the eyes. Gouging is just what everyone else uses.
It was contact with eyes so the press can rightly use the term gouge.

The offence is contact with the eye area - you don't even need to touch the eye.

Gouging is an attempt to hook the fingers into the eyes and put dangerous pressure / scratching on the eyeball. You can rest assured that any player found guilty of that would face a much larger ban.

He was accused of contact with the eye/eye area and found guilty of contact with the eye he even accepted the charge of contact with the eye. Gouging is contact with the eyes using fingers it can be a pressing motion aswell as a hook.

Sinckler accepted the charge of contact with the eye and was given a seven week suspension by the independent panel. He is free to play again on the 21 November 2017


[www.premiershiprugby.com]
Yes, I'm aware. My point is that it's a catch-all offence that's intended to make going anywhere near the eyes utterly verboten, whether you're actually putting pressure on them / trying to cause damage or not.

There's absolutely no evidence he was trying to damage the eyes - i.e. 'gouging' as everyone understands it - but he's still guilty of the offence of making contact with the eyes.

Does that make sense?



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

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 12:04
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
Scamble
Rather sums you up

In ways that you wouldn't understand.

I rest my case.

 
Re: Sinckler
teddington tom (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 12:15
Quote:
blucherquin
Quote:
arqueroo
Typical Battersea thug . Deserves a longer ban than that . Oh he will be avail for autumn internationals, what a surprise

Lets all hope you mean that youve got a longstanding view that Battersea Ironsides are a tough team and play rugby in a way you dont like.
Not sure Ironsides were mentioned were they ?

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 12:38
Quote:
Scamble
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
Scamble
Rather sums you up

In ways that you wouldn't understand.

I rest my case.

Thankfully.

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 12:42
Quote:
arqueroo
Typical Battersea thug . Deserves a longer ban than that . Oh he will be avail for autumn internationals, what a surprise

Oh no, you just said something completely stupid. What a dipstick!

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 12:46
Quote:
Ayerza wannabe
The rugby powers don't use the term gouging they use the term contact with the eyes. Gouging is just what everyone else uses.
It was contact with eyes so the press can rightly use the term gouge.

The press can use whatever term they like, but you and I both know what a gouge is, we both know that Sinckler didn't gouge anyone, and we both know that if he had then he'd probably be looking at a minimum 6 month ban.

 
Re: Sinckler
ChipsteadQuin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 12:50
Sinckler got off lightly due to his contrition (probably guided by Club QC ) Im also surprised there was no mention of Paterson in the apology , whatever Kyles reasons ( which seem to be "it was an accidental reckless act") he had his fingers on his face .

I really hope he will learn from this or I fear he could join a list of wasted talents.

He certainly wont fulfil his International potential if he keeps messing about on and off the pitch .

 
Re: Sinckler
DOK (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 12:52
Kyle Sinckler: I accept the outcome of the hearing and wanted to go on record to say I am sorry that I have let my team mates down, but more importantly I feel terrible that anyone would think I would deliberately gouge an opponent. That was never my intention it was a genuine mistake and an act of recklessness on my part."

That's exactly how I see it. There's no doubt from the pictures fingers were near eyes - so guilty of the offence. Because intention doesn't enter into it, you can be guilty of the offence and innocent of intention (gouging) at the same time. I totally believe that's what happened.

 
Re: Sinckler
blucherquin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 13:30
Quote:
teddington tom
Quote:
blucherquin
Quote:
arqueroo
Typical Battersea thug . Deserves a longer ban than that . Oh he will be avail for autumn internationals, what a surprise

Lets all hope you mean that youve got a longstanding view that Battersea Ironsides are a tough team and play rugby in a way you dont like.
Not sure Ironsides were mentioned were they ?
s
No, but I'm hoping that's what they meant, because the alternative potential reasons for the phrase "typical Battersea thug" probably won't stand up to much scrutiny.

 
Re: Sinckler
ChipsteadQuin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 13:35
Quote:
DOK
Kyle Sinckler: I accept the outcome of the hearing and wanted to go on record to say I am sorry that I have let my team mates down, but more importantly I feel terrible that anyone would think I would deliberately gouge an opponent. That was never my intention it was a genuine mistake and an act of recklessness on my part."
That's exactly how I see it. There's no doubt from the pictures fingers were near eyes - so guilty of the offence. Because intention doesn't enter into it, you can be guilty of the offence and innocent of intention (gouging) at the same time. I totally believe that's what happened.

Thanks DOK , like you I don't think there was any intention to gouge , ( mainly because he had every opportunity to do that if he had wanted to ), but even Club players know that you keep your hands away from faces in rucks and mauls,and you would have thought especially after the Marler /Haskell debacle that it would be apparent that Scrum caps are best avoided.

 
Re: Sinckler
akb1 (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 14:35
After pulling off his headgear he very clearly put his hand back into the ruck in the area of where the other guys face was. Now you can say there wasn't any intention to gouge I'll accept that, but what do you think his intention was then? Certainly wasn't to wipe his sweaty brow!

 
Re: Sinckler
NobbyClarke (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 14:55
Quote:
Madtyke
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.

Not really thinking in terms of player welfare there are we? 7 week ban is a "lucky result" for a player who has (eventually) admitted he was wrong. May not have intended to contact the eye area, but neither did Ashton who got 10 weeks.

 
Re: Sinckler
never sleep (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 16:08
Quote:
NobbyClarke
Quote:
Madtyke
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.

Not really thinking in terms of player welfare there are we? 7 week ban is a "lucky result" for a player who has (eventually) admitted he was wrong. May not have intended to contact the eye area, but neither did Ashton who got 10 weeks.

I think that with this sort of thing, you have to understand how the system works.
Generally, you are found guilty based on the newspapers, social media, etc before you are up in front of the beak. The rules are different from a normal court of law - in that there doesn't have to be proof that you actually did something. It is more based upon some balance of probability.
So, if you actually show up at the meeting, plead guilty and say you are sorry, then the rules say that your ban will be at the lower end.
Ashton pleaded not guilty - and this is why he got a longer ban.

But, Sinkler probably realised that he was unlikely to be found not guilty and therefore did everything needed to make sure that the ban was minimised.

In a normal court, I don't think that this would have a guilty verdict based on a long lens photo of a hand somewhere in the vicinity of someones eyes. (Please understand that I am not justifying his actions in any way.)
If we take the original accusation, it was that someone had contacted his eyes in an event in the middle of the field. The actual event may actually have been a worse incident performed by someone else entirely in a different ruck.
However, it is possible that more evidence was found and presented - but we would need to wait for the full report to be uploaded for us to know this.

(edited spelling)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2017 16:10 by never sleep.

 
Re: Sinckler
arniepie (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 16:22
Contact with the eye area is a no no and Kyle was rightly banned but from the Northampton game what is more worrying is the game going soft and players whingeing like those from the round ball game, Merrick and care getting suspended yellows from the citing office for offences that happened over a dozen times throughout the weekend and dealt with by the referees, James Haskell calling out the RNLI because he got a little bit wet playing the game hard seems to be going out of fashion in favour of some of the teams cry baby players,,, I think this is more an anti Quins thing than anything else when you look back at the Dave ward eye and the tackle that put James Chisholm out for 8 months and no retrospective action

 
Re: Sinckler
DOK (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 17:00
Quote:
akb1
After pulling off his headgear he very clearly put his hand back into the ruck in the area of where the other guys face was. Now you can say there wasn't any intention to gouge I'll accept that, but what do you think his intention was then? Certainly wasn't to wipe his sweaty brow!

Well, to me it looked like he was trying to push scrum cap back over face (guessing here but maybe in a "never touched him guv! It came off on it's own!" kind of way). You can see he still has scrum cap in his paw when his hands go near the eyes. Had he really been going for eyes he'd have dropped it, not be holding it still.

 
Re: Sinckler
Scaramouche (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 17:18
Quote:
DOK
Quote:
akb1
After pulling off his headgear he very clearly put his hand back into the ruck in the area of where the other guys face was. Now you can say there wasn't any intention to gouge I'll accept that, but what do you think his intention was then? Certainly wasn't to wipe his sweaty brow!

Well, to me it looked like he was trying to push scrum cap back over face (guessing here but maybe in a "never touched him guv! It came off on it's own!" kind of way). You can see he still has scrum cap in his paw when his hands go near the eyes. Had he really been going for eyes he'd have dropped it, not be holding it still.

+1



Illegitimi non carborundum

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 17:49
Quote:
DOK
Quote:
akb1
After pulling off his headgear he very clearly put his hand back into the ruck in the area of where the other guys face was. Now you can say there wasn't any intention to gouge I'll accept that, but what do you think his intention was then? Certainly wasn't to wipe his sweaty brow!

Well, to me it looked like he was trying to push scrum cap back over face (guessing here but maybe in a "never touched him guv! It came off on it's own!" kind of way). You can see he still has scrum cap in his paw when his hands go near the eyes. Had he really been going for eyes he'd have dropped it, not be holding it still.

It won't be a popular view but I think you're right. It did seem odd that when his hand was over the face the second time, he was still holding the scrum cap.

I do wonder if he was simply told to plead guilty and show contrition. In his place I'd have done the same, as trial by media had pretty much condemned him anyway. You only have to look at Luamanu pleading not guilty and having the book thrown at him to see how it works.

As for the comment about whining players, made by arniepie, I agree with a lot of that. Maybe Yarde should bleat like mad next time he gets knee-dropped, or a mid-air forearm to the face...

 
Re: Sinckler
Mayor West (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 18:52
I'm completely with you on this DOK, I've been getting fed up of listening to broadcasters calling for Sinck to be banned for life for something as disgusting as gouging someone's eyes out! It reminds me of Joe "booting another player in the head" when he brushed his shin against the player. Press sensationalism gives the whole sport a bad name. The number of times I've seen hands rubbed in faces or pushing heads into the turf in rucks or after scrums, by Quins and other teams players, and they all get on with it without telling sir.

 
Re: Sinckler
blucherquin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 20:28
Quote:
Mayor West
I'm completely with you on this DOK, I've been getting fed up of listening to broadcasters calling for Sinck to be banned for life for something as disgusting as gouging someone's eyes out! It reminds me of Joe "booting another player in the head" when he brushed his shin against the player. Press sensationalism gives the whole sport a bad name. The number of times I've seen hands rubbed in faces or pushing heads into the turf in rucks or after scrums, by Quins and other teams players, and they all get on with it without telling sir.

Watch the clip they showed on Rugby Tonight and tell me what hes trying to do with his hand when he goes back in the second time and his fingers curl into his eye.

I wasnt convinced it was a bad offence - but I am now.

Frankly the worst of it is JK trying to play it down - if Kyle was a Saint (as it were) I cant see wed be having the same discussion.

 
Re: Sinckler
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 21:10
Not that it justifies anything, but had there been any needle between the two of them prior to this incident?

 
Re: Sinckler
Mayor West (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 21:37
Ive just watched it all back again and it still looks the same to me. He had the headgear in his hand as well so would have that in the way of the eyes anyway. Surely if he had done any "gouging" there would have been some kind of mark left and there was nothing. That's why the punishment was for hands around the eyes not gouging which would have resulted in a much longer ban. Anyway it's all done and dusted whichever way we all see it . Incidentally, just before Merricks shoulder ruined out possible LBP there is a ruck on the far side where somebody puts a hand into the face of Merrick while he's on his back. It does also seem strange that we never get anything TMO'd , as Wardy kept complaining about, in our advantage. Not in just this game.

 
Re: Sinckler
DOK (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 22:00
Yes - I just rewatched it having seen blucherquin's posting, and I remain of the same opinion. He's got a scrum cap in his hand moving it back towards the guy's face (I assume trying to separate himself from it). In the process the scrum cap gets pushed into the palm of his hand, so his fingers are curled over it. I still see nothing that looks like "downward pressure" towards the eyes. Just fingers in the wrong place - which is all you need to cop a ban!

 
Re: Sinckler
Bedfordshire Boy (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 22:12
The press continue to use the headline "gouging", very annoying.

 
Re: Sinckler
DOK (IP Logged)
04 October, 2017 22:57
OK - had a look at the rugby tonight footage. The first close up they show looks bad, looks like Kyle could have scraped fingers along the face. But the follow up close up from a slightly different angle shows him closing fingers round the scrum cap and actually moving the hand away from the face. So I remain convinced there was no malice or intent in that, though I'd still like to hear from the man what that hand was doing back there in the first place.

 
Re: Sinckler
Scamble (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 09:50
Well the RFU ruling says they are content it was intentional.

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Idiot

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 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?