Quote:

Quinten Poulsen
It will be interesting to see if he was banned for something other than a swinging arm cheap shot to the head from behind. I'm not complaining about the length of the ban though - I want him to play for England.

I think it's quoted as a dangerous tackle that made contact to the neck. It was fairly reckless and personally I think a ban was deserved.

Quinky is proper rattled, he might explode..funny

Quote:

ukms

Quote:

Quinky Kin

Quote:

ukms

Quote:

Quinky Kin

Hughes gets 2 weeks for a blatant strike to the head.

I know we all view things through one eye ...... but have you seen the HD footage that the panel had available or just a grainy clip from Twitter ?

Which part do you think I got wrong?

Did I say you had anything wrong ? ..... sometimes context and how/why things happen is relevant which good quality footage would provide rather than making your assessment from a grainy clip.

What part do you think the panel have got wrong ? ..... why is 2 weeks wrong ? Why not wait until you read the findings before rubbishing it ....

You know the match was on telly right? What extra special cameras do you think the panel have access to?

Also why have European rugby effectively given marler a four week ban because it is likely he wouldn't play on the 5/6th of November? Isn't this the same for Hughes?!?!?! There is something dodgy going on here, especially when ward has received a longer ban than Hughes

Quote:

RodneyRegis

Quote:

ukms

Quote:

Quinky Kin

Quote:

ukms

Quote:

Quinky Kin

Hughes gets 2 weeks for a blatant strike to the head.

I know we all view things through one eye ...... but have you seen the HD footage that the panel had available or just a grainy clip from Twitter ?

Which part do you think I got wrong?

Did I say you had anything wrong ? ..... sometimes context and how/why things happen is relevant which good quality footage would provide rather than making your assessment from a grainy clip.

What part do you think the panel have got wrong ? ..... why is 2 weeks wrong ? Why not wait until you read the findings before rubbishing it ....

You know the match was on telly right? What extra special cameras do you think the panel have access to?

Who said they have special cameras ? ..... on TV we only saw one view .... it wasn’t reviewed by anyone ..... there’s more than one camera so the panel have access to all of them and the ability to slow and freeze it, combine shots that show different angles etc etc ..... far better than we can freeze on our sky plus.
I’m not saying he didn’t strike his neck, I’m not saying he didn’t deserve a ban..... I just find it amusing when some post nonsense that they haven’t seen for themself or applied any context to it ..... that said, I fully admit I can often be one eyed as well, it’s human nature when you enjoy the game that we do

Quote:

Quins4life
Also why have European rugby effectively given marler a four week ban because it is likely he wouldn't play on the 5/6th of November? Isn't this the same for Hughes?!?!?! There is something dodgy going on here, especially when ward has received a longer ban than Hughes

It’s an interesting point but Hughes doesn’t really feature in this as it was only 2 weeks ..... the puzzle is why Ward and Marler are free to play on different dates yet both received the same sanction of 3 weeks ? .....

Quote:

MrOther
So, we've got an entire front row on suspension, but there's surely no systemic problem that could possibly be laid at the door of the management or the Director of Rugby.
How many anecdotes are necessary before you have a statistic?

I’m going to regret this - but go on, explain to me how these things are related.

How can it be that Quins have their entire front row cited and suspended (including two British Lions).

Another ignominious rugby first.

Responsibility ultimately falls on the the DoR. However, the club (namely the owners or CEO) could tell all their playing staff to stop and that any further citings this season will result in additional disciplinary action by the club. furthermore Jk should be told that he must get a grip or face a red card.

The lack of discipline is costing the club and seriously short-changing supporters.

May be we should all send an email to Mr Ellis requesting a ST refund!!

Quote:

ukms

Quote:

Quins4life
Also why have European rugby effectively given marler a four week ban because it is likely he wouldn't play on the 5/6th of November? Isn't this the same for Hughes?!?!?! There is something dodgy going on here, especially when ward has received a longer ban than Hughes

It’s an interesting point but Hughes doesn’t really feature in this as it was only 2 weeks ..... the puzzle is why Ward and Marler are free to play on different dates yet both received the same sanction of 3 weeks ? .....

Hughes had a different citing panel to the other 3 on the day.

Marler was given a 3 game ban, and as he wouldn't be playing the LV cup game, it extends into the England games.

Hughes was given a 2 week ban, starting with Saints next week, and then it runs out in the LV.

Quote:

Hymenoptera
Quinky is proper rattled, he might explode..funny

Wow! Clearly we've never met. I'm not rattled at all. Just disgusted at the farce that is claimed to be disciplinary panels.

Quote:

Raggs

Quote:

ukms

Quote:

Quins4life
Also why have European rugby effectively given marler a four week ban because it is likely he wouldn't play on the 5/6th of November? Isn't this the same for Hughes?!?!?! There is something dodgy going on here, especially when ward has received a longer ban than Hughes

It’s an interesting point but Hughes doesn’t really feature in this as it was only 2 weeks ..... the puzzle is why Ward and Marler are free to play on different dates yet both received the same sanction of 3 weeks ? .....

Hughes had a different citing panel to the other 3 on the day.

Marler was given a 3 game ban, and as he wouldn't be playing the LV cup game, it extends into the England games.

Hughes was given a 2 week ban, starting with Saints next week, and then it runs out in the LV.

Cheers Raggs .... interesting I hadn’t noticed the difference in panel, I have seen this before where a panel pay more attention to the number of games than others ...

Quote:

ukms

Quote:

Raggs

Quote:

ukms

Quote:

Quins4life
Also why have European rugby effectively given marler a four week ban because it is likely he wouldn't play on the 5/6th of November? Isn't this the same for Hughes?!?!?! There is something dodgy going on here, especially when ward has received a longer ban than Hughes

It’s an interesting point but Hughes doesn’t really feature in this as it was only 2 weeks ..... the puzzle is why Ward and Marler are free to play on different dates yet both received the same sanction of 3 weeks ? .....

Hughes had a different citing panel to the other 3 on the day.

Marler was given a 3 game ban, and as he wouldn't be playing the LV cup game, it extends into the England games.

Hughes was given a 2 week ban, starting with Saints next week, and then it runs out in the LV.

Cheers Raggs .... interesting I hadn’t noticed the difference in panel, I have seen this before where a panel pay more attention to the number of games than others ...

Panel being described as "controversial" in today's press.

Guardian reporting that Quins may appeal the effective 4 week ban since it's not consistent with other rulings and has been overturned in the past.

Marler misses more games because they rule that he wouldn't have been available for the LV anyway since he'd have been called up by England. So they end up banning him for 4 appearances.

From the Grauniad:
Harlequins believe they have a case, no doubt strengthened after Hughes’s verdict, because while Marler was almost certainly due to be named in Jones’s squad, he had not been at the time of the hearing. In 2013 Cian Healy successfully appealed against a three-week ban being spread over four weeks after the disciplinary panel had initially ruled he was unlikely to play for Leinster during a Six Nations rest week.

Wasn’t there something similar recently with the AB’s and the ban on SBW .... I think they successfully challenged it .... although from memory it was some random training game in question.... I can’t see how they can decide Marler wouldn’t be eligible for LV ... unless there is registration for LV ?

It's not that he wouldn't be eligible, it is because they decided he would be away with England so not avsilable to play. Yet the same decision wasn't applied to Hughes.

Quote:

akb1
It's not that he wouldn't be eligible, it is because they decided he would be away with England so not avsilable to play. Yet the same decision wasn't applied to Hughes.

I think the club will probably use the Healy precedent as the main anchor for the appeal, and use the Hughes judgement as extra ammunition.

The farce of these latest citings and punishments is still annoying me. EPCR should come out and explain how they can cite Hartley but not Slimani, how Slimani escapes with no ban at all, how they can take Joe's likely non-involvement in LV into account but not use the same logic with others, how they found nothing wrong with the Parra incident, etc. Just stupid. Along with the failure to get proper sponsorship, sadly it looks like the change of management and structure of the European competition hasn't stopped it being run by a bunch of amateurs

Well Marler hasn't been selected for the England squad so he may as well spend the extra week considering his future behaviour.

Quote:

Quinten Poulsen
Well Marler hasn't been selected for the England squad so he may as well spend the extra week considering his future behaviour.

Huh? That's what we were talking about.