rugbyunion
Latest News:

Saints & Sinners Message Board


Quicklinks


Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
ComeOnYouSaints.com
ComeOnYouSaints.com (IP Logged)

News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 00:26
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

 
Mark H
Mark H (IP Logged)

32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:24
Just announced on Sky - free to play 2 Nov.

 
Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:26
flip it



No alcohol for January. I'm a dryathlete in aid of cancer research.

Dryathlon

 
andysaint
andysaint (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:32
Cor blimey did not see that coming. Speechless....

 
tedge
tedge (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:34
I think many of us did see it coming

 
Mark H
Mark H (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:34
Have to be honest, about 20 less that I was expecting. It was always going to be a case of if guilty or if pleading guilty (as he apparently did) that a hefty book would be thrown.

 
andysaint
andysaint (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:35
I thought 16 to ban him for the season and summer internationals. Clearly I was drastically wrong. That must rank amongst the longest bans?

 
jimmies
jimmies (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:36
It's done now.....He has his punishment, lets move forward and hope CC comes out the other side a better player/person

 
D WEST
D WEST (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:36
Let's be honest he deserves it. Calum made a big mistake and it's hard to defend his actions. He knows what he did and will be gutted and regretful.

 
MESSAGES->author
Paul Flatt (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:43
Dear Jim -

I don't know if you read this TOSH, but may I make a suggestion?

I think it might be areally good idea for lots of reasons if Calum was told to do some travelling in some of the less obvious parts of the rugby world while he serves his punishment

Go to places where people don't know him, where priorities are different, maybe where life is a little bit more difficult - do some coaching, see life from a different angle, do some growing up out of the microscope's view.



“... I never dreamed about success. I worked for it." Estée Lauder,
American businesswoman

 
MESSAGES->author
Matthew (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:46
The ban's in the range I was expecting, albeit at the lower end of that range.

I like Paul's idea - why not make the time out a time for some 'community service'?

 
the plastic paddy
the plastic paddy (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:51
He is extremely lucky. Go to most forums round the world and people think he should have been banned for years, perhaps even for ever. Worst thing I have ever seen on a rugby field, he had better hope Hawkins is able to play again or the sanctions are going to get very costly!!!!

 
MESSAGES->author
ChrisG (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:54
Lot of free spaces under bridges tonight I fear...

 
MESSAGES->author
Paul Flatt (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:54
PP - what is your expertise in this field? Who here has suggested it was lucky?



“... I never dreamed about success. I worked for it." Estée Lauder,
American businesswoman

 
MESSAGES->author
smurfomatic (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 20:57
He's got pretty much what he deserved. If this had been a Saints player having his arm broken by a player from another team, we'd have a gibbet put up in the car park at FG and be selling tickets.

Maybe this will make Calum take a look at his attitude, he's played on the edge in his time both at Saints and Leeds, but he's overstepped it a few too many times. Use this as a way to improve yourself, Calum.



Photo Gallery

SWH12 - May 10th 2014

 
thegaffa
the gaffa (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:01
Very good post Paul,this will either make or break the lad, there will be no way back from this if the wrong option is taken and a new path not taken or strayed from.
Someone must know a Kiwi farm or Gaucho ranch.He has made his bed and now has to get out of it.

In the old school world before the citing police took over, anyone who regularly became involved in anything a bit seriously iffy, always seemed to get their dues with a big lesson at the bottom of a ruck or got their just rewards from the real hard men of the game.

Hope he can turn things round and we can get an East Mids final for the end of the season.

 
Whiston Saint
Whiston Saint (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:05
A well respected ex-player told me it was a 'bit of old school' a few days after the incident. A far different attitude from the likes of PP and others on here who clearly come from the 'PC school'.

I think he has been made an example of and as such can count himself a little unlucky.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29/03/2012 21:07 by Whiston Saint.

 
olneysaint
OlneySaint (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:09
Mark you say Calum pleaded guilty but guilty to what charge?



http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i167/angelicviki/olneysaint.gif

 
Numberseven
numberseven (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:10
I am afraid he got what he deserved.
Flattie makes a very good point-the punishment alone cannot and should not be enough-some form of atonement is required for his future rehabilitation.

 
MESSAGES->author
ChrisG (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:12
The 'real hard men of the game' Gaffa, got their reputations by and large from doing things they shouldn't too. This notion that their was some age of chivalry in rugby is a fantasy.

Thats not for a moment condoning Calums actions, he deserves the ban.

 
Mark H
Mark H (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:13
According to Sky Damon, guilty to hyperextending Hawkins' arm. Full judgement published tomorrow.

 
walks10
walks10 (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:14
i'm with you Whiston seems excessive to me. arms and legs are fair game in freeing the ball in every ruck rightly or wrongly, he used excessive force after the whistle and deserves a ban, not 32 weeks imo

 
MESSAGES->author
Jazzman (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:22
Quote:
numberseven
some form of atonement is required for his future rehabilitation.

I think it is going to be very difficult for him to ever go on a Premiership rugby field again. The fact that he will have served his time will not and does not now satisfy people and to some extent that I can understand.
Folks are still dragging up the Dylan incident from 5 years ago, aided and abetted by the media who delight in mentioning it ad infinitum. He (CC) will be the target of all kinds of vitriol from the terraces and no doubt cheap shots on the field.
Perhaps a change of club would be best for all concerned and as stated previously somewhere in Patagonia or South Island will be ideal?

 
Christoff
smitferbrainz (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:27
Perhaps the club may sanction him too. I wonder if he will be on his £xxxxx per month wages. Can't say I'm surprised. Hope we can just move forward to the rest of the season now. Feel sorry for him in some ways as he may be primarily remembered for this now as opposed to his ability.

 
MESSAGES->author
St Francis (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:31
I think that the kind of people who are getting hysterical over this will be distracted by some shiny thing or other well before the 32 weeks are up. Remember Matt Stevens, who did coke and got two years? I didn't hear any boos at Twickenham recently.

Calum will be rehabilitated. He just needs not to beat himself up for the whole ban and as Paul Flatt says, to go and do something useful far, far away.

 
Christoff
smitferbrainz (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:34
Steward at Tigers?

 
thegaffa
the gaffa (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:35
Chris,never said theirs "was some age of chivalry in rugby" but there was less slyness,diving and hiding behind a cloak, all in MHO of course.
Give me a front row bust up to the trips dives and acts that seem more common now. Anyway see some of you soon.

 
St_Iain
St_Iain (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:36
im not going to mention my views on the ban itself but would it be best to send Calum to the same people they sent Dylan as mentioned he does ride close to the edge, like many players past and present.

 
choppa
choppa (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:38
I'm thinking I'm in the minority here but I personally never want to see him in the green, black and gold ever again.

 
andysaint
andysaint (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:39
He's young enough to have a wake up call that will define his career. He also has the chance to turn his hand to looking at a career outside of rugby when he retires. If he has something else going on it may relax him he always seems a bit too on edge.

 
kmuir
Kath. (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:40
Thought you may want to see this

RFU Official Verdict here


Calum Clark disciplinary verdict
Thursday March 29, 2012
Issued by Nicol McClelland

CALUM CLARK of Northampton Saints was this evening suspended for 32 weeks for an act contrary to good sportsmanship - Law 10(4) (M)

Clark pleaded guilty to hyperextending the right arm of Leicester Tigers' Rob Hawkins during the LV= Cup final at Sixways on March 18.

The suspension will run from March 22 to the November 1. He is free to play again on November 2 2012.

Clark is ordered to pay hearing costs of £500.

The full judgement will be made available tomorrow. The player has the right to appeal.

 
MESSAGES->author
desbralass (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:42
Thank you Kath.



Bridesmaids no more.

 
andysaint
andysaint (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:45
Lots of tigers unhappy wanting the club to sue CC. No bothered about them but hope this doesn't cause too much (further?) bad feeling.

 
Christoff
smitferbrainz (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:49
Quote:
andysaint
Lots of tigers unhappy wanting the club to sue CC. No bothered about them but hope this doesn't cause too much (further?) bad feeling.

Gosh, that's a surprise eh?

 
MESSAGES->author
Monkey1 (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 21:55
Quote:
numberseven
I am afraid he got what he deserved.
Flattie makes a very good point-the punishment alone cannot and should not be enough-some form of atonement is required for his future rehabilitation.

For deliberately injuring a player in this manner this appears to be a very lenient punishment. Wait & see what the full report says, he may well have offered or accepted some degree of atonement by means of community work or whatever. Personally I would never like to see him in a rugby shirt again, but if he is genuinely remorseful & willing to change then perhaps we can view him differently after he has served his ban. As St Francis mentioned, people are forgiving about Matt Stevens these days.

 
tedge
tedge (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:01
Time IS a great healer

 
Stopsy
Stopsy (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:04
Use the time wisely Calum, come back better for it and I hope Rob is back playing before you.

 
MESSAGES->author
Monkey1 (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:05
PS. I am a Newcastle supporter, not a Saints supporter trying to stick up for one of 'our' boys. No matter which club we support I think that if Calum doesn't learn from this & change his ways we would all be happy to see him dropped down a deep well & left there, but if he serves his sentence & comes out at the other end a truly reformed character then it is in the past & over with, we move on. There is no place in rugby for what Calum did, but there is no place in rugby for vigilante attitudes either.

 
Whiston Saint
Whiston Saint (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:07
Quote:
smitferbrainz
Perhaps the club may sanction him too. I wonder if he will be on his £xxxxx per month wages. Can't say I'm surprised. Hope we can just move forward to the rest of the season now. Feel sorry for him in some ways as he may be primarily remembered for this now as opposed to his ability.

To do that there would have to be some kind of clause in his contract catering for consequences of a player being banned. He is no different from any other employee in that respect. The club may have a procedure allowing them to vary a salary should the player be come unavailable as a result of a disciplnary ban.

 
SarahH
SarahH (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:08
He did something very bad and he's paying for it. For a professional rugby player to not be playing rugby for 6 months is a very hard thing to have to deal with and for someone as intense as Calum he will really be beating himself up about it. I hope he get some good advice on what to do with these months to make them constructive and useful.


The boy did bad but does that mean the rugby community should shun him? Does that mean he should never play for us again or never play in English rugby again?

Hands up who has never ever done anything in a red mist? Or in a temper? Hands up who has never ever done anything they immediately regretted?

It happens. And he is going to pay for it. Not just in the time he's out of the game but in many ways afterwards too.

I sincerely hope he takes time out to think about what he's done. Do some anger management like Dylan has done. And come back and face the inevitable flak he'll get, just as Dylan always does and hold his head high as a Saints player.

It's not the mistakes that make a man but the actions he does afterwards.

 
graemeadavis
Graeme D (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:10
One of the worst actions I have ever seen on a rugby field.

Personally I believe the sentence is far too light but the decision has been made and that is it.

I hope the 8 months off give him time to think about his actions and get his head in the right place for when he comes back. Dylan - who's ban was too long who has improved no end over the last couple of years will hopefully give him a few pointers in the right direction.



Graeme

 
andysaint
andysaint (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:11
Quote:
smitferbrainz
Quote:
andysaint
Lots of tigers unhappy wanting the club to sue CC. No bothered about them but hope this doesn't cause too much (further?) bad feeling.

Gosh, that's a surprise eh?

Someone just piped up with damages between £100000 and £1 mil do they live in cloud cuckoo land?

Edited due do dodgy iPad spellchecker



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29/03/2012 22:12 by andysaint.

 
dgrantham
grannyg (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:13
If Hawkins loses his livelihood I would expect him to take action to recover his lost future earnings. I would have thought this would be a bigger concern than the 32 weeks suspension, and I might add, a very sad day for the future of Rugby and a good day for the future of the legal profession.

Lets hope this does not happen.

 
MESSAGES->author
ChrisG (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:15
Fine words Monkey, there have been a few high profile players over the years that have served lengthy bans yet come back with a clean slate and got on with their life and job, one even captained England to a World Cup. Sadly though in this day and age no doubt the holier than thou trolls will still want their pound of flesh with interest everytime his name is mentioned. He's done the crime, let him serve the time.

 
Purebob
Purebob (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:18
* snip *



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29/03/2012 22:46 by Purebob.

 
olneysaint
OlneySaint (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:19
to quote an earlier post but with an opposite view i think that i am in a minority here. i want to see Calum back playing for the Saints as soon as possible.
has he done wrong? yes. i am sure that he was trying to intimidate/hurt Hawkins, did he go too far? by the resulting injury yes, but he did not intentionally break his arm. when Brian (the chiropractor) Lima did his infamous islander tackles they were so hard that they resulted in pain for the opposition but he did not try to intentionally break a bone. there is a fine line between hard play, reckless play and dirty play and i find it interesting how many people on this board, including many who have not even played the game at a good junior club standard, seem to be expert enough to know that Calum's was definite dirty play. it would be interesting to know what would be said if someone as famous as Richie McCaw ever injured someone because he often goes from the very hard to actual dirty play but without causing a bad injury his bad points are overlooked.
two points to end my rant on- both Dylan and Calum did what they did in the breakdown area which is the be all and end all of the game these days. when you could ruck players ala the all black way i don't recall these type of incidents happening perhaps the pc brigade who stopped old fashioned rucking have something to answer for.
secondly i find it amusing that Richard Cockerill who on occasion could be a dirty player is so quick to cast the first stone one week and then not see a case to answer (Youngs) the following week and even more amusing who is the citing officer for the Youngs incident none other than Wade Dooley, well he would be an expert on dirty play wouldn't he?



http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i167/angelicviki/olneysaint.gif

 
Numberseven
numberseven (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:22
Monkey 1 you and I are saying the same thing, and if there is not a process of atonement that CC completely buys into then I am in the camp that doesn`t want to see the guy in a shirt again-GBG or any other.
I have to say I didn`t see this form of "accident" coming, but I have, for some time, been concerned about his body language at certain times in matches.

Rugby, as we all know, has to be about controlled aggression, otherwise its mayhem.

 
annie blackthorn
annie blackthorn (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:22
Errrhmm.
Stevens just 'injured' himself and by implication, the reputation of Bath Rugby. He did not deliberately injure another player on the pitch to the extent that he will be injured for life, even if he does manage to get back into top class rugby again. No comparison. frankly.

Glad CC has got a hefty ban. Trust that like Stevens he listens to sound advice from people he can trust, and uses the time to turn his life around. Or is he still too arrogant to believe he did anything 'that wrong'?



Francois Louw
Proud to be wearing the BB&W and feared by all who play in the English Prem!

 
MESSAGES->author
ChrisG (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:24
Was he arrogant in the first place then Annie?

 
SarahH
SarahH (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:26
Quote:
annie blackthorn
Or is he still too arrogant to believe he did anything 'that wrong'?

Where's the evidence for him being arrogant? Has he commented?

 
MESSAGES->author
Monkey1 (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:27
Quote:
annie blackthorn
Errrhmm.
Stevens just 'injured' himself and by implication, the reputation of Bath Rugby. He did not deliberately injure another player on the pitch to the extent that he will be injured for life, even if he does manage to get back into top class rugby again. No comparison. frankly.

Nobody is comparing what they did Annie, it was just an example of how a player who was once in disgrace is now accepted again.

 
TonyMay
TonyMay (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:29
to compare Youngs slapping someone for cheating cannot be compared to deliberately and recklessly breaking the arm of a player who was on his feet competing for the ball legitimately, with the tackled player holding on.

 
Shaw-shank
Shawshank (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:32
Why inflict this miscreant on some poor 'under-developed' part of the world-wide rugby family?

Patronising tosh...

 
SarahH
SarahH (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:37
What should we do then Shawshank? Hang him?

Unrealistic tosh.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 29/03/2012 22:39 by SarahH.

 
olneysaint
OlneySaint (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:43
you can't really compare slapping to use of a knee and punching either can you? reckless i agree totally but deliberate i never will



http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i167/angelicviki/olneysaint.gif

 
walks10
walks10 (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:45
worse thing ever seen on a rugby field. really?? pokes in the eye, punches, kicks, headbuts, happen up and down the country at all levels every week and have done for years. playing club rugby in the 70's amd 80's was very interesting at times. he was excessive and was unlucky Hawkins suffered an injury and deserves a ban.

Umaga and pal deliberately injuring O'Driscoll on Lions tour with no censure, burger poking another lion in the eye, i could go on. reality check required i think, it is rugby after all

 
RossM
RossM (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:48
For those mentioning the possibility of Hawkins seeking compensation here is an article in Planet Rugby on Rougerie suing Phil Greening and Wasps.

Planet Rugby.

Rougerie of course is still playing so if (worst case) Hawkins is unable to resume his career then I would expect any compensation to be considerably higher than €40,000.

 
Duncan Keene
Duncan Keene (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:49
I hope now the judgement is out there will be some kind of public apology from Callum to Rob. That would then end the matter in my view.

 
MESSAGES->author
ChrisG (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:49
Two incidents, yes they are totally different, in one no one at that players club condones his actions and virtually all agree on length of ban, in the other...

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king, and boy oh boy will we see that over the next 24 hrs or so on here.

 
MESSAGES->author
ChrisG (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:54
Really Duncan, is there a precedent for this? You'd like to think its already happened behind closed doors wouldn't you.
Not sure I remember in a long list of miscreants over the years anybody having to make a public apology, why is this different?

 
MESSAGES->author
St Marlowe (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 22:57
All those of you brave, affronted and clearly incredibly knowledgeable keyboard heroes who are accusing him of being guilty of not getting a long enough ban or not having committed hari-kari, please wait until the report is published. On the BBC tonight James Burridge, reporting on the ban, said that the panel had not found any INTENT.

Clearly, he deserved a long ban for an incredibly stupid and as it turned out, dangerous, act.

I believe the club will attempt a rehabilitation, and seek atonement , because not only is that the right thing to do, but that is in the ethos of the coaching staff.

IF the RFU report confirms what Mr Burridge has reported tonight, perhaps those who have been calling his intent deliberate may just like to wind their necks in and be temperate until the report is published.



David L

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

- Live wrong and preposterously

 
MESSAGES->author
ChrisG (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 23:03
Of course they will not David, they know better, they've seen different evidence and talked to different witnesses! And of course it might leave them with one less thing to get self righteous and indignant about.

 
MESSAGES->author
St Marlowe (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 23:07
I know that Chris but I thought this was a holier than though competition!

And I am considerably holier than yow!



David L

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

- Live wrong and preposterously

 
fionahig
fionahig (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 23:10
There's a comment posted on the Offy regarding the no intent point and they're clearly considering an appeal.

Offy Statement

 
MESSAGES->author
ChrisG (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 23:12
And perhaps it needs mentioning again before the next batch rush in, no one here is condoning Calums actions, so please bear that it mind before you start lecturing us like children on the evils of your perceived world. Thank you.

 
MESSAGES->author
Tusker1 (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
29 March, 2012 23:14
Firstly, will we ever find out what Hawkins injury was? You cannot break your elbow! Too much ill informed gossip around a contentious event. Calum has been found guilty of hyper extending Hawkins elbow which may have led to ligament damage and or fracture of one of 3 bones that make up the joint. I wish him a speedy recovery.
It was reckless and a single moment in time whilst playing a contact sport we all say we love.Everyone has their opinion but now get off his back. He knows what happened and is paying the price. He is and still will be a Saints player and are we in a world with no second chances? I look forward to welcoming back a more thoughtful Calum Clark in November
Thank you to all the one time posters that are holier-than-thou. COYS

 
Disgusted1
Disgusted1 (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 01:43
Just signed up to make a point. I have always found saints fans to be top notch whenever we have played them. And up till a few years ago had great respect for the club. However for the last few years there has been a undercurrent of thuggery creeping in. Mainly down to a small group of players. Unfortunately they are for the most part senior internationals. Hartley Ashton lawes and now Clarke. While no club is perfect, their behaviour seems to be tolerated as the norm. While the players are responsible for their actions, management and fans are responsible for the ethos and image of the club. It has been clear for a while now that the coaching staff have at least turned a blind eye to it. For the sake of the club I hope it wasn't a recommended tactic. The image of the club has been getting progressively worse as a result. I have no doubt if the Clark incident hadn't occurred, the recent attitude towards this club would have just been a blip and respect would have been regained as these players matured or left.
Unfortunately for the club, the fans and Hawkins, Clark went into a ruck after the whistle, punched a man on the ground and then caught his arm and wrenched it back, levering it over his own body. I am not going to argue these points. It is clear from the video this is what occurred and it was intentional. No one except Clark will ever know if he intended to break the arm, but he categorically intended to do damage. It was a disgusting act and he deserves to be banned for a lot longer than he received.
I know for a fact this behaviour wouldn't be tolerlated in the club I support. Management, the players and fans would all have put their hands up and said fair is fair he acted like a dick and let all of us down, he deserves his punishment and hopefully learns from it and doesn't do it again. I would expect the same reaction from most clubs.
The most disgusting and disappointing side to the whole affair is the reaction of fans and management to the incident. I fear the image of this club will never recover. The comments that have appeared on here and other forums defending Clark whilst attacking, other players, clubs and fans have been disgusting, for example i have seen comments cynically attacking leicester for giving hawkins a new contract! Northampton Fans have criticised the condemnation on leicesters forum, have ye not realised this isn't confined to a northampton leicester @#$%& for tat. On every almost every rugby forum world wide this incident is being condemned. The ugly comments from here and yere official forum have been quoted and discussed with horror. Ye now hold the mantle of most despised rugby team and fans worldwide.
I would suggest finding and reading all these comments and then do a bit of soul searching and ask yourself is this what I want to represent my club?

 
Eif Jones
Eif Jones (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 03:16
I suspect that Hawkins was lucky that a bone fractured, far easier to repair than major damage to tendons, ligaments and the like.

Intent should never come into it, everybody is going to deny intent whatever happened. He pleaded guilty, in my view that's it, intent is immaterial and certainly not grounds for an appeal.

 
DaventrySaint
DaventrySaint (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 03:42
Keyboard warriors, got to love them.

Not Calum's brightest moment. Ban is fully deserved, and the injury to Hawkins has been found to be not intentional. Anyone who still disagrees and considers Calum to have done it deliberately to cause harm is, in the eyes of the law, wrong. Let's move on.

 
MESSAGES->author
St Francis (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 06:03
Quote:
Disgusted1
Just signed up to make a point.

.... thank you, Tunbridge Wells. You have added immensely to the debate. Well, you typed a lot of words, anyway.

 
Purebob
Purebob (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 06:09
Quote:
Eif Jones
I suspect that Hawkins was lucky that a bone fractured, far easier to repair than major damage to tendons, ligaments and the like.
Intent should never come into it, everybody is going to deny intent whatever happened. He pleaded guilty, in my view that's it, intent is immaterial and certainly not grounds for an appeal.


Rob had a fracture addressed in surgery on monday but also required ligament reconstruction, unfortunately. Recovery time reassessed to be 3 to 5 months. Tigs medical staff say he may not be able to straighten his arm fully again.

Not great.

 
andysaint
andysaint (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 07:05
I don't like all this have a go at the fans. Are we on the pitch? No. Do we carry out the actions of other players? No. Do we tell players what to do? No. We love our club and will defend it in the face of unreasoned criticism as would any fan. I reject the point that there is an endemic problem here it s unfortunate that there has been a few high profile incidents but how many yellows and cites have we received in 4 years? I guess less than other clubs. I suspect disgusted1 is a troll and won't post again and will sit back and read the boards. I also fail understand what our management can do to stop these one off incidents. As far as I am concerned, t is the opposite, they have done a very good job with Dylan.

 
RossM
RossM (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 07:20
Not Calum's brightest moment.

Understatement of the week.

Anyone who still disagrees and considers Calum to have done it deliberately to cause harm is, in the eyes of the law, wrong.

Well if he didn't intend to cause harm, it was damn effective. Is he thick as well as vicious?

 
FyldeShark
FyldeShark (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 07:44
Perhaps it should be tested "in the eyes of the law"

If this happened in non-professional rugby it is fair odds that plod would be involved. There is president for rugby players to have custodial sentences for assault on the pitch.

 
COYS Admin
COYS Admin (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 07:46
Quote:
Disgusted1
Unfortunately for the club, the fans and Hawkins, Clark went into a ruck after the whistle, punched a man on the ground and then caught his arm and wrenched it back, levering it over his own body. I am not going to argue these points. It is clear from the video this is what occurred and it was intentional. No one except Clark will ever know if he intended to break the arm, but he categorically intended to do damage. It was a disgusting act and he deserves to be banned for a lot longer than he received.
If the 1st part of this rant is what you saw, the good offices of Specsavers are close by.

I am glad you're not going to argue them because a debate with someone of your undoubted entrenched views would be tiresome.

It is clear from the findings of one of the toughest judges in this field that it was NOT intentional. I am sure the RFU welcomes your application for his position.

Quote:
Disingenious
The comments that have appeared on here and other forums defending Clark whilst attacking, other players, clubs and fans have been disgusting, for example i have seen comments cynically attacking leicester for giving hawkins a new contract!

You have seen none of that here

Quote:
Disbelievable
I would suggest finding and reading all these comments and then do a bit of soul searching and ask yourself is this what I want to represent my club?

Would suggest you take your anger and direct into a more factual reverie.

Post libellous rubbish like this on here again and you are banned.

 
graemeadavis
Graeme D (IP Logged)

Re: 32 weeks
30 March, 2012 07:58
Quote:
walks10
worse thing ever seen on a rugby field. really??
Umaga and pal deliberately injuring O'Driscoll on Lions tour with no censure, burger poking another lion in the eye, i could go on. reality check required i think, it is rugby after all

If you read the post again you will see that I said one of the worst ....

Interestingly I also compared it with the two incidents you referred to in your post.

Unfortunately you still appear to be living in the 70's and 80's. Having played at a decent level in the 80's I am quite aware of what went on a pitch - I now coach youth rugby and make sure things that happened then do not happen now.



Graeme

 
Gregor
Gregor (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 08:03
What concerns me is a wider issue here which is a continuing & perhaps growing problem with discipline on the pitch. This incident is one of the more extreme examples but how many times do we give away stupid penalties & incur yellow cards?

Whether you think Dylan & Calum are guilty/not guilty and/or lucky/unlucky is not my point. Our forward strength has been stripped by these suspensions added to the injuries we have to the extent that, given the rather tricky nature of our next 3 matches, we'll be lucky to make the play-offs & if we do, I wouldn't rush out & buy a ticket for Twickenham. And I suspect that some supporters at other clubs might be quite pleased about that...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30/03/2012 08:06 by Gregor.

 
MESSAGES->author
St Marlowe (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 08:24
I think you have a valid point there Gregor.
Our discipline has been poor.

Not wishing in any way to say I have second sight, but a few weeks ago I posted expressing concern that jumping up and down in rage at a ref's decision was hardly mature or the act of a responsible captain.

I understand why Jim made him captain, but not sure that he was/is emotionally ready for leadership..

It is part of a wider breakdown in discipline, and is, I feel in part, down to the players not being in control of their game. (i.e. having different interpretations of confusing laws every week).

No excuses for poor discipline, but hard men need consistent laws or they will start to take the outcome into their own hands, which is bad news for everyone.

Not blaming refs, but the whole panoply of the game.

How many law changes in the last 3 years in Rugby?
How many in any other sport?



David L

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

- Live wrong and preposterously

 
AlecW
AlecW (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 08:28
Not trolling - honest, just popping over from LI.

I have to say I didn't see it first time, thought it looked bad the second time and thought it looked downright horrendous the third time I played the vid.

There is no doubt that Clark has "form", as some of the lurid videos from earlier years posted around these boards show. I would guess that he has anger / temper issues. He is only 22, for goodness sake.

Stevens seems to have cleaned up his act - good for him. Hartley seems to have done so too, after a gouging incident when he too was young (I think Ferris was fishooking him, FWIW). Clark seems to be a talented flanker with (as I said) some issues. I would genuinely hope that he takes a VERY long (at least 32 weeks!) hard look at himself, with the help of friends and Saints management and perhaps gets some help / therapy with whatever it is that causes the red mist to descend, for want of a better phrase.

The hope is therefore that he emerges as a more focused, controlled player, which will be better for him, for Saints and for the opposition's elf and safety! The best players are usually those who can control their aggression - some of you may remember Buck Shelford?

At the moment, IMHO Clark is a liability. If the ban causes him to reassess and to calm down, then well done him. The WORST thing he can do IMHO is get into a "the world is against me" attitude - he needs to recognise that he has done something very wrong, then go and sort himself out.

And I reckon he needs to make a full and sincere personal apology to Rob Hawkins (it needn't be public) as the first step in the process.

Just my halfpence worth - good luck for the rest of the season!

Alec from LI

 
St Owen
St Owen (IP Logged)

Re: News: Northampton Saints statement regarding Calum Clark
30 March, 2012 08:31
I always love it when outher supporters come on here offering advice. As if none of us are capable of reason on our own.

Ironically, the most reasoned discussion on this topic has been had on here and on the Tigers board between Tigers and Northampton supporters.

I've offered my thoughts on this saga previously and won't repeat them. All that matters now is that an injustice was done and a punishment has been dealt. Lets take stock and move on and hope Rob Hawkins recovers fully and swiftly.



You can't always get what you want, But if you try sometimes well you might find, You get what you need.

Richards/Jagger

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?