rugbyunion
Latest News:

The Unofficial Northampton Saints Supporters' Message Board




Walks11
1 week for T
Walks11 (IP Logged)
13 March, 2018 21:53
According to TommyV on twitter. Sounds a sensible conclusion for a change

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: 1 week for T
shendy (IP Logged)
13 March, 2018 21:59
Good outcome, move on.
Will be interested to read the heading notes when they come out.

 
St Saltaire
Re: 1 week for T
St Saltaire (IP Logged)
13 March, 2018 23:00
Glad to hear that. A sensible decision.

 
malco
Re: 1 week for T
malco (IP Logged)
13 March, 2018 23:18
Just wanting to gently point out that Nathan Catt spoke in defence of TH.

 
Dragonboy
Re: 1 week for T
Dragonboy (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 01:31
Glad that he did. His bleating to the referee was appalling and more suited to the other game not rugby. And him being a front row forward.

 
Bernie's Dad
Re: 1 week for T
Bernie's Dad (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 02:25
Agreed Dragonboy. As hot headed as T was (and hopefully something heíll learn from) the reaction and pointing at a seemingly untouched nose was pure gamesmanship,m. Not something anyone wants to see in this sport.

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: 1 week for T
Chris Hoddle (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 07:14
That's good news



http://chrishoddle.smugmug.com/photos/i-TsCHdzK/0/M/i-TsCHdzK-M.gif

 
Walks11
Re: 1 week for T
Walks11 (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 07:18
Quote:
Bernie's Dad
Agreed Dragonboy. As hot headed as T was (and hopefully something heíll learn from) the reaction and pointing at a seemingly untouched nose was pure gamesmanship,m. Not something anyone wants to see in this sport.
not forgetting the baying of the crowd for a red card as it was such a heinous crime

 
MESSAGES->author
Re: 1 week for T
Chris Hoddle (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 07:18
Here is the BBC report
[www.bbc.co.uk]



http://chrishoddle.smugmug.com/photos/i-TsCHdzK/0/M/i-TsCHdzK-M.gif

 
riverlodge
Re: 1 week for T
riverlodge (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 08:33
Quote:
shendy
Good outcome, move on.
Will be interested to read the heading notes when they come out.

made me larf shendy

 
herbie85
Re: 1 week for T
herbie85 (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 08:38
Quote:
malco
Just wanting to gently point out that Nathan Catt spoke in defence of TH.

Hopefully out of sheer embarrassment at his own actions

 
BrianB
Re: 1 week for T
BrianB (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 09:44
The action merited a low entry point - 4 weeks.
The panel was impressed with the players record, suit etc. so 50% reduction.
So, that's 2 weeks - where did the other week go?

Unless a "full 50% reduction" means 75% reduction....

 
BrianB
Re: 1 week for T
BrianB (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 09:46

 
ajack
Re: 1 week for T
ajack (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 09:47
Catt did nothing that players from all clubs don't do every week. Like it or not trying to get a reaction with a little pat on the head when someone has given away a penalty or making a fuss to highlight a situation when a player is taken out in the air, are part of the modern game. What he did was no different. Glad it was only a one week ban as it really was the lowest end of contact, but deliberate contact none the less. I wonder what the reaction on here would have been if the roles had been reversed?

 
Hantsaintsrus4
Re: 1 week for T
Hantsaintsrus4 (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 10:23
Quote:
ajack
Catt did nothing that players from all clubs don't do every week. Like it or not trying to get a reaction with a little pat on the head when someone has given away a penalty or making a fuss to highlight a situation when a player is taken out in the air, are part of the modern game. What he did was no different. Glad it was only a one week ban as it really was the lowest end of contact, but deliberate contact none the less. I wonder what the reaction on here would have been if the roles had been reversed?


No ajack it is not part of the modern game and to condone it is to encourage it. If Catt had been a Saints player I think you would have found that many posters on here would have been critical.
Let's get back to only the team captain being able to speak to the ref. Smyler shouting to the officials did not get the decision changed and enraged supporters, to what end? No we do not have to go the way of girly soccer players. It's enough to make you spit...

 
Walks11
Re: 1 week for T
Walks11 (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 10:33
Roles reversed I wouldnít have been booing nor calling for a red card. It was all something of nothing with minimal contact. Weíll see cards for pushing and shoving next

 
andysaint
Re: 1 week for T
andysaint (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 12:09
It's all a bit pathetic really but it is symptomatic of the modern game and professional sport.

Look at Formula 1, the slightest bit of contact between cars and drivers moan to the stewards for a time penalty or a reversal of the position.

Look at Football, diving all over the place, appealing to the ref, going down with the slightest bit of contact.

Harrison should have known better and Catt showed some rather poor form. I almost get the impression from the panel that they did not want to hand down a ban but they are forced to due to the red card and citing.

 
nottsaint
Re: 1 week for T
nottsaint (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 12:32
Tbh Catt didnít seem to make a big deal out of it, he called the refs attention to an act of foul play, that the rugby authorities deemed to be worthy of a ban.

We see such appealing going onto the ref for all sorts of lesser infringements all the time, even from saints players.

Now, weather or non Tís infringement SHOULD be a red card offence, when patting people on the head with a hand after a penalty for example doesnít warrant any action, thatís a different matter

 
Walks11
Re: 1 week for T
Walks11 (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 12:58
Quote:
nottsaint
Tbh Catt didnít seem to make a big deal out of it, he called the refs attention to an act of foul play, that the rugby authorities deemed to be worthy of a ban.
We see such appealing going onto the ref for all sorts of lesser infringements all the time, even from saints players.

Now, weather or non Tís infringement SHOULD be a red card offence, when patting people on the head with a hand after a penalty for example doesnít warrant any action, thatís a different matter

Catt didnít need to appeal which 8 though was poor. The rest of what you describe is also unnecessary and quite easily stamped out by the refs but they choose to ignore it. A verbal warning to cut it out and then penalties would soon stop it as would the return of the use of marching teams back 10 for any backchat

 
nottsaint
Re: 1 week for T
nottsaint (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 13:00
Totally agree he didnít need to appeal to the ref about it, I just donít see how his appeal was any worse than probably 50 other examples that could be found in that match by both our and their players.

 
Saint Stokey
Re: 1 week for T
Saint Stokey (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 13:33
regardless of how much contact there was, it was a headbutt and by the letter of the law, its a red.

the citing officer have clearly looked kindly on the situtaion, but the action called for a red.

I'm not sure how much Catt raising the issue to the ref did. The TMO would have spotted it, and it would still have been a red.

Are we saying that a headbutt is only a headbutt when the receiving player is either out cold on the floor or has his nose spread across his face?


Its was a rash action that cost us a place in the final. Tei living with that and his debt to his team mates is as much of a punishment as the 1 week. Newcastle is the least of our worries in the run in, and we should be thankful that he got off as lightly as he did.

 
NobbyClarke
Re: 1 week for T
NobbyClarke (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 15:34
Quote:
Saint Stokey
regardless of how much contact there was, it was a headbutt and by the letter of the law, its a red.
the citing officer have clearly looked kindly on the situtaion, but the action called for a red.

I'm not sure how much Catt raising the issue to the ref did. The TMO would have spotted it, and it would still have been a red.

Are we saying that a headbutt is only a headbutt when the receiving player is either out cold on the floor or has his nose spread across his face?


Its was a rash action that cost us a place in the final. Tei living with that and his debt to his team mates is as much of a punishment as the 1 week. Newcastle is the least of our worries in the run in, and we should be thankful that he got off as lightly as he did.

Absolutely right St Stokey, he got off lightly, especially if you consider his mentor (DH) had a far gentler nose rub with Jamie George which the ref deemed a non event but was later cited and got 4 weeks off for his trouble. Makes you ask how much of the sanction is for reputation and how much for actual offence? In this case a worse (looking) offence and a good reputation and previous is definitely an advantage.

 
tedge
Re: 1 week for T
tedge (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 17:12
If there was no TMO, no citing officer and no replays and if the ref had seen the incident I reckon he would have ignored it except possibly a quiet word of warning

 
SaintsDuncan
Re: 1 week for T
SaintsDuncan (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 17:37
Quote:
Saint Stokey
regardless of how much contact there was...

Playing a bit Devils Advocate here but...

9 Foul play

Dangerous play

12: A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm (including stiff-arm tackles), shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking.

I would not argue that contact was made, but think you could argue whether Catt was acrually "struck"

 
JohnI
Re: 1 week for T
JohnI (IP Logged)
14 March, 2018 23:50
Move on, very lucky to only get one week and hopefully Mitch Eadie can step in and get some game time

 
Saint Stokey
Re: 1 week for T
Saint Stokey (IP Logged)
15 March, 2018 07:36
The ruling mentions striking but doesn't mention anything about force required to qualify as striking. Surely the force is therefore irrelevant?

 
tedge
Re: 1 week for T
tedge (IP Logged)
15 March, 2018 12:14
Quote:
Saint Stokey
The ruling mentions striking but doesn't mention anything about force required to qualify as striking. Surely the force is therefore irrelevant?

Dictionary definition:

hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand or a weapon or other implement.
"he raised his hand, as if to strike me"


I think the word "forcibly" is the clue here


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?