What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

I think the club will take that outcome.


On a point of order, as I think someone else pointed out earlier. Rees has been cited for "contact with the eye area" a small but significant difference which should mean a slightly easier verdict if found guilty.

Quote:

Nosmo King
I think the club will take that outcome.

On a point of order, as I think someone else pointed out earlier. Rees has been cited for "contact with the eye area" a small but significant difference which should mean a slightly easier verdict if found guilty.

Not necessarily: Hartleys ban was 6 months when he "made contact with the eye area". I'm not sure if the word "gouging" (which it fairness, it wasn't so far as I can tell) is in the law book.

To me it was not even a yellow never mind a red. The player tried to side step Rush so he was low and got clattered by Rush. Had the player stayed upright and took the challenge from Rush it would have ben a good hard tackle man and ball.
The one match ban was a token gesture to save the refs face. Rush would not have played at Dave Parade anyway as we will need our key players for the bigger games and the Dragons are /should not be a treat anyway

With tomorrows game off, will Xav's ban be all done and dusted or will it be extended to the Ospreys game?

The ban was "up to and including 27 December", so does this mean his ban is done without missing a single match?

ATTR may be able to help with this one.

Admin of theArmsPark.co.uk,
Make Noise and You Will Be Heard!

The ban is for specific dates regardless of fixtures. He is free to play against the Ospreys.

Justice!! ban now void.

So Xav will not be serving a ban then.
Whatever anybody thinks about wether he deserved a ban or not this citing business is a complete nonsense.

Quote:

Dim Cais
So Xav will not be serving a ban then. Whatever anybody thinks about wether he deserved a ban or not this citing business is a complete nonsense.

Well, yes Xav did serve a ban, but unfortunately there where no games for him to miss

A big thank you to our Gwentish friends for agreeing to make this possible and so restoring the ying n yang balance to world rugby!

___________________________________________________________

Soldier: This is the worst part. The calm before the battle
Fry: And then the battle is not so bad?
Soldier: Oh, right. I forgot about the battle

Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot

Quote:

Dim Cais
So Xav will not be serving a ban then. Whatever anybody thinks about wether he deserved a ban or not this citing business is a complete nonsense.

Totally agree!

Quote:

Neil

Well, yes Xav did serve a ban, but unfortunately there where no games for him to miss.

Total nonsense! Where is the male cow? I can smell it but can't see him!

Rush was given a one match ban.Can you tell us which game he missed? No. Of course you can't since he did not miss a game and did not, in reality, serve a ban.

Quote:

Nosmo King

Quote:

Dim Cais
So Xav will not be serving a ban then. Whatever anybody thinks about wether he deserved a ban or not this citing business is a complete nonsense.

Totally agree!

Quote:

Neil

Well, yes Xav did serve a ban, but unfortunately there where no games for him to miss.

Total nonsense! Where is the male cow? I can smell it but can't see him!

Rush was given a one match ban.Can you tell us which game he missed? No. Of course you can't since he did not miss a game and did not, in reality, serve a ban.

I have no idea what you are on but it must be f*ing strong
IN RUGBY A BAN IS SERVED AS A PERIOD OF TIME nd NOT a NUMBER OF GAMES!!!!


For your edification:
Xavier Rush has been suspended for one week up to and including 27 December and is free to play again from 28 December.


Cardiff Blues have received notification from the ERC regarding the hearing relating to Xavier Rush's red card against Northampton Saints last Sunday.

The ERC issued the following statement.

Xavier Rush, the Cardiff Blues player (No 8), appeared before an independent Disciplinary Hearing in Bristol today (Wednesday, 22 December, 2010) as a result of the red card he received during the Heineken Cup Pool 1 match against Northampton Saints at Cardiff City Stadium on Sunday, 19 December, 2010.??The red card was issued in the 55th minute of the second half by referee Jerome Garces (France) for a dangerous tackle above the line of the shoulders on Northampton Saints lock Courtney Lawes (No 4) in contravention of Law 10.4 (e).

Mr Rush was accompanied by Cardiff Blues Chief Executive Robert Norster and, after reviewing all angles, the match officials' reports and hearing from the player and his representative and ERC Disciplinary Officer Roger O'Connor, the independent Judicial Officer, Christopher Quinlan (England), determined that the tackle was at the low entry point of two (2) weeks.

The independent Judicial Officer found it was a recklessly effected tackle with no intent by Mr Rush to make contact as high as he did. There was also no intent to cause injury, and Mr Lawes appeared to almost be on one knee at the time of impact.

The independent Judicial Officer considered there were no aggravating factors and he accepted that Mr Rush pleaded guilty, that he had an excellent record, that he showed remorse and that he conducted himself well at the hearing. This mitigation resulted in a one (1) week reduction from the entry point of two (2) weeks.

Mr Rush is therefore suspended for one week up to and including 27 December and is free to play on 28 December.

Speaking of the decision Cardiff Blues Director of Rugb, David Young, said,

"We have got cover in the Backrow with Tom Brown, Andries Pretorius and Maama Molitika able to play at Number 8 but obviously want to go into the festive derbies with our best players."

"Xavier Rush is not a dirty player and we felt the sending off was quite harsh."

"It's good news that he will be available for selection for our match against the Ospreys on New Year's Eve."

___________________________________________________________

Soldier: This is the worst part. The calm before the battle
Fry: And then the battle is not so bad?
Soldier: Oh, right. I forgot about the battle

Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot

Quote:

Neil

I have no idea what you are on but it must be f*ing strong
IN RUGBY A BAN IS SERVED AS A PERIOD OF TIME nd NOT a NUMBER OF GAMES!!!!

I agree that rugby bans are in numbers of weeks .However. It is blindingly clear that Rush is, in reality not serving a ban due to the postponement. If you really think that is just, you must live in a very strange world.

Quote:

bluebadger
Justice!! ban now void.

This is so true. Rush got the punishment he deserved!!

Quote:

tony gee

Quote:

bluebadger
Justice!! ban now void.

This is so true. Rush got the punishment he deserved!!

Any player tackling another has a responsibility.
Xav was reckless in his challenge which could have resulted in a serious injury. Therefore a red card was deserved and so was a ban which now, he won't be serving because of the laughable ruling body we have.

Dim, the problem is we expect and cheer every big hit, of which very few are actually legal tackles. The problem being that if one goes wrong, whether it be a split second of bad timing by the tackler or a slip or duck by the tacklee the big hit then becomes a punishable offence.
Either this form of tackle is outlawed or people have to expect the odd one or two going wrong.
The latter every time for me.

Quote:

Nosmo King
I agree that rugby bans are in numbers of weeks .However. It is blindingly clear that Rush is, in reality not serving a ban due to the postponement. If you really think that is just, you must live in a very strange world.

In your post you said I was wrong and that he had received a ONE MATCH BAN I corrected you to say that it was a TIMED ban
Because a game was postponed is irrelevant Rush WAS BANNED FROM PLAYING A COMPETITIVE GAME for one week I doubt that the DC thought about the NGD game being postponed they just thought the tackle deserved a punishment from the lower end of the scale. So that is in the reality. That the system is crap (one of the amature hangovers that the game neeeds to adress indeed) does not change the ban, because if the game (or any other) could have been staged the Rush would not be able to play
The world I live in? Narnia by the view from my window!

___________________________________________________________

Soldier: This is the worst part. The calm before the battle
Fry: And then the battle is not so bad?
Soldier: Oh, right. I forgot about the battle

Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot

The ban was levied as a week and it was designed for Xavier to miss one game. Since that game was postponed, he has not missed any game and by logic he has not served a ban. I guess you really understand that though.

Quote:

Nosmo King
The ban was levied as a week and it was designed for Xavier to miss one game.

It wasn't, it was desiged for him to miss one week of rugby.

We've all seen cases of players being banned, during summer tours for example, for 6 weeks or so and not missing any games as it is off season. As Neil said, the system is rubbish,players should be banned for games, not a period of time.

Of course they should. But do you think the Disciplinary committee intended for Rush to miss ZERO games?

Quote:

Nosmo King
Of course they should. But do you think the Disciplinary committee intended for Rush to miss ZERO games?

Having sat with the type of personel that form these committees I would think that whilst realising the possibility of any particular game could be postponed, they would (and under the laws and regulations of the IR not have considered that when making their judgement that the case had been proved but, because of the players record, attitude and the way in which the tackle happened, they obviously felt that an admonishment be recerded but that it should be the mininmum possible to effect (ie there may be no provision for days only weeks, that bit I cannot confirm at present)
My logic is fine, logic can only be useful in real life situations not, in what ifs!!!

So Rush was banned. That ban will now form a pertinant part of any future disciplinary hearing against him...
Was his ban effective?
Was his ban justified?
Was his ban in accordance with the laws?

Yes I believe so. Rush was fully responsible for his actions when making the tackle, it may have gone a bit wrong because the other guy didn't play cricket.

The game has become somewhat sanitised to the game I grew up with I may in fact have gained significant height due to the many neck high, unpenalised tackles I received. I hold no grudges mind, as I've still kept my good looks an all

The game has definately become more dangerous though, due to the speed at which it is played and the weights of the players. I was the right size for a lock being 6' 3" and 19 stone in my youth nowadays I might find the blindside more my postition, such have been the changes since I last played
The disciplinary and citing situation really winds many of us up but, you have to understand it to effect any changes to it, and (unfortunately) that takes time! Unless of course you're Australian with no tight five!!!!!

___________________________________________________________

Soldier: This is the worst part. The calm before the battle
Fry: And then the battle is not so bad?
Soldier: Oh, right. I forgot about the battle

Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot

No argument with the last bit. But justice was not served by the Rush ban.

Quote:

Nosmo King
No argument with the last bit. But justice was not served by the Rush ban.

Maybe not but the system was served by the suspension.
The system is wrong in many, many ways but, it certainly is not there to serve justice - otherwise many 'crimes' on the pitch would be being dealt with.
But, with clubs like Cardiff still refusing to ask for a citing of incidents, it never can be so!

___________________________________________________________

Soldier: This is the worst part. The calm before the battle
Fry: And then the battle is not so bad?
Soldier: Oh, right. I forgot about the battle

Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot

With Rush out with an injury, it didnt matter if the ban was 1 week or two, he still would not have been selected.

To (badly) paraphrase William Cowper
God moves in a mysterious way His suspensions to perform

___________________________________________________________

Soldier: This is the worst part. The calm before the battle
Fry: And then the battle is not so bad?
Soldier: Oh, right. I forgot about the battle

Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot

Quote:

Neil
...
But, with clubs like Cardiff still refusing to ask for a citing of incidents, it never can be so!

I believe clubs can no longer cite when a citing officer is present. They can approach the said officer and as him to look at an incident as Cardiff did after the EDF final. A request that led to the citing of Azam.