Northampton Saints
Disciplinary Verdict - Leicester Tigers v Northampton Saints
By ComeOnYouSaints.com
December 6 2011
CHRIS ASHTON of Northampton Saints was this evening suspended for four weeks for an act contrary to good sportsmanship (Law 10(4)(m). Ashton was found guilty of pulling Alesana Tuilagi by his hair and dragging him from the field of play during the Aviva Premiership match against Leicester Tigers at Welford Road on Saturday, December 3.
The Saints wing, who denied the offence, was suspended from December 7 to January 3 by an RFU Disciplinary Panel of His Honour Judge Jeff Blackett (chair), Jeremy Summers and Christopher Quinlan QC in the Offices of the Judge Advocate General in the Royal Courts of Justice, London. He can play again on January 4.
His Honour Judge Jeff Blackett, the RFU Disciplinary Officer said: “We accepted that this started by accident but it became clear that at some stage Chris Ashton knew what he was doing.
“If you pull somebody by the hair there is an element of denigration and this act was a catalyst for a mass brawl that resulted in two red cards and significantly affected the image of the game. Without any laid down guidance on sanction we have aligned the offence to that of spitting and reduced the entry level points to that off three, six and 10 weeks for low, mid-range and top end respectively. This was a mid-range offence but we have reduced the sanction by two weeks based on the player’s good record and conduct at the hearing.”
He was also ordered to pay £500 in costs.
Any appeal must be lodged within 48 hours of receipt of the judgement.
The red cards issued to Tom Wood of Northampton Saints and Alesana Tuilagi of Leicester Tigers for striking were deemed to be sufficient and both can continue to play.
Citing Commissioner Mike Rafter has also issued Level One citings – the equivalent of a yellow card – to Geordan Murphy (Leicester Tigers), Horacio Agulla (Leicester Tigers) and Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints) for their part in the same incident. The three players were not required to appear before the panel and can continue playing.
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponDisciplinary Verdict - Leicester Tigers v Northampton Saints (Ashton merged)
Discussion started by ComeOnYouSaints.com , 06/12/2011 19:50
ComeOnYouSaints.com
06/12/2011 19:50
06/12/2011 19:50
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:12:06:19:54:19 by Phil..
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:12:06:19:54:19 by Phil..
... According to sky sports news
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:12:06:19:02:30 by Rubadubdub; remember Seb Tubb?.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:12:06:19:02:30 by Rubadubdub; remember Seb Tubb?.
Made me smile when I read your post...advert below it is for Australia!
Bridesmaids no more.
Bridesmaids no more.
Seems a bit harsh, was it really worse than others 2 week bans for high tackles ?
Four weeks for pulling his hair. Good job he didn't give him a chinese burn as well, or nick his handbag.
Saint til I die
Saint til I die
I would love to ask this Mike Rafter the RFU citing officer how Chris Ashton is cited for "An act contrary to good sportsmanship", and he feels that Geordan Murphy’s action does not fit that same description. Don’t get me wrong, I dislike Ashton’s action and feel he needs to be punished, I just can’t believe GM action does not fit that category as well.
I'd expected a two weeker for him not four, quite how Dows only got two weeks from the same panel for a 'spear' tackle is beyond me. However if the sentences were reversed I don't think there would be too much complaining in this neck of the woods.
No doubt we will find out shortly, but I'm guessing Chris pleaded not guilty and therefore got no reduction.
As most seem to think the bans are the wrong way round.
Madness.
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Benjamin Franklin
Tetleys Block F E143
Madness.
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Benjamin Franklin
Tetleys Block F E143
He did plead not guilty, according to RFU press release (that I have sent to eds for its full content and comments).
Quote:Connect
He did plead not guilty, according to RFU press release (that I have sent to eds for its full content and comments).
Much appreciated, Sir!
Don't really see how Ashton could plead not guilty to what was pretty blatant. 4 weeks for hair pulling (actually according to the "mid-range" definition it was 6 weeks reduced to 4) does seem very excessive. However, when all is said and done I reckon we might be relieved that Dows only got 2 weeks and Wood nothing at all.
What with the World cup, this 4 week ban and the 6 nations in Feb/March, I wonder how many games will Flash miss this season ?
Quote:John Rickerd
I would love to ask this Mike Rafter the RFU citing officer how Chris Ashton is cited for "An act contrary to good sportsmanship", and he feels that Geordan Murphy’s action does not fit that same description. Don’t get me wrong, I dislike Ashton’s action and feel he needs to be punished, I just can’t believe GM action does not fit that category as well.
... or the actions of numerous other players who cheat.
Unless, as I said elsewhere, cheating has suddenly ceased to be 'an act contrary to good sportsmanship'.
Who advised him to plead not guilty or did he think of that one?! In a lot of these a guilty plea is entered to help reduce the sentance. Unbelievable 
It may have been "not guilty" as in he didn't intend to do it? Who knows.
Worth repeating: Does seem unjust and ironic that a player - who received 3 punches to the head and a yellow card for receiving them - misses 2 Heineken Cup and 2 Premiership games for pulling the hair of the brother of the guy who punched him and who missed 1 Premiership game and 3 England second team games.
I'm no expert in law but is it normal to say "You pulled a players hair for a second and there was a big fight so your punishment is this:" as opposed to "You pulled a players hair for a second which is not very nice. Your punishment is this"??? Ashton couldn't have thought "If I have a tug (ooo errr) then I'll get shoved into the advertising boards and there'll be a fight, yeah, that'll be fun" - or could he?
Worth repeating: Does seem unjust and ironic that a player - who received 3 punches to the head and a yellow card for receiving them - misses 2 Heineken Cup and 2 Premiership games for pulling the hair of the brother of the guy who punched him and who missed 1 Premiership game and 3 England second team games.
I'm no expert in law but is it normal to say "You pulled a players hair for a second and there was a big fight so your punishment is this:" as opposed to "You pulled a players hair for a second which is not very nice. Your punishment is this"??? Ashton couldn't have thought "If I have a tug (ooo errr) then I'll get shoved into the advertising boards and there'll be a fight, yeah, that'll be fun" - or could he?
if you'd offered me a month yesterday, i'd have snapped your hands off!
Digger? paging Mr Digger...
Digger? paging Mr Digger...
I would actually prefer to be tugged a bit by the hair than by several other bits of my anatomy (that are big enough to grab hold of). Why is this therefore termed an "act of denigration" - is it due to the particular style of hair?
think it has a lot to do with the fact it was on TV and resulted in a several man brawl. if it had been a non tv game without the aftermath i'm sure there wouldn't have been the furore. RFU being seen to do something.
Is it me or is the inference from this that The Referee and his TJ's didn't get anything right?
Ashton - should have been Red card but the hairpull wasnt picked up
Tuilagi and Wood - should have been yellow cards as no further punishment issued.
Murphy, Agulla and Lawes - should have been yellows cards
Ok, that is with hindsight and the benefit of TV replays, but couldnt these sort of decisions go to the TMO / Big screen for clarification?
Ashton - should have been Red card but the hairpull wasnt picked up
Tuilagi and Wood - should have been yellow cards as no further punishment issued.
Murphy, Agulla and Lawes - should have been yellows cards
Ok, that is with hindsight and the benefit of TV replays, but couldnt these sort of decisions go to the TMO / Big screen for clarification?
Do you get the feeling the RFU are trying to set out their stall that any infringements will not be tolerated from now on?
Ok. Fine then (pardon the pun).Lets see what happens to the next player up before the beak who is a member of the EPS with the 6 nations looming.
"sup·port·er"
Noun:
1.A person who approves of and encourages someone or something (typically a public figure, a movement or party, or a policy).
2.A person who is actively interested in and wishes success for a particular sports team.
Ok. Fine then (pardon the pun).Lets see what happens to the next player up before the beak who is a member of the EPS with the 6 nations looming.
"sup·port·er"
Noun:
1.A person who approves of and encourages someone or something (typically a public figure, a movement or party, or a policy).
2.A person who is actively interested in and wishes success for a particular sports team.
I have the feeling that the RFU wish to be seen to be acting.It also looks like a smacked wrist for the officials.Will we now see TMO's used for this kind of thing,as(I believe)happens in French games?
Bridesmaids no more.
Bridesmaids no more.
Talking to someone who follows american football
Quite surprisingly, there are no actual rules against hair pulling in the NFL. The "Ricky Rule" is somewhat the law-of-the-land, where a player's hair that falls past his helmet is considered to be part of the uniform--and can be used to make a tackle. This "rule" was named after Ricky Williams, who sported long dreadlocks throughout most of his professional football career. Although hair pulling isn't "illegal" in the NFL, it is something that's frowned upon--by both the officials, as well as those players with longer hair. Hair pulling within the game is perfectly OK when making a tackle; however, a player can be fined for "unnecessary roughness" if the hair is pulled after the play is over.
That's a different view. Have long hair by all means but protect it.
Quite surprisingly, there are no actual rules against hair pulling in the NFL. The "Ricky Rule" is somewhat the law-of-the-land, where a player's hair that falls past his helmet is considered to be part of the uniform--and can be used to make a tackle. This "rule" was named after Ricky Williams, who sported long dreadlocks throughout most of his professional football career. Although hair pulling isn't "illegal" in the NFL, it is something that's frowned upon--by both the officials, as well as those players with longer hair. Hair pulling within the game is perfectly OK when making a tackle; however, a player can be fined for "unnecessary roughness" if the hair is pulled after the play is over.
That's a different view. Have long hair by all means but protect it.
Really don't understand the point in giving players the equivelant of a yellow card after the match!
I know there used to be a tally of yellows in a 12 month rolling period but i can't remember the last time someone actually hit that target.
As the match was at the weekend it looks like only the incident and the brawl have been looked at so far and normally we don't hear about other citings until thursday so could well yet be more citings...Mr Murphy!
Ashton's may have been done early as to get it done at the same time as the red cards.
I know there used to be a tally of yellows in a 12 month rolling period but i can't remember the last time someone actually hit that target.
As the match was at the weekend it looks like only the incident and the brawl have been looked at so far and normally we don't hear about other citings until thursday so could well yet be more citings...Mr Murphy!
Ashton's may have been done early as to get it done at the same time as the red cards.
Quote:Tav
"...and normally we don't hear about other citings until thursday so could well yet be more citings...Mr Murphy!"
Can't see it, Tav. Crass gamesmanship as it was, I doubt we will see anything else from this game. It was all fast-tracked through to meet the timings of the hearing already in the system.
As was stated, there is no precedent for this offence. They used their judgement which ended up with Ashton having the length of ban. What he did was extremely childish and I don't understand why the objections to the size of the ban. It was inevitable that his action would bring about a fracas.
Rational discussion accepted. Lots of point of view on this. But Eiffifu*****ion get real! Are you really a Saints Supporter? Nothing childish in this man of man's sports and you say you don't understand why we object to to the 'size' of the ban given the length of the Tuilagi brothers ban for his punching antics last year? Are you for real?
Quote:SiF
Are you really a Saints Supporter?
I would have thought that the answer to that was clear
David L
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
- Live wrong and preposterously
Four weeks is a tad harsh I would have thought.
I would have said 2 would suffice.
Hopefully 4 weeks reflecting on his priorities (and possibly contract offer) will do him and the team good.
And what is rugby coming to when people call for citings for blocking players off the ball? Ridiculous.
You can't always get what you want, But if you try sometimes well you might find, You get what you need.
Richards/Jagger
I would have said 2 would suffice.
Hopefully 4 weeks reflecting on his priorities (and possibly contract offer) will do him and the team good.
And what is rugby coming to when people call for citings for blocking players off the ball? Ridiculous.
You can't always get what you want, But if you try sometimes well you might find, You get what you need.
Richards/Jagger
Quote:The Judgment
“Without any laid-down guidance on sanction, we have aligned the offence to that of spitting and reduced the entry-level points to that of three, six and 10 weeks for low, mid-range and top end respectively.
What in heaven's name put the idea of spitting into their warped minds? One offence is premeditated and, yes, disrespectful.
The other - in this instance, trying to get a purchase on any part of the player to bring him to ground - could be called disrespectful, but certainly not deliberate.
Alice Tuilagi is the author of his own misfortune - wearing silly hair in a game like rugby is plain silly.
If I were refereeing his next game, I would start the game, then send him off (as in blood injury) and tell him: either come back with your hair cut or put on a scrum cap.
Chris B - that's ungracious of you.
Probably disrespectful, too.
Probably disrespectful, too.
Quote:Saint Dom
Alice Tuilagi....
This may be a KUATB moment, but that's priceless Dom
if we could stiffle the clamour of indignation accusation and counter accusation - then we might care to look at what is going on - with Chris Ashton.
IMHO - this very talented yong man has lost his way - a strong guiding hand is needed . This is the real issue that needs to be addressed.
IMHO - this very talented yong man has lost his way - a strong guiding hand is needed . This is the real issue that needs to be addressed.
I love Eif's posts. Never fails to get a reaction from the angry few on here!
Old Pete, I absolutely agree !
Let's hope that him having recently joined the James Grant stable he now gets some good and clear advice on how to get his mojo back and his playing career back on track !
His "showbiz" career is assured, but only as long as he remains a star in his chosen sport !
You can't have one without the other !!
Let's hope that him having recently joined the James Grant stable he now gets some good and clear advice on how to get his mojo back and his playing career back on track !
His "showbiz" career is assured, but only as long as he remains a star in his chosen sport !
You can't have one without the other !!
Lets make no mistake on this, Ashtons actions made our life very difficult at Welford Road, because it led to us losing a vital member of the pack, who's influence would have been massive. He also brought the game into disrepute and did nothing for his own reputation, already on shaky ground following the antics at the World Cup.
I was relieved that Wood got away without a ban, that was far more important than losing Ashton. We have a number of decent options for the Wing, but with Wilson, CC and now Dowson sitting out the 2 games against Castres we absolutely need Wood on the field.
I was relieved that Wood got away without a ban, that was far more important than losing Ashton. We have a number of decent options for the Wing, but with Wilson, CC and now Dowson sitting out the 2 games against Castres we absolutely need Wood on the field.
I'm sure if Ashton knew that pulling the hair for a second would cause Wood to be sent off, he'd reconsider. I'm sure he didn't think "I'll pull his hair so it will kick off - yeaaahhh"
Can pulling hair REALLY be "aligned" with spitting? Possibly if done deliberately to humiliate (and Ash was not guilty of that), but even then I don't rate them as the same. 4 weeks for something cheeky and disrespectful, but spur of the moment which causes no danger of physical injury, seems harsh. A comparison with Murphy's charge/block on Foden (deliberate, premeditated and physically dangerous as well as bringing the game into disrepute) is valid. Neither were worthy of a citing IMO, but should be treated the same.
Perhaps there is a case now for men with extra long hair to
be made to wear scrum caps in the cause of health and safety.
They are made to take off all trinkets, jewellery etc, but allowed to wear beads etc in their hair.
be made to wear scrum caps in the cause of health and safety.
They are made to take off all trinkets, jewellery etc, but allowed to wear beads etc in their hair.
Only managed to view the full recording of the game yesterday, and having had a preview of the main events here and elsewhere, the one thing which stood out to me, not mentioned before, was Dyl's attitude throughout the game.
Always calming things down and pulling his team members out of all the commotion without reacting negatively.
Ashy could benefit from seeing the same guy who sorted Dyl's anger problems out.
As for Ashy pleading not guilty, bringing the game into disrepute was the only possible accusation and even then I feel he was badly advised. Be humble and apologetic.
He needs to spend some time away from the spotlight to relax and get his mojo back; hizzonor has given him that.
Always calming things down and pulling his team members out of all the commotion without reacting negatively.
Ashy could benefit from seeing the same guy who sorted Dyl's anger problems out.
As for Ashy pleading not guilty, bringing the game into disrepute was the only possible accusation and even then I feel he was badly advised. Be humble and apologetic.
He needs to spend some time away from the spotlight to relax and get his mojo back; hizzonor has given him that.
I dont think Ash has been well served by legal advice recently.
"sup·port·er"
Noun:
1.A person who approves of and encourages someone or something (typically a public figure, a movement or party, or a policy).
2.A person who is actively interested in and wishes success for a particular sports team.
"sup·port·er"
Noun:
1.A person who approves of and encourages someone or something (typically a public figure, a movement or party, or a policy).
2.A person who is actively interested in and wishes success for a particular sports team.
Quote:skybluesaint
A comparison with Murphy's charge/block on Foden (deliberate, premeditated and physically dangerous as well as bringing the game into disrepute) is valid.
Get real....a block? Physically dangerous? No more dangerous than catching a or passing a ball with a Courtney Lawes et al charging at you.
Bringing the game into disrepute?! Please.
Quote:David Tevener
I know there used to be a tally of yellows in a 12 month rolling period but i can't remember the last time someone actually hit that target.
The last Saints player I can recall hitting it (and they have to be yellow cards for foul play, not technical offences) was actually Carlos Spencer!
perhaps he was advised to plead not guilty as it wasn't against any particular law of the game and a wooly disrepute charge. I suspect he wasn't pleading not guilty to hair pulling rather the tenous charge. However, seemed a bit risky to plead not guilty irrespective of charge as the RFU were determined to hang him out to dry
It would be interesting to know what percentage of cited players are acquitted by the disciplinary panel and how that compares with the number who pled not guilty.My guess would be that the weight of evidence in citing cases is often more damning,due to the technology available and the time to study it, than some red card cases where the officials get it wrong and the player gets off.
It amusing to read in the paper Chron ( not available on line ) that Murphy claimed he was "in a daze" following a late tackle by Pisi... you have to laugh.
If it had been Tiny he tried to block,he'd have possibly not done it.But I remember when watching the incident where ref carded Woody and AT...Murphy looked as though he expected to walk as well.
Bridesmaids no more.
Bridesmaids no more.
Sky just reported Saints have until Friday to appeal his suspension - Jim said it was a long suspension for an offence which would not have merited a red card but I'm not clear whether this was a hint of an appeal or not.He didn't attempt to excuse the offence either.
Well for what it's worth, what about retaliation? Foul play committed against an opponent deserves a sanction but it was Tuilagi who retaliated, took the law into his own hands and went after Ashton with fists flying so in my eyes he’s the culprit that caused the melee not Ashton.
The word from the RFU now is that retaliation if provoked is AOK. Punch, Rabbit punch join the melee boys you’ll be OK.
Oh and another thing, Woods could have been banned but that would have meant banning a Tigger, God forbid.
--------------------------------------------------
Wigan "Home for the Bewildered"
Fully paid up member of the LSSSSC.
"Long Suffering Sale Sharks Supporters Club"
The word from the RFU now is that retaliation if provoked is AOK. Punch, Rabbit punch join the melee boys you’ll be OK.
Oh and another thing, Woods could have been banned but that would have meant banning a Tigger, God forbid.
--------------------------------------------------
Wigan "Home for the Bewildered"
Fully paid up member of the LSSSSC.
"Long Suffering Sale Sharks Supporters Club"
Now I'm not saying that I like seeing anyone getting banned and I'm certainly not condoning any of the higgledy or piggledy that happened in the match but I wonder if Murphy would've been cited for 'an act contrary to good sportsmanship' after his block if Fodes had tried to smack him and a mass brawl had started.
Quote:Waggydog
Now I'm not saying that I like seeing anyone getting banned and I'm certainly not condoning any of the higgledy or piggledy that happened in the match but I wonder if Murphy would've been cited for 'an act contrary to good sportsmanship' after his block if Fodes had tried to smack him and a mass brawl had started.
Seems to me, that with their inaction in dealing with these "handbags" after the Ashton incident the RFU have now given their sanction to the old 99 call. Therby all people who wade in with fists flying in retaliation will be ignored during the game and be allowed to carry on as if nothing happened and will henceforth be dealt with by being handed down retrospective yellow cards with no further penalty .....That's quite a precedent isn't it?
Well if that's the RFU protecting the honour of the game then I think it's they and their farcical judgements that are the real culprits here and it is they that are bringing the game into disrepute once again.
Think it's best we all move on. RFU highly unlikely to reduce ban, Flash now out for 4 weeks. Chance for someone else, personally I'd like to see Vas and Digger back.
I personally think Tuilagi was to blame. He slipped the tackle and Ashton's hands closed in around his syrup. If Tuilagi didn't have beads in his hair it would never have happened. Beads in hair - not in my day.
btw - it's called
btw - it's called
TF, it wasn't the tackle that was the problem it was the dragging of Tuilagi over the touchline. If it had been just the tackle the fracas may not have happened and certainly there would not have been a citing.
Whether or not your a supporter is irrelevant, what Ashton did was childish in the extreme, and its not the only childish thing he's done recently. There are so many people on this message board who lose sight of the game as a whole. Being a supporter does not mean that Saints players are never wrong, or that the referee only gets his decision wrong against the Saints. Rose-coloured spectacles may be the thing on this board but not for me. I suspect I have been watching the Saints, age group, Wanderers and 1st XV for far longer than most contributors. And I suspect that few on this board have had a son who played at FG for near 5 years.
Whether or not your a supporter is irrelevant, what Ashton did was childish in the extreme, and its not the only childish thing he's done recently. There are so many people on this message board who lose sight of the game as a whole. Being a supporter does not mean that Saints players are never wrong, or that the referee only gets his decision wrong against the Saints. Rose-coloured spectacles may be the thing on this board but not for me. I suspect I have been watching the Saints, age group, Wanderers and 1st XV for far longer than most contributors. And I suspect that few on this board have had a son who played at FG for near 5 years.
Quote:Eif
what Ashton did was childish in the extreme, and its not the only childish thing he's done recently.
I don't see anyone denying the childish nature of the event. It is the petulant nature of the punishment. Are you suggesting that it is somehow right that he receive official sanction for being an @rse lately? Where is that in the citing? Be very careful what you wish for, and only write on one side of the paper at a time.
David L
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
- Live wrong and preposterously
I rather like the idea of citing someone for being a general @rse. You could have lot of fun with that idea. Two week ban for reaching 7 on the @rse-o-meter, four weeks & cleaning the toilets for a month for getting to 10 on the @rse-o-meter, right up to being transferred to Saracens for breaking said meter... ;-)
And why stop at players? We could get started on message board contributors as well... ;-)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:12:08:08:00:03 by Gregor.
And why stop at players? We could get started on message board contributors as well... ;-)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:12:08:08:00:03 by Gregor.
Quote:Eif
I suspect I have been watching the Saints, age group, Wanderers and 1st XV for far longer than most contributors. And I suspect that few on this board have had a son who played at FG for near 5 years.
So that means your opinion is worth more than anyone else's? Pah!
Quote:shendyQuote:Eif
I suspect I have been watching the Saints, age group, Wanderers and 1st XV for far longer than most contributors. And I suspect that few on this board have had a son who played at FG for near 5 years.
So that means your opinion is worth more than anyone else's? Pah!
Just be grateful you're allowed an opinion at all, you English peon.
*
Eif, I was just putting it there for reference if no one had seen it.
I have no children but, apparently, I've been going to Saints since I was in a pushchair. Is this ok with you? Want me to have a son to get my gold star?
I have no children but, apparently, I've been going to Saints since I was in a pushchair. Is this ok with you? Want me to have a son to get my gold star?
Hey Boys and Girls
Firstly, an apology.
I announced an 8 week ban based on various details. I was wrong, sorry
However the gist was correct, 6 weeks with 2 off for good behavour.
Hate to say I told you so, but fancy pleading not guilty! A guilty plea would have seen him back in 2 and who knows, maybe even one.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the RFU
cause the dreams ain't broken down here,
they're walking with a limp...
Firstly, an apology.
I announced an 8 week ban based on various details. I was wrong, sorry
However the gist was correct, 6 weeks with 2 off for good behavour.
Hate to say I told you so, but fancy pleading not guilty! A guilty plea would have seen him back in 2 and who knows, maybe even one.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the RFU
cause the dreams ain't broken down here,
they're walking with a limp...
Ashton wasn't guilty to the invented charge, so he was rightly advised to plead not guilty.
You might as well accuse Alice of being guilty for wearing a dangerous coiffure.
I think Saints will appeal this, both on grounds of legality (what Law on hair-pulling?) and/or length of ban.
Eif's point has some merit, in that Saints are not always saints. But BOD can haul a player to the ground and get away with a pen (and still remain god), while Flash (who is hated by some simply for being, well, flash), is denigrated for doing everything he could to bring down a much heavier player and put him into touch.
And to those who've decided Ashton is playing badly, just note that it was almost entirely because of his outstanding purple patch in the second half that Saints took the lead and deserved to win the game. If nothing else, he earned us the LBP.
Perhaps a bit of extra tackling practice and advice on technique would help him, though!
*I could agree with you - but then we'd both be wrong...*
You might as well accuse Alice of being guilty for wearing a dangerous coiffure.
I think Saints will appeal this, both on grounds of legality (what Law on hair-pulling?) and/or length of ban.
Eif's point has some merit, in that Saints are not always saints. But BOD can haul a player to the ground and get away with a pen (and still remain god), while Flash (who is hated by some simply for being, well, flash), is denigrated for doing everything he could to bring down a much heavier player and put him into touch.
And to those who've decided Ashton is playing badly, just note that it was almost entirely because of his outstanding purple patch in the second half that Saints took the lead and deserved to win the game. If nothing else, he earned us the LBP.
Perhaps a bit of extra tackling practice and advice on technique would help him, though!
*I could agree with you - but then we'd both be wrong...*
Hey Saintly Dom
Now when did Alice turn out on the wing for Stains. That, along with Flash's legal advisors common sense, has passed me by. (or was it Flash eating tarts, or chamberpots?)
It's been said somewhere that the panel that "hung" Flash are the most senior the RFU have. In the current "fluid" situation at TW1, who has the balls to go against them?
I think no one.
Hear me now, believe me later!
cause the dreams ain't broken down here,
they're walking with a limp...
Now when did Alice turn out on the wing for Stains. That, along with Flash's legal advisors common sense, has passed me by. (or was it Flash eating tarts, or chamberpots?)
It's been said somewhere that the panel that "hung" Flash are the most senior the RFU have. In the current "fluid" situation at TW1, who has the balls to go against them?
I think no one.
Hear me now, believe me later!
cause the dreams ain't broken down here,
they're walking with a limp...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Northampton Saints News 24/7
More Northampton Saints headlines
- End of season how the squad was used analysis
- This weeks rugby 1st - 5th July
- Weekend Rugby 27th/28th June
- Weekend Rugby 19th - 20th June 2026
- Weekend Rugby 12th - 14th June 2026
- Weekend Rugby 5th - 7th June 2026
- Weekend Rugby 29th - 31st May 20206
- Weekend Rugby 22nd - 23rd May 2026
- Weekend Rugby 15th - 17th May 2026