The Official Scottish Rugby Thread

[Tichtheid]

There is no way in hell that what vdM did was more dangerous than a straight arm hand off to the face, which is perfectly legal.

[Slick]

Thistle Pod on Twitter saying that Duhan has copped a 3w ban and misses the rest of the 6N. Which makes me doubt anyone on the citing panel actually watched the incident.

The notion that a red card has to come with a ban perhaps should be challenged. I can get on board with the idea it’s a red card if the impact is he misses the rest of the game he was playing in, and if it’s a serious incident there will be further punishment. The current system treats wildly different incidents more or less from the same starting point which seems wrong.

For the record I don’t have any particular issue with it being a red. Whilst the incident was tame, it’s easy to argue that it was clumsy and it was obviously direct contact to the face. If you don’t want a card, don’t do it. Equally, it’s difficult to argue the sanction for the incident should be the same as for Haouas punching Richie, for instance.

yup, I'm the same. I can just about see the argument for red within the current way things are being reffed, although I don't agree. But it's an obviously mistimed incident with zero malice so I would think the red would be enough. It's not dangerous by any stretch of the imagination

[Jock42]

[Jock42]

Confirmed as Bradbury to Bristol.

[sockwithaticket]

Thistle Pod on Twitter saying that Duhan has copped a 3w ban and misses the rest of the 6N. Which makes me doubt anyone on the citing panel actually watched the incident.

The notion that a red card has to come with a ban perhaps should be challenged. I can get on board with the idea it’s a red card if the impact is he misses the rest of the game he was playing in, and if it’s a serious incident there will be further punishment. The current system treats wildly different incidents more or less from the same starting point which seems wrong.

For the record I don’t have any particular issue with it being a red. Whilst the incident was tame, it’s easy to argue that it was clumsy and it was obviously direct contact to the face. If you don’t want a card, don’t do it. Equally, it’s difficult to argue the sanction for the incident should be the same as for Haouas punching Richie, for instance.

yup, I'm the same. I can just about see the argument for red within the current way things are being reffed, although I don't agree. But it's an obviously mistimed incident with zero malice so I would think the red would be enough. It's not dangerous by any stretch of the imagination

The other thing is, what's the coaching point there? Be quicker at getting your arm extended for a fend? Getting your timing wrong on putting in the fend isn't the same as leading with the elbow.

Genuinely thought this one would be dismissed. Brad Shields had a nonsense red dismissed not that long ago. Different sort of incident, but it shows that they can and will do it on occasion.

[Biffer]

Yep. There’s a bit of a logjam in the back row at Edinburgh so it’s probably a good move for him, and for some of the younger guys as well.

[Jimmy Smallsteps]

Where was this level of outrage when it was the SH lads getting reds and bans for connecting with the head?

All I seem to remember are lectures about the need to go lower.

[Slick]

Where was this level of outrage when it was the SH lads getting reds and bans for connecting with the head?

All I seem to remember are lectures about the need to go lower.

Think you might have to come up with a couple of examples

[Slick]

Confirmed as Bradbury to Bristol.

Good move for him I reckon. If there is one player that seems to excel when forced out of his comfort zone, it's him.

[mos_eisely_]

Yep. There’s a bit of a logjam in the back row at Edinburgh so it’s probably a good move for him, and for some of the younger guys as well.

Muncaster's form and development is coming along very nicely so not as much a blow as it might have been 12 months ago or so

Plus Mata, Kunavalu and Haining....and Rudi who made his debut on Friday, at the age of 18

[Jock42]

Confirmed as Bradbury to Bristol.

Good move for him I reckon. If there is one player that seems to excel when forced out of his comfort zone, it's him.

Completely agree. Muncaster looks like a great prospect so allows him more game time.

[sockwithaticket]

Where was this level of outrage when it was the SH lads getting reds and bans for connecting with the head?

All I seem to remember are lectures about the need to go lower.

Maybe look up the incident in question before spouting about things that aren't related? Go lower pertains to tackle heights, not fending.

[Tichtheid]

Where was this level of outrage when it was the SH lads getting reds and bans for connecting with the head?

All I seem to remember are lectures about the need to go lower.

Maybe look up the incident in question before spouting about things that aren't related? Go lower pertains to tackle heights, not fending.

If the tackler had gone lower Duhan wouldn't have hit him in the face.

[Tichtheid]

Confirmed as Bradbury to Bristol.

Good move for him I reckon. If there is one player that seems to excel when forced out of his comfort zone, it's him.

Completely agree. Muncaster looks like a great prospect so allows him more game time.

Yes on comfort zone and yes on Muncaster.

The two team thing strikes again, we just don't have the game time available for everyone coming through.

There is no quick fix for that, so moves like this are best for all concerned.

[Big D]

Where was this level of outrage when it was the SH lads getting reds and bans for connecting with the head?

All I seem to remember are lectures about the need to go lower.

Please give examples of SH players being sent off for mistimed hand offs and any "lecture" by posters from the scottish thread on heights of hand offs.

I think by the laws, Duhan should have been sent off, as I said when i posted the incident. Of the 2 most recent international Scottish red cards I am sure we all admitted they were (grudgingly for Russell's).

The 3 week ban is a nonsense for a mistimed hand off, especially when I can think of one clear example (Williams v Scotland last years) where a clear forearm to the throat was ignored.

[Big D]

Good move for him I reckon. If there is one player that seems to excel when forced out of his comfort zone, it's him.

Completely agree. Muncaster looks like a great prospect so allows him more game time.

Yes on comfort zone and yes on Muncaster.

The two team thing strikes again, we just don't have the game time available for everyone coming through.

There is no quick fix for that, so moves like this are best for all concerned.

That's partly on Bradbury. If he had shown this form last year, it might have been Mata that was moved on rather than given a new deal.

[Big D]

Yep. There’s a bit of a logjam in the back row at Edinburgh so it’s probably a good move for him, and for some of the younger guys as well.

Muncaster's form and development is coming along very nicely so not as much a blow as it might have been 12 months ago or so

Plus Mata, Kunavalu and Haining....and Rudi who made his debut on Friday, at the age of 18

This may be harsh but I'd far rather watch any of the young lads than Haining, including Brown. Again, probably due to Baradbury having an down season of two but investing in Bradbury would have Neen better than Haining but contract timing and form buggered that.

[Tichtheid]

Yep. There’s a bit of a logjam in the back row at Edinburgh so it’s probably a good move for him, and for some of the younger guys as well.

Muncaster's form and development is coming along very nicely so not as much a blow as it might have been 12 months ago or so

Plus Mata, Kunavalu and Haining....and Rudi who made his debut on Friday, at the age of 18

This may be harsh but I'd far rather watch any of the young lads than Haining, including Brown. Again, probably due to Baradbury having an down season of two but investing in Bradbury would have Neen better than Haining but contract timing and form buggered that.

It's funny to think that Jamie Ritchie is now one of the older Scottish lads in the back row cadre - when you see someone join the club at 17 years old they kind of stay "the young laddie" in your mind for a long time, like I think of my children and their friends.

Ritchie is 25, Crosbie 24, Boyle just turned 22, Muncaster is 20 and Brown 18. Harri Morris in the academy is around the 19/20 mark I think.

Big Bill is with us for another two years I think, as is Kunavula, I imagine Watson will retire with us now, I'm not sure about the others, but we have good stocks in that department at the moment.

[Jock42]

Yep. There’s a bit of a logjam in the back row at Edinburgh so it’s probably a good move for him, and for some of the younger guys as well.

Muncaster's form and development is coming along very nicely so not as much a blow as it might have been 12 months ago or so

Plus Mata, Kunavalu and Haining....and Rudi who made his debut on Friday, at the age of 18

This may be harsh but I'd far rather watch any of the young lads than Haining, including Brown. Again, probably due to Baradbury having an down season of two but investing in Bradbury would have Neen better than Haining but contract timing and form buggered that.

Not sure how after watching the game 2 days ago but I had forgotten about Brown. Another great prospect that needs game time.

[Biffer]

Muncaster's form and development is coming along very nicely so not as much a blow as it might have been 12 months ago or so

Plus Mata, Kunavalu and Haining....and Rudi who made his debut on Friday, at the age of 18

This may be harsh but I'd far rather watch any of the young lads than Haining, including Brown. Again, probably due to Baradbury having an down season of two but investing in Bradbury would have Neen better than Haining but contract timing and form buggered that.

Not sure how after watching the game 2 days ago but I had forgotten about Brown. Another great prospect that needs game time.

Key problem for me isn't so much the two teams meaning lack of gametime but so little game time for guys aged 18-20 at the right level. Really hope Super6 can start to provide this.

[Wylie Coyote]

With DvDM out for the rest of the 6N what do folks think Kyle Rowe's chances are? I'd quite like to see him given a chance, certainly over Kinghorn. Rufus Mclean is injured I believe too, I suppose Steyn is a decent replacement but he appears to me to be a smaller, slower, less explosive version of DvDM.

[Biffer]

Muncaster's form and development is coming along very nicely so not as much a blow as it might have been 12 months ago or so

Plus Mata, Kunavalu and Haining....and Rudi who made his debut on Friday, at the age of 18

This may be harsh but I'd far rather watch any of the young lads than Haining, including Brown. Again, probably due to Baradbury having an down season of two but investing in Bradbury would have Neen better than Haining but contract timing and form buggered that.

Not sure how after watching the game 2 days ago but I had forgotten about Brown. Another great prospect that needs game time.

Key problem for me isn't so much the two teams meaning lack of gametime but so little game time for guys aged 18-20 at the right level. I am still hoping that Super6 will be that avenue - if it works really well I could see us getting upset about English clubs nicking young players out of it instead of them going to the pro teams!

[Tichtheid]

With DvDM out for the rest of the 6N what do folks think Kyle Rowe's chances are? I'd quite like to see him given a chance, certainly over Kinghorn. Rufus Mclean is injured I believe too, I suppose Steyn is a decent replacement but he appears to me to be a smaller, slower, less explosive version of DvDM.

Hastings and Thompson have been added to the squad, to me that says Kinghorn is starting on the wing - I'd go Price, Finn, Kinghorn, Johnson, Bennett, Graham, Hogg and have at it.

[Jock42]

With DvDM out for the rest of the 6N what do folks think Kyle Rowe's chances are? I'd quite like to see him given a chance, certainly over Kinghorn. Rufus Mclean is injured I believe too, I suppose Steyn is a decent replacement but he appears to me to be a smaller, slower, less explosive version of DvDM.

Hastings and Thompson have been added to the squad, to me that says Kinghorn is starting on the wing - I'd go Price, Finn, Kinghorn, Johnson, Bennett, Graham, Hogg and have at it.

I'd start Rowe. Hell I may even go all out and start Kinghorn at 10. Agree on Bennett too btw.

[Slick]

With DvDM out for the rest of the 6N what do folks think Kyle Rowe's chances are? I'd quite like to see him given a chance, certainly over Kinghorn. Rufus Mclean is injured I believe too, I suppose Steyn is a decent replacement but he appears to me to be a smaller, slower, less explosive version of DvDM.

Hastings and Thompson have been added to the squad, to me that says Kinghorn is starting on the wing - I'd go Price, Finn, Kinghorn, Johnson, Bennett, Graham, Hogg and have at it.

YEEEEEEEHAAAA

[Biffer]

Scottish Schools boys finals at Murrayfield today. Free entry (although they're asking you to register for track and trace purposes), four games to be played. Bars and food stalls open.

North Berwick High School v Queen Victoria School | U16 Shield Final, 2.30pm kick-off at DAM Health Stadium

Queen Victoria School v Loretto School | U18 Shield Final, 4.45pm kick-off at DAM Health Stadium

Dollar Academy v George Watson's College | U16 Cup Final, 4.15pm kick-off at BT Murrayfield

Stewart's Melville College v Merchiston Castle School | U18 Cup Final, 6.30pm kick-off at BT Murrayfield

[I like neeps]

Thistle Pod on Twitter saying that Duhan has copped a 3w ban and misses the rest of the 6N. Which makes me doubt anyone on the citing panel actually watched the incident.

The notion that a red card has to come with a ban perhaps should be challenged. I can get on board with the idea it’s a red card if the impact is he misses the rest of the game he was playing in, and if it’s a serious incident there will be further punishment. The current system treats wildly different incidents more or less from the same starting point which seems wrong.

For the record I don’t have any particular issue with it being a red. Whilst the incident was tame, it’s easy to argue that it was clumsy and it was obviously direct contact to the face. If you don’t want a card, don’t do it. Equally, it’s difficult to argue the sanction for the incident should be the same as for Haouas punching Richie, for instance.

Haoas got a longer ban he just didn't question the red card so got a reduction in weeks. Duhan questioned the red card so there had to be a full disciplinary hearing and therefore no reduction. Would've been what a one week reduction I guess.

I think it's odd rugby citings so closely follow the English judiciary systems but they do and the SRU know it. I guess it's worth the risk.

[Biffer]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Vellacot on the bench just to nail him down to Scotland.

[Tichtheid]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Vellacot on the bench just to nail him down to Scotland.

In for a penny... get Vellacot taking quick taps and running at forwards from 70 mins


Did you notice that it was an outside centre he left for dead whilst running in his try on Friday? It might as well have been a tight head prop, he was accelerating away at a ridiculous rate.

[Biffer]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Vellacot on the bench just to nail him down to Scotland.

In for a penny... get Vellacot taking quick taps and running at forwards from 70 mins


Did you notice that it was an outside centre he left for dead whilst running in his try on Friday? It might as well have been a tight head prop, he was accelerating away at a ridiculous rate.

Yeah, he's rapid.

But he's not the fastest player I've seen in an Edinburgh shirt this year.

[KingBlairhorn]

Thistle Pod on Twitter saying that Duhan has copped a 3w ban and misses the rest of the 6N. Which makes me doubt anyone on the citing panel actually watched the incident.

The notion that a red card has to come with a ban perhaps should be challenged. I can get on board with the idea it’s a red card if the impact is he misses the rest of the game he was playing in, and if it’s a serious incident there will be further punishment. The current system treats wildly different incidents more or less from the same starting point which seems wrong.

For the record I don’t have any particular issue with it being a red. Whilst the incident was tame, it’s easy to argue that it was clumsy and it was obviously direct contact to the face. If you don’t want a card, don’t do it. Equally, it’s difficult to argue the sanction for the incident should be the same as for Haouas punching Richie, for instance.

Haoas got a longer ban he just didn't question the red card so got a reduction in weeks. Duhan questioned the red card so there had to be a full disciplinary hearing and therefore no reduction. Would've been what a one week reduction I guess.

I think it's odd rugby citings so closely follow the English judiciary systems but they do and the SRU know it. I guess it's worth the risk.

The result was the same though, regardless of the means to get there, that was my point. Deliberately punching a player in the face should never end with the same ban as a clumsy incident while handing off a player regardless of the route to sanction at least in my view - one is a pre-meditated act and the other an accident. Perhaps that is another argument entirely though. The fact that questioning the sanction leads to essentially a longer ban needs looked at too tbh, given how subjective both the citing and then the adjudication of these incidents are (i.e. Nigel Owens thought this one was only a yellow). I understand the imperative to reduce wasted time, but it doesn't sit well with incidents like this which as I say are hugely subjective.

As an aside, I'm surprised the clubs aren't up in arms about it yet - Duhan will miss an additional club game as a result of the SRU taking a punt. There was nothing to lose for the SRU as 3 games is the same as 2 for them, but obviously his club now cops the extra 1 game ban. Presumably its Duhan himself that makes the decision, but that will be heavily influenced by the SRU.

[Slick]

Scottish Schools boys finals at Murrayfield today. Free entry (although they're asking you to register for track and trace purposes), four games to be played. Bars and food stalls open.

North Berwick High School v Queen Victoria School | U16 Shield Final, 2.30pm kick-off at DAM Health Stadium

Queen Victoria School v Loretto School | U18 Shield Final, 4.45pm kick-off at DAM Health Stadium

Dollar Academy v George Watson's College | U16 Cup Final, 4.15pm kick-off at BT Murrayfield

Stewart's Melville College v Merchiston Castle School | U18 Cup Final, 6.30pm kick-off at BT Murrayfield

Going to head down for the U16 Cup Final game

[Big D]

The notion that a red card has to come with a ban perhaps should be challenged. I can get on board with the idea it’s a red card if the impact is he misses the rest of the game he was playing in, and if it’s a serious incident there will be further punishment. The current system treats wildly different incidents more or less from the same starting point which seems wrong.

For the record I don’t have any particular issue with it being a red. Whilst the incident was tame, it’s easy to argue that it was clumsy and it was obviously direct contact to the face. If you don’t want a card, don’t do it. Equally, it’s difficult to argue the sanction for the incident should be the same as for Haouas punching Richie, for instance.

Haoas got a longer ban he just didn't question the red card so got a reduction in weeks. Duhan questioned the red card so there had to be a full disciplinary hearing and therefore no reduction. Would've been what a one week reduction I guess.

I think it's odd rugby citings so closely follow the English judiciary systems but they do and the SRU know it. I guess it's worth the risk.

The result was the same though, regardless of the means to get there, that was my point. Deliberately punching a player in the face should never end with the same ban as a clumsy incident while handing off a player regardless of the route to sanction at least in my view - one is a pre-meditated act and the other an accident. Perhaps that is another argument entirely though. The fact that questioning the sanction leads to essentially a longer ban needs looked at too tbh, given how subjective both the citing and then the adjudication of these incidents are (i.e. Nigel Owens thought this one was only a yellow). I understand the imperative to reduce wasted time, but it doesn't sit well with incidents like this which as I say are hugely subjective.

As an aside, I'm surprised the clubs aren't up in arms about it yet - Duhan will miss an additional club game as a result of the SRU taking a punt. There was nothing to lose for the SRU as 3 games is the same as 2 for them, but obviously his club now cops the extra 1 game ban. Presumably its Duhan himself that makes the decision, but that will be heavily influenced by the SRU.

The club will have bought into it. He'd have been there (virtually) with their reps too.

[Slick]

Or maybe not... website saying online tickets have sold out....

[Biffer]

Or maybe not... website saying online tickets have sold out....

That's going to be because the event has started (gates opened at 1). Give the ticket office a call to check - I'm sure you'll still be ok.

[I like neeps]

The notion that a red card has to come with a ban perhaps should be challenged. I can get on board with the idea it’s a red card if the impact is he misses the rest of the game he was playing in, and if it’s a serious incident there will be further punishment. The current system treats wildly different incidents more or less from the same starting point which seems wrong.

For the record I don’t have any particular issue with it being a red. Whilst the incident was tame, it’s easy to argue that it was clumsy and it was obviously direct contact to the face. If you don’t want a card, don’t do it. Equally, it’s difficult to argue the sanction for the incident should be the same as for Haouas punching Richie, for instance.

Haoas got a longer ban he just didn't question the red card so got a reduction in weeks. Duhan questioned the red card so there had to be a full disciplinary hearing and therefore no reduction. Would've been what a one week reduction I guess.

I think it's odd rugby citings so closely follow the English judiciary systems but they do and the SRU know it. I guess it's worth the risk.

The result was the same though, regardless of the means to get there, that was my point. Deliberately punching a player in the face should never end with the same ban as a clumsy incident while handing off a player regardless of the route to sanction at least in my view - one is a pre-meditated act and the other an accident. Perhaps that is another argument entirely though. The fact that questioning the sanction leads to essentially a longer ban needs looked at too tbh, given how subjective both the citing and then the adjudication of these incidents are (i.e. Nigel Owens thought this one was only a yellow). I understand the imperative to reduce wasted time, but it doesn't sit well with incidents like this which as I say are hugely subjective.

As an aside, I'm surprised the clubs aren't up in arms about it yet - Duhan will miss an additional club game as a result of the SRU taking a punt. There was nothing to lose for the SRU as 3 games is the same as 2 for them, but obviously his club now cops the extra 1 game ban. Presumably its Duhan himself that makes the decision, but that will be heavily influenced by the SRU.

Yes I agree that the reductions for pleasing guilty are kind of stupid (Haouas got six weeks). And it's all subjective (that's refereeing in all teams sports for you).

But it's an even more conveluted decision making process if they says "well two years ago Haouas got six weeks reduced to three for pleasing guilty but a punch is worse than a head off so it's actually two week for Duhan".

[Slick]

Or maybe not... website saying online tickets have sold out....

That's going to be because the event has started (gates opened at 1). Give the ticket office a call to check - I'm sure you'll still be ok.

Yes, think I'll just show up and plead ignorance

[Tichtheid]

van der Merwe misses two six nations games plus a club game for an accidental fleshy underside of the forearm coming into contact with a tackler's face.

iirc Haouas didn't miss any games after punching Jamie Ritchie in the face because rugby was postponed after that match due to covid.

[westport]

Whilst it is a 3 game ban he can play against Gloucester on 25 March "subject to completing the World Rugby Coaching Intervention programme".

[I like neeps]

van der Merwe misses two six nations games plus a club game for an accidental fleshy underside of the forearm coming into contact with a tackler's face.

iirc Haouas didn't miss any games after punching Jamie Ritchie in the face because rugby was postponed after that match due to covid.

Shame on world rugby's disciplinary panel for failing to predict covid's affect on society?

Fwiw Russell got a three week ban for elbowing Dulin in the face. If we want to talk about consistency... Seems pretty consistent.