A place where escape goats go to play
https://notplanetrugby.com/
Just seen the head contact on Twitter. What was the justification for no card?sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:33 pm Very rare you can pin a loss on a ref decision, but not carding him for that hit has cost Glaws badly.
Good job for Sarries Dickson was so shit though, eh?Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:31 pm Clutch stuff. Good game of rugby. Classy crowd as ever. Dickson a useless ref as ever.
Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:34 pmJust seen the head contact on Twitter. What was the justification for no card?sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:33 pm Very rare you can pin a loss on a ref decision, but not carding him for that hit has cost Glaws badly.
Something about number of phases being played since it occurred, so it couldn't be looked at. Certainly a new one on me, didn't think there was a phase limit to checking foul play.Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:34 pmJust seen the head contact on Twitter. What was the justification for no card?sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:33 pm Very rare you can pin a loss on a ref decision, but not carding him for that hit has cost Glaws badly.
What? The ref in the LI Stormers game went back about 100 phases (only a slight exaggeration) to chalk off one of our tries for a slight shove in the back. With the justification that it was foul play, so there was no phase count or anything like that.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:37 pmSomething about number of phases being played since it occurred, so it couldn't be looked at. Certainly a new one on me, didn't think there was a phase limit to checking foul play.Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:34 pmJust seen the head contact on Twitter. What was the justification for no card?sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:33 pm Very rare you can pin a loss on a ref decision, but not carding him for that hit has cost Glaws badly.
That’s what I was alluding to, pretty obviouslyBrazil wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:35 pmGood job for Sarries Dickson was so shit though, eh?Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:31 pm Clutch stuff. Good game of rugby. Classy crowd as ever. Dickson a useless ref as ever.
Missed the Farrell high tackle.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:33 pm Very rare you can pin a loss on a ref decision, but not carding him for that hit has cost Glaws badly.
Lost too many important carriers to injury and moves - Wiese, Cracknell, Montoya, Nadolo, Genge.
True and I'm a big advocate of 'do better in the other 80 minutes', it's just that you don't often see someone who should've been sent off (yellow or red) late in the game when things are tight who then goes on to score the winning points.SaintK wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:05 amMissed the Farrell high tackle.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:33 pm Very rare you can pin a loss on a ref decision, but not carding him for that hit has cost Glaws badly.
Glaws lineout failures in the Saracens 22 with two lost throws 5 meters out probably cost them more
And Carreras missed a sitter in front of the posts
Farrell missed 4 kicks at goal (2 conversions and 2 penalties) before the drop goal at the end.SaintK wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:05 amMissed the Farrell high tackle.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:33 pm Very rare you can pin a loss on a ref decision, but not carding him for that hit has cost Glaws badly.
Glaws lineout failures in the Saracens 22 with two lost throws 5 meters out probably cost them more
And Carreras missed a sitter in front of the posts
Next England will start picking the best players they have as well, strange times
Then the authorities have to atone for their mistake which means a 3 week ban for Farrell.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:04 pmNah, Dickson being a fuck up doesn't mean the rest of the officials should give up.
Never happen with 6N around the corner. English authorities already taken the p*ss in that regard in fudging Marler's ban for the same rationale.petej wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:09 pmThen the authorities have to atone for their mistake which means a 3 week ban for Farrell.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:04 pmNah, Dickson being a fuck up doesn't mean the rest of the officials should give up.
I'd say longer given that it's not a first offence, but we know that the whole disciplinary system is nothing if not consistently inconsistent.petej wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:09 pmThen the authorities have to atone for their mistake which means a 3 week ban for Farrell.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:04 pmNah, Dickson being a fuck up doesn't mean the rest of the officials should give up.
sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:25 pmI'd say longer given that it's not a first offence, but we know that the whole disciplinary system is nothing if not consistently inconsistent.petej wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:09 pmThen the authorities have to atone for their mistake which means a 3 week ban for Farrell.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:04 pm
Nah, Dickson being a fuck up doesn't mean the rest of the officials should give up.
sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:39 pm And you're behaving like his over-protective mum. I don't see what's controversial in suggesting a ban longer than 3 weeks ought to be forthcoming given that 2 - 3 tends to be what first time offenders get on the back of having half taken off for previous good record. That reduction clearly doesn't apply to Farrell given his prior ban for the horror tackle on Charlie Atkinson.
So? Willing to be corrected, but I'm not aware that prior bans are expunged from the record. Certainly Ashton's been clouted with bans that took into account his prior record even though considerable time had passed between incidents.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 5:05 pmThat was 2½ years ago FFS!sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:39 pm And you're behaving like his over-protective mum. I don't see what's controversial in suggesting a ban longer than 3 weeks ought to be forthcoming given that 2 - 3 tends to be what first time offenders get on the back of having half taken off for previous good record. That reduction clearly doesn't apply to Farrell given his prior ban for the horror tackle on Charlie Atkinson.
It's so ridiculous. If players choose to jump to gather a bad pass that's going above them in front of a tackler then they are jumping into contact. End of.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 5:05 pmAbsolutely bizarre, not jumping into contact appears to have stopped being policed about 5/6 years ago
That's what I dispute, most bans for these offences end up being about that after prior good record, being contrite, managing not to be dickhead at the hearing etc. are taken into account.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 5:12 pm This is something of a manufactured argument. Is anyone saying it wasn’t a red? No. Is anyone saying he won’t cop a ban? Again, no. Was there such a hugh degree of danger to deserve a punitive ban? Very hard to argue for yes, Faz got caught upright because he wasn’t expecting a pick and go down the blindside and of course has more than a tendency to tackle like a league player as it is. 3 weeks would seem about right.
The controversy of last night is:sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 5:16 pmThat's what I dispute, most bans for these offences end up being about that after prior good record, being contrite, managing not to be dickhead at the hearing etc. are taken into account.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 5:12 pm This is something of a manufactured argument. Is anyone saying it wasn’t a red? No. Is anyone saying he won’t cop a ban? Again, no. Was there such a hugh degree of danger to deserve a punitive ban? Very hard to argue for yes, Faz got caught upright because he wasn’t expecting a pick and go down the blindside and of course has more than a tendency to tackle like a league player as it is. 3 weeks would seem about right.
Ergo, if you take the prior good record out of it, which I don't think is a radical notion for a player who has served a ban for the same offence, I don't see how the ban can be the same length as one for a first time offender.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 5:12 pm This is something of a manufactured argument. Is anyone saying it wasn’t a red? No. Is anyone saying he won’t cop a ban? Again, no. Was there such a hugh degree of danger to deserve a punitive ban? Very hard to argue for yes, Faz got caught upright because he wasn’t expecting a pick and go down the blindside and of course has more than a tendency to tackle like a league player as it is. 3 weeks would seem about right.
With multiple atrocious tackles, many of which have gone unpunished, probably a bit more relevant to any citing hearing than he’s not on fucking twitterKawazaki wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 5:34 pmPaddington Bear wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 5:12 pm This is something of a manufactured argument. Is anyone saying it wasn’t a red? No. Is anyone saying he won’t cop a ban? Again, no. Was there such a hugh degree of danger to deserve a punitive ban? Very hard to argue for yes, Faz got caught upright because he wasn’t expecting a pick and go down the blindside and of course has more than a tendency to tackle like a league player as it is. 3 weeks would seem about right.
It's Owen Farrell, a player that managed to cop some of the blame for how poor England were in the 6Ns last year when he didn't play in any of the matches.
He boils other people's piss while he just carries on winning. And let's not forget, he's an immaculate pro off the pitch, no social media stuff, no scandal. He just keeps his head down and just works hard.