NPR

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:41 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:18 pm So, with the tackle awareness bullshit he's picked up a ban similar to Martin Johnson's 35 day ban for violent conduct in a December 1999 match (vs Saracens!), a ban which coincidentally ended one day before the 2000 Six Nations started...

IIRC that was actually a much longer ban than most people were getting at the time.

Farrell's ban seems about right, anyone wanting more was engaging in very wishful thinking regarding instances he'd gotten away with previously being counted on his record, which obviously isn't how this works.

It's a pretty much textbook example of how an issue can be distorted through media (both mainstream and social). The initial issue wasn't the severity of the tackle, or that Farrell had previous, but that a very obvious infringement was ignored by the ref on the most spurious grounds despite it being highlighted to him, and the infringer then going on to kick the winning points. We then had another ref breezily dismissing something that at the very least warranted another look in another game on the same weekend, and nobody's talking about that either. The application of the laws and the interpretation of head shots is absurdly variable for a game that is facing a potentially existential crisis due to brain injury, and it's being done on the basis of keeping the game flowing, or not relying on the TMO. Throw in the Clouseauesque antics of the French refs when it comes to high shots and we're heading for a perfect storm.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:49 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:41 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:18 pm So, with the tackle awareness bullshit he's picked up a ban similar to Martin Johnson's 35 day ban for violent conduct in a December 1999 match (vs Saracens!), a ban which coincidentally ended one day before the 2000 Six Nations started...

IIRC that was actually a much longer ban than most people were getting at the time.

Farrell's ban seems about right, anyone wanting more was engaging in very wishful thinking regarding instances he'd gotten away with previously being counted on his record, which obviously isn't how this works.

Not so in my case. I want the game to be safer, a ban that punishes the act and serves as a deterrent would be more in line with my thoughts on this.

OK, so the wishful thinking in your case would be that the citing commission would decide to do something outside their remit and hammer Farrell with a bigger ban pour encourager les autres rather than following agreed procedure...

I'm completely in agreement that this stuff is handled really badly, that there's too much excuse making when it comes to on- and off-field punishments for headshots, and that the sport needs a complete shift away from the default approach of "smash them as hard as possible whatever happens". We absolutely should not be having Twitter wankers banging on about how of course Manu Tuilagi had no alternative but to human cannonball himself into Tommy Allan's face after flying in from a distance in order to absolutely belt him, because "what if he'd gone softer and missed the tackle???" like that would be a worse outcome than serious brain and face injuries.

However.

Anyone expecting or hoping that the ban would be in service of that is living in the world they want to live in, not this one. No-one is going to start making examples of people without an edict from World Rugby and a big song and dance about it, and we both know there's no real appetite for ths stuff.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:20 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:10 pm

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:59 am He got 4 weeks. Reduced to 3 if he does the tackle awareness thing. There will likely be howls of a stich up, but it's pretty consistent with how these are being dealt with at the moment.

It will be interesting to read the aggravations/mitigations, if we get to see them.

Clean record?
Need for a deterrent on high tackles?
Other Factors?

Apology?
Acceptance of foul play?
Good conduct at the hearing?

Notable difference with Coleman in that they did tick the Repeat Offender box for Farrell, and yet they received the same 2 weeks off for mitigation. Which begs the question how many aggravation factors need to be ticked to invoke additional weeks? Coleman had zero and so zero extra weeks, Farrell had one, but still zero extra .

Although I do seem to recall that Coleman had Injury to player ticked, whereas Farrell doesn't. So maybe that explains the same outcome in ban length?

I love the "good conduct at a hearing" bullshit.

Brazil wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:09 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:41 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:18 pm So, with the tackle awareness bullshit he's picked up a ban similar to Martin Johnson's 35 day ban for violent conduct in a December 1999 match (vs Saracens!), a ban which coincidentally ended one day before the 2000 Six Nations started...

IIRC that was actually a much longer ban than most people were getting at the time.

Farrell's ban seems about right, anyone wanting more was engaging in very wishful thinking regarding instances he'd gotten away with previously being counted on his record, which obviously isn't how this works.

It's a pretty much textbook example of how an issue can be distorted through media (both mainstream and social). The initial issue wasn't the severity of the tackle, or that Farrell had previous, but that a very obvious infringement was ignored by the ref on the most spurious grounds despite it being highlighted to him, and the infringer then going on to kick the winning points. We then had another ref breezily dismissing something that at the very least warranted another look in another game on the same weekend, and nobody's talking about that either. The application of the laws and the interpretation of head shots is absurdly variable for a game that is facing a potentially existential crisis due to brain injury, and it's being done on the basis of keeping the game flowing, or not relying on the TMO. Throw in the Clouseauesque antics of the French refs when it comes to high shots and we're heading for a perfect storm.

Yeah, exactly. It's ridiculous that Farrell stayed on the pitch, and it's ridiculous that Tuilagi's shoulder charge was considered a-OK by Barnes because his victim was on his knees. I didn't expect Tuilagi to get banned (in my perfect world that stuff would be beyond the pale, though) and Farrell's ban seems to be the off-field system working properly, albeit with some bullshit surrounding the matches he'll miss that World Rugby appears to have built in as yet another way to make it look like they're being harsh while allowing huge loopholes in the system.

Covid's made everyone shit themselves about the financial future of the sport here so I think anything that risks rocking the boat is completely dead in the water (mixing my metaphors here a bit)

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:25 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:49 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:41 pm

IIRC that was actually a much longer ban than most people were getting at the time.

Farrell's ban seems about right, anyone wanting more was engaging in very wishful thinking regarding instances he'd gotten away with previously being counted on his record, which obviously isn't how this works.

Not so in my case. I want the game to be safer, a ban that punishes the act and serves as a deterrent would be more in line with my thoughts on this.

OK, so the wishful thinking in your case would be that the citing commission would decide to do something outside their remit and hammer Farrell with a bigger ban pour encourager les autres rather than following agreed procedure...

Nope, the panel took two weeks off the entry point because he didn't act like a complete prick at the hearing. This is within their remit.

Is it really wishful thinking that that should be the absolute minimum required and that only negative responses to good conduct and remorse/apology should be acted upon in handing down the ban?

I'd say the cuckoo land is where not being a wanker is rewarded as opposed to being expected. These are grown men, they should know how to act.

There should also be no expectation of a guilty plea, nor punishment of a plea of innocence. A player should be able to state their case without fear of losing more weeks just for having the temerity of questioning the judgement of the citing commissioner - that part is wishful thinking, for sure.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:36 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:25 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:49 pm



Not so in my case. I want the game to be safer, a ban that punishes the act and serves as a deterrent would be more in line with my thoughts on this.

OK, so the wishful thinking in your case would be that the citing commission would decide to do something outside their remit and hammer Farrell with a bigger ban pour encourager les autres rather than following agreed procedure...

Nope, the panel took two weeks off the entry point because he didn't act like a complete prick at the hearing. This is within their remit.

Is it really wishful thinking that that should be the absolute minimum required and that only negative responses to good conduct and remorse/apology should be acted upon in handing down the ban?

I'd say the cuckoo land is where not being a wanker is rewarded as opposed to being expected. These are grown men, they should know how to act.

There should also be no expectation of a guilty plea, nor punishment of a plea of innocence. A player should be able to state their case without fear of losing more weeks just for having the temerity of questioning the judgement of the citing commissioner - that part is wishful thinking, for sure.

Fair call
Drop World Rugby a line while you're at it. There is no specific role on player safety. I had no idea quite how many people worked for World Rugby and some of the departmental job titles
https://www.world.rugby/organisation/about-us/staff
I guess these guys are responsible
PLAYER WELFARE AND RUGBY SERVICES

Mark Harrington
Chief Player Welfare and Rugby Services Officer

Phil Davies
Director Of Rugby

EDUCATION, LAWS AND COMPLIANCE

Jock Peggie
Head of Education, Laws and Compliance

Isabel Grondin
Medical Education Manager

Dr Joseph Kalanzi
Medical Education Manager

Fraser Gow
Training and Education Co-ordinator

Keith Lewis
Laws Co-ordinator

Dr Andrew Smith
Medical Compliance Manager

Blackmac wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:27 pm

I love the "good conduct at a hearing" bullshit.

The Brendan Venter factor

Found this on the World Rugby site

“The Coaching Intervention Programme is by no means a tick box exercise. In order to benefit from a shorter suspension, the coaching intervention must be a targeted and technique-focused measure, designed to analyse tackle/contact technique and identify and implement positive modifications. We want to change the player’s behaviour and ultimately reduce the risk of injury to themselves and opponents. This intervention is reviewed and overseen by an independent expert coaching review group and can only be undertaken once per player. Of the 100 plus players who have been through the programme, eight have had further red cards. Those players can’t apply twice, and they will generally then receive longer suspensions from the judicial process as a repeat offender.

https://www.world.rugby/news/777793/wo ... haviour

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:10 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:27 pm

I love the "good conduct at a hearing" bullshit.

The Brendan Venter factor

I had forgotten that he was Sarries' DoR at the time

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:31 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:49 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:59 am


Probably a combination of things;

Home counties accent > Wigan accent
Doleful philosophical thinker > Hard northern bastard
Played for a team that losses a lot > Team that always beats you
Wears heart of sleeve > Doesn't have a heart

Pfffft.

1) Only in England maybe where rugby is a toffs game.

Ireland? Scotland? Argentina? Australia? Hong Kong? USA?

The context was the victimisation of Farrell. It may well be a game for the wealthy in HK but I challenge you to find one hater from there who does so on the basis that Farrell is from ooop Norff.

Brazil wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:09 pm It's a pretty much textbook example of how an issue can be distorted through media (both mainstream and social). The initial issue wasn't the severity of the tackle, or that Farrell had previous, but that a very obvious infringement was ignored by the ref on the most spurious grounds despite it being highlighted to him, and the infringer then going on to kick the winning points. We then had another ref breezily dismissing something that at the very least warranted another look in another game on the same weekend, and nobody's talking about that either. The application of the laws and the interpretation of head shots is absurdly variable for a game that is facing a potentially existential crisis due to brain injury, and it's being done on the basis of keeping the game flowing, or not relying on the TMO. Throw in the Clouseauesque antics of the French refs when it comes to high shots and we're heading for a perfect storm.

We're already amidst it. It's just that the authorities don't appear to have noticed.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:01 am Disciplinary panel last night.

No outcome announced yet. Reeks of a stitch up.

FFS, Farrell had the timerity to claim it did not merit a red card but gets a two-week reduction for his "timely acknowledgement of his offending and considering his behaviour following the incident, during the hearing and leading up to the hearing".

Embarrassingly, transparent.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:49 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:01 am Disciplinary panel last night.

No outcome announced yet. Reeks of a stitch up.

FFS, Farrell had the timerity to claim it did not merit a red card but gets a two-week reduction for his "timely acknowledgement of his offending and considering his behaviour following the incident, during the hearing and leading up to the hearing".

Embarrassingly, transparent.

Pop a link up where he is quoted saying that please. I'm sure the panel would have taken that into account.
Unless of course he didn't

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:02 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:49 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:01 am Disciplinary panel last night.

No outcome announced yet. Reeks of a stitch up.

FFS, Farrell had the timerity to claim it did not merit a red card but gets a two-week reduction for his "timely acknowledgement of his offending and considering his behaviour following the incident, during the hearing and leading up to the hearing".

Embarrassingly, transparent.

Pop a link up where he is quoted saying that please. I'm sure the panel would have taken that into account.
Unless of course he didn't

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rug ... 60132.html

Better still, read the full judgement here:
https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/5b/5 ... final).pdf

The Charge was put to the Player. He admitted that he had committed an act of foul play. He also
admitted that he had made contact with the chin of the Gloucester 20. He denied that his actions
warranted a red card.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:20 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:10 pm

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:59 am He got 4 weeks. Reduced to 3 if he does the tackle awareness thing. There will likely be howls of a stich up, but it's pretty consistent with how these are being dealt with at the moment.

It will be interesting to read the aggravations/mitigations, if we get to see them.

Clean record?
Need for a deterrent on high tackles?
Other Factors?

Apology?
Acceptance of foul play?
Good conduct at the hearing?

Notable difference with Coleman in that they did tick the Repeat Offender box for Farrell, and yet they received the same 2 weeks off for mitigation. Which begs the question how many aggravation factors need to be ticked to invoke additional weeks? Coleman had zero and so zero extra weeks, Farrell had one, but still zero extra .

Although I do seem to recall that Coleman had Injury to player ticked, whereas Farrell doesn't. So maybe that explains the same outcome in ban length?

How the hell was Coleman not deemed a repeat offender?!

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:36 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:25 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:49 pm



Not so in my case. I want the game to be safer, a ban that punishes the act and serves as a deterrent would be more in line with my thoughts on this.

OK, so the wishful thinking in your case would be that the citing commission would decide to do something outside their remit and hammer Farrell with a bigger ban pour encourager les autres rather than following agreed procedure...

Nope, the panel took two weeks off the entry point because he didn't act like a complete prick at the hearing. This is within their remit.

Is it really wishful thinking that that should be the absolute minimum required and that only negative responses to good conduct and remorse/apology should be acted upon in handing down the ban?

I'd say the cuckoo land is where not being a wanker is rewarded as opposed to being expected. These are grown men, they should know how to act.

There should also be no expectation of a guilty plea, nor punishment of a plea of innocence. A player should be able to state their case without fear of losing more weeks just for having the temerity of questioning the judgement of the citing commissioner - that part is wishful thinking, for sure.

Yes, it's wishful thinking that the panel shouldn't apply the same mitigations in this case as they do for all others. You know how it works and it's worked like that for a decade or so.

Agree it's a weird thing but it encourages players and teams to take their medicine and not get aggro with lawyers etc I suppose. I wouldn't be sorry to see it disappear as long as we didn't end up with legal battles every time there was a semi contentious ban.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:10 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:02 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:49 pm

FFS, Farrell had the timerity to claim it did not merit a red card but gets a two-week reduction for his "timely acknowledgement of his offending and considering his behaviour following the incident, during the hearing and leading up to the hearing".

Embarrassingly, transparent.

Pop a link up where he is quoted saying that please. I'm sure the panel would have taken that into account.
Unless of course he didn't

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rug ... 60132.html

Better still, read the full judgement here:
https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/5b/5 ... final).pdf

The Charge was put to the Player. He admitted that he had committed an act of foul play. He also
admitted that he had made contact with the chin of the Gloucester 20. He denied that his actions
warranted a red card.

Fair play, thanks
PS
Can you send me the link to the England website where these are found. I can't seem to find them
PPS
Found them!

4 weeks seems about right.

I’d say Gloucester probably feel hard done by. But tbh I’m not a fan of red cards severely impacting a game. No one deserves a permanent 15 v 14 advantage. Although I’d like to have seen him have 10 minutes off in the bin.

Er, him getting red was functionally identical to him getting yellow in that match. The tackle happened with 6 minutes to play.

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 6:38 pm 4 weeks seems about right.

I’d say Gloucester probably feel hard done by. But tbh I’m not a fan of red cards severely impacting a game. No one deserves a permanent 15 v 14 advantage. Although I’d like to have seen him have 10 minutes off in the bin.

Sure... dudes should be allowed to punch the fuck out of other dudes in rucks and the like and that's fine so long as we can enjoy our 80 minutes of 15 v 15.

So I guess they are probably right to feel aggrieved about his availability for drop as it happened fairly shortly after.

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 6:58 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 6:38 pm 4 weeks seems about right.

I’d say Gloucester probably feel hard done by. But tbh I’m not a fan of red cards severely impacting a game. No one deserves a permanent 15 v 14 advantage. Although I’d like to have seen him have 10 minutes off in the bin.

Sure... dudes should be allowed to punch the fuck out of other dudes in rucks and the like and that's fine so long as we can enjoy our 80 minutes of 15 v 15.

I much prefer the 20 in the bin, subbed, and then get banned.

I'd like to see mitigation taken out of the equation. A system where the incident derives an automatic sanction... for instance, the Farrell tackle in question here would attract an automatic YC because there is high contact. A review panel investigates to see whether there is anything to increase the penalty post game according to a simple list of determining factors.

If you like, a points grading system. No points off... just added.

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:43 pm
Fair play, thanks
PS
Can you send me the link to the England website where these are found. I can't seem to find them
PPS
Found them!

No worries. It is a pain to find them!

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:01 pm I much prefer the 20 in the bin, subbed, and then get banned.

Terrible. Whilst it sounds extreme, I can see some side calculating that 20 mins for a lesser player is worth taking out the oppos key player.

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:01 pm

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 6:58 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 6:38 pm 4 weeks seems about right.

I’d say Gloucester probably feel hard done by. But tbh I’m not a fan of red cards severely impacting a game. No one deserves a permanent 15 v 14 advantage. Although I’d like to have seen him have 10 minutes off in the bin.

Sure... dudes should be allowed to punch the fuck out of other dudes in rucks and the like and that's fine so long as we can enjoy our 80 minutes of 15 v 15.

I much prefer the 20 in the bin, subbed, and then get banned.

So you can stamp on someone’s head and you still want 15v15.

Red is a proper deterrent. That twenty minute pish is worse than getting two weeks off your ban for bringing nice biscuits. It can fuck right off.

Shamelessly stolen

ASMO wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:04 pm Shamelessly stolen

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:21 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:01 pm I much prefer the 20 in the bin, subbed, and then get banned.

Terrible. Whilst it sounds extreme, I can see some side calculating that 20 mins for a lesser player is worth taking out the oppos key player.

Though this has yet to happen in real games?

Grandpa wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:58 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:21 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:01 pm I much prefer the 20 in the bin, subbed, and then get banned.

Terrible. Whilst it sounds extreme, I can see some side calculating that 20 mins for a lesser player is worth taking out the oppos key player.

Though this has yet to happen in real games?

My money is on Quins doing it first.

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:45 pm I asked ChatGPT what it thinks. Interestingly, the collective wisdom of the Internet seems to think rugby players are often given the benefit of the doubt.

ChatGPT wrote: As a machine learning model, I don't have personal opinions or feelings, so I can't provide an opinion on whether or not Owen Farrell should be banned for his high tackle. Decisions on whether or not to issue a ban for a rugby player are typically made by a panel of experts, such as a disciplinary committee or judicial officer.

The rules regarding high tackles in rugby union are designed to protect players from the risk of injury. Tackles above the shoulder are not allowed, and players who commit such tackles can face penalties including a yellow card, red card, or a ban. The specific details of the incident you're referring to and the judgement of the match officials, are the key factors to determine the disciplinary action if any.

It's worth noting that rugby players are often given the benefit of the doubt, and incidents are usually reviewed by a panel of experts to determine the severity of the infraction and the appropriate punishment. So, regardless of whether or not a tackle is high, what determine the severity is the angle, the intent, the force and the outcome of the contact.

My wife works at a University and thinks these AI script generators are a game-changer. She's only practiced with them but they churn out good proposal papers in seconds and contain pretty much all the information it would have taken a good hour or so to collate, let alone write.

We had a conversation about the plagiarism tools our daughter, who is a PhD candidate, uses to mark undergrad papers, it will be AI on AI soon.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:23 am

Grandpa wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:58 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:21 pm

Terrible. Whilst it sounds extreme, I can see some side calculating that 20 mins for a lesser player is worth taking out the oppos key player.

Though this has yet to happen in real games?

My money is on Quins doing it first.

Nah, we're too soft

Grandpa wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:58 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:21 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 7:01 pm I much prefer the 20 in the bin, subbed, and then get banned.

Terrible. Whilst it sounds extreme, I can see some side calculating that 20 mins for a lesser player is worth taking out the oppos key player.

Though this has yet to happen in real games?

Indeed. It’s an absurd theoretical argument. It completely ignores the deterrent of being banned for a long time, and what that can do to an individual’s career/contract.

Struggling to think of any examples of a long ban affecting a career in that way. Lavanini is probably the most banned player I can think of, and he's picked up 75 international caps and two lucrative stints with Tigers and Clermont after making a name for himself as one of the dirtiest players in pro rugby.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:12 pm Struggling to think of any examples of a long ban affecting a career in that way. Lavanini is probably the most banned player I can think of, and he's picked up 75 international caps and two lucrative stints with Tigers and Clermont after making a name for himself as one of the dirtiest players in pro rugby.

21 cards (4 red and 17 yellows) so far is pretty much unbeatable, and yet he’s still employed and still picking up caps.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:12 pm Struggling to think of any examples of a long ban affecting a career in that way. Lavanini is probably the most banned player I can think of, and he's picked up 75 international caps and two lucrative stints with Tigers and Clermont after making a name for himself as one of the dirtiest players in pro rugby.

Impossible to prove but I reckon Calum Clarke's ban limited his career options.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:12 pm Struggling to think of any examples of a long ban affecting a career in that way. Lavanini is probably the most banned player I can think of, and he's picked up 75 international caps and two lucrative stints with Tigers and Clermont after making a name for himself as one of the dirtiest players in pro rugby.

Jamie Cudmore.
Dylan Hartley
Chris Ashton

Lobby wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:22 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:12 pm Struggling to think of any examples of a long ban affecting a career in that way. Lavanini is probably the most banned player I can think of, and he's picked up 75 international caps and two lucrative stints with Tigers and Clermont after making a name for himself as one of the dirtiest players in pro rugby.

21 cards (4 red and 17 yellows) so far is pretty much unbeatable, and yet he’s still employed and still picking up caps.

Dylan Hartley only actually got four red cards, but was cited a further four times with total bans of 60 weeks. Cost him a World Cup appearance but not much else. Might even have extended his career through regular rest periods.

He also seems to have the full suite of offences: an eye gouge, a punch, an elbow, a bite, a head butt and abusing a match official.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:25 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:12 pm Struggling to think of any examples of a long ban affecting a career in that way. Lavanini is probably the most banned player I can think of, and he's picked up 75 international caps and two lucrative stints with Tigers and Clermont after making a name for himself as one of the dirtiest players in pro rugby.

Impossible to prove but I reckon Calum Clarke's ban limited his career options.

Went to Big Bucks Saracens innit