JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:11 pmHe got the contract he asked Quins for at Newcastle, you dunderheads
fark
.....and it includes some coaching as well evidently
It's a new page, so expect another round of
"Why didn't Brown sign one of the three contracts he was offered before Quins told him that was it???"
"Why didn't Brown sign the contract Quins had offered him for 10 months???"
"Why did Brown think the club wouldn't be affected by the reduction in the salary cap???"
"Hurff Durff Dispassionate Observer Purffghh???"
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:43 pm
by Kawazaki
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:11 pmHe got the contract he asked Quins for at Newcastle, you dunderheads
He's been working very hard on his speed I'll have you know
Just passing to go then.
He still gets through traffic better than most
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:02 am
by Rhubarb & Custard
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:13 pm
I am far more emotionally invested in the fact that you lot seem utterly incapable of reading and understanding basic sentences, I made my peace with the club's fuckup a while back
So all this bad action on the part of Quins is something you've resolved to not give a shit about anyway?
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 4:13 pm
I am far more emotionally invested in the fact that you lot seem utterly incapable of reading and understanding basic sentences, I made my peace with the club's fuckup a while back
So all this bad action on the part of Quins is something you've resolved to not give a shit about anyway?
That's not what "made my peace with" means. In order to make your peace with something, it has to have been something you gave a shit about.
Coming to terms with something is not the same thing as not giving a shit about it. I've accepted the club acted like twats, made themselves look foolish, and treated someone very poorly. I can't change it, so I'm not angry about it any more. Shit happens. Not the same thing as pretending it didn't happen or that I didn't think it mattered. Looking at it purely from following the team, next season we'll have a bunch of exciting players looking to play 15 and maybe Nick David from Worcs too.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:20 pm
by Ymx
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:55 am
Looking at it purely from following the team, next season we'll have a bunch of exciting players looking to play 15 and maybe Nick David from Worcs too.
You utterly heartless bastard. He’s still breathing and you’ve already ripped down his poster, and now fawning over new younger blood.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:20 pm
by JM2K6
Leave the jokes to funny people.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:23 pm
by Ymx
That’s just cold man. My daughter loves my dad jokes.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:58 pm
by Openside
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:11 pmHe got the contract he asked Quins for at Newcastle, you dunderheads
fark
So he is clearly in the right place then...
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:01 pm
by Openside
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:20 pm
Leave the jokes to funny people.
interesting that you should feel that you are the gauge of what is funny...
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:58 pm
by JM2K6
"I don't hold an opinion on whether an attempted joke someone made at my expense is actually funny or not" - a very normal person speaks
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Sun May 09, 2021 4:22 pm
by Biffer
If he’s going to play anywhere else they’ll need to pay him to ride the pine for a while now.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Sun May 09, 2021 7:41 pm
by Uncle fester
Biffer wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 4:22 pm
If he’s going to play anywhere else they’ll need to pay him to ride the pine for a while now.
Yep, long ban incoming.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Sun May 09, 2021 10:19 pm
by dpedin
Dirty bastard!
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Sun May 09, 2021 10:30 pm
by JM2K6
Would be surprised if it was a long ban. No previous history, no damage done (so a step rather than stomp - although for some reason Wasps bandaged Taylor up, but when the bandages came off later he was unscathed), reasonable case could be made that in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently), and of course the provocation of Taylor repeatedly holding his leg. Of all that, the ones that probably matter are the clean record and the lack of force, but it's still dangerous and will still probably end his season.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Sun May 09, 2021 10:55 pm
by fishfoodie
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:30 pm
Would be surprised if it was a long ban. No previous history, no damage done (so a step rather than stomp - although for some reason Wasps bandaged Taylor up, but when the bandages came off later he was unscathed), reasonable case could be made that in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently), and of course the provocation of Taylor repeatedly holding his leg. Of all that, the ones that probably matter are the clean record and the lack of force, but it's still dangerous and will still probably end his season.
Okay.
Now what would you be saying if some Irish Lock, with a similar previous record, had done the same thing to Marcus Smith ?
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 4:04 am
by Slick
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:30 pm
Would be surprised if it was a long ban. No previous history, no damage done (so a step rather than stomp - although for some reason Wasps bandaged Taylor up, but when the bandages came off later he was unscathed), reasonable case could be made that in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently), and of course the provocation of Taylor repeatedly holding his leg. Of all that, the ones that probably matter are the clean record and the lack of force, but it's still dangerous and will still probably end his season.
Genuinely unsure if this is joke?
That was deliberate and malicious. Not sure how you can claim it was accidental but also due to provocation.
Hasn’t he got previous history of stamping on someone holding his leg when playing for England?
Apart from that, good post.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 6:45 am
by Big D
IIRC even the mid range entry level for stamping is just 6 weeks. Would imagine he'll end up with 3 or 4 weeks. Seems to be how these things work.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 6:56 am
by Ymx
Was it Brown who dodged a bullet when raking at someone’s face close to the ball. I think it was an Irisher who had to go off for treatment for cuts to his face. But he completely got away with it. Not even done for reckless. Anyone recall it correctly?
I think it might have been Brown as JM was staunchly defending it too.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 7:15 am
by Torquemada 1420
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:11 pmHe got the contract he asked Quins for at Newcastle, you dunderheads
fark
Not sure how we know that but what you are saying it this was only about about the money? In which case it's simple commercial reality: Falcons thought he was worth more than Quins and stumped up.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 7:22 am
by Torquemada 1420
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:30 pm
Would be surprised if it was a long ban. No previous history, no damage done (so a step rather than stomp - although for some reason Wasps bandaged Taylor up, but when the bandages came off later he was unscathed), reasonable case could be made that in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently), and of course the provocation of Taylor repeatedly holding his leg. Of all that, the ones that probably matter are the clean record and the lack of force, but it's still dangerous and will still probably end his season.
I think you just blew your objectivity pretence. Not quite as much force as Huget's effort
but Brown knew what he was doing. The man has anger issues and got away with one against Connor Murray where his actions, at the very least, were reckless. IMHO anyone who recklessly uses a boot/studs in the face of an opponent should see a very long ban.
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:30 pm
Would be surprised if it was a long ban. No previous history, no damage done (so a step rather than stomp - although for some reason Wasps bandaged Taylor up, but when the bandages came off later he was unscathed), reasonable case could be made that in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently), and of course the provocation of Taylor repeatedly holding his leg. Of all that, the ones that probably matter are the clean record and the lack of force, but it's still dangerous and will still probably end his season.
Genuinely unsure if this is joke?
That was deliberate and malicious. Not sure how you can claim it was accidental but also due to provocation.
Hasn’t he got previous history of stamping on someone holding his leg when playing for England?
Apart from that, good post.
I am not claiming it was accidental, I was pretty clear that in my opinion it wasn't. I chose my words pretty carefully so it would be nice if people read them! I am talking about potential ways in which the commission might not see grounds for a long ban.
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:30 pm
Would be surprised if it was a long ban. No previous history, no damage done (so a step rather than stomp - although for some reason Wasps bandaged Taylor up, but when the bandages came off later he was unscathed), reasonable case could be made that in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently), and of course the provocation of Taylor repeatedly holding his leg. Of all that, the ones that probably matter are the clean record and the lack of force, but it's still dangerous and will still probably end his season.
Okay.
Now what would you be saying if some Irish Lock, with a similar previous record, had done the same thing to Marcus Smith ?
Genuinely think people read what they want to on here
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 7:24 am
by Torquemada 1420
Slick wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 4:04 am
Hasn’t he got previous history of stamping on someone holding his leg when playing for England?
See my post above ^^^^
Not quite. Murray was holding the ball I think and Brown lashed out with his boot.
Slick wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 4:04 am
Hasn’t he got previous history of stamping on someone holding his leg when playing for England?
See my post above ^^^^
Not quite. Murray was holding the ball I think and Brown lashed out with his boot.
No. Brown kicked at the ball several times and caught Murray on the back swing once, during a period where kicking the ball through the ruck was a successful England tactic. Complete accident, and totally different to this situation.
Probably one of the reasons why the tactic was outlawed - the other being we were a little too good at it and ruining a lot of ball.
Slick wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 4:04 am
Hasn’t he got previous history of stamping on someone holding his leg when playing for England?
See my post above ^^^^
Not quite. Murray was holding the ball I think and Brown lashed out with his boot.
No. Brown kicked at the ball several times and caught Murray on the back swing once, during a period where kicking the ball through the ruck was a successful England tactic. Complete accident, and totally different to this situation.
Probably one of the reasons why the tactic was outlawed - the other being we were a little too good at it and ruining a lot of ball.
No-one has been as good at spoiling ball as the Irish. Not even the ABs.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 7:47 am
by Paddington Bear
Have to say on first look I thought he'd done it either deliberately or accidentally on purpose. Not 100% on that after a few replays, but at best it was very, very stupid.
RE: Brown shoeing someone for England - there was a lot made of it at the time but it was clearly an accident, not convinced you'd get away with it today
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 7:52 am
by JM2K6
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 7:47 am
Have to say on first look I thought he'd done it either deliberately or accidentally on purpose. Not 100% on that after a few replays, but at best it was very, very stupid.
RE: Brown shoeing someone for England - there was a lot made of it at the time but it was clearly an accident, not convinced you'd get away with it today
Yup. It's only the real-time replays that made me wonder if it wasn't deliberate. In slow mo it seems a very unnatural thing to do. And I agree the Murray incident would be a red these days under safety grounds, but it's a very different game now.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 7:54 am
by Kawazaki
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 10:30 pm
Would be surprised if it was a long ban. No previous history, no damage done (so a step rather than stomp - although for some reason Wasps bandaged Taylor up, but when the bandages came off later he was unscathed), reasonable case could be made that in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently), and of course the provocation of Taylor repeatedly holding his leg. Of all that, the ones that probably matter are the clean record and the lack of force, but it's still dangerous and will still probably end his season.
FFS JMK
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 7:58 am
by JM2K6
Jesus fuck
Seriously, do you guys not understand that I am talking about a) the various ways the defence will attempt to mitigate it and b) what the commission may or may not do? I can guarantee you they're not going to go in there and scream "you dirty bastard" at him. Why do you think I covered the various things that the panel looks at when determining the sanction? I am literally just pointing out the ways in which the ban can be reduced and people are behaving like I've launched into a full throated defence of him
I said I didn't think the evidence would be enough for it to be ruled accidental. In the match thread I said I'm not sure how deliberate it was, but it's ugly in slow mo and deserved the red. If he gets a long ban I'll be a little surprised given all the mitigation, but if he gets shorter one you guys will be baffled and I don't think you should be.
Seriously, do you guys not understand that I am talking about a) the various ways the defence will attempt to mitigate it and b) what the commission may or may not do? I can guarantee you they're not going to go in there and scream "you dirty bastard" at him. Why do you think I covered the various things that the panel looks at when determining the sanction? I am literally just pointing out the ways in which the ban can be reduced and people are behaving like I've launched into a full throated defence of him
Whinging about Wasps having the temerity to look after their player was the real cherry on top to be honest.
Seriously, do you guys not understand that I am talking about a) the various ways the defence will attempt to mitigate it and b) what the commission may or may not do? I can guarantee you they're not going to go in there and scream "you dirty bastard" at him. Why do you think I covered the various things that the panel looks at when determining the sanction? I am literally just pointing out the ways in which the ban can be reduced and people are behaving like I've launched into a full throated defence of him
Whinging about Wasps having the temerity to look after their player was the real cherry on top to be honest.
Yes, that was a little jab at Wasps for bandaging up a player who didn't have a cut. Tiny bit of shithousery on my part (and also on theirs, tbf). But also making the point that the level of force seemed pretty minimal as it was a step rather than a full blooded stomp and didn't do any visible damage we could see when the bandage was off (which is part of the whole 'step/stomp' discussion).
Again, panels look for reasons to reduce the sanction. It's not a defence of Mike Brown to point out the ways in which the panel may well cut down the ban. It's also not saying it's not ban-worthy. But because it's me, and because it's Mike Brown, a player who many of you dislike for your own reasons, the red mist descends whenever I post about him so you think I'm saying one thing when I'm saying another.
Here's some more context:
Morgan Allen, guilty of stamping on an opponent's head, 3 week ban (reduced from six weeks due to clean record, guilty plea, expression of remorse)
Connacht prop Robertson-McCoy, same offence, 6 weeks down from 12 for stamping on the head of van der Flier
Tom Wood, who walked into a ruck looking at his opponent and stepped straight on his face, banned for 6 weeks (and he has a much worse record than Brown)
Just saying, you guys who think this is top-end and it'll be a long ban are likely to be surprised when the final judgment comes in. There's plenty of reasons why a panel might cut this down and they usually don't hesitate to do so.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 8:37 am
by Torquemada 1420
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 8:16 am
But because it's me, and because it's Mike Brown, a player who many of you dislike for your own reasons, the red mist descends whenever I post about him so you think I'm saying one thing when I'm saying another.
Brown is a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, I do respect (even admire) his working class background not stopping him making it all the way in rugby and his commitment and determination: at the top of the definition of fierce competitor. But the flip side (like Sinckler it seems) is part of his drive stems from a serious chip about his background and that results in outcomes the wrong side of the line.
Seriously, do you guys not understand that I am talking about a) the various ways the defence will attempt to mitigate it and b) what the commission may or may not do? I can guarantee you they're not going to go in there and scream "you dirty bastard" at him. Why do you think I covered the various things that the panel looks at when determining the sanction? I am literally just pointing out the ways in which the ban can be reduced and people are behaving like I've launched into a full throated defence of him
Whinging about Wasps having the temerity to look after their player was the real cherry on top to be honest.
Yes, that was a little jab at Wasps for bandaging up a player who didn't have a cut. Tiny bit of shithousery on my part (and also on theirs, tbf). But also making the point that the level of force seemed pretty minimal as it was a step rather than a full blooded stomp and didn't do any visible damage we could see when the bandage was off (which is part of the whole 'step/stomp' discussion).
Again, panels look for reasons to reduce the sanction. It's not a defence of Mike Brown to point out the ways in which the panel may well cut down the ban. It's also not saying it's not ban-worthy. But because it's me, and because it's Mike Brown, a player who many of you dislike for your own reasons, the red mist descends whenever I post about him so you think I'm saying one thing when I'm saying another.
Here's some more context:
Morgan Allen, guilty of stamping on an opponent's head, 3 week ban (reduced from six weeks due to clean record, guilty plea, expression of remorse)
Connacht prop Robertson-McCoy, same offence, 6 weeks down from 12 for stamping on the head of van der Flier
Tom Wood, who walked into a ruck looking at his opponent and stepped straight on his face, banned for 6 weeks (and he has a much worse record than Brown)
Just saying, you guys who think this is top-end and it'll be a long ban are likely to be surprised when the final judgment comes in. There's plenty of reasons why a panel might cut this down and they usually don't hesitate to do so.
Nobody is seeing red mist. You're seeing scotch mist though when it comes to mitigation. Taylor isn't holding Brown in, I know that because Brown uses his unheld foot to stamp on his face.
As for bandaging, that helps stop swelling. You don't just use it for cuts.
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 8:16 am
But because it's me, and because it's Mike Brown, a player who many of you dislike for your own reasons, the red mist descends whenever I post about him so you think I'm saying one thing when I'm saying another.
Brown is a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, I do respect (even admire) his working class background not stopping him making it all the way in rugby and his commitment and determination: at the top of the definition of fierce competitor. But the flip side (like Sinckler it seems) is part of his drive stems from a serious chip about his background and that results in outcomes the wrong side of the line.
For Sinckler, yes - he's had multiple bans for foul player, has done plenty of dirty shit throughout his career, and has often lost control.
For Brown... no. This is the first red card in 351 matches. You're reaching very hard if you think him being chopsy on the pitch is "outcomes the wrong side of the line". He's never been a dirty player, just a confrontational one, and has a better disciplinary record than the majority of his peers.
Toga, you need to watch the actual replays. Taylor grabs Brown twice. The first time Brown falls over is because Taylor is tugging his leg. Then he grabs Brown again. He does let go before the step on his face, no doubt about that, but it's just a lie to say Brown wasn't previously being held by the guy on the floor. The panel will likely see it as some form of provocation, not an attempt to free himself if that's what you thought I was saying.
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 9:58 am
by ASMO
Regardless of no previous, no provocation warrants stamping on someones face, it was not accidental by any stretch, i suspect he wont play again this season, sad for him but it was utterly brainless and was lucky it did not result in serious injury
Re: Quins bite back in Brown saga
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 9:59 am
by JM2K6
ASMO wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:58 am
Regardless of no previous, no provocation warrants stamping on someones face, it was not accidental by any stretch, i suspect he wont play again this season, sad for him but it was utterly brainless and was lucky it did not result in serious injury
Provocation is taken into account by the panel, that's all. I don't think they ever say "it's okay you did x because you were provoked" except in extreme circumstances (i.e. you punched someone because they twisted your testicles or gouged you), it's more that they accept that provocation does happen, and the complete absence of it removes any mitigation.
If they thought it was warranted this wouldn't be a ban at all, which is of course absurd.
