• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

So what about this French hallion spitting on Peter Stringer...?

Gather App
52 weeks seems a bit over the top.

Yes, it was disgusting, but there are plenty of worse, more damaging offences.
 
The English press is overreacting, as they usually do. Spitting and eyegouging are definitely not at the same level.

They also defend the point that spitting is worse than punching or stamping (or spear-tackling, or insulting the referee)... Spitting is disgusting, but obviously no risk to the receiving side's health is involved. It's the type of offense where money sanctions are more effective than bans, imo. Still, a six or eight week ban would do him good, plus a few thousand euros to the club will make the point clear.
 
ZeFrenchy said:
The English press is overreacting, as they usually do. Spitting and eyegouging are definitely not at the same level.

They also defend the point that spitting is worse than punching or stamping (or spear-tackling, or insulting the referee)... Spitting is disgusting, but obviously no risk to the receiving side's health is involved. It's the type of offense where money sanctions are more effective than bans, imo. Still, a six or eight week ban would do him good, plus a few thousand euros to the club will make the point clear.
Click to expand...

Spot on!!
 
ZeFrenchy said:
The English press is overreacting, as they usually do. Spitting and eyegouging are definitely not at the same level.

They also defend the point that spitting is worse than punching or stamping (or spear-tackling, or insulting the referee)... Spitting is disgusting, but obviously no risk to the receiving side's health is involved. It's the type of offense where money sanctions are more effective than bans, imo. Still, a six or eight week ban would do him good, plus a few thousand euros to the club will make the point clear.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
ZeFrenchy said:
The English press is overreacting, as they usually do. Spitting and eyegouging are definitely not at the same level.

They also defend the point that spitting is worse than punching or stamping (or spear-tackling, or insulting the referee)... Spitting is disgusting, but obviously no risk to the receiving side's health is involved. It's the type of offense where money sanctions are more effective than bans, imo. Still, a six or eight week ban would do him good, plus a few thousand euros to the club will make the point clear.
Click to expand...

+1

I don't defend what Fillol did, but some of the overreactions are silly. I didn't see IRB chiefs like Brett Gosper going on Twitter calling for "maximum punishments" on other disgraceful incidents. It just seems now and again something happens when the media cooks up a storm. I also disagree in the "spitting worse than physical violence" argument.

Healy stamped viciously on a prone players ankle and only missed 1 match. IRB needs to get its priorities right. Also the entire citing system needs to be overhauled. The current system is very inconsistent (BOD for example got a longer ban than Healy despite a much less worse stamp) and awards longer bans on what the media make a fuss about, and also there is suspicions that it is biased in favour of internationals.

I agree with the Attoub ban, but they need to be consistent. They give one club player 70 weeks (a ban I agreed with), but then not give that ban to Schalk Burger (8 weeks) and others who have been cited for the offence.

diapo8dbf651db4e481c9f2a0e0264f7424ca.gif
 
I know it's not dangerous, but spitting is filthy. I'd hand out a long ban, maybe not a full 52 week ban, but something like 24-36.
 
It all harps back to the double standards that went with being a Victorian gentleman at the turn of the 19th century me thinks.

12 week ban would be fine.
 
Feicarsinn said:
It all harps back to the double standards that went with being a Victorian gentleman at the turn of the 19th century me thinks.

12 week ban would be fine.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't be over the top, imo. Anyway, anything over 6 weeks makes him miss the rest of the season, and anything under 18 makes him available for the first game next season.
 
Amiga500 said:
- 52 week ban?
- Declare that any forward that clocks him in the course of the next year will not be sanctioned?


I think I'd prefer the latter.
Click to expand...

Can't we extend that to all scrum-halves? Oh wait, you meant the French guy, not Stringer... can't we have this for both?
 
ZeFrenchy said:
Spitting and eyegouging are definitely not at the same level.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, I'd go with:
- Long ban for spitting.
- Permanent ban for eye-gouging.

With back chat to the referees on the increase and scum behaviour incidents like this - I fear the pro-game is slowly but surely sliding towards soccer.

I would give him the full 52 week ban - and set the precedent that it will always be 52 weeks.
 

Similar threads

Which Tyler
Proposed law changes - 2024 edition
Replies
9
Views
4K
AlRums
AlRums
4
"Ten simple and effective law changes that should be made to rugby refereeing"
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Reiser99
R
Rinkadink
The RFU Championship & Leedshire Carnegie
Replies
17
Views
3K
RedruthRFC
R
Every Time Ref
Aviva Premiership Half Term Reports - add your team
Replies
6
Views
3K
ALJ
ALJ
N
Thoughts on NZ Super Rugby Squads
Replies
17
Views
4K
TRF Mr Fish
TRF Mr Fish

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top