Best red card

[Cruz_del_Sur]

That particular action is also quite demeaning as it makes the ref appear like a child.

To be honest, I've seen way more demeaning treatments from refs to players than that. NO is the most condescending soul that ever set foot on a rugby pitch.

The line in the sand here is (for me) physical contact. Ref is untouchable, (supposedly) no excuses, no exceptions. Which brings me to the next question; if instead of lifting him up arms extended and from behind (no pun), what would the ref and the audience think if the player had hugged him from the front and lifted him a bit while doing so? Technically it's quite similar and both unrequested, but i have a feeling the perception would have been very different.


My heart is with kiwi to be honest, but i understand if you let this one slide next time you could have players tossing up refs in the air somewhere.

 

[ALJ]

Paul Ackford wrote about this in his column in the Telegraph twenty years ago. IIRC, a young Jason Leonard was having a tough time in the scrums, so Ackford told him to let him know the next time he was struggling and he would send a punch through to level the playing field. This caused the scrum to break up and as Jeff Probyn stepped over Mendez, Mendez saw fit to grab his gentleman's area, causing Probyn to stamp on him to get free. This brought the red mist down on Mendez and Ackford happened to be the closest bloke in a white shirt (albeit looking the other way) when he got to his feet. I think Pitbull's Punchups is available on YouTube, it contains a reasonable breakdown of what went on.

Talking of Mendez, did he suffer bad injures of something? Not long after this incident, he was talked about as the best hooker in the world, but by the time rugby went open and he arrived a Bath (96?), he was a shadow of his former self. IIRC he was 18 in 1990, so in theory have still been approaching his peak when he joined Bath, Anyone remember the name of the Argentinian second row who signed for Bath at the same time? It's bugging me and Google has let me down, I want to say he was Herman someone.

Cheers, therein lies the difference between doing a few mins research versus relying on 30 year old memories.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Harsh enough I think considering lads are out there getting two weeks for stamps and punches. I agree with the card but a week or two would have been enough.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I can accept the card, rules are rules etc...but that seems harsh

 

[Reiser99]

I agree it's harsh by comparison to some red cards, though I'd argue maybe the rules are too lenient for some offences.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Harsh enough I think considering lads are out there getting two weeks for stamps and punches. I agree with the card but a week or two would have been enough.

Having finally got around to looking over the sanctions and checked out his record (and with the benefit of hindsight), I think he's bang to rights, if not a bit lucky to have got off so lightly.

As per the Tweet, he's been banned for "disrespecting the authority of a match official" (insert Eric Cartman GIF here), which seems a bit strange given that "making physical contact with a match official" is an option, but ultimately it makes no difference, given that the low end of the latter is also 6 months. I'm assuming that he apologised to the referee at the time, admitted guilt (why wouldn't you) and conducted himself at the hearing and has received mitigation accordingly. Given his previous form, consisting of a long ban for gouging, at least one other and bringing the game into disrepute by being found guilty of sexual assault, he certainly wouldn't have received a reduction for good behaviour. I say he's been lucky on the basis that I believe that bans can be increased on the basis of previous conduct. Given how bad his has been, I don't think it would be unreasonable for it to result in a sufficient extension to at least write off the mitigation, if not extend the ban past the six weeks.

FWIW, I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of the prescribed sanctions, just the way that they've been applied. Given that the list of sanction is available for anyone to read and we're talking about a professional player here, I have a hard time feeling any sympathy. That said, I think he was a bit unlucky given that this was the first weekend of the celebration ban. A week earlier, his energy would have gone into juggling / licking / dry routing / picking up a team mate and we wouldn't have this thread. However, you couldn't reasonably expect the judicial process to account for this.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of the prescribed sanctions

That's about half the points people made on this thread. Context matters.
What people end up seeing is that someone who disrespected the ref in a tantrum of joy while endangering no one in the process is given 5 games while someone who throws a haymaker at an opponent with no intention other than to harm him gets two. That basically means that the ones who write, decide and enforce the sanctions value more the ref's ego than the players' physical integrity.

 

[RedruthRFC]

That's about half the points people made on this thread. Context matters.
What people end up seeing is that someone who disrespected the ref in a tantrum of joy while endangering no one in the process is given 5 games while someone who throws a haymaker at an opponent with no intention other than to harm him gets two. That basically means that the ones who write, decide and enforce the sanctions value more the ref's ego than the players' physical integrity.

Agreed. I was intending to imply that there's no point complaining about a specific sanction and that any complaints need to address what is wrong with the existing framework and how it can me improved.