Cardiff Blues v Northampton Saints

[TrueSlawter]

Bullitt when rush was commited to the tackle lawes was still standing it literally a second or two before the hit that lawes hits so I dont see how you can say its rush's fault, if he pulled out he would've ran right into lawes of which at the speed he's traveling and the time to react would've been hard to pull off..

Franklin - Eye gouging is seen as more serious as you can blind someone I guess, not entirely sure why its ban's are longer than intentional dangerous tackles

 

[Teh Mite]

Bullitt when rush was commited to the tackle lawes was still standing it literally a second or two before the hit that lawes hits so I dont see how you can say its rush's fault, if he pulled out he would've ran right into lawes of which at the speed he's traveling and the time to react would've been hard to pull off..

********.

The judgement in full:


Xavier Rush, the Cardiff Blues player (No 8), appeared before an independent Disciplinary Hearing in Bristol today (Wednesday, 22 December, 2010) as a result of the red card he received during the Heineken Cup Pool 1 match against Northampton Saints at Cardiff City Stadium on Sunday, 19 December, 2010.

The red card was issued in the 55th minute of the second half by referee Jerome Garces (France) for a dangerous tackle above the line of the shoulders on Northampton Saints lock Courtney Lawes (No 4) in contravention of Law 10.4 (e).

Mr Rush was accompanied by Cardiff Blues Chief Executive Robert Norster and, after reviewing all angles, the match officials' reports and hearing from the player and his representative and ERC Disciplinary Officer Roger O'Connor, the independent Judicial Officer, Christopher Quinlan (England), determined that the tackle was at the low entry point of two (2) weeks.

The independent Judicial Officer found it was a recklessly effected tackle with no intent by Mr Rush to make contact as high as he did. There was also no intent to cause injury, and Mr Lawes appeared to almost be on one knee at the time of impact.

The independent Judicial Officer considered there were no aggravating factors and he accepted that Mr Rush pleaded guilty, that he had an excellent record, that he showed remorse and that he conducted himself well at the hearing. This mitigation resulted in a one (1) week reduction from the entry point of two (2) weeks.

Mr Rush is therefore suspended for one week up to and including 27 December and is free to play on 28 December.

Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous tackle - A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously
Under the IRB Recommended Sanctions for Offences Committed within the Playing Enclosure, Law 10.4 (e) – Dangerous tackle carries the following penalties: Lower End: 2 weeks. Middle Range: 6 weeks. Top End: 10+ weeks. Maximum Sanction: 52 weeks

 

[franklin]

Bullitt when rush was commited to the tackle lawes was still standing it literally a second or two before the hit that lawes hits so I dont see how you can say its rush's fault, if he pulled out he would've ran right into lawes of which at the speed he's traveling and the time to react would've been hard to pull off..

Franklin - Eye gouging is seen as more serious as you can blind someone I guess, not entirely sure why its ban's are longer than intentional dangerous tackles

once again rees is not being done for gouging!!!can nobody grasp my point look at both incidents video of both is on here.which is worse answer rush's tackle who will get the longer ban answer rees. this is the problem i have...
its common sense not too many people would deem rees actions worse than rush's so why do the authorities.
say what you like and laugh if you like rush could have killed lawes can you say the same about rees on hartley???.
its about time bans were dished out from the evidence not a rule book!!!!!!! thats my point.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Hartley could've gone blind/lost an eye.
Having fingers digging around in your eye/dragging you backwards by it is not pleasant…

 

[Dougydeluxe]

Rush got off easy. It should have been two weeks.

 

[franklin]

my last comment on this.

if the rugby laws deem rees challenge worse than rush's then the law is an ass.

ps
as for the bit in the judgement about rush showed remorse and conducted himself well,what did they expect him to do run round the table giving each of them a courtney lawes clothes line.......laughable.

 

[Bluemoon]

I think that Rush had committed to the tackle and it was unlucky that Lawes had dropped to one knee causing the high hit. As said earlier if Lawes hadn't dropped we'd all be saying what a great hit it was!

It did hit him high though and I have no conplaints about the Red as that was the descion made by the touch judge and referee.

 

[Shaggy]

I don't care who the player is, or what team they play for

... Fingers do not belong around or in anyone else's eye socket

... heads have know business butting other heads

... high tackles, spear tackles, tackling with no arms

They are all dangerous and illegal, and should be dealt with appropriately - whether any of these actions are intentional or not, should only have relevance to how much time a player gets suspended for, not whether they should get suspended or not.

Rush's punishment is so light because he got punished on the field already with the red card, and because of his previous good record

 

[TRF_Cymro]

as i said i have no problem with rush's ban and dont care what rees gets,my point would be the same if it was 2 saints players,its about time the ban fitted the crime.
rees has been citid for hand to the face not gauging hand bag stuff,but will he get more than a weeks ban of corse he will, was it worse or more dangerous than rush's tackle not in a million years.

so cymro please answer my point and stop making excuses for rush

A hearing date is yet to be set for Blues scrum-half Richie Rees.

He was cited for allegedly making contact with the eye area of Saints' Dylan Hartley.

.....

Rees has been charged under law 10.4(m): "Contact with the eye/eye area; Acts contrary to good sportsmanship."

That is a more serious offence than the one committed by Rush, carrying a suspension punishment of between 12 and 156 weeks.

If found guilty of gouging, even a ban on the lower end of the scale would rule Rees out of most of Wales' RBS Six Nations campaign.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/my_club/cardiff_blues/9310287.stm

Rees has been charged for gouging. Rees will get punished and for me if there is more evidence than that video that Bullitt posted, to which I presume there is then his ban will be a lengthy one and a long one it should, I presume you have never been gouged in your life? I can tell you taking a big hit is not as bad as a gouge, gouging can lead to loss of sight.

Also please point out my excuses for Rush. The tackle was high, end of

 

[Teh Mite]

Don't believe the BBC article as gospel - They are notorious for being sensationalist and lazy in their reporting. The charge is "Making contact with the eye area", not "gouging".

 

[franklin]

Don't believe the BBC article as gospel - They are notorious for being sensationalist and lazy in their reporting. The charge is "Making contact with the eye area", not "gouging".

well i have tried telling cymro this but for some reason its not registering with him.
if what rees is doing is gouging i would have that done to me everytime rather than that shameful hit from rush.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Well just like to point out to both of you that I have on good merit from a good source down at the Blues that Rees could face the maximum 156 weeks because the incident is 'making contact with the eye area'

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17090730_8711.pdf - if you type in gouging .... its not there if you type in 'Contact with Eyes' it will appear.

The laws of rugby union define foul play as: "Anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game". Specifically, they state that "A player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent".

International Rugby Board Regulations provide for punishment for contact with eyes or the eye area of an opponent.

Although this is usually called "eye-gouging" by the media, fans and players, the term "gouging" is not used in the IRB's laws or regulations, which do list degrees of gravity of the offence. The IRB themselves have used the term in a 2009 statement: "The IRB are firmly of the view there is no place in rugby for illegal or foul play and the act of eye-gouging is particularly heinous"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-gouging_(rugby_union)#cite_note-REG17-2

Therefore gouging is making contact with the eye

 

[Teh Mite]

Let's clear this up Rob, being as you love to argue now for the sake of it now there's a bug up your arse.

Examples of Gouges by definition:

Making contact with the eye area:

Big difference. A gouge is a deliberate attempt to hook the eye out. Contact with the eye area is just that. Lazy journalists and sensationalists try to blend the pair.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Let's clear this up Rob, being as you love to argue now for the sake of it now there's a bug up your arse.

Examples of Gouges by definition:

Making contact with the eye area:

Big difference. A gouge is a deliberate attempt to hook the eye out. Contact with the eye area is just that. Lazy journalists and sensationalists try to blend the pair.

Fine ok whatever, the IRB Regulations still call it 'Contact with Eyes or the Eye Area' and not gouging

 

[franklin]

right cymro all the pictures above are gouging clearly not what rees is doing.

now you have in a previous post stated that sorces at cardiff blues say rees is looking at a 156 week ban.

if that is the case then i rest my case 156 weeks for a push in the face and 1 week for GBH. somethings not right is it.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

right cymro all the pictures above are gouging clearly not what rees is doing.

now you have in a previous post stated that sorces at cardiff blues say rees is looking at a 156 week ban.

if that is the case then i rest my case 156 weeks for a push in the face and 1 week for GBH. somethings not right is it.

Now you're just putting words in his mouth,
He said a MAXIMUM of 156weeks, which is maximum for "making contact with the eyes"
The rulebook doesn't differentiate between making contact and actualy fish-hooking the eye, hence the maximum being the same for the two offences, it's upto the citing commision to differentiate and hand out an appropriately lengthed ban

 

[franklin]

Now you're just putting words in his mouth,
He said a MAXIMUM of 156weeks, which is maximum for "making contact with the eyes"
The rulebook doesn't differentiate between making contact and actualy fish-hooking the eye, hence the maximum being the same for the two offences, it's upto the citing commision to differentiate and hand out an appropriately lengthed ban

156 weeks or 6 weeks my point is still the same he will be banned for longer than rush for half the crime..

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Could be (probably has been) argued that Lawes slipped into the tackle whereas Hartley didn't jam his face into Rees hands, but hey ho,
Let's wait to see what Rees gets before arguing about it,
If he gets no ban at all, then maybe we can all unite in the spirit of Christmas and project our hatred towards the ERC Citing Officers?

 

[franklin]

Could be (probably has been) argued that Lawes slipped into the tackle whereas Hartley didn't jam his face into Rees hands, but hey ho,
Let's wait to see what Rees gets before arguing about it,
If he gets no ban at all, then maybe we can all unite in the spirit of Christmas and project our hatred towards the ERC Citing Officers?

i agree but i do fear for rees i have a feeling rush has used up all the blues luck with the erc.