Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bada-Bing!" data-source="post: 814848" data-attributes="member: 70552"><p><a href="https://youtu.be/RsrHRuyvhkM?t=3m46s" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/RsrHRuyvhkM?t=3m46s</a></p><p></p><p>[media=youtube]RsrHRuyvhkM[/media]</p><p></p><p></p><p>The above is link to the Francis incident (at approximately 3 mins 46 secs and onwards). It was in the BBC video link, but access to the videos maybe restricted outside of the UK. Francis had his eyes closed when he made contact with Cole's face/eyes and brushed Cole's eye area. Yet the Six Nations discipline committee deemed this to meet the red card threshold, yet SANZAR or the CC officer didn't think Franks did? </p><p></p><p>And yes, going by your logic if a player fends another player off and makes contact with the face and also the eye (s), then in accordance with the law (foul play - contact with the eye/eye area) and the head/eye area being sacrosanct. If not, then rewrite the guidance to be more specific and say "eye gouging" or "pressing/tearing the eyes using fingers", which would take the fending to the face and accidentally making contact with the eyes out of the equation. But by WR mentioning in their recommended sanctions "contact with the eye/eye area" and a Lower end of 12 weeks ban, which can be lowered by mitigating factors, suggests WR is trying to give a broader deterrence that the game does not tolerate any contact with the eye area.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bada-Bing!, post: 814848, member: 70552"] [url]https://youtu.be/RsrHRuyvhkM?t=3m46s[/url] [media=youtube]RsrHRuyvhkM[/media] The above is link to the Francis incident (at approximately 3 mins 46 secs and onwards). It was in the BBC video link, but access to the videos maybe restricted outside of the UK. Francis had his eyes closed when he made contact with Cole's face/eyes and brushed Cole's eye area. Yet the Six Nations discipline committee deemed this to meet the red card threshold, yet SANZAR or the CC officer didn't think Franks did? And yes, going by your logic if a player fends another player off and makes contact with the face and also the eye (s), then in accordance with the law (foul play - contact with the eye/eye area) and the head/eye area being sacrosanct. If not, then rewrite the guidance to be more specific and say "eye gouging" or "pressing/tearing the eyes using fingers", which would take the fending to the face and accidentally making contact with the eyes out of the equation. But by WR mentioning in their recommended sanctions "contact with the eye/eye area" and a Lower end of 12 weeks ban, which can be lowered by mitigating factors, suggests WR is trying to give a broader deterrence that the game does not tolerate any contact with the eye area. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.
Top