Premiership Rugby 23/24 - Round 16

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

The Billy footage is out and confirms exactly what the bar owner said about the situation. Most notably (to me at least) confirms that what the owner said about him hitting a policeman with a shirt in his hand was indeed just him swiping at an officer with his shirt rather than actually trying to hit someone.

Like I said before, all this teaches us is that Billy still can't handle his beer. It was very stupid and I can't say I'd particularly want to go for drinks with the man but it does show that all the initial reports making it sound like he'd been a violent menace were pretty overstated. Frankly, if Billy wasn't a 130kg professional rugby player that the club security were too afraid to put their hands on then this is an issue you see at least 5 times a night at every club in the UK.

 

[West Country Wail]

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Seen the video too, it makes you realise how freakishly huge rugby players are compared to your average person. It also make you wonder why on earth he no longer makes any metres carrying.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Itoje cited after his yellow was deemed worthy of a red. Could miss rest of the season if the hearing today doesn't go his way.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Surprised at that, yellow seemed more than fair at the time - maybe there's another angle that shows more conclusive/higher impact head contact? On the ones they showed on TV it looked pretty glancing at best, with all the force going into the ball/ball carrier's body/arm

Edit: Dismissed https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/cv20j4zdvkno

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Bizarre citing then.

Had another look at Care's yellow - the one he actually got. He's passive, being steamed into by Lawes who's not running fully upright and if he wasn't leading with his head it wasn't far off. Care was never not going to be carded, but how much responsibility lies or should lie with the carrier?

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Bizarre citing then.

Had another look at Care's yellow - the one he actually got. He's passive, being steamed into by Lawes who's not running fully upright and if he wasn't leading with his head it wasn't far off. Care was never not going to be carded, but how much responsibility lies or should lie with the carrier?

Care is fully upright, if he actually bent at the waiste he wouldn't have cracked heads. On the other hand Lawes is bent over as you should be carrying the ball. He's in a normal position.

Care is completely in the wrong for this yellow.

 

[Saintjay]

Care is fully upright, if he actually bent at the waiste he wouldn't have cracked heads. On the other hand Lawes is bent over as you should be carrying the ball. He's in a normal position.

Care is completely in the wrong for this yellow.

Care accepts he could have done better on the BBC rugby union weekly.

Not overly convinced by the arguements he made for his non-yellow. But as he rightly said the refs association or whatever it is backed it wasn't a cardable offence, penalty only.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Care is fully upright, if he actually bent at the waiste he wouldn't have cracked heads. On the other hand Lawes is bent over as you should be carrying the ball. He's in a normal position.

Care is completely in the wrong for this yellow.

Not criticising the yellow or particularly wanting to focus on that specific incident, although it obviously prompted my question.

More a general question about responsibilities of the carrier…..the current narrative's that it's 100% tackler's fault.

 

[Which Tyler]

Bizarre citing then.

Not particularly (IMO).
Citing means "That's worth a closer look" not "Guilty as hell, ref should have made a different decision"

 

[Saintjay]

Not criticising the yellow or particularly wanting to focus on that specific incident, although it obviously prompted my question.

More a general question about responsibilities of the carrier…..the current narrative's that it's 100% tackler's fault.

Might be wrong but there's no offence with the ball carrier as long as he's not dipped below the hips leading with the head etc. It is probably something that should be looked at.

Or go the community route with guidance of target the belly area below the ball. Or even the old school he should have gone for his legs. Still problamatic if the carriers dipped or in reverse a 6ft '6 lock is trying to tackle a 5 '8 number 9.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Not particularly (IMO).
Citing means "That's worth a closer look" not "Guilty as hell, ref should have made a different decision"

That depends on how accurately it's been reported against official process. Can't claim to be an expert, so if anyone knows any better please chip in.

The original citing was pretty much universally reported as the Citing Officer "deemed it to have been worthy of a red card". That would be explicit disagreement with the match day team. The Citing Officer presumably having more time and perhaps more TV angles to review.

That then goes to the hearing which has upheld the original decision so explicitly disagreeing with the Citing Officer, but presumably based on the same evidence, perhaps with the added bonus of help from Itoje's representatives. That's what would feel odd to me.

Maybe the role of the Citing Officer has a different emphasis if they're looking at something that was totally missed by the match day team.

 

[West Country Wail]

Care accepts he could have done better on the BBC rugby union weekly.

Not overly convinced by the arguements he made for his non-yellow. But as he rightly said the refs association or whatever it is backed it wasn't a cardable offence, penalty only.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

View attachment 19750

Aw, diddums