Reds v British and Irish Lions (08/06/13)

[TRF_Olyy]

This is it:

I'm not sure, looks to me like he steps over to stop the reds player clearing out, then moves back round. Can't see a clear stamp in there, and to be honest I'd be surprised if he'd do it.
He's a ****ly player and a bit of a dick, but there's a difference between shoving a guy in the chest and stamping on the back of their head.

 

[Larksea]

ohh come on, that is a good gif actually that angle is better than the one I saw. It actually makes his action look more deliberate. small steps to get into position then one large deliberate stomp onto the player then quickly out of harms way

comes straight in the side and deliberately steps on the player, what is hard to see is that he actually stomps on the guys head. you can see the reds player reeling on the ground after the contact though and the result was a long stoppage and the player being stretchered off.

he has absolutely no right to be there coming straight in the side and the ball is not even in consideration for his action

deliberate stomp, plain and simple

and I would say there is intent to injure there and he got the desired outcome.

Just had a quick look, and I see what you're saying Larksea. I'm unsure if it was deliberately malicious, and unsure if it caused the injury, but there didn't seem to be much reason for Farrell basically walking through the ruck, and a player really should know where he's putting his studs in a ruck.

It's in the 69th minute for those looking for it.

that's the point he knew exactly where his feet were going. and there was no other reason for him to be there away from the ball which all but rules out it being careless or an accident. he was in control of his actions the entire time.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

I don't think it's a stamp either. The evidence provided is inconclusive and its down to personal interpretation.

 

[Larksea]

I think with this angle you can see more his intent:

he's made a very deliberate movement from an illegal angle, away from the ball and he was not impacted, pushed, pulled or impeded by any other players, those are simple undeniable facts.

the other angle that I saw live, you don't see the foot contact the head but you can see that his foot goes down where the players head obviously is.

I think to brush this off you have to ignore some pretty damming evidence and logic. That probably comes because if you confirm it's deliberate it means the player had the worst kind of devious intent without regard for the opposition players safety.

saying he's guilty or not will really come down to weather you personally feel he's capable of doing something like this. Not something anyone wants to pin on a young star #10 who's the son of a sporting legend.

I think if you don't believe he isn't capable then I think should review that judgement based on this.

I found this because after seeing that the Reds player was obviously seriously injured I went back and reviewed what happened to him.

the only factor saving this from being on the front page is that you don't see the #10's foot contact the prone players head. But it only takes a bit of logic to figure out that is almost certainly 99% what happened and from the angle the #10 came from he would have seen the prone player and his head.

 

[Rich Taff]

Thought he misjudged his entry, went to loop around past the people on the floor. Looks more like he tried to step over the people in the way, and may have accidentally landed on someone behind the guy he was stepping over. Nothing looks like a stamp in that.

 

[Larksea]

again... ignoring the obvious evidence and logic

what seals it for me is him clearly making a number of small steps then a large deliberate and aimed step and bringing his weight down.

as I said this angle shows: "he's made a very deliberate movement from an illegal angle, away from the ball and he was not impacted, pushed, pulled or impeded by any other players, those are simple undeniable facts."

I admit this angle is a bit misleading because you don't even see the prone player for most of it, although you do see him move and react on the ground after the #10's foot has gone down.

it's the other angle I saw that shows where his foot landed is obviously where the prone players head must be.

But that one doesn't show the lead up or the intent and the fact he was totally unimpeded and not influenced or obstructed from seeing where his foot was going this angle does show that. This angle shows it was a very deliberate step and he knew exactly where his foot was going.

Put the evedence from both angles together and use some logic and it becomes pretty damming when you add it to the fact the player on the ground got streatchered off with blood coming out the back of his head... Don't forget that part.....

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I watched the game 'as live' (without knowing the result) last night and really enjoyed it - I'm really surprised that people arn't more positive bout the performance - I'm hearing things like 'poorest' performance so far and I'm thinking, the Reds were so so so much better opposition than the Barbarians or Force, that I really don't see how you can say that. I just felt the intensity was very close to test match and our gainline defence was excellent. we won the collisions an that bodes well I think.

Firstly I thought the scrum was impressive, and our dominance there, which I don't think any of us expected given its makeup, gave us the assurance to take the match by the scruff. I also felt Stevens was industrious around the field and competed in the loose well. I think people are reluctant to give credit to someone who they expected to do not so great, perhaps? (I know I did). Felt Tom Youngs was quieter than usual around the field, but his chop tackling good and the lineout was the best its been so far, even though Youngs' throwing is often criticised. On that point, whilst I would agree that Hibbard - POC + AWJ + no.6 is the most likely test lineout system, I think its worth remembering that Youngs - Parling is an experienced combo through Tigers that could give us a very good platform.

I'm surprised both locks have been described only as decent - I felt Gray's tackling was ferocious and a key part of our defensive strategy. Parling, like Youngs, seemed to carry the ball in midfield less than usual, which is usually one of his strengths, but then its a new coaching system who will arguably want different from their locks so perhaps unsurprising. Parling beasted the lineouts and was strong in defence.

I think the all-welsh back-row was better than is being suggested. I felt they were all immensely physical and brought a general pressure to bear upon the breakdown. Turnovers happened, its just they weren't the clean over the ball jackling that people prefer to see. Lydiate's physicality was key to disrupting opposition ball, and Warburton showed he can be a good carrier and link to the backs. Faletau (PLEASE SPELL HIM RIGHT!) has had some top games so I can forgive him a quieter night.

Youngs was sometimes hesitant but usually reacted quicker whenever this was the case. I felt he organised our forwards well, his passing was crisp and his sniping will be important to have on the test bench. Farrell made mistakes but in my opinion showed he's an excellent footballer. yes, I said footballer.. He does find holes better than many 10's. He needs to improve his decision making and kicking, however.

Gutted Tuilagi went off, I really wanted to see him smash some reds. He only had 19 minutes in which we had virtually no possession, so I don't think theres a judgment that can be made of him. Agree with Dullonien, Davies' spot tackling was excellent. He's been more industrious with ball in hand in the past, but in terms of our defense I always had the confidence that he had the fitness and the agility to scramble to get his fan.

North and Bowe were both pure class. God, I hope Bowe's not out for ALL of it. I felt Cuthbert was clearly impeded by Lucas for the firsst Reds try, (although it was done subtly) so I don't entirely blame him...he's still exceeded my expectations.

Felt Hogg showed some inexperience in getting caught/scragged... however he's no mug unlike Alex Goode, he aalso showed he has the abilty to beat defenders, its just about that decision making. He's very unlikely to make a test 23, unless he can persuade that he's a better 10 than Farrell.


And Larksea. Whilst I see your point, I feel it's ridiculous that you can be so convinced that this was 'devious intent' where virtually every other commenttor/poster/the citing commissioner, is saying there's no way you can possibly discern intent based on the available footage. If you're determined to find thuggery in these chaotic ituations, I'm sure you will have many more opportunities to do so in the subsequent games.

 

[ratsapprentice]

North and Bowe were both pure class. God, I hope Bowe's not out for ALL of it. I felt Cuthbert was clearly impeded by Lucas for the firsst Reds try, (although it was done subtly) so I don't entirely blame him...he's still exceeded my expectations.

Cuthbert was slightly impeded when he had to turn to chase Morahan. But it was still his error.

He should have either smashed Morahan as he caught the ball (he was in the correct position to do so) or not rushed up, and left more space for himself to herd him into touch or back infield to defensive support.

Cuthbert looked a liability in defence.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It's easy to say in hindsight he should have stepped inside/what have you, but considering his previous exploits I would have backed him to score that try 99/100 times.

Cuthbert has done what I expected of him to be fair - good on attack, below average on defence.
I wouldn't want him in the test side, but if needs must then he should do well enough.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's easy to say in hindsight because it was an unnecessary basic error, there aren't all that many options when chasing a high ball.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Ah wait, I've completely misread the conversation :lol:
I was on about when he was tackled in to touch when trying to score a try in the corner.
Agree on the defence - wasn't good.

 

[Peat]

Quite. You either nail them, or you chase in a line.

As for the Farrell stamp thing...

I'm surprised if people were surprised he might have done it. He always wants to be a hardman, his temper and discipline don't look the best, and, frankly, there's enough of this thing I never feel completely surprised anyway.

Did he do it? I can't work it out from that gif, but I wouldn't enter a ruck that upright with one big step like that. He doesn't appear to be engaging in the ruck at all really. Looks pretty likely he did to me.

I am going to wait for a better pic to add it to my list of reasons to dislike him though.

 

[dullonien]

Snip.

That's an excellent summary Henry, I agree with all of it.

The problem we might have is that this may be our only really tough encounter, so comparing players is going to be difficult. Any mistakes made must be marked down though, such as Cuthbert's positioning in defence, Faletau's knock-ons and Farrell's poor high balls.

I also think that one area of Ben Youngs' game which was decidedly below average was his box kicking. He gave an awful lot of ball to the Red's back three, especially early in the game. His kicking was often loo long to allow the Lions wingers a chance to compete. He still had a very good game, but it's worth noting, because it's possibly more important to kick well against Aus than any other side.

 

[Peat]

That's an excellent summary Henry, I agree with all of it.

The problem we might have is that this may be our only really tough encounter, so comparing players is going to be difficult. Any mistakes made must be marked down though, such as Cuthbert's positioning in defence, Faletau's knock-ons and Farrell's poor high balls.

I also think that one area of Ben Youngs' game which was decidedly below average was his box kicking. He gave an awful lot of ball to the Red's back three, especially early in the game. His kicking was often loo long to allow the Lions wingers a chance to compete. He still had a very good game, but it's worth noting, because it's possibly more important to kick well against Aus than any other side.

Well I completely misread and was about to make a monumental *** of myself. Agreed absolutely; basic skills should be executed right regardless.

 

[Amiga500]

deliberate stomp, plain and simple

I didn't see the match on Sat.

I haven't seen any replays of anything yet.


All I have seen is that gif.
-The ball is nowhere near where Farrell is going.
-He is not contributing to the ruck in any way or form, he is not intent on contributing to the ruck in any way or form.
-His stepping cadence is irregular. He meant to put his foot where it landed.

If that is on someone's head, then he should be banned for it. Big time.

 

[dullonien]

Well I completely misread and was about to make a monumental *** of myself. Agreed absolutely; basic skills should be executed right regardless.

Haha, we've all done it, so if you had I wouldn't have minded.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I can't see from the gif what Farrel is trying to do. It looks like a possible stamp but it's inconclusive. I wouldn't put it past him though, that brat has a serious attittude problem and needs to be taken down a peg or two. A few solid hits on him will have to do if he hasn't actually done anything there. It's a shame because he definitely upped his game vs the Reds (still not brilliant but not terrible either).

 

[ratsapprentice]

Can any league fans enlighten me as to whether this is what his papa was like?

 

[TommyVercetti]

again... ignoring the obvious evidence and logic

what seals it for me is him clearly making a number of small steps then a large deliberate and aimed step and bringing his weight down.

as I said this angle shows: "he's made a very deliberate movement from an illegal angle, away from the ball and he was not impacted, pushed, pulled or impeded by any other players, those are simple undeniable facts."

I admit this angle is a bit misleading because you don't even see the prone player for most of it, although you do see him move and react on the ground after the #10's foot has gone down.

it's the other angle I saw that shows where his foot landed is obviously where the prone players head must be.

But that one doesn't show the lead up or the intent and the fact he was totally unimpeded and not influenced or obstructed from seeing where his foot was going this angle does show that. This angle shows it was a very deliberate step and he knew exactly where his foot was going.

Put the evedence from both angles together and use some logic and it becomes pretty damming when you add it to the fact the player on the ground got streatchered off with blood coming out the back of his head... Don't forget that part.....

I don't think it's a large, deliberate stamp at all. To me it looks like he's encroaching and eyeing up the ball at the breakdown, and then quickly tries to jump in (and stay on his feet) and block the Reds player who's coming over the top of the ball (the one who just shoved down Adam Jones).

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did do something that malicious.

 

[Larksea]

I don't think it's a large, deliberate stamp at all. To me it looks like he's encroaching and eyeing up the ball at the breakdown, and then quickly tries to jump in (and stay on his feet) and block the Reds player who's coming over the top of the ball (the one who just shoved down Adam Jones).

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did do something that malicious.

thing is, he's never anywhere near the ball.

seriously, he takes a number of small steps like he's getting into position for something then brings himself up and makes one large step bringing his weight down then quickly moves away and around the back of the ruck.......

it's a bizarre movement considering the ball is not even close, looking at this by itself doesn't make sense. I mean what is he doing? He's missed the ruck completely!? it's very odd, he's a first 5/8 what's he doing there anyway?

But when you combine this with footage from the other angle you can see that the deliberate large step he made meant his foot came down where a reds players head is and that reds player was stretchered off with blood coming out of his head.

I dont know this guy as a player I'd never heard of him till his surprise IRB nomination. But from what a few posters here are saying he has a bit of a reputation as well.

Add the context of the game going into the critical last 10min and the reds are on attack getting close to the Lions line and the player who was injured was the Reds halfback (I think he started at fullback) an important player.

Considering all the evidence I'd say it's slim to none that this was an accident. And I'm sure even those waving this off as nothing will actually be feeling there is something fishy about this.