• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

So what about this French hallion spitting on Peter Stringer...?

I'm happy with the length of the ban. However I agree that comparing it to those instances in duck's post makes it a little silly. But those bans were all way too lenient, as opposed to this ban being too harsh.

I don't like it that bans are reduced due to good behaviour either. The opposite should be true, where players are punished even more for repeat offences.
 
I'm happy with the length of the ban. However I agree that comparing it to those instances in duck's post makes it a little silly. But those bans were all way too lenient, as opposed to this ban being too harsh.

I don't like it that bans are reduced due to good behaviour either. The opposite should be true, where players are punished even more for repeat offences.

The ban is harsh in the light of those incidents, citing commission can't have different rules for Fillol as everyone else. Spitting isn't as bad as thuggish deliberate injury inducing incidents.

Also how come the player the citing commission always happen to try and make an example out of happens to be French as Tony points out.

Attoub's 70 week and Dupuy's 6 month bans were supposed to send a message and spell an end to the 8 week ban that Schalk Burger got. But then in 2011 Cueto gouges and the ban for the offence is back down to 9 weeks. Oh and he happened to be in the England squad at the time, coincidence? :rolleyes:

The inconsistency of the citing system is a farce and a lottery, with certain players getting lighter or harsher sentences depending on what group they belong to and the fuss the media make of it (ie Leicester light bans, Stade Francais harsh bans).

They do ban players longer for repeat offences by the way. George Stowers got 2 weeks added on to a short ban for a high tackle (which shouldn't have been a ban at all) for his previous record.

vq1xs5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Seriously .. Enough of the Healy stamp.

Don't interfere with the ball or cause obstruction when you are at the bottom of a ruck and you won't get stamped on.

Anyone who's played up front understands that if you stay on the wrong side you will get a well deserved shoeing. It's expected and embraced at this point as a reminder we are not playing football.

As for him targeting his ankle ligaments . No I doubt that was the case.
 
Seriously .. Enough of the Healy stamp.

Don't interfere with the ball or cause obstruction when you are at the bottom of a ruck and you won't get stamped on.

Anyone who's played up front understands that if you stay on the wrong side you will get a well deserved shoeing. It's expected and embraced at this point as a reminder we are not playing football.

As for him targeting his ankle ligaments . No I doubt that was the case.
Responding to a non-violent act with a violent act isn't acceptable.
 
Responding to a non-violent act with a violent act isn't acceptable.

Yep. Hate that justification (and I'm a front rower). Where does it end? "Everyone knows that if you join the defensive line from offside - your family runs the risk of being knifed in the audience". There are of course legal ways of clearing out those players, or brining the incident to the refs attention. Ironic that some of the same people who excuse Healy (who the same year punched McCaw in the face while on the ground) cry up and arms about Umaga.
 
Point 1 - Stamping =/= shoeing, or at least not where I'm from. Bit of raking, you take your medicine, stamping's out of order.

Point 2 - The world has moved on. What was accepted then is no longer accepted. Dean Richards punched Dalliaglio in the face everytime there was a lineout on Dally's debut, until Dally punched him back. Part and parcel then. Citing now. Brian Moore once instructed one of his locks to kick the opposition prop in the head everytime a scrum went down. That would receive a pretty big punishment now. And so on. It is no longer held that anything on your side of the ruck is an acceptable target for the boot. I love your old school, take no prisoners attitude, but expecting people to shrug at someone stamping on another guy's ankle - at the heights of the game at least - well, not gonna happen!

edit:

Yep. Hate that justification (and I'm a front rower). Where does it end? "Everyone knows that if you join the defensive line from offside - your family runs the risk of being knifed in the audience". There are of course legal ways of clearing out those players, or brining the incident to the refs attention. Ironic that some of the same people who excuse Healy (who the same year punched McCaw in the face while on the ground) cry up and arms about Umaga.

Ahh, so you've played in Dartford as well.
 


Well, in the States spitting on someone is considered assault and battery (usually, however, such charges mostly occur when it's someone in law enforcement, emergency response, or fire response who is assaulted). It's also dangerous, and if a person is found to have a communicable disease the charges can even be worse. Not sure how it's considered in other countries.

I think it's a fair deal because, while there are plenty of cheap shots taken during the game, they actually are still just aspects of the game taken to an extreme. Stamping, stomping and kicking all legally occur during play, so it's somewhat understandable that sometimes a player lets his frustration or aggression get the better of him and stamp on a player instead of the ball. NOT saying it's right, just saying that I can see why it happens. Eye-gouging is horrific and should be punished to the full, but I think there is often (though not always) the question as to whether the gouger intentionally went for the eye, or was just caught up in the heat of the moment. Still, all these are offenses that happen due to the sheer physicality of the game, taken too far.

However, spitting on a player is not part of the game, in any way, shape, size, or form. It's disgusting, and a purposeful action meant to humiliate, to make a public show of disdain against another human being. It is, more than anything else, an insult to a player, to a team, and ultimately to the sport. Give him a slap on the wrist and the dignity of the game goes right to hell. Other players will feel that they, too, can get away with childish, petty, insolent behavior. This penalty sends a very clear message that players cannot and should not degrade or humiliate other players on the pitch. I'm actually pleased with this.


das
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would never condone spitting at anyone whether on the field of play or not,(ever watched Beckham) but after watching the above clips of serious infringments and small bans lets just say because he's French he gets a good hiding from the IRB others have had similar treatment, but seriously 14 weeks are they trying to show how hard they are, when he could possibly have to miss a max of 4 games and the rest he is on holiday, the only way to clean up the sport is to fine the players massive amounts of money, e.g. with a 25,000â'¬ fine you would think twice about spitting, gouging , or stamping even with today's wages, just think how much you scream at a simple speeding or traffic infringment!!!!
 
Yep. Hate that justification (and I'm a front rower). Where does it end? "Everyone knows that if you join the defensive line from offside - your family runs the risk of being knifed in the audience". There are of course legal ways of clearing out those players, or brining the incident to the refs attention. Ironic that some of the same people who excuse Healy (who the same year punched McCaw in the face while on the ground) cry up and arms about Umaga.

I'm not defending Healy's, he got what he deserved and arguments can be made that he deserved another week but your argument here is laughable to be honest.
 
It is.

Spitting is a lowly, cowardly act. It is the ulitmate showing of disrespect. I'd rather be gouged, cheap shotted, stamped on etc than be spat on by a fellow player.

Oh so you got upgraded!! Congrats!!

Spitting is a cowardly act, and there have been court cases in South Africa where a person has sued another person for spitting at them, which caused harm to their self-worth.

I however don't think it should fall in the same category as punching, eye-gouging or any other bodily harmful act. That being said, Rugby is hooligan's game played by gentlemen...
 
Ahh, so you've played in Dartford as well.

:lol:

I'm not defending Healy's, he got what he deserved and arguments can be made that he deserved another week but your argument here is laughable to be honest.

In what sense? You haven't made much or an argument at all.
 
Last edited:
Lets put it this way , as quite a seasoned player I will never feel aggrieved At someone giving me shoe pie if I'm lying on the wrong side attempting to kill ball. Provided its not my face.

And I would wager everybody who has played a good bit of rugby expects a solid solid shoeing for it.
 
Yes they would... I would, and I'd happily dole it out.

But the point is that stamping is significantly different to raking, one has a serious chance of injury the other just ****ing hurts, with minimal injury risk.
I'd happily take a knee or punch over a stamp to a limb/joint.
 
As others have said stamping doesn't equal shoeing. I remember Moore commenting once that every player should know exactly where he is placing his boot 100% of the time, or a game of rugby would descend into chaos (I think he was commenting on Peel getting a boot to the head circa 2005-6). I fully agree with this, and that means that Healey did indeed target the ankle. I would have had no problem had he raked the thigh or similar to get the message of 'you're on the wrong side' across, but stamping, and especially stamping on an exposed joint is unacceptable and deserved more of a ban that what he got.

I think das's comment on spitting is my view of it. It should never be tolerated in the game and as such deserved a lengthy ban. I fully agree that all the foul play duck pointed out was under-punished, but reducing the punishment for this wasn't the way forward, increasing punishments for dangerous acts is the way forward.
 
Surprised noone mentioned Tuilagi trying to kill Ashton :p and recieving just 5 weeks reduced from 10
 
Yep. Hate that justification (and I'm a front rower). Where does it end? "Everyone knows that if you join the defensive line from offside - your family runs the risk of being knifed in the audience". There are of course legal ways of clearing out those players, or brining the incident to the refs attention. Ironic that some of the same people who excuse Healy (who the same year punched McCaw in the face while on the ground) cry up and arms about Umaga.

Good lord.
 
Yep. Hate that justification (and I'm a front rower). Where does it end? "Everyone knows that if you join the defensive line from offside - your family runs the risk of being knifed in the audience". There are of course legal ways of clearing out those players, or brining the incident to the refs attention. Ironic that some of the same people who excuse Healy (who the same year punched McCaw in the face while on the ground) cry up and arms about Umaga.

And theres the traditional 2005 reference. Is it in our contracts we mention it every thread now :lol:
 
:lol:



In what sense? You haven't made much or an argument at all.

Just the whole Cian Healy punched Lord McCaw once, nothing was made of it neither player cared, McCaw probably deserved it or he would have made something of it but still Healy is scum and should be banned for life!

How could people question this and at the same time believe Ser Tana should have got a ban for dropping a player who was completely out of the game on his head?

I know it might be hard to believe but New Zealanders dish some dirty things out on the rugby pitch, it's not as if it's a one way street. Andrew Hore, Tana Umaga and Keven Mealamu being prime examples.
 
Just the whole Cian Healy punched Lord McCaw once, nothing was made of it neither player cared, McCaw probably deserved it or he would have made something of it but still Healy is scum and should be banned for life!

How could people question this and at the same time believe Ser Tana should have got a ban for dropping a player who was completely out of the game on his head?

I know it might be hard to believe but New Zealanders dish some dirty things out on the rugby pitch, it's not as if it's a one way street. Andrew Hore, Tana Umaga and Keven Mealamu being prime examples.

Once again this comes down to rugby is not a game for pussies, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the fire.

Any person who does these acts no matter their nationality, should be properly dealt with.
 
Once again this comes down to rugby is not a game for pussies, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the fire.

Any person who does these acts no matter their nationality, should be properly dealt with.

So why is Nick complaining about Cian Healy punching McCaw in the face when no one else gave a ****?
 

Latest posts

Top