Leinster v Salarysins

[mildlyinterested]

Felipe Contepomi confident that Jordan Larmour will be in the selection mix for the PRO14 final if he comes through the RTP protocols in fine fettle

[carlow man]

Apologies, I thought the mid-range point was four weeks - so I'd give him 5 weeks. I still think he may get the minimum though, it depends on the mood of chairman of the panel I guess, how much he dislikes Sarries, and how 'tuned-in' he is to the politics of the RFU

9.13 A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.

Low-end: 2 weeks

Mid-range: 6 weeks

Top-end: 10+ weeks

Max: 52 weeks

taken from: https://www.world.rugby/handbook/regula ... -1?lang=en

I know we all think he has previous for this, but he doesn't. The inexplicable leniency he was shown before has that knock on effect. This is likely a mid range offence, I think, and he showed remorse, apologised on field and off, left the pitch accepting his card, appeared upset at doing it straight away, so there is no way he is not getting the best mitigation he can be offered. And legally this is absolutely correct and he would win an appeal in my opinion if his sentence was not reduced for these factors as they would be penalising the person rather than the offence.
So three weeks?

If he gets away with a 3 week ban, it will seriously send out the wrong message. So a player can use a swinging arm with the potential to at worst, break an opponents break and end a career. Thats worse case scenario. Farrell should count himself lucky that Atkinson was able to walk off the pitch instead of on a stretcher. The video will show the act not the previous behaviour of the perpetrator. On the action itself, it should be 8 weeks minimum. Because the guy has been hitting guys illegally for years it should be increased to teach him a lesson that he needs to stop that thuggery. Remorse shouldn't come into it. Or good behaviour as his behaviour will show him to be dangerous and he hasn't changed this despite him not being sanctioned before now.

[offshorerules]

I read somewhere else that any tackle deemed dangerous that involves a blow to the head or neck is automatically a mid-range offence as a starting point. That being said I can see him wriggling off this one.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

Don't suppose there's any chance we could bring in a back 3 player in time for the Euro run in?
Everyone else is doing/done it.
We are down Fads, K2, Byrne, and now maybe Larmour. Daly retired.

We'll be playing academy younfellas or centres the way things are going.

I think larmour might be okay if he makes it through the tests this week and someone else mentioned Contemponi expects him to be okay for sat.
failing that, I think Lowe, keenan and Rob as a back three would be okay.

[carlow man]

I would prefer to see kelleher, Keenan and Lowe if possible. Kearney could start though and it would be a great send off for him.

[wixfjord]

Wrong thread!

[mildlyinterested]

Mako V also struggling with back spasms according to Mark McCall, sounds like a doubt like Furlong.

[Dave Cahill]

Because the guy has been hitting guys illegally for years

Prove it. He has had one proven citing from years ago. Thats it. This is a disciplinary proceding, not the local pub, theres a different standard of proof required.

And before you suggest showing some of his more 'dubious' tackles, heres how this will go.

Citing Commissioner: Chairman, I'd like to introduce into evidence a series of clips of the player making dangerous tackles.
Chairman: Where did these take place
CC: In a variety of matches in the Guinness Premiership, International Rugby, European Rugby
Counsel for the Player: Weren't those games played under the current disciplinary regulations, with a citing commissioner present?
CC: Well, yes, they were
Counsel: Weren't you the citing commissioner for a number of those games?
CC: Ermmm, I'd have to check
Counsel: I'll save you the time, you were. Why, considering you consider those tackles so serious now, you or your fellow CCs didn't consider them serious enough at the time to cite the player
CC: Is that the time, I must be off

[fourthirtythree]

They have literally been considered before and are non justiciable. His record is spotless for five years. He will get about the maximum leniency available and that is absolutely correct. It would be a travesty if otherwise and overturned on appeal.

[carlow man]

Because the guy has been hitting guys illegally for years

Prove it. He has had one proven citing from years ago. Thats it. This is a disciplinary proceding, not the local pub, theres a different standard of proof required.

And before you suggest showing some of his more 'dubious' tackles, heres how this will go.

Citing Commissioner: Chairman, I'd like to introduce into evidence a series of clips of the player making dangerous tackles.
Chairman: Where did these take place
CC: In a variety of matches in the Guinness Premiership, International Rugby, European Rugby
Counsel for the Player: Weren't those games played under the current disciplinary regulations, with a citing commissioner present?
CC: Well, yes, they were
Counsel: Weren't you the citing commissioner for a number of those games?
CC: Ermmm, I'd have to check
Counsel: I'll save you the time, you were. Why, considering you consider those tackles so serious now, you or your fellow CCs didn't consider them serious enough at the time to cite the player
CC: Is that the time, I must be off

You need a hobby bud!! If you think he's an angel then your on your own there. Just because he's not been cited doesn't mean he doesn't do it. He just gets away with it because he's the English captain.

[carlow man]

They have literally been considered before and are non justiciable. His record is spotless for five years. He will get about the maximum leniency available and that is absolutely correct. It would be a travesty if otherwise and overturned on appeal.

A travesty if he caught a long ban?!! So it's ok because he's not been cited before and this time a ref had the balls to send him off? If he gets away with a 2 week suspension then it's makes a mockery of player safety. It's not like it was borderline or a tip tackle gone wrong. Its reckless and there was intent. Enough said.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

They have literally been considered before and are non justiciable. His record is spotless for five years. He will get about the maximum leniency available and that is absolutely correct. It would be a travesty if otherwise and overturned on appeal.

not sure his record is spotless...he got a yellow card and a 3 week ban for this against Robson(Wasps) back in 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adK8bqjg7XY.

[carlow man]

Wrong thread!

Apologies wixfjord.

[fourthirtythree]

I thought his one ban was 5 years ago. YC, citing and upgraded IIRC? Once in a career with c.200 games is pretty good and spotless for years I should have said. The unpunished high tackles just don't count. Our wanting them to is utterly irrelevant.

[wixfjord]

Wrong thread!

Apologies wixfjord.

Sorry I mean I posted in the wrong thread, not you!

[Theleinsterlad]

They have literally been considered before and are non justiciable. His record is spotless for five years. He will get about the maximum leniency available and that is absolutely correct. It would be a travesty if otherwise and overturned on appeal.

not sure his record is spotless...he got a yellow card and a 3 week ban for this against Robson(Wasps) back in 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adK8bqjg7XY.

Yellow cards aren’t taken into account during these proceedings

[Theleinsterlad]

Listening to English podcasts today and it seems to coming very much from the ex players and journo’s that the level of punishment will be medium to high (6-10 weeks) but that it will likely be 6 due to the fact they can’t prove intent. Then his record will be taken into account and the fact he apologised straight away the ban will be reduced to 4 weeks

[fourthirtythree]

They have literally been considered before and are non justiciable. His record is spotless for five years. He will get about the maximum leniency available and that is absolutely correct. It would be a travesty if otherwise and overturned on appeal.

not sure his record is spotless...he got a yellow card and a 3 week ban for this against Robson(Wasps) back in 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adK8bqjg7XY.

Yellow cards aren’t taken into account during these proceedings

He had a yellow upgraded to a ees on review and served a ban. I assume this is that one. I thought it was 2015. That is taken into account and is his only previous.

[Dave Cahill]

You need a hobby bud!! If you think he's an angel then your on your own there. Just because he's not been cited doesn't mean he doesn't do it. He just gets away with it because he's the English captain.

Who said he's an angel? But we have to live in reality of the game, and the reality, as far as the disciplinary process is concerned, is that Owen Farrell has an almost pristine disciplinary record and can easily and irrefutably demonstrate this if required.

[mildlyinterested]

Pascal Gauzere in the middle for Leinster v Saracens, same ref as last years final.