What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

If Jimmy was hoping to be involved against Leinster, I can really understand why he'd be driven to appeal. I don't think it'll win, but if he's asked for it, then I'd expect the club to back him.

Respect! I have to say the denizens of the Wasps board come out of this whole thing very well - balanced, thoughtful views and a general lack of knee-jerk "protect our own" while largely trying not to swing too far the other way.

I shall of course deny ever having said anything of the sort at a later juncture when the time comes to tell you that you smell of wee.

_____________________________________________

The lowest depth to which people can sink before God is defined by the word 'journalist'.

Soren Kierkegaard

I too would expect the club to back him if he specifically asked, but it doesn't mean I think it is the right thing.

Excellent piece VV, sums things up perfectly.

Take the porridge and move on.

If he had actually connected with Tait, it would have been a longer ban. It was a completely stupid thing to do from such an experienced player - made worse by the laughable attempt to claim he was looking at and going for the ball, which the TV proved was complete b****cks.

Would be interested to hear what "feedback" he got from Dai Young after the match.

Good article and mostly sums up my feelings .... Only thing I would take issue with is that he hasn't pretended he was innocent all along ... He pleaded guilty and he did issue a public apology ... I think what's in issue is whether it was entirely intentional or just reckless and stupid, a subtle difference in my book. Yes the panel thought it was intentional but so did a panel find Nathan guilty, I don't actually have much faith in RFU panels.

I tend to agree he should just suck it up and move on but part of me also thinks there maybe a number of reasons to appeal the length and who knows whether that's driven by him or the club. It could be on principle because of a previous case .... I'm sure all will be revealed when the hearing is published in full.

A wel written piece, and one that I agree with fully. I to am a little disappointed that the club have chosen to appeal what is a fair punishment.

I also agree that gopparth deserves our support, and that his act was a dangerous and stupid one born out of frustration. But missing these upccoming games should be a galvanising force for him, whilst allowing our other 10s their chance.

I am more disappointed with the Wasp's fans reaction to the incident and their incredible ability to read a players mind with regard to his intention and whether it was deliberate or not. Evidently those same people will not have played a game of rugby in their lives and so have no idea what they are talking about.

For instance, try running at full pace with your eye on a ball hanging in the air that you are going to attempt to catch and try to control every action that you make. Have you ever? If not you shouldn't comment.

The RFU had to do something because of the collision I can appreciate that, but for the players own fans to turn on him the way they have.... be ashamed. Very ashamed.

I think the piece written above is nonsense and does not represent my and many other's views on the incident at all.

Quote:

Bzzzzz
I am more disappointed with the Wasp's fans reaction to the incident and their incredible ability to read a players mind with regard to his intention and whether it was deliberate or not. Evidently those same people will not have played a game of rugby in their lives and so have no idea what they are talking about.
For instance, try running at full pace with your eye on a ball hanging in the air that you are going to attempt to catch and try to control every action that you make. Have you ever? If not you shouldn't comment.

The RFU had to do something because of the collision I can appreciate that, but for the players own fans to turn on him the way they have.... be ashamed. Very ashamed.

I think the piece written above is nonsense and does not represent my and many other's views on the incident at all.

Have you seen the incident. He wasn't looking at the ball, he tried to kid on that he was attempting to catch it. It was not premeditated, but it was intentional

Hi Bzzzzz, I normally don't get involved in this sort of argument, but as you seem to be directing this at me perosnally I thought I ought to reply.

Quote:

Bzzzzz
I am more disappointed with the Wasp's fans reaction to the incident and their incredible ability to read a players mind with regard to his intention and whether it was deliberate or not. Evidently those same people will not have played a game of rugby in their lives and so have no idea what they are talking about.

Nobody is claiming to be able to read the mind of anyone else. But you seem to think that your interpretation of the events is the only possible one, despite the fact that what you describe is very clearly not what actually happened.

You say that it is evident that "these people" will not have played a game of rugby in their lives. This, again, is clearly not the case. I've played plenty of rugby thanks, I was a utility forward, in that I wasn't a stand out in any one position, but was perfectly capable in pretty much any of the front 8. I played many games for my local club, not at a very high level, but we did once play against an international team touring the UK, so in the loosest possible sense I have played international rugby.

Quote:

For instance, try running at full pace with your eye on a ball hanging in the air that you are going to attempt to catch and try to control every action that you make. Have you ever? If not you shouldn't comment.

I agree wholeheartedly that if you are focussing on the ball it is very difficult to know where you are going, I;ve done that myself many times. But if you take the time to actually review the incident in question Gopperth lowers his eyes and takes a good look at MT before looking back up at the last minute. If he was indeed concentrating on the ball then he should be dropped for not being anywhere near the damn thing.

Quote:

The RFU had to do something because of the collision I can appreciate that, but for the players own fans to turn on him the way they have.... be ashamed. Very ashamed.

The RFU had to do something about it because it was clearly foul play. He could easilty have avoided the collision and chose not to. Also no-one has turned on him. I specifically say "That is not to say I think Gopperth should be pilloried, he should not." and also "He is a good player, and deserves the support of the club and the fans" but it would seem that you have paid about as much attention to what the article actually says as you have to what actually happened in the match.

Quote:

I think the piece written above is nonsense and does not represent my and many other's views on the incident at all.

Thanks for your opinion, rest assured I will treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

VV - my sentiments exactly. It was reckless and stupid and he was lucky it wasn't a red card. He should serve his ban and then get on with his rugby. If he doesn't want to miss the Leinster game, then he shouldn't have been such a pillock in the first place.

[www.youtube.com]

Slow-mo can of course be problematic, but I'd say it's pretty clear where he's looking on approach. He takes 2 full steps and a jump whilst looking at Tait.

I don't think he went in with the intention of striking Tait, however his actions, considering he was unsighted on the ball for a large amount of time beforehand, were definitely reckless.

Vespa - you asked for opinions and I gave one. As you say mine (and yours) is not the only opinion.

I was referring to other threads in respect of turning on the player, which I think is indefensible, not to your well written article, even though I do not agree with it all.

There is no argument. My concern is with the player and how, since he has joined the club, he has been subjected to intense criticism. This incident has not helped but I think, as you do, that the player should have our support to get over this and to contribute in a positive way in future.

He is afterall a human being as we all are and to err is to be human, as we all do... Lest we forget.

Let us hope that all our players have a great season without errors of this nature and have the support of all our fans so they feel that they are playing for us and give their very best when they step out on the pitch.

Good article, VV. As mentioned Wasps are appealing the length of the ban, since he pleaded guilty. My understanding is that an unsuccessful appeal can result in an increase- as well as a decrease- in the initial ban. I can't help but feel that, at some stage, the RFU disciplinary are going to impose an increase, to deter the rising number of appeals, which seem to happen after every hearing now. I hope they don't decide to use this case to do so!

Quote:

Bzzzzz
Vespa - you asked for opinions and I gave one. As you say mine (and yours) is not the only opinion.
I was referring to other threads in respect of turning on the player, which I think is indefensible, not to your well written article, even though I do not agree with it all.

There is no argument. My concern is with the player and how, since he has joined the club, he has been subjected to intense criticism. This incident has not helped but I think, as you do, that the player should have our support to get over this and to contribute in a positive way in future.

He is afterall a human being as we all are and to err is to be human, as we all do... Lest we forget.

Let us hope that all our players have a great season without errors of this nature and have the support of all our fans so they feel that they are playing for us and give their very best when they step out on the pitch.

Bzzz, no one's turned on the player. He's a fly half, the fulcrum of the side, of course he gets scrutinised it's a discussion forum, get over it.

Spot on VW. Not premeditated but definitely intentional. Clearly a momentary rush of blood to the head and although his immediate protestations were embarrassing I think he's done the right thing afterwards by pleading guilty and apologizing.

Clearly the appeal is centered around the length of the ban. Personally I think this is one to move on from but as others have said there may well be very good reasons for the player and even the club that they think merit the appeal.

As Arquero and Silent Bob mention, the club are not disputing his guilt, just the severity of the punishment. As has also been mentioned, Gopperth isn't a dirty player, to the best of my knowledge he has a pretty respectable disciplinary record throughout his career which is probably why the club felt an appear was justified. I would have thought that 2 weeks would have been about fair, there was intent but fortunately Tait wasn't injured.

As for fans turning on him, fairly obviously many are frustrated with his poor form so far this season and this stupid behaviour has just added to our disappointment.

I think the frustration also is that Wasps already had two young and attacking fly-halves, so many of us wondered at the thinking behind bringing in a veteran fly-half who has for most of his career been known for his kicking rather than his flair. We have an English youngster who many people, including JG himself, think has the potential to be a top player yet is rarely given an opportunity or string of games to show what he could bring. It is that innately conservative type thinking that bedevils English rugby.
I had always hoped that when given an chance Wasps would bring on English talent, particularly when the wages paid to JG, which will not be small, are needed to strengthen other areas.
None of this, of course, is Jimmy's fault, and now he is here I hope he does well, but probably contributes to the negative thoughts around the fly-half position.

Can we all just get a bit real on this.

It probably/might/possibly cost us the game. Plus we now have an experienced 10 unavailable for 3 key games in the League plus Europe. I would like to think that we hire players who are not complete @#$%&. I have seen this incident about 6-7 times now and I cannot conceive of what was going through Gopperth's head at the time.

a) Did he not notice that Tait was standing in touch: and
b) Did he not realise that Tait had already caught the ball when he tried to remove his head from his shoulders.

It is not the attempted violence that annoys me so much as the plain stupidity of his actions followed by the "I was only looking at the ball" excuse given to the ref, then completely undermined by the evidence of the TV replays.

Limited at best.

The ball only beat Gopperth by fractions of a second, and he clearly did try and jump and swing, in a real effort to strike the ball? This is where I question, his eyes were not on the ball in the final few steps, and I don't see how he could have accurately swatted it without watching it.

I don't think he meant to strike Tait with his hand/elbow, since he really doesn't seem to be that kind of player, I do believe he meant to clatter him, and if he managed to keep the ball in play, well that would just be dandy. The way he cups his arms after, as though pretending he was trying to catch it (which he'd clearly not attempted) and the eyes to the sky gestures, I disliked.

Not posted in a while but have to say I do agree with the points made about the same people jumping on JG case. Firstly he admitted he's guilty at the hearing and his protests on the field are exactly what every player would have done. Wasps are contesting how harsh the ban is given his good record and let's admit more recent more dangerous incidents where the bans have been a lot more lenient.
With regards to this persistent why have we signed JG when we have two promising 10s. Well firstly Jackson was due to return from a serious injury so couldn't really be counted on as a leading number ten. Not just because of his injury but also his form before coming to wasps was inconsistent. Loz needs game time admittedly but is not ready to take the leading ten spot. Look at his game in Toulon. Hes a great talent with lots to learn but some people on here are soo carried away and one eyed when it comes to him it's becoming a bore.
Think back we would have loved to have JG 3 seasons ago. What has changed. Oh wait we have a bit of money and it's gone to some people's heads.

Quote:

WiseWasps!
... his protests on the field are exactly what every player would have done....

I don't agree.

Appeal has been dismissed .... 3 week ban upheld.

Good.

I agree, a good result! I like and respect Gopparth, and will cheer him on. But from my very humble opinion he was a fool to do what he did and got the deserved punishment. I can only wonder whether this will be a blessing in disguise, as we have 2 more than capable 10s who now have a chance to prove themselves, and might just be a better option, and prove to be a discovery we may not have made if Gopparth was free for selection.

[lastwordonsports.com]

Gopperth Ban Poses TMO Questions

One of the main talking points from last weekend’s Aviva Premiership action was the sin binning and subsequent citing and banning of Wasps fly half Jimmy Gopperth in his side’s defeat at the home of Leicester, their new neighbours, for striking Matthew Tait in an aerial challenge. Footage courtesy of BT Sports.

In the second half of the game, Gopperth chased his own up and under, which drifted into touch and into the arms of Leicester full back and captain Tait. Gopperth continued his chase and clattered into Tait, off his feet and late. In itself, this incident in real time looked rather clumsy. Clumsy enough, certainly, for referee Tim Wigglesworth to refer the incident to the Television Match Official. And here’s where the incident started to make many scratch their heads.

The replay was shown on the Welford Road big screens as Wigglesworth and his TMO carefully studied the incident. Despite protestations to the contrary, Gopperth’s eyes were seen to shift their attention from the ball to the Tait, confirming the thoughts of the crowd that this warranted a yellow card. But when the camera angle showed not only the shift in Gopperth’s focus, but a swing of his arm to strike Tait, the crowd was up in arms sensing a certain red card. The exaggerated cupping of his arms to suggest he may have been making a catch after the impact was seen straight through as a diversionary tactic and certainly did not endear him further to the crowd.

Around 20,000 supporters in the stadium saw the television replay, along with an afternoon television audience watching BT Sports and crucially, the match officials. It came as something of a surprise therefore that referee Wigglesworth brandished only a yellow card for the incident.

The independent citing officer clearly agreed with the consensus shared by seemingly everyone bar Wigglesworth, is Gopperth was promptly cited and handed a five match ban, reduced to three matches thanks to his previous good record and a hastily tweeted apology to Tait. The written report on the hearing suggested Gopperth was not afforded a longer discount since the panel was unimpressed at his explanation that he was trying to hook the ball back into play and he will now miss his side’s fixtures against Gloucester, Toulon and Leinster.

The incident poses a few questions. Referees have a difficult job that few envy and even fewer appreciate and so it is somewhat unbecoming to unduly criticise their job. But this said, it is puzzling to imagine quite what Wigglesworth would have deemed worthy of a red card. Supporters of the sport want to see the game untarnished by foul play and for the laws of the game to tackle this fairly and consistently. Incidents like this not tackled on the pitch are disheartening.

A further issue is the use of the TMO. Correctly, Wigglesworth referred the incident to his video official having decided there may have been something more sinister to the challenge than seen in real time. As is now customary, the referee watched the incident along with his TMO and a furious crowd on the stadium screen. Quite how productive this practice becomes is open to debate as it allows the crowd the opportunity to influence the decision with their outrage and turns the TMO into little more than an over-qualified video editor. There is a real case for suggesting that TMO reviews and contentious replays would not be shown on the big screen to ensure an impartial decision. On this occasion, the crowd did not influence the referee’s decision but the incident became the major talking point in the closing stages of the match.

Additionally, an issue exists with the citing process. Once upon a time, the procedure was that if a decision was made on the pitch having been seen by the match officials then the case was closed, and could not be referred. Citings were brought forward by opposition clubs, which was always a wholly unsatisfactory way of ensuring foul play was punished. Things have changed, and it is now not at all uncommon to see yellow cards retrospectively upgraded and bans imposed. In essence, what citing commissioners are doing in these situations is publicly announcing that a referee’s decision was wrong and that they imposed the wrong sanction on the pitch. And yet whilst this is the case, one has to wonder what level of censure is received by the referee for making a wrong decision. It might be suggested that if a referee is unsure on a decision, an easy solution is to err on the side of caution and let the citing commissioner pick up the pieces, particularly if the referee faces no comeback for his actions.

Fundamentally of course, the Gopperth incident served to underline that the TMO system does not answer all issues of foul play. The video replays available provide numerous high quality angles and the technology exists to see these at a moment’s notice, manipulate them, and for an official to communicate a decision to the referee on the field. These aspects are excellent and a great tool for officials to make decisions with. But that is all they are: a tool. They still require a human decision at the end of it all to deliver the correct sanction, made by officials who perhaps require greater clarity on how decisions should be made for foul play incidents.

Wasps opted to appeal the length of Gopperth’s ban, which was subsequently dismissed and the suspension upheld. Presumably they believed the offence to have been a low-range one rather than the mid-range offence that the panel deemed it to be. Debatable, but with a lack of clarity on how this is to be decided you could understand their plea.

Gopperth has not committed an act of foul play that is any worse than many others seen in recent times in the game. It probably ought to have been a red card, but it wasn’t an especially remarkable act beyond a few raised eyebrows and finger pointing at the time. It does though serve to highlight a few issues in a system that tackles foul play that can still be required as developing. Further development is quite probably required.

I am pretty disgusted by the witch hunt over a very minor incident. No one was injured, an apology has been made and a sentence whether justified or not ( I do not believe it was ) has been meted out.

Time to crawl back under your rocks now and wait for the next poor wasps player to make an error so they can be vilified beyond reason.

If you can't support your players you should not support the team/club

I am pretty disgusted by the witch hunt over a very minor incident. No one was injured, an apology has been made and a sentence whether justified or not ( I do not believe it was ) has been meted out.

Time to crawl back under your rocks now and wait for the next poor wasps player to make an error so they can be vilified beyond reason.

If you can't support your players you should not support the team/club

What a load of bollox. It was not a "very minor incident" and the fact that "no one was injured" is totally irrelevant. It was a nasty and totally unnecessary foul, exacerbated by the embarrassing public attempt at an excuse. It almost certainly affected the outcome of the game and therefore was detrimental to the club and their supporters.
As I said in another post, we do not play rugby like that and I hope that has been made quite clear to JG. If not by Dai then certainly by his teammates.

I have never believed in the sentiment (toast) "our country, right or wrong." and the same applies to my team.

“This machine kills fascists�
Woody Guthrie's guitar.

Bzzzzz... We do support the players, and we do support the club. But most of all we are fans of rugby, and want the correct decisions to be made. We are not vilifying JG, many of the commenters have stated that he is not normally a dirty player. But for a player to have committed an act of foul play (remember that he's pleaded guilty), there can be no excuses and they should be penalised. It is that knowledge that stops players at all levels from committing acts of foul play... Not just at the professional level; let's not forget that the guys wearing black and gold are role models for many young rugby players and should conduct themselves as such.

Errors can be forgiven. Trying to decieve the referee, crowd and others by claiming afterwards to have been making a fair challenge cannot. At least, not in my book. That we support the club is why we demand more if our players.

As for "crawling back under rocks" ... grow up.

I think the idea that as a a supporter of Wasps I must unconditionally support every action of every player weraing the kit is preposterous. I'm an England supporter too, and no-one (with the possible exception of Geoff P) seems to think we should support the team/coaches regardless of their behaviour.

I can support the team, and the players, whilst still being against foul play.

Bzzzz you are not Jeremy Corbyn are you?

Bzzzz you are not Jeremy Corbyn are you?

That's a pointless comment. Though it does tell us a lot about you!

“This machine kills fascists�
Woody Guthrie's guitar.

Quote:

Bzzzzz
I am pretty disgusted by the witch hunt over a very minor incident. No one was injured, an apology has been made and a sentence whether justified or not ( I do not believe it was ) has been meted out.
Time to crawl back under your rocks now and wait for the next poor wasps player to make an error so they can be vilified beyond reason.

If you can't support your players you should not support the team/club

Nice to see the spirit of rugby is strong in some. The majority of this board should be very proud in the evenhanded and honest way they've appraised this incident. The small minority that dismiss a cheap shot with 'you can't criticize your own' comments should be ashamed, much more so than Jimmy who had a rush of blood and probably wouldn't do it again.

Quote:

RossM
Bzzzz you are not Jeremy Corbyn are you?
That's a pointless comment. Though it does tell us a lot about you!

Sorry you weren't bright enough to get the allusion to a man pursuing one view point whilst others in his group are espousing a completely different one.

Is this simple enough for you Ross?

And just what's it got to do with rugby?

“This machine kills fascists�
Woody Guthrie's guitar.

[Post removed by mod]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015:11:06:14:20:25 by ukms.

Quote:

Bzzzzz

Please leave the personal attacks off this forum.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015:11:06:14:21:31 by ukms.

Responding in kind. Why censor one but not the other?

Happy to stay off the forum if having an opposing opinion is such a problem for you all. Or is it because you know I am right?

I don't believe "us all" (generalisations always go a long way), have suggested you're not allowed your opinion, nor tried to claim that by stating it you are somehow not a supporter of the club. Those statements have been in one direction only.

Whilst I would agree the abuse hasn't just been one way, there's not just one person that's stepped over a line. Can I suggest everyone just leaves it now? The appeal has been dismissed, he's got 3 weeks, and we have a new lineup ready to discuss.

Quote:

Raggs
I don't believe "us all" (generalisations always go a long way), have suggested you're not allowed your opinion, nor tried to claim that by stating it you are somehow not a supporter of the club. Those statements have been in one direction only.
Whilst I would agree the abuse hasn't just been one way, there's not just one person that's stepped over a line. Can I suggest everyone just leaves it now? The appeal has been dismissed, he's got 3 weeks, and we have a new lineup ready to discuss.

+1