Saracens
GLOUCESTER PREVIEW - PLEASE POST MATCH RELATED COMMENT HERE
By The Saracens
January 4 2023
Friday nights haven’t traditionally been the most auspicious of times for Sarries in recent weeks – culminating in that highly forgettable display in Brentford so I doubt if they will be relishing a trip to Kingsholm this Friday evening. However the team must be on a high after that demolition of Exeter on Saturday – quite how high probably depends on how low Exeter stooped! We may find out this weekend! As we know Saracens pulled off a spectacular victory at home on Saturday – a highly watchable game in pretty dire conditions. Gloucester also managed a win on Saturday – a somewhat more turgid affair with an 8-6 victory over Irish with the last kick of the match.
Sarries still sit proudly on top of the league, 10 points clear of 2nd placed Sale, Gloucester are in 4th but a massive 18 points in arrears having won 6 of their 11 games. Gloucester have a good home record, with only Newcastle able to win there so far this season. Sarries have a good away record having only lost to Irish so something will have to give! Games between these 2 sides are generally won by the home team although Sarries did manage a victory there in 2019 (mind, last season they lost by the small margin of 54-7!).
Shedweb lists a number of Gloucester players unavailable due to injury:- Fraser Balmain, Jamal Ford-Robinson, Jack Singleton, Santiago Socino, Alex Craig, Jordy Reid, Adam Hastings, Mark Atkinson & Louis Ress-Zammit. Shedweb seem pretty upbeat about their team’s chances and suggest Glos might field the following team:-
Lloyd Evans; Jonny May ; Chris Harris, Seb Atkinson, Ollie Thorley; Santi Carreras ; Ben Meehan; Val Rapava-Ruskin , George McGuigan , Kirill Gotovtsev, Freddie Clarke, Matías Alemanno, Ruan Atkinson , Lewis Ludlow , Ben Morgan – so still a decent side despite their injury problems.
MMC may make a few tweaks to the Sarries’ team but I don’t expect too many changes from last week. Daly may get the week off after his bang on the head and Earl will probably start. There could be a bit of squad rotation with Lewington starting ahead of Maitland and maybe Davies ahead of Van Zyl.
Goode, Malins, Lozowski, Tompkins, Lewington, Farrell, Davies; M Vunipola, George, Riccioni, Itoji, Isiekwe, Christie, Earl, B Vunipola.
The referee is your friend and mine, Karl Dickson supported by Dan Jones & James Clarke with the (sometimes irritating) Claire Hodnett in the TV van
Victory in our last Premiership game before the Internationals would be a huge statement. Sarries can do it – whether they will or not depends on which team turn up: the one that beat Exeter or the one that lost to Irish. Let’s hope for the former!
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponGLOUCESTER PREVIEW - PLEASE POST MATCH RELATED COMMENT HERE
Discussion started by TheSaracens.com , 04/01/2023 22:10
TheSaracens.com
04/01/2023 22:10
04/01/2023 22:10
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:15:18:49:47 by Darraghgirl.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:15:18:49:47 by Darraghgirl.
I'm hoping to see Roti in the 23. He was taking a full part in the warm up on Saturday.
Claire Hodnett as TMO is definitely not my favourite TMO. I am pretty sure it was her that missed the red card clear out on Aled that cost us the away game against Tigers last season.
Saracens Men team to play Gloucester Rugby:
1 Mako Vunipola
2 Jamie George
3 Marco Riccioni
4 Maro Itoje
5 Hugh Tizard
6 Andy Christie
7 Ben Earl
8 Billy Vunipola
9 Aled Davies
10 Owen Farrell (c)
11 Alex Lewington
12 Duncan Taylor
13 Alex Lozowski
14 Max Malins
15 Alex Goode
Replacements:
16 Theo Dan
17 Eroni Mawi
18 Christian Judge
19 Nick Isiekwe
20 Jackson Wray
21 Ivan van Zyl
22 Josh Hallett
23 Rotimi Segun
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:05:12:08:29 by Sarriebone.
1 Mako Vunipola
2 Jamie George
3 Marco Riccioni
4 Maro Itoje
5 Hugh Tizard
6 Andy Christie
7 Ben Earl
8 Billy Vunipola
9 Aled Davies
10 Owen Farrell (c)
11 Alex Lewington
12 Duncan Taylor
13 Alex Lozowski
14 Max Malins
15 Alex Goode
Replacements:
16 Theo Dan
17 Eroni Mawi
18 Christian Judge
19 Nick Isiekwe
20 Jackson Wray
21 Ivan van Zyl
22 Josh Hallett
23 Rotimi Segun
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:05:12:08:29 by Sarriebone.
Gloucester Rugby
15. Lloyd Evans*
14. Jonny May*
13. Chris Harris
12. Giorgi Kveseladze
11. Ollie Thorley*
10. Santi Carreras
9. Ben Meehan
1. Val Rapava Ruskin
2. George McGuigan
3. Kirill Gotovtsev
4. Freddie Clarke*
5. Matias Alemanno
6. Ruan Ackermann
7. Lewis ludlow (c)*
8. Ben Morgan
16. Seb Blake*
17. Harry Elrington
18. Ciaran Knight*
19. Cam Jordan*
20. Jack Clement*
21. Stephen Varney*
22. Billy Twelvetrees
23. Tom Seabrook*
*Denotes academy graduate.
15. Lloyd Evans*
14. Jonny May*
13. Chris Harris
12. Giorgi Kveseladze
11. Ollie Thorley*
10. Santi Carreras
9. Ben Meehan
1. Val Rapava Ruskin
2. George McGuigan
3. Kirill Gotovtsev
4. Freddie Clarke*
5. Matias Alemanno
6. Ruan Ackermann
7. Lewis ludlow (c)*
8. Ben Morgan
16. Seb Blake*
17. Harry Elrington
18. Ciaran Knight*
19. Cam Jordan*
20. Jack Clement*
21. Stephen Varney*
22. Billy Twelvetrees
23. Tom Seabrook*
*Denotes academy graduate.
Very nice looking 23. Tompkins hopefully rested and Daly I guess given a bit of extra time after his head knock?
Great to see the return of Segun and also looking forward to seeing some more of Dan from the bench. Looks like the weather will be decent so hoping we see some more of Sarries attacking evolution! Will be interesting to see how Davies does with the start.
12 Academy grads in the Sarries 23 by my count so we're already beating Glaws by a little
Oh and Carreras is a player I love to watch but he's tricky to play against. A 10 with the pace and instinct for a gap of a winger so I hope our guards at rucks and central defence are switched on!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:05:12:40:16 by OldMarovian.
Great to see the return of Segun and also looking forward to seeing some more of Dan from the bench. Looks like the weather will be decent so hoping we see some more of Sarries attacking evolution! Will be interesting to see how Davies does with the start.
12 Academy grads in the Sarries 23 by my count so we're already beating Glaws by a little
Oh and Carreras is a player I love to watch but he's tricky to play against. A 10 with the pace and instinct for a gap of a winger so I hope our guards at rucks and central defence are switched on!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:05:12:40:16 by OldMarovian.
The referee is your friend and mine, Karl Dickson supported by Dan Jones & James Clarke with the (sometimes irritating) Claire Hodnett in the TV van
I hope KD has got some new batteries for his hearing aid and CH keeps her counsel within reason. Not likely though, especially with the Shed on their backs.
I hope KD has got some new batteries for his hearing aid and CH keeps her counsel within reason. Not likely though, especially with the Shed on their backs.
As you say tpr's but the players will just have to do everything they can to make sure the refereeing team don't get to make those decisions. Discipline was brilliant in the last game. A continuation of that would be another huge plus.
The return of Rotimi!! Excited to see him play with our new attack. Keeping everything crossed for Super Dunc. Hopefully Daly’s concussion is the standard length and he’s back for Europe and Tompkins gets over his New Year’s Eve “cold” 😂
Can we get over our Friday night blues this week? It would be a great time to do it! Lots of hard away matches still to come the season so any points we pick up would be a bonus.
Can we get over our Friday night blues this week? It would be a great time to do it! Lots of hard away matches still to come the season so any points we pick up would be a bonus.
Saracens have struggled with games on Friday nights for as long as I can remember - does anyone have the stats of W/D/L for games we play on Fridays going back over the last five or six years?
We don’t play at home on Fridays, with only one Wembley game against Toulouse in 2013 in the last decade.
Since September 2013 we’ve played 23 away Premiership and Heineken Cup games on Friday nights, and won 14 = 61%. In the same period we’ve played 104 away Premiership and Heineken Cup games on Saturdays and Sundays, and won 63 = 61%
Statistically our best day for Away games is Monday, when a lunchtime win over Irish in August 2020 at an empty Stoop gives us a 100% record. Our worst is Wednesday, two losses in September evenings in 2020 against Sale and Worcester make it 0%.
Since September 2013 we’ve played 23 away Premiership and Heineken Cup games on Friday nights, and won 14 = 61%. In the same period we’ve played 104 away Premiership and Heineken Cup games on Saturdays and Sundays, and won 63 = 61%
Statistically our best day for Away games is Monday, when a lunchtime win over Irish in August 2020 at an empty Stoop gives us a 100% record. Our worst is Wednesday, two losses in September evenings in 2020 against Sale and Worcester make it 0%.
thanks Superman; shows how memory plays you false - as I would have said that our Friday night record is much worse than our other games - and your stats prove me completely wrong!
But you asked for the last 5 years - and in that period we’ve played 8 away Premiership games on Friday nights, and won 3 = 38%. In the same period we’ve played 39 away Premiership and Heineken Cup games on Saturdays and Sundays, and won 24 = 62%.
So yes, our recent form on Friday nights is crap.
So yes, our recent form on Friday nights is crap.
Keeping on the right side of the officials is key. If we start back chatting The Shed will be even louder. Just need to focus on the game and block out the noise. VPR is a great player and we need to keep Carreras, Thorley and McGuigan quiet. Friday matches always worry me as we struggle to put in a complete performance…but you never know🤞
[quote OldMarovian]Very nice looking 23. Tompkins hopefully rested and Daly I guess given a bit of extra time after his head knock?
Great to see the return of Segun and also looking forward to seeing some more of Dan from the bench. Looks like the weather will be decent so hoping we see some more of Sarries attacking evolution! Will be interesting to see how Davies does with the start.
12 Academy grads in the Sarries 23 by my count so we're already beating Glaws by a little
Oh and Carreras is a player I love to watch but he's tricky to play against. A 10 with the pace and instinct for a gap of a winger so I hope our guards at rucks and central defence are switched on
A ref can go back to the previous stoppage in play. Number of phases is irrelevant. But KD asked if it was in the "same phase of play" (i.e between stoppages) rather than a number of phases (i.e between rucks) but using the word phase confused things imo. Hodnett then couldn't answer his question so he played on.
Whether or not the laws should be changed for cases like these is another question, and tbh there probably shouldn't be a limit for red card offences.
Honestly who cares. He dipped, there was a wrap and not much force. I doubt there will be a citing.
And if it was the other way round I wouldn’t be particularly exercised about it. It wasn’t deliberate or particularly reckless or dangerous. Stuff like this happens all the time and people sometimes get the rub of the green. It’s just because it’s Farrell that the children get all football about it.
Quote:JimG
Honestly who cares. He dipped, there was a wrap and not much force. I doubt there will be a citing.
You have access to accelerometer data that shows how much force? A slight dip but time to dip more. Wrap was irrelevant because there was head contact. If it isn't cited it should be.
Oh, and plenty of people care, because we are trying to stop head injuries.
Quote:It another tricky one like Earls. The flanker almost seemed, thru being tripped or tackled, to bring his head onto Farrell's shoulder. I'd say it was a defo yellow, it's Faz' responsibility, but until all the angles are looked at, we'll see!JimG
Honestly who cares. He dipped, there was a wrap and not much force. I doubt there will be a citing.
Come on. Even as the staunchest Saracens fan I can see that we've absolutely got away with one. Under the current rules, that's a clear red.
Some of us need a bit of humility, nothing wrong with holding our hands up and admitting we've got lucky on this occasion.
Some of us need a bit of humility, nothing wrong with holding our hands up and admitting we've got lucky on this occasion.
(edit) I should have read further down.
Agree with Barty. Its a red all day long.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:10:52:40 by OldMarovian.
Agree with Barty. Its a red all day long.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:10:52:40 by OldMarovian.
Not sure what more Owen could have done in that tackle. Watched the video numerous times and now seen a still in the Times today. Owen has arms out and is clearly at what would have been waist height if Clement had not been seriously bent at the knees, braced for contact and leading with his head. Even so the majority of the tackle is taken by Clement’s body. So not a no arms shoulder barge (which we’ve seen from Owen in the past) and (if deemed to be a red) it is hard to see how a player in Clement’s body position could be legally tackled from ahead.
Yeah but he's got an awful disciplinary record apparently and as such deserves a 6 month ban... 
Quote:Barty II
Come on. Even as the staunchest Saracens fan I can see that we've absolutely got away with one. Under the current rules, that's a clear red.
Some of us need a bit of humility, nothing wrong with holding our hands up and admitting we've got lucky on this occasion.
Well you are entitled to your opinion however dull. I disagree as I’ve said and humility is really nothing to do with it.
The main point for me in that OF incident is that it seemed to only be looked anyway by the TMO because there happened to be a stoppage in play and the BT Director replayed the tackle in slo mo which the TMO then saw.
This is completely the wrong way around. We should be saying if the ref, touch judge and TMO don’t spot something for review in real time we shouldn’t be going back just because the TV director has decided to show it in super slo mo (see many French broadcasts for examples!). If the TMO sees it then of course they ask for the replays.
That might mean the odd offence may be missed, but this can be picked up later by the citing officer. It’s preferable to the arbitrary nature of what gets looked at and what doesn’t during the game, as well as the infuriating development in rugby when we have large chunks of play becoming irrelevant (but still eating up playing time) because we go back to a much earlier potential offence. There’s enough wasted playing time in the game already.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:11:02:13 by gladiator923.
This is completely the wrong way around. We should be saying if the ref, touch judge and TMO don’t spot something for review in real time we shouldn’t be going back just because the TV director has decided to show it in super slo mo (see many French broadcasts for examples!). If the TMO sees it then of course they ask for the replays.
That might mean the odd offence may be missed, but this can be picked up later by the citing officer. It’s preferable to the arbitrary nature of what gets looked at and what doesn’t during the game, as well as the infuriating development in rugby when we have large chunks of play becoming irrelevant (but still eating up playing time) because we go back to a much earlier potential offence. There’s enough wasted playing time in the game already.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:11:02:13 by gladiator923.
I'm not sure gladiator. I'm happy for foul play to be picked up however that happens. My main issue is the "French" version of this where a Directors cut is effectively shown with repeats of one sides indiscretions strangely not available and the others played many as many times as needed to catch the referees/TMOs eye.
Quote:Barty II
Come on. Even as the staunchest Saracens fan I can see that we've absolutely got away with one. Under the current rules, that's a clear red.
Some of us need a bit of humility, nothing wrong with holding our hands up and admitting we've got lucky on this occasion.
My first reaction was it was a clear red. Watching the replays which show he’s actually bent at the waist and pretty low as is Clement and (perhaps more pertinently) with the inconsistency with how the laws are applied, I could see it being yellow.
It makes no difference on the day though, Faz shouldn’t have been on the field for the drop goal, so you’re right we absolutely got away with one. It’s a really frustrating one because it’s all anyone is talking about from a really good, hard match of rugby.
I rarely bag referees because I know how tough the job is. Dickson has clearly gotten confused with the latest change but it was the Wild West out there last night. Both teams were getting away with so much it always looked like it would boil over at some point. On review Dickson will hopefully reflect and adapt his approach in future.
That's a fair point too TK - also not one to be slamming referees normally as a printout of the laws would need an entire rainforest to be pulped and papered, the desire for total consistency is therefore chasing a holy grail.
But what the Farrell incident has done is taken focus away from the seemingly random nature of the refereeing at the breakdown. Dickson was having a shocker and both us and Glos fans have a right to be peed off about it.
And cheers Jim. Having a good chuckle that daring to attempt to have a balanced opinion is considered dull. Maybe I should suggest Owen deserves a 10 month ban and we should all be burned at the stake for supporting our pariah club to add a bit of spice instead.
Little edit: If Alec Clarey was given 3 weeks for his hit, then suspect Owen's will have the same. Although citings and consistency are not two things that usually go hand in hand.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:11:24:41 by Barty II.
But what the Farrell incident has done is taken focus away from the seemingly random nature of the refereeing at the breakdown. Dickson was having a shocker and both us and Glos fans have a right to be peed off about it.
And cheers Jim. Having a good chuckle that daring to attempt to have a balanced opinion is considered dull. Maybe I should suggest Owen deserves a 10 month ban and we should all be burned at the stake for supporting our pariah club to add a bit of spice instead.
Little edit: If Alec Clarey was given 3 weeks for his hit, then suspect Owen's will have the same. Although citings and consistency are not two things that usually go hand in hand.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:11:24:41 by Barty II.
That was a really engaging, titanic struggle and both sides deserve credit.
Sarries won because they were able to disrupt our line out to the point where it stopped being an attacking threat and became more a liability.
Had OF’s goal kicking been more accurate you lot would have likely been a score plus ahead as we went into the last few minutes anyway.
The booing of the kicker is really unpleasant and I wish we’d cut it out, the aghast reaction when a handful of Sarries fans returned the compliment later in the game was almost pantomime-like IMO.
Proud of my team’s effort in the light of our current casualty list, maybe we’ll get a second bite at you lot in the play-offs.
Cheers
Sarries won because they were able to disrupt our line out to the point where it stopped being an attacking threat and became more a liability.
Had OF’s goal kicking been more accurate you lot would have likely been a score plus ahead as we went into the last few minutes anyway.
The booing of the kicker is really unpleasant and I wish we’d cut it out, the aghast reaction when a handful of Sarries fans returned the compliment later in the game was almost pantomime-like IMO.
Proud of my team’s effort in the light of our current casualty list, maybe we’ll get a second bite at you lot in the play-offs.
Cheers
No you accused me of having a lack of humility for having the temerity to disagree with you. There’s enough d1ckheads around who want our team burned at the stake and I certainly wouldn’t want you to join their ranks. That really would be dull.
Quote:Roger G
The OF incident looked bad and I'm sure he will be cited and banned for a bit. However, whether there was any legitimate mitigation (e.g. the tackled player was already very low), or whether the current guidance to refs would allow it to be reviewed on field if it had happened that many phases earlier is a mystery to me. I'm amazed that so many people, whose SN names are new to me, know the laws and guidance so much better than a professional ref, however bad he was.
Re KD he was, IMHO, awful as usual and missed offsides, hands in the ruck and on the ground, neck rolls, clear knock-ons and much more, but not noticeably in either teams favour (ignoring Dayglo's opinion of course). And as I have said before, and a couple of others have noted, what goes around comes around - Dickson missing Faz's foul play balances us losing Ben Earl for 60 minutes, incorrectly, a couple of weeks back. If both decisions had been handled differently we'd probably have won that game and lost this one, and so be in the same position league points wise.
Yes it is amazing isn't it - but true unfortunately ... Dickson was wrong as the laws are clear that for foul play you can go back to the last stoppage in play - nothing to do with 'phases'. He should have asked the TMO if it was in the same passage of play, not phase.
Quote:Barty II
If Alec Clarey was given 3 weeks for his hit, then suspect Owen's will have the same. Although citings and consistency are not two things that usually go hand in hand.
Then again Coleman got 4 weeks for an utterly disgraceful tackle that could have ended Wolfy’s career and that’s with two previous reds (one rescinded) against us alone, no idea what the rest of his previous is. In light of that, Clarey’s ban seems positively draconian!
Quote:Glevumyap
That was a really engaging, titanic struggle and both sides deserve credit.
Sarries won because they were able to disrupt our line out to the point where it stopped being an attacking threat and became more a liability.
Had OF’s goal kicking been more accurate you lot would have likely been a score plus ahead as we went into the last few minutes anyway.
The booing of the kicker is really unpleasant and I wish we’d cut it out, the aghast reaction when a handful of Sarries fans returned the compliment later in the game was almost pantomime-like IMO.
Proud of my team’s effort in the light of our current casualty list, maybe we’ll get a second bite at you lot in the play-offs.
Cheers
Thanks for that, a very balanced post - unlike some on here
A couple of points.
Firstly such incidents always look worse in slo-mo and often give the impression the tackler had the time or opportunity to do something different.
Secondly, so many people seem to be adamant it was a definite red under current laws. I'd appreciate it if any of those people can take us through the refereeing protocol (i.e. the one any ref or citing panel would use) step by step to determine whether it's red, yellow, pen only or nothing at all. I have my own view but it's just an opinion based on seeing other incidents, rather than anything definitive.
Finally, re the TMO, much as I have little confidence in Clare Hodnett based on her past performance in Sarries matches, I seem to remember Luke Pearce in his FezCast interview categorically saying that the TMO doesn't have the commentary or the broadcast TV feed. Have I mis-remembered?
Firstly such incidents always look worse in slo-mo and often give the impression the tackler had the time or opportunity to do something different.
Secondly, so many people seem to be adamant it was a definite red under current laws. I'd appreciate it if any of those people can take us through the refereeing protocol (i.e. the one any ref or citing panel would use) step by step to determine whether it's red, yellow, pen only or nothing at all. I have my own view but it's just an opinion based on seeing other incidents, rather than anything definitive.
Finally, re the TMO, much as I have little confidence in Clare Hodnett based on her past performance in Sarries matches, I seem to remember Luke Pearce in his FezCast interview categorically saying that the TMO doesn't have the commentary or the broadcast TV feed. Have I mis-remembered?
Agreed. Classy post. To be fair I did try and talk about the rugby but no one seemed very interested in doing that. 😄
Quote:JimG
No you accused me of having a lack of humility for having the temerity to disagree with you.
Read it all back Jim. Some pretty unsavoury opinions (on both sides) well before yours. I did not pick you out (quote tweeting or otherwise), I made a general comment about some on this thread not showing a lot of humility.
I did not accuse you personally of anything. You quoted me and took it as a personal attack, then I responded, not the other way round.
Back on a better (but related) topic. Nice to see posts such as Glevumyap with balance from the other side of the fence. For all the rotten drivel from some Glos fans both at the game and even more so on the dreaded social media, its always nice to have a reminder that we shouldn't assume one group represents the whole.
Quote:Roger G
Finally, re the TMO, much as I have little confidence in Clare Hodnett based on her past performance in Sarries matches, I seem to remember Luke Pearce in his FezCast interview categorically saying that the TMO doesn't have the commentary or the broadcast TV feed. Have I mis-remembered?
I think you've got it mostly right because I remember listening to Mr Pearce's comments myself, however as much as I'd like to claim we've had a top-level referee on the FezCast, it definitely hasn't happened yet, so that part at least you're mis-remembering!
Edited to remove. I’ve got better things to do than argue with strangers on the internet.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:12:03:52 by JimG.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:12:03:52 by JimG.
Unsavoury is a poor choice of words - apologies for that. Not quite what I meant. Referring to some of the back and forth on page 1 and elsewhere. I'm not in the business of calling individuals out - there's no need, particularly as much is said in the heat of a moment. This thread is being diverted from what it should be so apologies to all for my part in that.
Roger G - best file for the actual application of the process I know of is the world rugby website, although unsure if there is any update and modification beyond March 2021
World Rugby March 2021
Following the flowchart:
1. Head contact - Yes
2. Foul play - Yes
Important next bit is that the STARTING POINT is decided before any MITIGATION.
Personally think the best thing for clarity on that is the trigger words at the bottom of the page - we are getting into subjectivity now (which is why I'd always say total consistency by referees is impossible!
I think it is fair regardless of opinion to say there was Direct Contact and a Leading Shoulder. Farrell was NOT Passive. Those put it in the realms of a red card.
Its interesting that force and speed are judged slightly separately even though they come hand in hand. Could be argued that Farrell himself wasn't moving at particularly high speed, but the dynamics of the fact he was trying to make a dominant hit mean there was 'high force'. That and all the above to me says we're in "High Danger" territory.
So the starting point (in my opinion of course) is a red card, and it requires a good amount of mitigation to lower to a yellow. This again is massively subjective as it is just a set of 'considerations'. I.e. its not enough for any level of 'lowering height' to automatically mitigate down to a yellow, it has to be enough to balance out the severity of the elements deciding the degree of danger - on a case by case basis.
Suspect that's ultimately what it comes down to - whether the referee, you, or I believe there is enough mitigation in this specific case to downgrade the high danger of the contact between Farrell's shoulder and the players head. Personally no, but of course others will say yes. But it is what shows the distinction between, for example, Farrell's hit, and Coleman's on Woolstencroft - I believe both are reds but the latter is clearly a "higher end" foul play than the former.
Bonus Edit: the Ben Earl incident. Matt Carley judged that there was no attempt to wrap, which is foul play deemed 'highly reckless'. As he correctly stated on the day, this means that no mitigation can be applied whatsoever, and which is why Earl was given a red. This was overturned by the panel because Earl's team of defence (Golding & McCall, & Earl himself) slowed the footage right down and showed an attempt (not a good one, but an attempt) to wrap in the tackle. Therefore all the mitigation that was clear (unsighted, being very low etc.) could be applied and it was downgraded to yellow.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:12:22:00 by Barty II.
Roger G - best file for the actual application of the process I know of is the world rugby website, although unsure if there is any update and modification beyond March 2021
World Rugby March 2021
Following the flowchart:
1. Head contact - Yes
2. Foul play - Yes
Important next bit is that the STARTING POINT is decided before any MITIGATION.
Personally think the best thing for clarity on that is the trigger words at the bottom of the page - we are getting into subjectivity now (which is why I'd always say total consistency by referees is impossible!
I think it is fair regardless of opinion to say there was Direct Contact and a Leading Shoulder. Farrell was NOT Passive. Those put it in the realms of a red card.
Its interesting that force and speed are judged slightly separately even though they come hand in hand. Could be argued that Farrell himself wasn't moving at particularly high speed, but the dynamics of the fact he was trying to make a dominant hit mean there was 'high force'. That and all the above to me says we're in "High Danger" territory.
So the starting point (in my opinion of course) is a red card, and it requires a good amount of mitigation to lower to a yellow. This again is massively subjective as it is just a set of 'considerations'. I.e. its not enough for any level of 'lowering height' to automatically mitigate down to a yellow, it has to be enough to balance out the severity of the elements deciding the degree of danger - on a case by case basis.
Suspect that's ultimately what it comes down to - whether the referee, you, or I believe there is enough mitigation in this specific case to downgrade the high danger of the contact between Farrell's shoulder and the players head. Personally no, but of course others will say yes. But it is what shows the distinction between, for example, Farrell's hit, and Coleman's on Woolstencroft - I believe both are reds but the latter is clearly a "higher end" foul play than the former.
Bonus Edit: the Ben Earl incident. Matt Carley judged that there was no attempt to wrap, which is foul play deemed 'highly reckless'. As he correctly stated on the day, this means that no mitigation can be applied whatsoever, and which is why Earl was given a red. This was overturned by the panel because Earl's team of defence (Golding & McCall, & Earl himself) slowed the footage right down and showed an attempt (not a good one, but an attempt) to wrap in the tackle. Therefore all the mitigation that was clear (unsighted, being very low etc.) could be applied and it was downgraded to yellow.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:12:22:00 by Barty II.
Quote:Barty IIQuote:Roger G
Finally, re the TMO, much as I have little confidence in Clare Hodnett based on her past performance in Sarries matches, I seem to remember Luke Pearce in his FezCast interview categorically saying that the TMO doesn't have the commentary or the broadcast TV feed. Have I mis-remembered?
I think you've got it mostly right because I remember listening to Mr Pearce's comments myself, however as much as I'd like to claim we've had a top-level referee on the FezCast, it definitely hasn't happened yet, so that part at least you're mis-remembering!
Oops. It must've been Big Jim's podcast then. They're the only ones I listen to.
Quote:Roger GQuote:Barty IIQuote:Roger G
Finally, re the TMO, much as I have little confidence in Clare Hodnett based on her past performance in Sarries matches, I seem to remember Luke Pearce in his FezCast interview categorically saying that the TMO doesn't have the commentary or the broadcast TV feed. Have I mis-remembered?
I think you've got it mostly right because I remember listening to Mr Pearce's comments myself, however as much as I'd like to claim we've had a top-level referee on the FezCast, it definitely hasn't happened yet, so that part at least you're mis-remembering!
Oops. It must've been Big Jim's podcast then. They're the only ones I listen to.
Hard to know what to make of that, I'd consider it a compliment to be confused with Jim. Less so the other bloke...
Quote:Barty II
Hard to know what to make of that, I'd consider it a compliment to be confused with Jim. Less so the other bloke...
The Big Jim stuff is separate from his double act work. His interview with Pearce was excellent.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:13:00:04 by Sarriebone.
Quote:SarrieboneQuote:Barty II
Hard to know what to make of that, I'd consider it a compliment to be confused with Jim. Less so the other bloke...
The Big Jim stuff is separate from his double act work. His interview with Pearce was excellent.
Absolutely. I wouldn't waste my time listening to the puerile fat one.
On the subject of Dickson getting his laws wrong, I wondered if he was guilty of poor communication - was it the same phase of play versus was it the same passage of play, the latter typically confaining multiple phases. Certainly seemed to throw Hodnet.
Quote:Harrow Sarrie
On the subject of Dickson getting his laws wrong, I wondered if he was guilty of poor communication - was it the same phase of play versus was it the same passage of play, the latter typically confaining multiple phases. Certainly seemed to throw Hodnet.
Very much this.
Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade
🌻🌻🌻
I Used to really enjoy listening to the rugbypod and big Jim but then he seems to change his opinion more times then the British weather lol.
Quote:wolfgangvonb77
I Used to really enjoy listening to the rugbypod and big Jim but then he seems to change his opinion more times then the British weather lol.
Can't stand the rugbypod - too many digressions into the size and shape of various players' genitals and the like. Big Jim's one-on-one interviews, on the other hand, are usually very informative and nothing to do with Jim's own opinions.
Quote:from the "other side" I completely agree, nasty collision, and under the current laws, it was Owens responsibility to somehow move away, , as the refs say lately, I'd start at red and move back to yellow personally. What the citing lot say, who knows? I honestly hope they at least look at it, Owen gets enough idiotic isht aimed at him already.Gr@y_LensmanQuote:JimG
Honestly who cares. He dipped, there was a wrap and not much force. I doubt there will be a citing.
You have access to accelerometer data that shows how much force? A slight dip but time to dip more. Wrap was irrelevant because there was head contact. If it isn't cited it should be.
Oh, and plenty of people care, because we are trying to stop head injuries.
Quote:Pickett
It was a straight shoulder to the chin. The tackled player ducked slightly but Farrell had opportunity to bend lower. No mitigation; Red card.
According to BT Sport today the referee KD had said that initial contact was with the chest.
It slid up to the chin, but that isn’t a red card.
Sorry if that doesn’t suit Farrell haters’ agendas…
Quote:can we have an angle of Dixon, in a Quins shirt, telling us how much he HATES Saracens?!! Or Dixon, stood next to his old mate Marler not hearing him clearly call someone's mum a prostitute? That is the principal problem. All for players turning ref, but this one just isn't itMidlandsSarrie
I’d like to see another angle.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:07:21:56:17 by myleftboot.
Slightly embarrassing then to see Luke Pearce as a fan at the Exeter game …
Quote:OTsarrie
Slightly embarrassing then to see Luke Pearce as a fan at the Exeter game …
Can you be sure he can be described as "a fan"? Attendee yes but fan? He's strongly associated with an amateur club down that way.
As he lives in the area surely he's allowed to go to watch a match at his local Prem club? IMHO Pearce is the best English ref at the moment (better than Barnes even) and to suggest he has any bias towards Exeter is unfounded.
Quote:myleftbootQuote:can we have an angle of Dixon, in a Quins shirt, telling us how much he HATES Saracens?!! Or Dixon, stood next to his old mate Marler not hearing him clearly call someone's mum a prostitute? That is the principal problem. All for players turning ref, but this one just isn't itMidlandsSarrie
I’d like to see another angle.
That’s a pretty angry reply considering that it was a simple comment based on the fact that I would have liked to see if Faz’s and whoever he tackled, had bent legs (and therefore mitigation).
As for Dickson, the powers that be ( referees advisors) will deal with his behaviour if necessary. CMK has had some mares, but I thought he refereed the Exeter game well. I.e i didn’t notice him. Referees are easy targets.
Quote:Roger GQuote:OTsarrie
Slightly embarrassing then to see Luke Pearce as a fan at the Exeter game …
Can you be sure he can be described as "a fan"? Attendee yes but fan? He's strongly associated with an amateur club down that way.
As he lives in the area surely he's allowed to go to watch a match at his local Prem club? IMHO Pearce is the best English ref at the moment (better than Barnes even) and to suggest he has any bias towards Exeter is unfounded.
Nick Mullins said something about him being there in an observing capacity. I assumed from that that he was monitoring the referreeing, given that Adam Leal is one of the less experienced refs at this level.
Surely it's vital for all referees (at all levels) to attend as many live matches as possible. In all other professions this is called CPD Continuing professional development.
Only saw the second half but another excellent performance from Adam Leal I thought
If you play Owen’s tackle on Jack Clement frame by frame, Owen is crouched and, immediately before contact, the point of his shoulder is set directly in line with the ball i.e. in a legitimate position to target the ball in the tackle and definitely not on a level with Jack Clement’s chin. At no point before impact does Owen’s height increase, if anything his height at point of contact is marginally below his previous set position. As Jack Clement takes the ball into contact he hunches his upper body (as so many ball carriers do, bracing for the tackle) resulting in a small (but critical) drop in head height, sufficient for his chin to make contact with the top (not the point) of Owen’s shoulder.
So for me, there is mitigation to be considered.
There is an argument that Owen should have set himself lower, but the counter argument is that it is perfectly legitimate to target the ball in the tackle. It is equally legitimate of course for the ball carrier to try and protect the ball in the tackle by hunching the upper body. A conundrum...
So for me, there is mitigation to be considered.
There is an argument that Owen should have set himself lower, but the counter argument is that it is perfectly legitimate to target the ball in the tackle. It is equally legitimate of course for the ball carrier to try and protect the ball in the tackle by hunching the upper body. A conundrum...
For anyone wondering...
I used the 16 second BT rugby video of the incident posted at the start of a thread entitled ‘The Farrell Hit’ on the Harlequins site here.
By clicking play and pause you get a frame by frame presentation. When clicking on pause, a ‘Continue watching on Twitter’ banner appears. You can use this banner to determine how the head heights are changing.
So, immediately before contact the banner sits just above Jack Clement’s eyebrows, but at the point of contact his whole forehead is exposed – the banner sits just past the hair line, evidencing a material drop in height.
Again, using the banner, you can see that Owen’s height does not change and marginally decreases at the point of contact.
I used the 16 second BT rugby video of the incident posted at the start of a thread entitled ‘The Farrell Hit’ on the Harlequins site here.
By clicking play and pause you get a frame by frame presentation. When clicking on pause, a ‘Continue watching on Twitter’ banner appears. You can use this banner to determine how the head heights are changing.
So, immediately before contact the banner sits just above Jack Clement’s eyebrows, but at the point of contact his whole forehead is exposed – the banner sits just past the hair line, evidencing a material drop in height.
Again, using the banner, you can see that Owen’s height does not change and marginally decreases at the point of contact.
Quote:Noir
... the counter argument is that it is perfectly legitimate to target the ball in the tackle.
... good post and valid points. The issue ofc remains is if you set yourself like that targeting the ball and don't have time to adjust you are putting yourself much more in the hands of fate and referees for the outcome of the tackle. Target lower down and the chances off getting it wrong unless there's a drastic (and likely to be mitigated) drop in height are ofc much lower. This wasn't defending the try line where halting momentum could be game changing (and LI shows that didn't work too well for Farrell either) it was I believe in Glaws half on nothing ball.
(edit) NOt sure about anyone else but the Twitter link doesn't work on that site.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:08:12:30:04 by OldMarovian.
Quote:Noir
So, immediately before contact the banner sits just above Jack Clement’s eyebrows, but at the point of contact his whole forehead is exposed – the banner sits just past the hair line, evidencing a material drop in height.
Again, using the banner, you can see that Owen’s height does not change and marginally decreases at the point of contact.
I don’t get the banner when I watch but slowing it down there is a very slight dip as Clement braces for contact, I don’t think that is a material to me because contact would still be high without the dip. A side on view would be helpful. I think the only chance Farrell has for mitigation is his own body position not rising and the fact that Clement is low himself but there isn’t a sudden drop in height so it seems likely a “low end” red would be appropriate.
One thing that's not going for Farrell is that Clement has picked the ball out from a ruck rather than being upright when he receives the ball. At no point has Clement actually lowered his height, if anything he's rising
Quote:Barty II
One thing that's not going for Farrell is that Clement has picked the ball out from a ruck rather than being upright when he receives the ball. At no point has Clement actually lowered his height, if anything he's rising
Rising from the ruck is concluded when he takes the ball into contact. I accept that two people can watch the same footage and see different things, but I stand by my assessment of the video clip!
Yes, I take the ‘why take the risk’ point OM. Risk versus reward is an ever present element of competitive sport of course and a real skill to get right - witness Owen’s drop goal to win the game. 
TK I hear what you say, but there is a dip and without it (for me) there is no contact with the chin and so the dip is material in the context of its inclusion in any assessment of whether a sanction is warranted. For the avoidance of doubt, I make no argument whether or not there should be a sanction!
TK I hear what you say, but there is a dip and without it (for me) there is no contact with the chin and so the dip is material in the context of its inclusion in any assessment of whether a sanction is warranted. For the avoidance of doubt, I make no argument whether or not there should be a sanction!
Quote:Noir
Yes, I take the ‘why take the risk’ point OM. Risk versus reward is an ever present element of competitive sport of course and a real skill to get right - witness Owen’s drop goal to win the game.
TK I hear what you say, but there is a dip and without it (for me) there is no contact with the chin and so the dip is material in the context of its inclusion in any assessment of whether a sanction is warranted. For the avoidance of doubt, I make no argument whether or not there should be a sanction!
Hmm, I think you need to open both eyes.
They’ve just shown it in slo mo on BT Sport multiple times. Any dip is marginal and in any event Farrell starts high and he takes the risk if he targets the upper part of the body. There is no wrap and consequently the Glos player is hit directly in the head.
It’s foul play, with force and pretty reckless, given the lack of wrap. Any mitigation is pretty marginal and by the current application of the law is a clear red.
The BT Sport guys felt KD was mostly to blame for confusing terminology and that it was also a clear red.
I expect Farrell will get cited, and probably some sort of ban though I don’t expect it to be huge given where it’s a clear red, by the same token it’s not horrible and in no way looks intentional. Players do need to learn though that targeting big hits to the upper body risks direct head contact and a red card, the answer is to go lower, which is what the current application of the law is intending to achieve.
Whether it decided the game or not is a moot point. Farrell missed a few, but so did Carreras right in front of the posts.
When does your the 48 hour clock for the citing start is it kick of or the end of the game?
Think I'd just be referring back to the the guidelines on applying the laws
HERE
The leading shoulder, lack of/minimal wrap, and high force/recklessness to me means a lot of mitigation needed, if it can be applied at all. I doubt a 1 inch dip from a player who started low rather than coming down from upright, will be considered significant enough.
Probably not long until we find out anyway!
HERE
The leading shoulder, lack of/minimal wrap, and high force/recklessness to me means a lot of mitigation needed, if it can be applied at all. I doubt a 1 inch dip from a player who started low rather than coming down from upright, will be considered significant enough.
Probably not long until we find out anyway!
Tuilagi has just taken Tommy Allen's head off, by flying into a tackle with no arms. He was low and Allen was falling. But as we know tucked arm means no mitigation, right? Apparently not for WB, not even a penalty given...
That said Sale look excellent and Quins dross. Really impressive stuff from Sale, composed, threats in forwards and backs and a physicality few teams can match.
BT commentators were justify the lack of sanction! Big change from the OF incident! No yellow for Danny! Suppose it depends who’s playing 😂
Quote:Sarriebone
Tuilagi has just taken Tommy Allen's head off, by flying into a tackle with no arms. He was low and Allen was falling. But as we know tucked arm means no mitigation, right? Apparently not for WB, not even a penalty given...
I would say more consistent with the citing commissions view of Earls case they reviewed last week.
There is no comparison between the two incidents whatsoever and it’s disingenuous to suggest there is.
Allan catches a high ball and then falls arriving at Tuilagi much faster and with a very sudden and significant change in height. Tuilagi was expecting him to land so he could tackle him. There’s no foul play there, it’s simply a collision caused by Allan falling unexpectedly.
The Danny Care deliberate knock on should have been yellow, try or no try. He’s a lucky boy.
Allan catches a high ball and then falls arriving at Tuilagi much faster and with a very sudden and significant change in height. Tuilagi was expecting him to land so he could tackle him. There’s no foul play there, it’s simply a collision caused by Allan falling unexpectedly.
The Danny Care deliberate knock on should have been yellow, try or no try. He’s a lucky boy.
Quote:neiljk
Allan catches a high ball and then falls arriving at Tuilagi much faster and with a very sudden and significant change in height. Tuilagi was expecting him to land so he could tackle him. There’s no foul play there, it’s simply a collision caused by Allan falling unexpectedly.
Disagree, Tuilagi's arm is always tucked so no intention of making a legal tackle, that is foul play aggravated by contact to the head at speed and with force. Yes he's unlucky that Allen drops, but he's still out of control.
Not comparing it with Farrell's, however if you compare it with Earl's from the LI game. Earl was at a standstill with no intention to tackle until the player fell towards him and didn't have time to adjust. Tuilagi has lined him up, come flying in with no intention of making a legal tackle. Should have been a card.
Quote:Agreedneiljk
The Danny Care deliberate knock on should have been yellow, try or no try. He’s a lucky boy.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:08:17:14:32 by Sarriebone.
I thought the "rugby incident" call re bumping Marchant was more dubious if less serious. No attempt by the Sale player to get the ball but makes a point of bumping the jumping Marchant who then makes contact awkwardly with the Sale player trying to get the ball. If the first Sale player had been competing, fair enough, as it was a very kickable penalty to Quins? Not that it would have made much difference.
I’m sure the citing officer will have a better opinion than all of us and will call accordingly. Just lack of consistency by officials and certain commentators and their pet clubs. They should be transparent which clubs they played for or support in each programme?
Quote:OldMarovian
I thought the "rugby incident" call re bumping Marchant was more dubious if less serious. No attempt by the Sale player to get the ball but makes a point of bumping the jumping Marchant who then makes contact awkwardly with the Sale player trying to get the ball. If the first Sale player had been competing, fair enough, as it was a very kickable penalty to Quins? Not that it would have made much difference.
I agree, the Sale wing clearly moves into the path of Marchant and bumps him. Penalty all day.
Quote:Carlyle
I’m sure the citing officer will have a better opinion than all of us and will call accordingly. Just lack of consistency by officials and certain commentators and their pet clubs. They should be transparent which clubs they played for or support in each programme?
Trouble is I think a lot of us are also sceptical of the consistency of the citings panels as well
Owen deservedly cited as expected, hearing tomorrow at 6.30pm
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:09:10:11:58 by Sarriebone.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:01:09:10:11:58 by Sarriebone.
Wow - just seen the Tuilagi one. He practically takes Allan's head off. If the game is worried about head injuries that is the kind of incident that should be looked at. Lined him up from 20 yards with the express intention of causing maximum physical damage. The kind of collisions that were great in the old days - when it was a 14 stone Josh Lucy on Matt Rogers - but not so much when it is a 17.5 stone Tuilagi at top speed. The circumstances of the dropped catch and trip by O'Flaherty are all unfortunate from Allan's perspective but Tuilagi is recklessly out of control. It is in my view a different order entirely from Farrell's which looks positively tame by comparison. Hope Allan is ok.
Really disappointed by the Farrell citing. Trial by social media. Very much hope the panel can view dispassionately as I really don't think it deserves a ban.
Quote:paulglynn
When does your the 48 hour clock for the citing start is it kick of or the end of the game?
In the Premiership it's 24 hours from the end of the match. The RFU then take a long time to make it public, and it's not easy to find any notice when they do!
Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade
🌻🌻🌻
As I seem to write annually, there's always 'something else' whenever we go to Kingsholm - whether it be
'Ed G hiring coachloads of rowdy Watford fans to stir up trouble' or
'A Sarries player roughing up the ref post match over a decision'
there's inevitably 'afters' and perhaps there always will be given the position of rugby in the local community and their appreciation of the Sarries team.
My observations;
The older gentleman seen flicking the v's after the Glos try is getting some criticism on social media - I think we should let it go, he was clearly relieved they'd got a try and the emotion got the better of him
Dallaglio (2hr 31 mins into the BT Sport feed) - "That man won it - but should he have even been on the pitch? It's not for us to discuss now" - Then proceeds to bleat on about it until the end of the show !
Craig Doyle post match - "Noticeable that Sarries have not put anyone out to discuss the match or defend the action" Noticeable that there clearly had not been the time for Glos to get anyone out either :-)
Finally - will BT Sport ever learn to move that post-match discussion group away from that bar at Glos? Sounds like a cow-shed
'Ed G hiring coachloads of rowdy Watford fans to stir up trouble' or
'A Sarries player roughing up the ref post match over a decision'
there's inevitably 'afters' and perhaps there always will be given the position of rugby in the local community and their appreciation of the Sarries team.
My observations;
The older gentleman seen flicking the v's after the Glos try is getting some criticism on social media - I think we should let it go, he was clearly relieved they'd got a try and the emotion got the better of him
Dallaglio (2hr 31 mins into the BT Sport feed) - "That man won it - but should he have even been on the pitch? It's not for us to discuss now" - Then proceeds to bleat on about it until the end of the show !
Craig Doyle post match - "Noticeable that Sarries have not put anyone out to discuss the match or defend the action" Noticeable that there clearly had not been the time for Glos to get anyone out either :-)
Finally - will BT Sport ever learn to move that post-match discussion group away from that bar at Glos? Sounds like a cow-shed
Quote:JimG
Really disappointed by the Farrell citing. Trial by social media. Very much hope the panel can view dispassionately as I really don't think it deserves a ban.
I agree about hoping the panel view it dispassionately, and based on facts and the laws rather than pundits/fans opinions of the offence and OF's character. However, I think it's right that he be cited, regardless of the social media outcry (I've seen some baying for blood who admit they haven't seen the incident) so he serves his time if deemed appropriate, and the whole thing can be put to bed,
Quote:JimG
Wow - just seen the Tuilagi one. He practically takes Allan's head off. If the game is worried about head injuries that is the kind of incident that should be looked at. Lined him up from 20 yards with the express intention of causing maximum physical damage. The kind of collisions that were great in the old days - when it was a 14 stone Josh Lucy on Matt Rogers - but not so much when it is a 17.5 stone Tuilagi at top speed
. The circumstances of the dropped catch and trip by O'Flaherty are all unfortunate from Allan's perspective but Tuilagi is recklessly out of control. It is in my view a different order entirely from Farrell's which looks positively tame by comparison. Hope Allan is ok.
I think you need to use both eyes.
Allan was tripped and fell into Tuilagi’s path. For sure he was trying to tackle him hard when he landed but he literally fell over into his path.
BT love coming to Kingsholm on Friday nights because of the atmosphere. It's their choice to use the old changing rooms for their post match discussion, and hugely ironic that they then complain about the noise!
Quote:neiljkQuote:JimG
Wow - just seen the Tuilagi one. He practically takes Allan's head off. If the game is worried about head injuries that is the kind of incident that should be looked at. Lined him up from 20 yards with the express intention of causing maximum physical damage. The kind of collisions that were great in the old days - when it was a 14 stone Josh Lucy on Matt Rogers - but not so much when it is a 17.5 stone Tuilagi at top speed
. The circumstances of the dropped catch and trip by O'Flaherty are all unfortunate from Allan's perspective but Tuilagi is recklessly out of control. It is in my view a different order entirely from Farrell's which looks positively tame by comparison. Hope Allan is ok.
I think you need to use both eyes.
Allan was tripped and fell into Tuilagi’s path. For sure he was trying to tackle him hard when he landed but he literally fell over into his path.
What do you mean about using both eyes? I can see perfectly well what happened thanks. And I am neither a Sale nor a Quins fan so it doesn't matter to me from that perspective. All I am saying is that Tuilagi was out of control. Allen may have fallen over in his direction but the fact he was flying in with his shoulder meant that when the lowering happened he couldn't adjust. I am not calling for any citings or reds - my point was simply that this is the kind of action that could lead to serious harm whereas Farrell was clearly targeting the ball and got it marginally wrong and I hope the citing panel will be able to find sufficient mitigation. Not remotely bothered about 6N but would really like to see him in the next 2 European fixtures.
The Martin Johnson approach should be applied.
His 3 week ban will expire 8 days before England's first match, enabling Faz to play a full part in training.. In Europe, Sarries will just have to make do with Goode, Malins, Daly and Lozowski covering 10 and 15. 😆
Oi Faz, don't touch the biscuits, it might be deemed disrespectful 😂
It's a long time since Sports network paid anything!
His 3 week ban will expire 8 days before England's first match, enabling Faz to play a full part in training.. In Europe, Sarries will just have to make do with Goode, Malins, Daly and Lozowski covering 10 and 15. 😆
Oi Faz, don't touch the biscuits, it might be deemed disrespectful 😂
It's a long time since Sports network paid anything!
BBC are saying six weeks if it's mid-range with potential reduction for declining the biscuits. Compared to other challenges I can't see how it could be any higher than mid-range.
Quote:JimGQuote:neiljkQuote:JimG
Wow - just seen the Tuilagi one. He practically takes Allan's head off. If the game is worried about head injuries that is the kind of incident that should be looked at. Lined him up from 20 yards with the express intention of causing maximum physical damage. The kind of collisions that were great in the old days - when it was a 14 stone Josh Lucy on Matt Rogers - but not so much when it is a 17.5 stone Tuilagi at top speed
. The circumstances of the dropped catch and trip by O'Flaherty are all unfortunate from Allan's perspective but Tuilagi is recklessly out of control. It is in my view a different order entirely from Farrell's which looks positively tame by
comparison. Hope Allan is ok.
I think you need to use both eyes.
Allan was tripped and fell into Tuilagi’s path. For sure he was trying to tackle him hard when he landed but he literally fell over into his path.
What do you mean about using both eyes? I can see perfectly well what happened thanks. And I am neither a Sale nor a Quins fan so it doesn't matter to me from that perspective. All I am saying is that Tuilagi was out of control. Allen may have fallen over in his direction but the fact he was flying in with his shoulder meant that when the lowering happened he couldn't adjust. I am not calling for any citings or reds - my point was simply that this is the kind of action that could lead to serious harm whereas Farrell was clearly targeting the ball and got it marginally wrong and I hope the citing panel will be able to find sufficient mitigation. Not remotely bothered about 6N but would really like to see him in the next 2 European fixtures.
Look at the incident carefully. Tuilagi does not come flying in out of control. He comes in looking to time a tackle but Allen gets trip and falls right into him. There’s a huge split second change in height and the point Allen lands.
Under the current rules the first question is whether there is foul play and there for me, there clearly isn’t. It’s entirely accidental and no real way you could expect Tuilagi to have somehow anticipated the trip.
The outcome is clearly worse than the Farrell tackle, however it was much more avoidable. Farrell looked to hit high on a dominant tackle and misjudged it. It’s not high end by any means but under the current criteria it’s a red.
Quote:Roderick Flashheart
Dallaglio (2hr 31 mins into the BT Sport feed) - "That man won it - but should he have even been on the pitch? It's not for us to discuss now" - Then proceeds to bleat on about it until the end of the show!
Strange comment that wasn’t it. Typically mouth engaged without brain in gear. It was entirely his and his colleagues job to discuss all aspects of “the Farrell Affair”. If the TV commentators are not to discuss that what are they to discuss? His haircut?
Quote:Duncan96Quote:Roderick Flashheart
Dallaglio (2hr 31 mins into the BT Sport feed) - "That man won it - but should he have even been on the pitch? It's not for us to discuss now" - Then proceeds to bleat on about it until the end of the show!
Strange comment that wasn’t it. Typically mouth engaged without brain in gear. It was entirely his and his colleagues job to discuss all aspects of “the Farrell Affair”. If the TV commentators are not to discuss that what are they to discuss? His haircut?
The match itself? The other 29 players?
Quote:TOKSQuote:Duncan96Quote:Roderick Flashheart
Dallaglio (2hr 31 mins into the BT Sport feed) - "That man won it - but should he have even been on the pitch? It's not for us to discuss now" - Then proceeds to bleat on about it until the end of the show!
Strange comment that wasn’t it. Typically mouth engaged without brain in gear. It was entirely his and his colleagues job to discuss all aspects of “the Farrell Affair”. If the TV commentators are not to discuss that what are they to discuss? His haircut?
The match itself? The other 29 players?
Of course. But not to discuss the one player who probably should not have been on the pitch, playing for the team who probably should have been defending a penalty, but who drops the winning goal? Yes, that is something they should be discussing
One thing's for sure. If Farrell doesn't get banned this evening, they are going to have to drop the ex-Wasps moron from commentary at the weekend. Because whatever he's supposed to be talking about there's only one thing he will be.
Quote:neiljkQuote:JimGQuote:neiljkQuote:JimG
Wow - just seen the Tuilagi one. He practically takes Allan's head off. If the game is worried about head injuries that is the kind of incident that should be looked at. Lined him up from 20 yards with the express intention of causing maximum physical damage. The kind of collisions that were great in the old days - when it was a 14 stone Josh Lucy on Matt Rogers - but not so much when it is a 17.5 stone Tuilagi at top speed
. The circumstances of the dropped catch and trip by O'Flaherty are all unfortunate from Allan's perspective but Tuilagi is recklessly out of control. It is in my view a different order entirely from Farrell's which looks positively tame by
comparison. Hope Allan is ok.
I think you need to use both eyes.
Allan was tripped and fell into Tuilagi’s path. For sure he was trying to tackle him hard when he landed but he literally fell over into his path.
What do you mean about using both eyes? I can see perfectly well what happened thanks. And I am neither a Sale nor a Quins fan so it doesn't matter to me from that perspective. All I am saying is that Tuilagi was out of control. Allen may have fallen over in his direction but the fact he was flying in with his shoulder meant that when the lowering happened he couldn't adjust. I am not calling for any citings or reds - my point was simply that this is the kind of action that could lead to serious harm whereas Farrell was clearly targeting the ball and got it marginally wrong and I hope the citing panel will be able to find sufficient mitigation. Not remotely bothered about 6N but would really like to see him in the next 2 European fixtures.
Look at the incident carefully. Tuilagi does not come flying in out of control. He comes in looking to time a tackle but Allen gets trip and falls right into him. There’s a huge split second change in height and the point Allen lands.
Under the current rules the first question is whether there is foul play and there for me, there clearly isn’t. It’s entirely accidental and no real way you could expect Tuilagi to have somehow anticipated the trip.
The outcome is clearly worse than the Farrell tackle, however it was much more avoidable. Farrell looked to hit high on a dominant tackle and misjudged it. It’s not high end by any means but under the current criteria it’s a red.
I'm enjoying this more than the average episode of Silent Witness
My wife has told me that she's considering ending our marriage due to my utter obsession with rugby.
I'm begging her for one more try!
Quote:Happy SarrieQuote:neiljkQuote:JimGQuote:neiljkQuote:JimG
Wow - just seen the Tuilagi one. He practically takes Allan's head off. If the game is worried about head injuries that is the kind of incident that should be looked at. Lined him up from 20 yards with the express intention of causing maximum physical damage. The kind of collisions that were great in the old days - when it was a 14 stone Josh Lucy on Matt Rogers - but not so much when it is a 17.5 stone Tuilagi at top speed
. The circumstances of the dropped catch and trip by O'Flaherty are all unfortunate from Allan's perspective but Tuilagi is recklessly out of control. It is in my view a different order entirely from Farrell's which looks positively tame by
comparison. Hope Allan is ok.
I think you need to use both eyes.
Allan was tripped and fell into Tuilagi’s path. For sure he was trying to tackle him hard when he landed but he literally fell over into his path.
What do you mean about using both eyes? I can see perfectly well what happened thanks. And I am neither a Sale nor a Quins fan so it doesn't matter to me from that perspective. All I am saying is that Tuilagi was out of control. Allen may have fallen over in his direction but the fact he was flying in with his shoulder meant that when the lowering happened he couldn't adjust. I am not calling for any citings or reds - my point was simply that this is the kind of action that could lead to serious harm whereas Farrell was clearly targeting the ball and got it marginally wrong and I hope the citing panel will be able to find sufficient mitigation. Not remotely bothered about 6N but would really like to see him in the next 2 European fixtures.
Look at the incident carefully. Tuilagi does not come flying in out of control. He comes in looking to time a tackle but Allen gets trip and falls right into him. There’s a huge split second change in height and the point Allen lands.
Under the current rules the first question is whether there is foul play and there for me, there clearly isn’t. It’s entirely accidental and no real way you could expect Tuilagi to have somehow anticipated the trip.
The outcome is clearly worse than the Farrell tackle, however it was much more avoidable. Farrell looked to hit high on a dominant tackle and misjudged it. It’s not high end by any means but under the current criteria it’s a red.
I'm enjoying this more than the average episode of Silent Witness
Well now I really am insulted!
Well the RFU have confirmed Manu has not been cited , so that is the end of it …
Until we hear the outcome for OF …
Until we hear the outcome for OF …
My bet 6 week ban halved to 3. It’s a red, but not a serious one.
Not surprised in the least Tuilagi not cited.
I agree on Dallaglio, he needs a break.
Not surprised in the least Tuilagi not cited.
I agree on Dallaglio, he needs a break.
We're doomed, I tell you: Ugo thinks Owen will be able to play the 6Ns ok - [www.bbc.co.uk]
Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade
🌻🌻🌻
Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade
🌻🌻🌻
Same article, Danny Care chips in with something helpful too - so I'm sure everything's going to be fine
(not heard yet though !!)
(not heard yet though !!)
I wonder why the delay? BBC first said that Citing Officer's announcement would be at 8.30 and then back pedalled.
6 week entry point, reduced to 3, so available for 6N.
Not really surprising, I actually think 3 weeks is fair and where Glos are right to be miffed, the error on the day was really Karl Dickson.
Not really surprising, I actually think 3 weeks is fair and where Glos are right to be miffed, the error on the day was really Karl Dickson.
Quote:TonyTaff
The Martin Johnson approach should be applied.
His 3 week ban will expire 8 days before England's first match, enabling Faz to play a full part in training.. In Europe, Sarries will just have to make do with Goode, Malins, Daly and Lozowski covering 10 and 15. 😆
Oi Faz, don't touch the biscuits, it might be deemed disrespectful 😂
[www.theguardian.com]
Blow me down with a feather! 😁
It's a long time since Sports network paid anything!
It doesn't quite work, TT, because the Bristol game shouldn't count as he would not be available for selection for that if he is in the 6N squad. The panel could not take it into account, because the squad has not been announced and perhaps Steve Borthwick will decide that the best way to solve the 10 / 12 dilemma is to drop Owen!
Expect there to be briefings to journalists over the next couple of days that selection will mean the third match becomes the Scotland game.
Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade
🌻🌻🌻
Expect there to be briefings to journalists over the next couple of days that selection will mean the third match becomes the Scotland game.
Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade
🌻🌻🌻
The decision acknowledges that the "meaningful matches" for the purpose of the suspension cannot include the 6N fixtures and therefore identifies the two European and premiership fixtures as the ones to be missed.
There is then this standard wording:
"Should those games be cancelled or rearranged, or should there be a change of circumstances, then it will be the responsibility of the parties to consider the position and to ensure that the sanction imposed by this Panel remains meaningful. If necessary, the Player’s free to play date will be amended to ensure the sanction remains meaningful. That responsibility was made clear to the Parties during the hearing."
No longer being available for selection for the Bristol game looks like "a change of circumstances" to me, which would require the return to play date to be changed.
Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade
🌻🌻🌻
There is then this standard wording:
"Should those games be cancelled or rearranged, or should there be a change of circumstances, then it will be the responsibility of the parties to consider the position and to ensure that the sanction imposed by this Panel remains meaningful. If necessary, the Player’s free to play date will be amended to ensure the sanction remains meaningful. That responsibility was made clear to the Parties during the hearing."
No longer being available for selection for the Bristol game looks like "a change of circumstances" to me, which would require the return to play date to be changed.
Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade
🌻🌻🌻
But if he is not eligible for the England game he could then play against Bristol ?
Best left as it is !
Best left as it is !
Quote:AP
The decision acknowledges that the "meaningful matches" for the purpose of the suspension cannot include the 6N fixtures and therefore identifies the two European and premiership fixtures as the ones to be missed.
There is then this standard wording:
"Should those games be cancelled or rearranged, or should there be a change of circumstances, then it will be the responsibility of the parties to consider the position and to ensure that the sanction imposed by this Panel remains meaningful. If necessary, the Player’s free to play date will be amended to ensure the sanction remains meaningful. That responsibility was made clear to the Parties during the hearing."
No longer being available for selection for the Bristol game looks like "a change of circumstances" to me, which would require the return to play date to be changed.
The return to play date in the judgement is 21/2/2023 (subject to his passing the tackle protocol). This seems to me to signal an intention for him to play in the 6N if selected. The meaningful matches for the suspension would then be Lyon, Edinburgh and Leicester (which falls on a 6N non-playing weekend).
Quote:Roger GQuote:wolfgangvonb77
I Used to really enjoy listening to the rugbypod and big Jim but then he seems to change his opinion more times then the British weather lol.
Can't stand the rugbypod - too many digressions into the size and shape of various players' genitals and the like. Big Jim's one-on-one interviews, on the other hand, are usually very informative and nothing to do with Jim's own opinions.
I've just seen that his next BigJim interview is with Billy Vunipola - can't wait.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Saracens News 24/7
More Saracens headlines
- END OF SEASON POLL AT LAST
- PWR Semi Final and Final 2025-26 Report
- Saracens Women v Ealing Trailfinders PWR Final Report
- Saracens Women v Ealing Trailfinders PWR Final Preview
- MARK McCALL, AN APPRECIATION
- Saracens Women v Exeter Chiefs Women PWR Semi-Final Report
- Exeter Chiefs v Saracens Premiership Report
- EXETER v SARACENS: please post match related content here
- SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
Saracens latest threads
- END OF SEASON POLL AT LAST
- End of Season Poll (finally) #1
- Writing articles for the Sarries page
- More Game Time
- PensionBee Now main shirt sponsor?
- 26/27 fixtures
- PWR Semi Final and Final 2025-26 Report
- Champions Cup group 26/27
- New photo for the Sarries message board
- Saracens Women v Ealing Trailfinders PWR Final Report