Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: Game 1 - Wallabies v England

  1. #16
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    14,735
    vCash
    5308000
    The hair pull is not the issue. The double-hand strike to Swain's face, which 4 blind men missed is. Deserves a higher sanction than a very low force "headbutt" that would probably see Swain run out of Liverpool as an imposter. Rennie said they'll likely appeal. I hope they do.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David


  2. #17
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,763
    vCash
    27518000
    Quote Originally Posted by jargan83 View Post
    What does Hill get for the two hand shove directly to the head of Swain right in front of the Referee at 23:34?
    Oh for sure I can see that Swain was baited into the action and hill certainly has some questions to answer. The difficulty is that, by getting red carded, Swain is guaranteed a trip to the judiciary and I don't see much in the way of a defense as he clearly leads with the head.Hill will escape Scot free unless the citing commissioner decides that there was something to see.Forgive my cynicism, but the citing process has been a lucky dip at best this year.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  3. #18
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,763
    vCash
    27518000
    Quote Originally Posted by sandgroperrugby View Post
    Agree that swain deserves and will get time. Headbutt not ok, no matter the provocation. The “Grub” deserves time as well for striking to the head. Would pulling hair equate to direct force to the head. Push and pull are both force, yeah?Something else that got my goat was Allan Alaalatoa getting pinged for not rolling away in a tackle when he was clearly knocked out in the tackle. In penalising him did the ref fail in a basic duty of care. I guess from my first sentence you can see my bias.
    The problem with the hair pull is that the law is written to say striking, that's where Swain is in trouble, the law also indicates that foul play isn't limited to the listed offences, but that then means it's a game of interpretation.Jargan and Shasta are both on the right track when pointing out the direct strike to the head earlier in the match.That one can easily be argued to meet the red card threshold, the hair pull imho only serves to mitigate swains actions in headbutting hill and therefore the sanction should be at the low range.I don't know whether that can be reduced with an apology and early plea.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  4. #19
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    28
    vCash
    5000000
    mitigating factor should be that the ref failed to protect Swain when he was the victim of targeted and repeated offenses. An appropriate punishment for the first offense could have prevented the second offense and in turn the headbutt.

    Officials should grow a pair and admit they got it wrong and allowed the situation to escalate. More or less allowed the strike to face and then missed the hair pull all together

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #20
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    20,951
    vCash
    509442
    England second row Jonny Hill has escaped a citing for shoving an Australian opponent in the face in Saturday’s first Test defeat.

    Hill forcefully struck Darcy Swain with the palms of both hands early in the match as part of an on-field feud with the Wallabies lock that reached boiling point in the 34th minute.

    They clashed in the maul, with Hill pulling Swain’s hair, and when they continued their tussle off the ball the Australian lost his cool by headbutting his rival.

    Swain was sent off while Hill was shown a yellow card and head coach Eddie Jones later denied that England had deliberately set out out to provoke the Wallabies forward.

    The citing officer has declined to trigger disciplinary proceedings against Hill after deciding his shove to the head was not a red-card offence.

    Swain, meanwhile, faces a hearing on Tuesday to determined what sanction he receives.

    Jones has also evaded any investigation into his comments that referee James Doleman “evened up” the contest as a result of showing Swain a red card.
    Laughable.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  6. #21
    Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    431
    vCash
    5106000
    Quote Originally Posted by jargan83 View Post
    Laughable.
    I guess the citing officer also decided Hill's elbow to Swain's face in the preceding maul was OK too. Or the second one in the same maul. I guess he didn't want to throw the officials under the bus for the clear lack of consistency and judgement.

    FWIW I have no problem with the red card, Swain lacked discipline and deliberate contact to the head is clearly outside the spirit and laws of the game.

    6 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  7. #22
    Rookie wasmute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    102
    vCash
    6958600
    One little whinge I need to get off my chest relates to ARU/RA and the way they treated the Kala/Wanneroo kids that did the skills session pre-warm up and also the Guard of Honour for Saturday's game. My boy was in one of the teams (U9 & U10s) that were invited to do the pre-game activities, now while it was an awesome day for the kids, one I'm sure they'll remember for a while and they were very lucky to be selected the promises made by RA reps & the treatment of the kids leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    The 2 RA representatives assured us that while the kids were stuck in a room waiting for their opportunity to hit the pitch that they would have snacks & bottled water for them, so we parents didn't give them any food/drinks. When they made it back to our seats 2 hours later (including 30mins running drills on the pitch) we were informed by our coach that the kids had to do a few mins of mediation to get either a snake or sour lolly (only 1 each) which was the only snack/food offered and the coach had to ask for water for the kids. The tap water was fine but the fact we had to ask was poor.
    My other gripe is that after ensuring the kids wore the club kit to the game we were informed they would get a hoodie and had to wear it the entire time, even if they got hot..the kicker being that the rep said if the kids made noise while going past the Stan commentators or took off said jumper they would be taken off the pitch straight away. So it was a straight out advertising pitch for Rugby Au. Showing rugby juniors in their clubs colours should be the priority.

    That being said the experience was brilliant for the kids (they were the ones behind the wallabies bench screaming out the count down to the Mexican wave they tried to incite!) and the free ticket for a parent was great too..but the food/drink issue bugs me. It really sucks not seeing any western force players in the wobblies but nice seeing a few of us in the crowd in WF shirts!

    Bring on 2023 WF & super rugby

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    #FU ARU
    "May I assure you I have just begun to fight mate" Twiggy Forrest, 05/09/17

  8. #23
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,763
    vCash
    27518000
    https://www.rugby.com.au/news/wallab...eadbutt-202275Swain suspended for two weeks, but I find this statement interesting"The committee further determined that given the above off-field mitigating factors and that a three-week sanction would be wholly disproportionate given the level and nature of the offence, the sanction was further reduced by an extra week, resulting in a sanction to weeks*I'm really only concerned that the provocation was used to determine the initial level of sanction (6 weeks) then used as a mitigating factor in reducing the sanction by 50%, but then it appears that the panel had further discretion to apply it again to justify reducing the sanction by a further week, conveniently rubbing him out for the remainder of the England series and making him available for the first test of the rugby championship.I'm a bit confused why world rugby has a widely publicised series of sanctions if they can allow that to be applied (fairly reasonably imho) and then completely ignored if the panel think it's too harsh.It smacks of rugby's perennial self-interest problem. Either an England supportive panel have decided 2 weeks because they just wanted rid of him or an Aus supported panel knows they can't get him back for this series but want him for RC.It's likely not that, but the inexplicable reasoning behind the extra week leaves acres of room for accusations

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  9. #24
    Legend Contributor .X.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    6,200
    vCash
    6636160
    Quote Originally Posted by GIGS20 View Post
    https://www.rugby.com.au/news/wallab...eadbutt-202275Swain suspended for two weeks, but I find this statement interesting"The committee further determined that given the above off-field mitigating factors and that a three-week sanction would be wholly disproportionate given the level and nature of the offence, the sanction was further reduced by an extra week, resulting in a sanction to weeks*I'm really only concerned that the provocation was used to determine the initial level of sanction (6 weeks) then used as a mitigating factor in reducing the sanction by 50%, but then it appears that the panel had further discretion to apply it again to justify reducing the sanction by a further week, conveniently rubbing him out for the remainder of the England series and making him available for the first test of the rugby championship.I'm a bit confused why world rugby has a widely publicised series of sanctions if they can allow that to be applied (fairly reasonably imho) and then completely ignored if the panel think it's too harsh.It smacks of rugby's perennial self-interest problem. Either an England supportive panel have decided 2 weeks because they just wanted rid of him or an Aus supported panel knows they can't get him back for this series but want him for RC.It's likely not that, but the inexplicable reasoning behind the extra week leaves acres of room for accusations
    with respect, this is almost unreadable

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Exile
    Sydney


    "Ehh, Good Enough" - Mediocrates

  10. #25
    Veteran Sheikh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    4,664
    vCash
    16158020
    And the formatting was pretty shit as well!

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

  11. #26
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    20,951
    vCash
    509442

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  12. #27
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    14,735
    vCash
    5308000
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveWA View Post
    I guess the citing officer also decided Hill's elbow to Swain's face in the preceding maul was OK too. Or the second one in the same maul. I guess he didn't want to throw the officials under the bus for the clear lack of consistency and judgement.
    Maybe, but it seems the Disciplinary Committee are not so gun-shy. Personally I'd suggest a "Cement Truck" . Their comments re mitigation and the low degree of force seem to suggest it might be worth a shot at an appeal.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David


  13. #28
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,763
    vCash
    27518000
    Quote Originally Posted by .X. View Post
    with respect, this is almost unreadable
    Sorry it seems that my phone strips whitespace from my posts on occasionIn short I can't figure out why they went through a torturous process to get a sanction, then modified it

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Wallabies v England
    By eleypinkbit in forum Wallabies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-05-16, 08:41
  2. Game Day Wallabies v Pumas
    By travelling_gerry in forum Wallabies
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 17-09-12, 23:32
  3. Wallabies ratings for the game
    By robyn <3 in forum Wallabies
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 22-07-08, 12:33
  4. Wallabies Game
    By LarryNJ in forum Public Bar
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28-08-06, 18:38
  5. Anyone know if the France England game is on anywhere tonight?
    By p-diddy in forum International Rugby
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-06, 16:06

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •