By Margin_Walker
#25587
Will be interesting to read the judgment and see what this is all about
There were aggravating factors present and an additional 2 weeks were added to the mid-range entry point.
Can only assume the aggravating factors are his previous, although I've only ever seen (from memory) people being given the full entry tariff with no mitigation.

Oh well. Gives Atkins or Cornish an opportunity for a few minutes in the coming weeks.
By shimmieandshake
#25590
He was banned for three weeks for a head-on-head on Artemyev against Russia in the World Cup, 2019.

And banned for five weeks a shoulder-to-head tackle on Duncar Weir against Worcester a few weeks later, end of 2019.

I assume the fact his technique hasn't changed enough, and he's consistently hitting head high, including another head-to-head, has gone against him.

There's a bit of me that thinks six weeks is too harsh. Definite red for me, but no malice in it, despite the rubbish technique. I guess his previous is catching up with him, combined with how hot concussion is as a topic currently.
User avatar
By MattM
#25592
You can read between the lines that if he had no precious this would likely have been 3-4 weeks.
It does seem a little harsh I guess but my frustration is more that so many head on heads are missed/ignored than that this particular situation is unfair.
User avatar
By Stevie J
#25593
Whilst head on head is not a ‘deliberate’ act, I have no sympathy for him. His technique as illustrated in his previous is repeatedly poor and outweighs what he brings to the pitch.

Sometimes your best ability is availability. Now is the time for Cornish to cement his place in the 23.
Iron Lung, SimonG liked this
By GHA
#25595
MattM wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:25 am
It does seem a little harsh I guess but my frustration is more that so many head on heads are missed/ignored than that this particular situation is unfair.
Agreed - just this weekend there was Fekitoa, Matu'u, and Owen Farrell to name three. Maybe 'rugby collision' needs to be more clearly defined as presumably the citing officers, alongside the match officials, decided there was nothing in the other two. I wonder if the written ruling will mention anything about a late change of direction.

If anyone else is waiting they can read up on Elliot Stooke, Jonathan Joseph and Gabriel Oghre breaking Covid rules with a trip to JJ's house, with the night ending with a drunk Stooke crashing his car... JJ got two weeks, Stooke and Oghre got three.
By shimmieandshake
#25613
Interesting that it was 8 weeks, with 2 deducted for mitigation - mostly admitting wrongdoing immediately, genuine remorse, and helping out with NHS meals during lockdown.
By Margin_Walker
#25614
Started at six, then to 8 for previous then back down to 6 for the guilty plea etc.

He got it wrong at the end of the day, but I do feel for the bloke. I've been a critic of him for trying to smash people and living on the edge. This one, was one the more unfortunate end of the spectrum. Whitten stepped back in at the last second and he actually almost gets under, but hits his jaw on the way down.

Fair enough, we're clearly trying to protect players and I don't like engaging in whataboutery, but a few that have been let go like the Ross incident, could have probably done with the same treatment.
GHA, shimmieandshake liked this
By GHA
#25615
As said elsewhere, I think this is harsh so feel free to ignore (or dislike) this comment if you think the red and the six week ban are fully justified.

Anyone know if going with your DOR and Team Manager is the norm rather than with any vaguely legal representation? It's all irrelevant now obviously but I'd question whether Matu'u had 'over-chased' - when defending you are coached not to 'cross the T,' so when defending and moving laterally you don't want to go beyond the central line of the attacker. Over-chasing would suggest Matu'u had crossed the T, but I don't think he had, which was why Whitten's step back in took him directly into the chest / head of Matu'u rather than into / through his inside shoulder, which is the risk when crossing the T.

Mitigation for me:
Whitten changed direction in close proximity to Matu'u
Matu'u dropped in height slightly, hence contact between Matu'u's forehead and Whitten's jaw (showing Matu'u was lower (and is shorter!) than Whitten)
Matu'u hadn't over-chased as suggested by the panel (and agreed by the player!)
Matu'u didn't tackle the player with any speed - he didn't have any sort of run-up

The referee's report fails to mention that he thought the tackle was legal - probably due to his view of Matu's right arm across the back of Whitten in the middle of number on the back of Whitten's jersey - and allowed play to continue until he realised Whitten was injured.

Ah well, I hoped for big things from Cornish last year off the back of Creevy's tutelage so this gives him a chance for more of the same.
By GHA
#25616
Margin_Walker wrote:
Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:06 pm
Fair enough, we're clearly trying to protect players and I don't like engaging in whataboutery, but a few that have been let go like the Ross incident, could have probably done with the same treatment.
Good to encourage tacklers to get lower, although it's a hard one to enforce / teach because obviously defenders want to stop offloads. Also double tackles see the first man go low and the second man go upright - I know Matu'u was a solo tackler but the previous tackle was Hoskins low and Albert high.

It should also be noted that something like 75% of concussions are suffered by the tackler, as opposed to 25% by the player being tackled.
By GHA
#25617
Image

The ref was coming across from the previous ruck so probably saw something similar to this

Edit: except in high definition!
User avatar
By SixNineOne
#25638
Some have suggested Matu’u’s six week ban is unfair when compared to other incidents that escaped sanction or have received a lower punishment. The fact that other incidents may not have been picked up is a weakness in the system and is no reason to suggest the Matu’u should have been dealt with more leniently. The problem is that the guy is a serial offender who seems unable or unwilling to modify his tackling style and his punishment should reflect this. I was at Sixways when he unleashed that mindless assault on Duncan Weir - I still remember the sickening feeling of despair when I saw it and, indeed, the wholly justified outrage of the Worcester supporters sitting around me. Nowadays I get a sense of foreboding every time he comes on to the pitch. I, for one, won’t be sad when he leaves the squad and in the meantime I’m looking forward to seeing what Matt Cornish can do with a good run of games and guidance from Gus Creevy.
SimonG liked this
By Margin_Walker
#25640
Just to clarify, I think the ban is fair enough given the previous. Never suggested it should be more lenient because others got off if that was directed at me
By GHA
#25644
I think Matu'u's ban could've been more lenient due to mitigation rather than because Farrell or Fekitoa weren't punished.

I also think calling Matu'u a serial offender is understandable due to the proximity of the three offences but a little harsh when his overall disciplinary record is compared to some former Irish players (Paicey and Chris Hala'ufia spring to mind). But it's done now, according to Dec he's been trying to modify his technique a little so hopefully there are no further incidents during his remaining time with us. And hopefully Cornish seizes the opportunity...
By Heaf
#25659
I think it's the constant inconsistencies that grind everyone's gears - apart from the other incidents already mentioned it's difficult to see how someone charging shoulder first into a ruck and smashing someone in the face only gets 3 weeks ...
SixNineOne, MattM liked this
User avatar
By SixNineOne
#25683
Heaf wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:07 pm
I think it's the constant inconsistencies that grind everyone's gears - apart from the other incidents already mentioned it's difficult to see how someone charging shoulder first into a ruck and smashing someone in the face only gets 3 weeks ...
A very well made point. I suspect the only solution is for the disciplinary panels to be more stringent in their application of the tariffs and to be more sceptical of pleas of mitigation. We can already see the changes in behaviour brought about by the more exacting application of the laws, but there’s still some way to go. It has to be in everyone’s interest for those that coach and play the game to make it safer before some outside agency steps in and tries to do it for us.
By GHA
#25884
I read a suggestion somewhere that Ferguson received a longer ban because he pleaded (pled) not guilty whereas POM pleaded guilty... Make of that what you will
User avatar
By Stevie J
#25887
This series of tweets may help explain why the judicial system is the way it is;

https://mobile.twitter.com/timoconnorbl ... 78851?s=12

I think Tim does a good job explaining why the system is often seen as unfair and why sentences can be different.

Basically - don’t put yourself in that position. Lower your tackle height, don’t slam into rucks and you won’t put yourself in the hands of the judiciary who are absolutely set about rooting out this behaviour.
SimonG liked this
User avatar
By SixNineOne
#27128
This looks like a clarification of the existing decision making process rather than a new interpretation. Nevertheless, it’s going to be interesting to see how referees interpret the “no foul play” test. My suspicion is that as soon as they see head contact they will be tempted to look for anything that might be construed as foul play rather than simply go down the “play on” route. Certainly that’s the “safer” decision from their perspective!
By GHA
#27133
The previous framework treated head-on-head contact the same as shoulder-to-head contact, which suggests this is a new interpretation, no?
User avatar
By SixNineOne
#27134
Maybe I’m missing something, but on a quick read it seemed to talking about all contact with the head area, irrespective which part of the other player’s body makes that contact. The first three video examples seem to be highlighting that some head to head contacts can be entirely accidental with no foul play involved. However, I claim no expertise in this area so I’m happy to be corrected!
By GHA
#27139
That's what I mean - under the previous framework head-to-head and shoulder-to-head were treated the same, whereas the new framework treats head-to-head as a standalone issue..?
User avatar
By SixNineOne
#27200
Thanks, I see your point. I've got no problem with accidental head to head as was illustrated in the video clips, but I'm slightly confused about head to head contact where, for example, the tackler is far too upright and there is a clash of heads. Assuming the tackler wraps his arms, the tackle is legal meaning that "play on" would be the outcome. This doesn't seem right to me. Is it possible to deem the tackle to be foul play under some more general dangerous play rule?
By GHA
#27224
Tackling 'far too upright' isn't against the laws though - plenty of tackles are made upright to prevent offloads, or as part of a double tackle where one goes low and one goes high (but not too high!)

That's just my opinion, anyway!
By GHA
#27226
Margin_Walker wrote:
Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:44 am
I'm guessing what Matu'u did would still be considered reckless and thus be penalised.

Who knows though.
He wrapped the arms, and the tackle was below the level of the shoulders... You're right though, who knows.
Mr Critchard Keeps Us Informed

I can only imagine with the winger situation that […]

In other news..... Crusaders 37 Chiefs 26. Nine t[…]

Humbug

Covid Repayments

Look at the going concern statements in Glaws acco[…]