By eBike
#8202
6 down to three

The Committee upheld the red card decision, finding that Morozov had made contact with Timani’s head in a dangerous manner. It then determined that the offence was at the mid-range of World Rugby’s sanctions and selected six weeks as the appropriate entry point.

There were no aggravating factors, and taking into account the considerable level of provocation by Timani prior to the incident, the player’s guilty plea and clear disciplinary record, the Committee reduced the sanction by the maximum of 50% before imposing a three-week suspension.

"taking into account the considerable level of provocation by Timani prior to the incident"
but not enough consideration IMHO
User avatar
By Flumpty
#8204
3 weeks is fair.

Is anything being done regarding Timanis extensive neck cuddle on Smirnoff ?
By eBike
#8205
In the current climate 3 seems reasonable and no, nothing in print as regards Timani. Rhys Carre (Saracens) also got 3 weeks and will miss out on the Wales / Italy game selection.
By Olyy
#8208
Half of the entry point seems fair (I thought entry was 4 so 2 weeks was on the cards).

Nor arguments here.
By Van Cannonball
#8211
Agreed the 3 weeks for Valery is fair.

However, also agree that the provocation has not been sufficiently punished.

As I’d suspected from the footage, Dimes confirmed in interview that Valery was being strangled and couldn’t breathe. Surely that should be punished at least as severely - deliberate and extended contact to the neck/head with potential to cause serious harm...
By Clutch
#8257
probably true but Dimes could have been sewing the seeds of mitigation by implying he couldn't breathe.

More than anyone the ref is culpable. Stood there and let it happen. I have some sympathy though, so I think the use of the TMO allows things to be checked in the background without stopping the game. The issue with that is it can cause potential retaliation.

The good thing is we have plenty of props to cover now. Still feels strange saying that.
User avatar
By dinogyro
#8276
Why is retaliation dealt with more severely than the original act of foul play?
User avatar
By MikeGC
#8277
dinogyro wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:41 pm
Why is retaliation dealt with more severely than the original act of foul play?
In the good old (bad old) days all the referee tended to see was the retaliation.
These days, with TMOs, etc. I think players are encouraged to allow the referee and his team to dole out the justice.
For me, in this case, I would have preferred the referee to step in a little sooner, although he may have been unable to see the severity of the offence on Morozov.
By Clutch
#8281
dinogyro wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:41 pm
Why is retaliation dealt with more severely than the original act of foul play?
It isn’t. Two different offences. One is shoulder to head. Auto red. One ranges from just a penalty to a red.

It’s stupid but that’s where we are.
By DavenportSharky
#8283
But the point is the referee, 2 assistant referees, the TMO and the citing officer having seen that replay of the prolonged traction and pressure on Morozov’s neck did not appreciate the danger involved in that tackle. Do you have to fracture the larynx or dislocate a cervical vertebra with possible paralysis before it warrants a red? I am not condoning what Morozov did but what the French player did was far far more dangerous.
By Van Cannonball
#8287
Clutch wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:30 pm
probably true but Dimes could have been sewing the seeds of mitigation by implying he couldn't breathe.
I think this was after the ban was announced and the other guy wasn’t cited although could be wrong.
By ageinghoody
#8321
DavenportSharky wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:19 pm
But the point is the referee, 2 assistant referees, the TMO and the citing officer having seen that replay of the prolonged traction and pressure on Morozov’s neck did not appreciate the danger involved in that tackle. Do you have to fracture the larynx or dislocate a cervical vertebra with possible paralysis before it warrants a red? I am not condoning what Morozov did but what the French player did was far far more dangerous.
Maybe "potentially" dangerous, but the current attitude seems to be that a blow to the head trumps anything, even when it's unintentional. A deliberate strike with an elbow has no chance of being regarded as less severe.

As you say, five officials, presumably trained in what to look for, have studied the incident. They've reached the conclusion that the yellow was appropriate sanction for this offence, one that frequently elicits "Just a penalty!" from the officials.

I have a suspicion that, had Morozov not reacted as he did, "just a penalty" would have been the outcome in this case too.

And I'm not saying that would have been right by the way!
v Exeter (A) GP

Hutchinson starting for Saints tommorow night, sug[…]

What strikes me on a quick read through is the con[…]

Northampton (A)

Bookies have Saints as 6/1 on favourites - unsurpr[…]

Sarries automatic relegation?

In the end this may benefit Saracens, England , an[…]