Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RUGBY > GENERAL RUGBY
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Scotland v Wales
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Scotland v Wales

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 14151617>
Author
Message
dr_martinov View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: Tycoch
Status: Offline
Points: 13286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dr_martinov Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 8:01am
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Fagerson gets 4 week ban for his red card.

Accepted it was an infringement but didn’t believe it was a red card - so gets the extra week vs P O’Mahony’s.
O’Mahony = "admitted the act of dangerous play in a ruck and that the offending merited a red card. The player did not seek to challenge the referee’s decision"

Fagerson = "accepted he had committed an act of foul play, but did not accept that it warranted a red card"

Disciplinary record of each?

Liam got a three week ban as well for the same offence. I guess that is some level of consistency comparing the three at least, although O'Mahony's got form (I suppose Liam has as well).
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
reesytheexile View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 11 August 2012
Location: Machynys
Status: Offline
Points: 17530
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote reesytheexile Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 9:09am
I don’t think these hearings have changed in years and the point about daring to disagree with a referee decision on appeal eg as to red card or not seems ridiculously archane . It should be a fresh analysis with no disrespect to the match day referee.
Back to Top
dr_martinov View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: Tycoch
Status: Offline
Points: 13286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dr_martinov Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 9:10am
Originally posted by reesytheexile reesytheexile wrote:

I don’t think these hearings have changed in years and the point about daring to disagree with a referee decision on appeal eg as to red card or not seems ridiculously archane . It should be a fresh analysis with no disrespect to the match day referee.

In our legal system don't people who accept their guilt (or what they are being prosecuted for at least) get a lighter sentence though?
Back to Top
Legendinmybathroom View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 29 May 2017
Location: Burry Port
Status: Offline
Points: 3151
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Legendinmybathroom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 9:36am
The only reason he got 4 weeks and O’Mahony got 3 is because Faguson is Scottish and O’Mahony is Irish.
The Irish and English players seem to get off lightly compared to players from other northern hemisphere countries, just look at the way officials look at/ or don’t look at nearly everything that Farrell does on the field of play on a weekly basis.
Back to Top
Mogwen View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 07 April 2013
Location: Yma o Hyd
Status: Offline
Points: 4489
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mogwen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 12:13pm
I normally would agree. But fagerson was too "twp" to plead his guilt. Even if he didnt mean it, it would have reduced his sentence. Youve got to tell the panel what they want to hear.
"Im sorry"
"Im guilty"
"I wont do it again"
"Thsnk you sir for being so lenient"
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
Back to Top
dr_martinov View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: Tycoch
Status: Offline
Points: 13286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dr_martinov Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 12:20pm
Or take one out of the Government's book: "I'm sorry that you feel it deserved a red."
Back to Top
roy munster View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 15682
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roy munster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 12:31pm
These committees are  an awfuly sensitive lot arent they? how are they selected?
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)
Back to Top
RR1972 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 27 April 2009
Status: Online
Points: 18268
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote RR1972 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 2:08pm
a rare moral stance by a player, he stuck by his guns and got an extra game ban
 
Not sure if he is to be commended or condemned for that course of  action
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18857
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 2:18pm
Originally posted by dyniol53 dyniol53 wrote:

Fagerson gets 4 week ban for his red card.

Accepted it was an infringement but didn’t believe it was a red card - so gets the extra week vs P O’Mahony’s.
O’Mahony = "admitted the act of dangerous play in a ruck and that the offending merited a red card. The player did not seek to challenge the referee’s decision"

Fagerson = "accepted he had committed an act of foul play, but did not accept that it warranted a red card"

Very silly - Fagerson's foul was nowhere near as cynical as O'Mahoney's, but both were very clearly red cards both under the law, and under any application of common sense and duty of care towards other players.

If he was advised to make this plea (that it wasn't a red card offence) by his coaches, he was given dreadful and stupid advice.
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18857
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 2:21pm
Originally posted by RR1972 RR1972 wrote:

a rare moral stance by a player, he stuck by his guns and got an extra game ban
 
Not sure if he is to be commended or condemned for that course of  action

Condemned, surely?

He is showing a total lack of understanding of the laws.
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 18783
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 2:22pm
Whether Fagerson accepted that the red was correct should not really be relevant in the decision on extent of ban. The ref issued a red and I guess the panel agreed - Fagerson's thoughts really don't matter a jot. Whilst both his and O'Mahony's incidents have some similarities they are also very different - Francis against Ireland was not in need of clearing out he was out of the game & he was deliberately targeted by O'Mahony. Wyn was a danger to Scotland and Fagerson was correct in trying to clear him out but got his technique wrong. O'Mahony should have been banned for 6 weeks & Fagerson for 2/3. 
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18857
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 2:31pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Whether Fagerson accepted that the red was correct should not really be relevant in the decision on extent of ban. The ref issued a red and I guess the panel agreed - Fagerson's thoughts really don't matter a jot. Whilst both his and O'Mahony's incidents have some similarities they are also very different - Francis against Ireland was not in need of clearing out he was out of the game & he was deliberately targeted by O'Mahony. Wyn was a danger to Scotland and Fagerson was correct in trying to clear him out but got his technique wrong. O'Mahony should have been banned for 6 weeks & Fagerson for 2/3. 

I entirely agree that O'Mahoney should have got longer, for a dirty, cynical foul. 6 weeks. (Plus his 'previous' should have looked a lot worse than it did. Miraculous how 'clean' his record is... apparently.)

I don't agree that Fagerson should have got less than 3 weeks, as 6 weeks was the punishment for a mid-level offence of that nature, and he got it halved for (as far as I know) a genuinely decent record.

However, the panel rightly considers whether the miscreant accepts that he did wrong. Fagerson's clear out was completely against the laws, as the ref made clear in his discussions with the assistants, which from memory went something like this:

"he came from a distance... he had a clear line of sight... he entered the ruck out of control...he made contact with the head..." 

That's a red card all day long - only possible 'mitigation' was Wyn's head movement, but it was slight and he would have hit Wyn in the head regardless - as the ref correctly pointed out. Fagerson got lucky that Wyn was not KO or worse.

If Fagerson and his advisers at the SRU are too thick to read the law book - tough.

“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
Why View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 22 August 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 8738
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Why Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 2:34pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Whether Fagerson accepted that the red was correct should not really be relevant in the decision on extent of ban. The ref issued a red and I guess the panel agreed - Fagerson's thoughts really don't matter a jot. Whilst both his and O'Mahony's incidents have some similarities they are also very different - Francis against Ireland was not in need of clearing out he was out of the game & he was deliberately targeted by O'Mahony. Wyn was a danger to Scotland and Fagerson was correct in trying to clear him out but got his technique wrong. O'Mahony should have been banned for 6 weeks & Fagerson for 2/3. 

I agree with the final analysis but Fagerson should have admitted he deserved red card he be looking at 3 weeks at most. Bad advice been given undoubtedly. 
She asks why i still can't answer. I guess its in the blood.
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 18783
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 2:43pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Whether Fagerson accepted that the red was correct should not really be relevant in the decision on extent of ban. The ref issued a red and I guess the panel agreed - Fagerson's thoughts really don't matter a jot. Whilst both his and O'Mahony's incidents have some similarities they are also very different - Francis against Ireland was not in need of clearing out he was out of the game & he was deliberately targeted by O'Mahony. Wyn was a danger to Scotland and Fagerson was correct in trying to clear him out but got his technique wrong. O'Mahony should have been banned for 6 weeks & Fagerson for 2/3. 

I entirely agree that O'Mahoney should have got longer, for a dirty, cynical foul. 6 weeks. (Plus his 'previous' should have looked a lot worse than it did. Miraculous how 'clean' his record is... apparently.)

I don't agree that Fagerson should have got less than 3 weeks, as 6 weeks was the punishment for a mid-level offence of that nature, and he got it halved for (as far as I know) a genuinely decent record.

However, the panel rightly considers whether the miscreant accepts that he did wrong. Fagerson's clear out was completely against the laws, as the ref made clear in his discussions with the assistants, which from memory went something like this:

"he came from a distance... he had a clear line of sight... he entered the ruck out of control...he made contact with the head..." 

That's a red card all day long - only possible 'mitigation' was Wyn's head movement, but it was slight and he would have hit Wyn in the head regardless - as the ref correctly pointed out. Fagerson got lucky that Wyn was not KO or worse.

If Fagerson and his advisers at the SRU are too thick to read the law book - tough.


Don't disagree with anything there Aber but whether a player shows remorse shouldn't enter into it. Lets be honest O'Mahony isn't really sorry for what he did but gets a reduced sentence because he said sorry - thats a nonsense. The panel have the players previous record, they have endless angles of he current incident & the ref's report. Frankly what the player or his lawyer says or doesn't say should be of no interest whatsover. My argument stems from the fact that the panel saw both incidents as the same which they clearly weren't. I am in no way suggesting that Fagerson's wasn't a red card but it certainly wasn't a clear cheap shot like O'Mahony's. 
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18857
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 2:58pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Whether Fagerson accepted that the red was correct should not really be relevant in the decision on extent of ban. The ref issued a red and I guess the panel agreed - Fagerson's thoughts really don't matter a jot. Whilst both his and O'Mahony's incidents have some similarities they are also very different - Francis against Ireland was not in need of clearing out he was out of the game & he was deliberately targeted by O'Mahony. Wyn was a danger to Scotland and Fagerson was correct in trying to clear him out but got his technique wrong. O'Mahony should have been banned for 6 weeks & Fagerson for 2/3. 

I entirely agree that O'Mahoney should have got longer, for a dirty, cynical foul. 6 weeks. (Plus his 'previous' should have looked a lot worse than it did. Miraculous how 'clean' his record is... apparently.)

I don't agree that Fagerson should have got less than 3 weeks, as 6 weeks was the punishment for a mid-level offence of that nature, and he got it halved for (as far as I know) a genuinely decent record.

However, the panel rightly considers whether the miscreant accepts that he did wrong. Fagerson's clear out was completely against the laws, as the ref made clear in his discussions with the assistants, which from memory went something like this:

"he came from a distance... he had a clear line of sight... he entered the ruck out of control...he made contact with the head..." 

That's a red card all day long - only possible 'mitigation' was Wyn's head movement, but it was slight and he would have hit Wyn in the head regardless - as the ref correctly pointed out. Fagerson got lucky that Wyn was not KO or worse.

If Fagerson and his advisers at the SRU are too thick to read the law book - tough.


Don't disagree with anything there Aber but whether a player shows remorse shouldn't enter into it. Lets be honest O'Mahony isn't really sorry for what he did but gets a reduced sentence because he said sorry - thats a nonsense. The panel have the players previous record, they have endless angles of he current incident & the ref's report. Frankly what the player or his lawyer says or doesn't say should be of no interest whatsover. My argument stems from the fact that the panel saw both incidents as the same which they clearly weren't. I am in no way suggesting that Fagerson's wasn't a red card but it certainly wasn't a clear cheap shot like O'Mahony's. 

As I said - O'Mahoney deserved 6 weeks at least, with no reduction - we agree on that.

As for Fagerson - the system is what it is. If he or the coaches are too thick to understand the laws - because it WAS a red card offence - and go into the disciplinary saying - "sorry - but I didn't deserve it", then - tough - as I said before. 

6 weeks or more O'Mahoney; 4 weeks Fagerson - would fit the crimes better.
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
roy munster View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 15682
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roy munster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2021 at 3:53pm
how do we know exacly what fagerson said then? perhaps his reply was more nuanced
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 14151617>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.