>Why the hell is it that England seem to be able to get away with
>everything? I mean, Phil Vickery punches someone, gets cited and under
>the rules (which I incidentally don't agree with) gets a thirty day ban
>which is recinded on appeal for no particular reason?
I take it you looked at the incident on video? Did you really think the
offence deserved a 30 day ban? If so, then Humphrey's petulant display when he
hit Dawson after he touched down probably deserved the same. Tell you what,
why don't you keep a camera on every player every game, and see how long it
takes to ban a complete XV?
The Five Nations committee removed the punishment on Vickery as it was
considered unnecessarily harsh. Referee Hawke said if he had seen the offence
he would have done nothing more than give a yellow card and penalty, at most.
Therefore the automatic ban for a sending off offence was inappropriate. If
you disagree with that logic, fair enough. You can't say no reason was given
>What became of
>Jason Leonard's stamping on Lievremont in the France game? Nothing.
Did you ever bother to look up the "stamping" on the video of the game? If you
did you would understand why no ban was given. There was no case to answer in
my view. Presumably in the view of the English management also.
The reason given for no citing from the French officials was that they hadn't
spotted the offence within the necessary time limit (24hrs?). Presumably they
hadn't thought the matter sufficiently important to interrupt their post game
Incidently, there were cases Leonard should have had to answer last season,
notably incidents with Wainwright v Scotland and someone or other v Wales
(twice). I'm surprised you didn't drag those out of the closet. Then there's
Leonard's barge on Joubert back in '94 which allowed Andrew to score that try
in the first test......
>England management were asked by France to discipline Leonard as they
>are uncomfortable with the citing process (or something like that).
>Nothing further gets heard of it.
That's it then. Definitely a cover up. Call in Inspector "Knacker of the Yard"
> .... I'm noticing a pattern here. Tony Rees gets a
>90 day ban for what can at worst be described as accidental, at best
>innocuous. Dale McIntosh gets 30 days for being beaten up and Andy Moore
>gets a one game ban. The Andy Moore ban would surely have been longer
>except for Vickery getting off scot free. I know England don't have any
>other props, I mean going into the next game with a front row of
>Garfoth,***erill and Ubogu would be more frightening to most England
>fans than Scottish ones, but how does this possibly excuse their
>actions? Vickery's ban should stand as it's in the rules.
An appeal is allowed within the rules too, or are only some rules to be
>At least for
>this season anyway, hopefully they'll get rid of the daft citing thing
>next season but I'm sorry I don't see how you can punch, get caught, be
>suspended and then be let off again just because you're English.
Neither would I. But, then, I haven't seen it quite that way. Neither do the
5N committee, which is more to the point.
I certainly agree there are definite problems with the citing system, which
hopefully will be addressed.
Woodward has said the English management's view on citing is that it would
only be used for what the management consider potential sending off offences.
I can't remember what Rees did. I know McIntosh was sent off, so got the
appropriate ban. Moore was possibly fortunate to get a one game suspension,
but that's the way things go. The England A v Wales A game following which
Moore was suspended was slightly dodgy on the discipline front, and under a
different referee there may well have been more cards given out. If Moore had
been sent off, he would have been stuck will a mandatory 30 day ban, as I
Lack of consistency from referees is always going to lead to anomalies in
punishments for foul play, and it's hard to see matters ever changing.
All the best