PDA

View Full Version : An unintentional punch?



Pegleg
11-04-15, 22:04
Disciplinary Update - Roger Wilson
For immediate release: Thursday 5 March 2015
Issued on behalf of GUINNESS PRO12 Rugby

Roger Wilson, the Ulster back row forward, appeared today before an independent PRO12 Rugby Disciplinary Committee, following a citing for allegedly striking an opponent during the second half of the Guinness PRO12 match between Ulster and Scarlets on Friday 27 February 2015.

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Roddy Dunlop, sitting with Pamela Woodman and John Kirk (all Scotland), having listened to representations by and on behalf of the player, and viewed TV footage of the incident, found that Roger Wilson had committed an act of foul play which would have warranted a red card and considered it to be reckless rather than intentional, and at the low end of World Rugby's sanctions for this type of offence, which carries an entry-point of 2 weeks.

The Committee found that there were no aggravating factors, and after taking into account the mitigating factors, they reduced the entry point by one week and imposed a one week suspension. The player is suspended from playing until midnight on Sunday 8 March 2015, and has the right of appeal.

Law 10.4 (a) Punching or Striking. A player must strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).

The Fat
11-04-15, 22:04
Interesting.
Haven't seen the incident, but how do you throw a punch unintentionally?
Do you have a video link?

Andrew1974
12-04-15, 02:04
Again, not seen the incident, but 10.4a is punching or striking with fist,arm etc. it is quite possible to recklessly (rather than deliberately) strike someone,with a fore arm for example.

Taff
12-04-15, 09:04
Interesting. Haven't seen the incident, but how do you throw a punch unintentionally? Do you have a video link?
Just what I was thinking.


Again, not seen the incident, but 10.4a is punching or striking with fist, arm etc. it is quite possible to recklessly (rather than deliberately) strike someone, with a fore arm for example.
If I'm honest, I'd still like to see what that looks like.

Pegleg
12-04-15, 14:04
I did not record it and have not seen it. I'm told it was a punch.

Pegleg
12-04-15, 14:04
Just found this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWj5lTLesx0

BikingBud
12-04-15, 15:04
Cheap shot and he knew it hence he didn't drive through for the ball. Not sure how he only got a week for that.

Taff
12-04-15, 15:04
Just found this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWj5lTLesx0
Thanks.


Cheap shot and he knew it hence he didn't drive through for the ball. Not sure how he only got a week for that.
Same here. That looks like a straightforward punch to me. Accidental my arse.

Pegleg
12-04-15, 16:04
Cheap shot and he knew it hence he didn't drive through for the ball. Not sure how he only got a week for that.

The DC procedure is broken in the NH. Certainly in the Pro 12.

ChrisR
12-04-15, 16:04
I think he was looking to punch the ball loose. Reckless in the extreme but not an intentional punch.

Pegleg
12-04-15, 17:04
I think he was looking to punch the ball loose. Reckless in the extreme but not an intentional punch.

It would have needed to be a left not a right hook for that to be remotely possible.

Browner
12-04-15, 17:04
I think he was looking to punch the ball loose. Reckless in the extreme but not an intentional punch.

Intention to punch established.
Target location ???

His Body language after the strike says he missed his target ....... Only he 'nose'

Since when did swinging to punch a ball in a maul become vogue?

RobLev
12-04-15, 17:04
Intention to punch established.
Target location ???

His Body language after the strike says he missed his target ....... Only he 'nose'

Since when did swinging to punch a ball in a maul become vogue?

Clearly a deliberate punch.

OTOH - the entire Scarlets lineout (bar the target of the punch) were offside and obstructing at the time.

Ricardowensleydale
12-04-15, 17:04
I think he was looking to punch the ball loose. Reckless in the extreme but not an intentional punch.
For what it's worth, I agree with Marauder.
Two independent people agree, so, perhaps, not as clearly deliberate as some suggest.

Pegleg
12-04-15, 18:04
Clearly a deliberate punch.

OTOH - the entire Scarlets lineout (bar the target of the punch) were offside and obstructing at the time.

Would you seriously penalise them? Even if you ignore foul play trumping offside.

ChrisR
12-04-15, 21:04
Clearly a deliberate punch.

OTOH - the entire Scarlets lineout (bar the target of the punch) were offside and obstructing at the time.

Deliberate? Yes, but intended for the ops nose? I think not.

I'm not sure how you arrive at your second statement. Are you saying that the jumper & lifters are obstructing after the ball is tapped down? That would be akin to saying the scrum are all offside and obstructing after the SH takes the ball.

Pegleg
12-04-15, 22:04
Deliberate? Yes, but intended for the ops nose? I think not.


But cleary not at a ball on the opposite side of the player. He is punching the man. Who said he intended it to hit the nose?

RobLev
13-04-15, 00:04
Deliberate? Yes, but intended for the ops nose? I think not.

I'm not quite sure where else it was intended for.


I'm not sure how you arrive at your second statement. Are you saying that the jumper & lifters are obstructing after the ball is tapped down? That would be akin to saying the scrum are all offside and obstructing after the SH takes the ball.

Jumper comes down with the ball into a "maul" - he's bound in before he hits the ground - but also before hitting the ground, and before anyone makes cotnact wth the "maul" he's passed the ball back to a player behind him who's already bound onto the back of the "maul".

Pegleg
13-04-15, 07:04
Jumper comes down with the ball into a "maul" - he's bound in before he hits the ground - but also before hitting the ground, and before anyone makes cotnact wth the "maul" he's passed the ball back to a player behind him who's already bound onto the back of the "maul".


I repeat my question from post 15: "Would you seriously penalise them? Even if you ignore foul play trumping offside."

RobLev
13-04-15, 13:04
I repeat my question from post 15: "Would you seriously penalise them? Even if you ignore foul play trumping offside."

Ignoring the punch? Yes, I think they should be penalised. Why not? It's illegally preventing a contest for the ball.

Pegleg
13-04-15, 13:04
Was it realy a Clear and obvious offence?

RobLev
13-04-15, 22:04
Was it realy a Clear and obvious offence?

Yes.

-msf-

Pegleg
13-04-15, 22:04
I beg to differ.

ChrisR
14-04-15, 02:04
Are you two talking about the punch or the offsides? It's not C & O.

Pegleg
14-04-15, 07:04
The Offside.

TheBFG
14-04-15, 10:04
Pink card for a shit punch :wink: