PDA

View Full Version : Cueto incident



Glyndwr
27-11-05, 10:11
I saw the tackle on Cueto three times, because that is the number of times it was shown on the higlights yesterday evening.

The first time, it was clearly an illegal tackle.

By the third time, I was questioning my judgement. Anybody got it on tape to have another look, please?

My questions to the video ref are: Did Cueto have possession of the ball on the ground before taking off? Was the Samoan tackler committed before Cueto's leap (if there was one)?

didds
27-11-05, 13:11
i have no issues with the yellow card.

What I do have an issue with is (and this is not because I am English) if Moody gets a red for throwing several punches (and no particular issue with that either) why didn't the Samoan number 7 receive a red too who was clearly raining blows in left right and centre (clearly = not having to rely on 17 replays!)? Or could that be because the ref didn;t have the balls to send two samoans off in the same minute?

didds

robertti
27-11-05, 13:11
When there is an all- in brawl on the field, it is almost impossible for the referee to concertrate on the actions of every single player. I think Mark Lawrence did a pretty good job about it. The samoan definitely deserved to go, no question as did Lewis Moody who must have something thicker than rocks in his head. If other players are guilty, then the citing commisionner will more likely than not pick them up.

Simon Griffiths
27-11-05, 14:11
I would say that the actions of Sititi (Samoan 7) was anything but clear to the officials. The only camera angle which he could be clearly identified from was directly behind (from the English try line side). The TJ was trailing, and was on the side of the maul closest to the Samoan try line, so he couldn't see, and Lawrence was on the in field side of the maul (Sititi had his back - and thus his number - touchline side). Add to this about 28 players forming around it and (especially given that Sititi was right in the centre), it was virtually impossible to single him out. Let's remember, the only footage you could identify him from was the slo-mo from behind which lasted all of a few seconds. In real time we're talking a second, maybe two maximum. Then take into account the fact that he's got what is essentially a 30-man brawl, and he's watching about 500 different things.

I would hope that the citing commissioner didn't get any sleep last night (because if he did, he's not doing his job properly ;) ) and has duly cited Sititi. He, Moody and Tuilagi will be looking at extremely lengthy bans.

You've got to feel a bit for Cueto, his neck was a tackle bag yesterday, then all he did was hold Tuilagi off, then Tuilagi lands a good right hook, he's shortly after used as a punch-bag by Sititi.

NB. You should see the tripe on the BBC's Scrum V message board about the whole event. Although, if you look at the posts and style of them, you'll quickly realise that most of the people on there are probably football fans on a day off. Someone even suggested that Moody shouldn't have even been sin-binned (let alone sent off) as he was only sticking up for a team mate. Fair enough point at the end, but it doesn't change the fact that what he did is a red card offence, and nothing else, regardless of why he did it.

Simon Thomas
27-11-05, 17:11
I echo the comments above, especially re sight lines of Lawrence and trailing TJ. You can only give what you see ! I thought Lawrence handled it well.
Hopefully the Citing Comissioner will not 'bottle it' - Sititi's secondary retaliation to Moody's attack on Tulagi is in-excusable.
As for Moody, his behaviour was disgraceful. As an England International, and as a professional rugby player, he has no defence. He had no cause to attack Tulagi from behind with a punch to the back of the head.
Hopefully all three will get long bans.

What for me is even worse is Robinson's defence of Moody - a professional coach of a national side should have been openly critical of Moody's behaviour, not defensive !
Hopefully Moody will never be selected for England again.

Glyndwr
27-11-05, 18:11
I've now had a chance to see the incident a few times, and I retract my earlier suggestion that Cueto had the ball before leaving the ground. He clearly went up to catch it. I think the Samoan tackler was already committed, but the card against him was justified.

Moody was correctly dealt with, IMO, but at the citing level, I would look at both the Samoan 7 and Cueto himself, who was in there punching before Moody arrived.

didds
27-11-05, 20:11
When there is an all- in brawl on the field, it is almost impossible for the referee to concertrate on the actions of every single player. I think Mark Lawrence did a pretty good job about it. The samoan definitely deserved to go, no question as did Lewis Moody who must have something thicker than rocks in his head. If other players are guilty, then the citing commisionner will more likely than not pick them up.

as in the samoan that upended Cueto, or the damoan who was quite clearly raining blows in? The latter wasn't some under cover punch within a pile of bodies.. it was a player that was on the outside of a group of players punching inwards and clearly visible.

didds

didds
27-11-05, 20:11
Hopefully Moody will never be selected for England again.

Given Grewcock's track record I suspect this is unlikely...

didds

Simon Thomas
28-11-05, 11:11
Sadly Didds I think you are right - but we can always hope.

While Mr Robinson is at the helm it appears England will steer a very erratic and un-predictable course.

Wert Twacky
28-11-05, 18:11
Moody needs to seriously sort himself out, and let's face it, he'll have plenty of time to do it. Like Grewcock, he'll now be targeted by oppo as a loose cannon.
There was no need for him to do what he did, OK it was not nice what happened to Cueto and he did see the Samoan guy punch Cueto, still no excuse in my book.
Regarding others involved, I'm sure we can all appreciate that when a brawl breaks out, there's a million-and-one things going through the old grey matter as a referee, and inevitably the odd offender gets away with things, but let's hope the citing chap does what he's paid to do.
Crap like that on the TV makes life a nightmare for us at the other end if not dealt with correctly.

GazMaz
28-11-05, 23:11
Yes agree about the tackle and correct decision, but Cueto running back and jumping on the Samoan is why (in my view) the fireworks started, Moody's red mist appeared seeing the punch at Cueto, the snowball just grew from there!
Could the forearm smash earlier in the game still been playing on people's mind, who knows?

GazMaz
29-11-05, 08:11
So is a nine week ban enough or a cop out?

I think it's enough but the timing is unfortunate, perhaps a couple of weeks more to show that it doesn't matter if he misses internationals or not...

Account Deleted
29-11-05, 08:11
Neat how the ban finishes just in time for the 6 nations. Leicester suffer, England do not.


Is it time that bans related to the level that you were sent off in? So a red in an international mean you miss international games etc?

GazMaz
29-11-05, 09:11
I'd say that Leicester might be getting a bit fed up with him, but would we like him playing at club level sooner then being banned for some Internationals.
I suppose the way round it would be an X# of weeks ban plus the next X# of International games?

SimonSmith
29-11-05, 12:11
<climbs on board high horse>

Sorry, that ban is an aboslute effing disgrace and the RFU should be ashamed of themselves.
They have a habit of doing this - levying bans that, coincidentally, end JUST before the next big tournament. Martin Johnson, if memory serves, benefited from a similar deal.

9 weeks? my @rse. Will no-one at the institution stand up for the right thing and not just the expedient.

<dismounts high horse, still muttering>

Brian Ravenhill
29-11-05, 14:11
In Gloucestershire it used to be an unwritten rule that if you got sent off soon after returning from a previous ban your new ban was twice the length of the first.

At the beginning of this season we were all informed of the new sentencing regime that would be employer worldwide at all levels from September. Some said then they would wait to see it happen at the top.

The whole purpose of the increased sentences was to remove the thugs from the game either by the threat of a long period away from the game or by enforcing a long break if the treat wasnít enough. The reason for removing the thugs, was to encourage the young players to take up the game.

Mummy watching on Saturday afternoon with her little Jonny Wilkinson would have seen Mark Cueto decapitated, then two minutes later sent cart wheeling into the ground from a great height and that was before seeing a mass punch-up with punches thrown by all sides in all directions.

What did that mummy do first thing Monday morning, return the rugby boots and ball and exchange it for the table tennis set.

What did the RFU and its alicadoes do that same Monday, tell Lewis Moody not to play again until they needed him! Was that a punishment or were they just ensuring he didnít get the opportunity to get sent off again before they needed him.

He personally may well be hit substantially in the pocket with appearance money and win bonuses now being missed, but will the rest of us be hit even more my missing the opportunity to watch the next Jonny Wilkinson on a rugby pitch as heís now defeating all on the table tennis table!

Simon Thomas
29-11-05, 18:11
Hear hear Brian - eloquently put !

Of course it affects young player recruitment and retention, and being selfish it has an effect of referee recruitment and retention also.

This season has seen a jump in dismissals in Hampshire (punches & headbutts, stamping and referee dissent/abuse in equal numbers), and split equally adult and youth/schools rugby. My email inbox is filled with them and I begin to despair, when Internationals set that sort of example last Saturday.

But worst of all in my book is the Citing Commissioner didn't follow through on the Samoan #7 multiple punching offences, which were clearly visible on the TV (and which I replayed a number of times - isn't Sky + wonderful). What more evidence do you need for citing ?

Jacko
30-11-05, 00:11
the RFU should be ashamed of themselves.


RFU??? What did the RFU have to do with it? The 6 nations committee i think you mean! Or the RFU in disguise as I refer to them.

Brian Ravenhill
30-11-05, 09:11
It was a 6 nations committee that decided the punishment, and the next game Moody is available for a 6 nations game. With citings in almost every televised international game is it not time for a disipinary committe to be set up by the IRB to deal with these issues and not leave it 6 nations and SANZAR to administer themselves.

SimonSmith
30-11-05, 13:11
Here's the text from the BBC web site. I did question it as odd at the time:

"But the RFU decision means coach Andy Robinson should have Moody at his disposal for his 2006 campaign. "

ExHookah
30-11-05, 13:11
It was a 6 nations committee that decided the punishment, and the next game Moody is available for a 6 nations game. With citings in almost every televised international game is it not time for a disipinary committe to be set up by the IRB to deal with these issues and not leave it 6 nations and SANZAR to administer themselves.


I totally agree. Have a committe of guys, with at least one representative from each nation, and they form sub committees for each match, with the key part being that they are neutral. Josh Lewsey has unavenged scars on his head because the NZ citing officer decided that Ali Williams had no case to answer!