"Blood-Gate"?

[boldie]

So everybody gets a lengthy ban..but the player only gets 4 months? WTF? I even heard a tool on Skysports say that "4 months is too much as there is loads of pressure on players". Surely the player should also get 3 years +? (Or even be banned completely)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090818/tuk-richards-banned-for-three-years-over-dba1618.html

[Acidmouse]

Not really, he didn't make the decision to cheat he was told to. It also happens in virtually every match and so why blame the player?

[TightEnd]

It also happens in virtually every match

it does?

[Colchester Kev]

Can someone explain this to an egg chasing thicko.

What advantage is gained by pretending to be cut ?

and what is the full story behind this case ?

[Acidmouse]

It also happens in virtually every match

it does?

wathing sky sports news today the interviews and journalists indicating it's a standard unspoken practice. Stuart barnes on now saying its common..

[boldie]

Not really, he didn't make the decision to cheat he was told to. It also happens in virtually every match and so why blame the player?

This is the part that really gets me "he was told to cheat, so it's not his fault" When did players not become responsible for their own actions? Surely he could just say "No, boss. I am not going to do it"?

[Acidmouse]

Not really, he didn't make the decision to cheat he was told to. It also happens in virtually every match and so why blame the player?

This is the part that really gets me "he was told to cheat, so it's not his fault" When did players not become responsible for their own actions? Surely he could just say "No, boss. I am not going to do it"?

Do you blame the soilder or the general? I personally dont care what happens as Union is a southern puffs sport.

[TightEnd]

Can someone explain this to an egg chasing thicko.

What advantage is gained by pretending to be cut ?

and what is the full story behind this case ?

in Rugby, a blood injury means a player has to leave the field

the advantage in this situation is that the player can be replaced by a specialist kicker

this was a tight game, near the end, an extra kicker for say a drop goal might win them the game


it's likely that a solution to this is that the authorities will change the blood replacement rules

[boldie]

Not really, he didn't make the decision to cheat he was told to. It also happens in virtually every match and so why blame the player?

This is the part that really gets me "he was told to cheat, so it's not his fault" When did players not become responsible for their own actions? Surely he could just say "No, boss. I am not going to do it"?

Do you blame the soilder or the general? I personally dont care what happens as Union is a southern puffs sport.

Looks like you might be right about the puffs sport bit. If someone tells you to cheat andc you don't have the balls to say no..you really are a puff.

Ussually you blame the general..but only in war time situations...this doesn't qualify IMO.

[gatso]

Can someone explain this to an egg chasing thicko.

What advantage is gained by pretending to be cut ?

and what is the full story behind this case ?

in Rugby, a blood injury means a player has to leave the field

the advantage in this situation is that the player can be replaced by a specialist kicker

this was a tight game, near the end, an extra kicker for say a drop goal might win them the game


it's likely that a solution to this is that the authorities will change the blood replacement rules

blood subs also allow you to give a player a rest during the game as the subbed player can return to the field unlike with normal substitutions

[thetank]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7989373.stm

A report from the original game for you Kev.

Thankfully Nick Evans (the subbed kicker who came back on) missed a drop goal attempt with about two minutes left and Leinster won the match 6-5. If he had landed it this whole thing would be much messier.

[Josedinho]

Has anyone blamed Richards for it? I got the impression he was unaware but has just taken responsibilty for it.
Cutting his mouth after the game to make it look legit is pretty dodgy too. Richards said he had nothing to do with that either.
I loved the commentary at the time "Who cut Tom Williams? Tom Williams??"

[thetank]

So everybody gets a lengthy ban..but the player only gets 4 months? WTF? I even heard a tool on Skysports say that "4 months is too much as there is loads of pressure on players". Surely the player should also get 3 years +? (Or even be banned completely)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090818/tuk-richards-banned-for-three-years-over-dba1618.html

No way

Ban the player for 3 years and although the numbers look the same and so look all pretty, the reality would be much harsher.

You're effectively ending his career if you ban Tom Williams for 3 years.

[thetank]

Not really, he didn't make the decision to cheat he was told to. It also happens in virtually every match and so why blame the player?

This is the part that really gets me "he was told to cheat, so it's not his fault" When did players not become responsible for their own actions? Surely he could just say "No, boss. I am not going to do it"?

He didn't say it's not his fault though did he?

No-one one this thread has said he should get off scot free. He is responsible for his own actions yes, and he is being punished accordingly.

[thetank]

Where are you getting 4 months from?

From what I've seen, Tom Williams is banned till July next year.