Citings

Also can’t comprehend why the forearm smash wasn’t cited or referred to in that citing. I think that one was worse and a more obvious red. He also seems to be mitigated by the fact the TMO saw it and did nothing. Not sure why David Grashoff’s complete incompetence is a mitigating factor. Another mitigating factor seems to be he is an experienced international. Again, I don’t understand why that matters. If say Lewis Robling had done the same thing would he be punished more harshly because he hasn’t played for his country?

gerg_861 wrote: islander wrote: Flood verdict, with link to full judgement:  https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/article/newcastles-flood-given-ban-for-dangerous-play That judgement stinks, and I would argue that the logic is faulty. They cite a previous judgement as precedent to say that not all contact with the head or neck is definitely a mid-range entry point. However, they then follow that up not by claiming that the contact was incidental, but by stating that the contact with the head was actually with the ground consequential with being rolled out of the ruck. That makes no sense. By that logic, I could pick someone up by the legs and tombstone piledriver their head into the ground, and that wouldn't require a mid-range entry point because the contact with the head was consequential to me driving him into the ground.

Totally agree, by using a precedent does that enable this ruling as another precedent for future citing? In that case, it is open season on dangerous play, with lesser consequences. Another team getting a six match player ban for the same offence, should rightly be hacked off.

islander wrote: Flood verdict, with link to full judgement:  https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/article/newcastles-flood-given-ban-for-dangerous-play

Flood verdict, with link to full judgement: 

A one match ban sets a really interesting benchmark for the future. I see it as a cop out. The fact that Temm was not badly injured seems to have been a mitigating factor. He could have had a broken neck just as easily.

I doubt Newcastle will miss him too much tbh.

OldNick wrote: No 7 wrote: 2. A Club participating in a match may refer any incidents in the match to the Citing Commissioner that they want him/her to consider, within the timescales set out below: Agreed. They may refer to the CC. They may not cite. The CC must consider whether or not to cite.

And still it rumbles on. Which do people think will end first, this Semantathon or Toby Flood's ban?

2. A Club participating in a match may refer any incidents in the match to the Citing Commissioner that they want him/her to consider, within the timescales set out below:

No 7 wrote: Disregarding the semantics the procedure is often instigated by the club .

Which would make sense as the players on the pitch would probably draw the incident to their coaching staff's attention, who will probably review it if they didn't see it in real time and then refer it if they think that it has merit.
Sorry, I haven't got time to go through the RFU links, but what about the officials? There may be an incident that they did not see fully (partially obscured/long way away etc.), if they review back are they able to refer to the CC if they think that they missed the said incident?

we're getting into semantics here about what is meant by the word 'cite'. In the strict sense, only the citing commissioner may cite a player. In the looser sense, clubs may draw the CC's attention to particular incidents - some people might refer to this drawing of attention as 'citing'. Strictly it isn't, but it has a very similar effect...