Tue 2 Oct 2012 | 03:39

Tim Payne banned for two weeks for knee to Vasily Artemyev's head

17 Comments

• kadova

  8:40 PM 07/10/2012

  You can view the highlights clicking on the link above the video :)
• cheyanqui

  4:22 AM 05/10/2012

  I get your point too. Usually you see little annoying scrumhalf types (Stringer is the identikit for that profile) getting away with much more than some square-jawed lock(-jawed) forward.
• pretzel

  8:00 PM 04/10/2012

  It was actually supposed to be more of a question, but thank you for clarifying that. I agree with what you've written.
  
  But generally are things more judged on the action rather than the outcome? I mean if say an medium sized player threw a punch at Cudmore (I only pick him because he seems to be able to take a few punches) then besides it being a bit daft (and possibly suicidal) it might not actually do that much to Cudmore. But if the same sized player threw a punch at Berrick "glassjaw" Barnes or Peter Stringer (who is small) then it might have a much worse outcome, but surely the judging should be on the fact the player did indeed throw a connecting punch, and not actually on whether it tickled someone like Cudmore or killed someone like Berrick (Who I actually think is a brilliant player, so please don't get upset I used him in my scenario)...
• cheyanqui

  9:07 PM 03/10/2012

  I would disagree with your point that "the act of throwing a punch can surely not be punished if the punch never connected"
  
  If a punch fails to connect, I would agree that applying Law 10.4(a) -- "Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s)" -- would be incorrect.
  
  However, Law 10.4(m) would absolutely cover this, and should give any referee the latitude to penalise attempted strikes, etc.
  
  [Law 10.4(m) -- Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.]
• ollie

  4:53 PM 03/10/2012

  Red card and ban for stupidity. Don't know why players bother with this stuff any more. They are more or less systematically caught...
• pretzel

  4:26 PM 03/10/2012

  "The incident did not even look that serious which means his actions were stupid"
  
  Totally agree with that comment. That was what I was getting at up there with my comments. It COULD have been serious blah blah, but this incident didn't cause a serious injury or indeed much of an injury, but it was an act of idiocy!
  
• irishref

  3:13 PM 03/10/2012

  TC, you're mixing up your metaphors. The point of the TMO is to spot on-field incidents that the ref may have missed at the time and then to give a suitable on-field punishment - or not - based on replays.
  
  The citing process is a totally different kettle of fish - this is for incidents that could have warranted red but for whatever reason weren't awarded red during the game.
  
  So here we have a TMO that found a yellow to be sufficient but the citing commissioner, upon studying the footage after the game, found differently. His recommendation is that a red card would have been warranted and thus he makes the citing.
  
  Then the hearing takes place and the evidence is judged, with submissions from the player and anyone else involved in the situation, and a new sanction is either given or no further action taken.
  
  In this case the citing process is saying that the TMO got it wrong and a red card was retroactively applied to the player. The ban meted out is based on regulation 17 that dictates what the sentencing norms are.
  
  For striking with a knee, low-end is 3 weeks, mid-range is 8 weeks and top-end is 12 weeks with an absolute maximum of 52 weeks.
  
  When arriving at a sentence, the judicial officer first determines the entry level and then considers things like the player's previous record and conduct during the case. Mostly this results in some kind of reduction and thus we have arrived at 2 weeks.
• colombes

  1:23 PM 03/10/2012

  i guess he wasn't sent off because his 250th birthday ;)
  old player, old tactics
  Red card without a ban would have been sufficient
  
  that said, i don't watch the english championship, but how the rhythm is with the new tmo rules? does it stay fluid or is it boring?
• poccio

  8:59 AM 03/10/2012

  haha, you're right of course, it is mister Mackey, and at top level everyone should know better, my guess is that with these new TMO powers of ruling it will disappear fairly quickly from the game. I still think a yellow is enough though.
• filth

  8:52 AM 03/10/2012

  God rugby is soft. Just get on with the f*cking game.
• stroudos

  6:27 AM 03/10/2012

  Anyone else notice on the last replay Payne's own player gets a mouthful of his left knee as well!!
  
• guy

  10:03 PM 02/10/2012

  Well, actually that's mister Mackey you're quoting...;-)
  
  Off course it's psychological. But it's also illegal, cheap and stupid. I guess in some minor leagues, especially over here, it's still part of the game. At this level however everybody should know better.
  
  And I totally agree with Pretzel in his first comment: if it's that clear why the hell let the citing commissioner deal with it? Show him red immediately! He could have gone with the report of the linesman in this case because he had already spotted it.
• pretzel

  8:03 PM 02/10/2012

  Thats sort of what I felt initially but then I thought players are judged on the act and not the outcome?
  
  hmmm I dunno, I just typed that and then thought of that instance where BOD threw a punch and missed... the act of throwing a punch can surely not be punished if the punch never connected... which means judging the outcome...
  
  I dunno...
  
  I felt that the impact didn't look that significant, but the action itself was moronic and therefore justified a red. But when you consider the injury (or lack of) to the player it makes you feel that yellow is fine... But then I recall people saying it doesn't matter what happens to the other player, you're judged on your actions.. so that again is another reason I felt it was red card, but you have since said somewhat the opposite...
• poccio

  7:57 PM 02/10/2012

  To quote mister Garrison..It's baad m'kay! I'm not condoning this gesture and I think it's a good thing it was caught but I also think it's the right call, because you judge on outcome and not only on intent. That said I just wanted to answer ppl asking why do something like that, and what is the point. The point is this..look at Artemyev, he tackles and get's his hands on the ball and then holds on to it and doesn't release straight away therefore slowing play down (on the edge but fair and smart play) without warrenting a penalty, Payne being old school just gives him a little nudge with the knee ('cause let's be fair that's all it was) to say "stop it son or you're bound to get hurt!". It's more psychological than anything in my view and up 'till recently (and still in minor leagues) this was normal in a game and actually instrumental in getting the upper hand at least mentally.
• chogan

  7:21 PM 02/10/2012

  Martin Leslie got 12 weeks for something similar during the 2003 world cup. It was missed during the match.
  
  Only two weeks for this is appalling. Artemyev was pinned in a ruck and unable to defend himself. This should be in a category similar to what Saints' Clark got. TMO could do with having a rummage in the attic for the balls he left there during the summer too. Clear red card.
  I am an Old Belvedere and Leinster fan.
• pretzel

  7:18 PM 02/10/2012

  Part of me wants to accept the yellow is fine, because it wasn't THAAAT bad in terms of the forces that probably connected. However at the same time, he has no reason to behave like that, it does not serve any purpose other than to cheap shot and injure a prone player, who had his hands out and was making an "I'm stuck" sort of gesture...So with that reasoning I can see no reason why the TMO could possibly think it was anything less than a red card...
  
  In fact some of the words which come out the TMO's mouth:
  "Clearly"..So that means there is no doubt, no if's but's or maybe's, it is CLEAR
  "Drops his knees onto a green player"...ok well it's not NICE at the best of times, so we all know it's a pretty nasty thing to do.
  "It is deliberate"...self explanatory..
  
  So we have Clearly, knee, deliberate.. How do we not have a red card recommendation?
  
  As for the process of including the TMO, I don't have anything against it, other than perhaps these guys should be making correct calls... Also I would prefer it if perhaps there could be someway that the TMO looked at the incident as soon as the Touchie told the referee, therefore when the referee asks the TMO to look at the incident the tmo is already done or at least part way through doing so.
  
  What I want the game to be careful about is not using the TMO as the fall guy. I don't want to see EVERY decision being checked by the TMO. The touch judge often puts his flag out to tell the referee something, if this then means he gets to have it clarified by the TMO then we could be in for a long ride...
• facepalm

  7:16 PM 02/10/2012

  I'll never understand the thought process behind something like this. Even if you get away with it, what does it achieve?