HENSON BAN A DISGRACE

dead ball · Post by **dead ball** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:26 pm

And I apologise for my sharp responses. Sometimes you just couldnt be ars.d making up your thesis, you know how it is.

for dog and ulcer · Post by **for dog and ulcer** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:56 pm

DB

Cheers. Sorry. Drink in and sense out!!

Not even sure Henson was that hard done by when I rethink, but I believe he was more harshly treated than other previous offenders.

dead ball · Post by **dead ball** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:58 pm

Wise up!

Only joking

Setanta · Post by **Setanta** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:48 pm

In defence - you're not alone - read http://www.planet-rugby.com/Tournaments ... 8076.shtml

Merry Christmas and a Happy Hogmonay to all!!!

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:54 pm

When I read the details of the other bans it does indeed seem that he was harshly treated, most of those otheres were premeditated attacks on another player while his was partly instant reaction to being clobbered himself.

dead ball · Post by **dead ball** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:02 pm

Lads it's quite simple really. If he feels he was wronged then he can appeal.

ballpark · Post by **ballpark** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:14 pm

A wider point here is the inconsistency of the citing system as we have just seen with our very own McCullough and Harrison. Why not cite Chesney for his forearm to the throat (1st match), the same individual is then involved in two other incidents and somehow remains the shadowy assassin, winding up dispensing blows and insults here and there whilst those on the end of it end up in the dock. thankfully on this ocasion justice of a sort was seen to be done and M & H walked free.

What for me has appeared over the last couple of weekends of Heiny rugby is the niggardly and sometimes openly intimidatory tactics of English teams led by a number of individuals who it would seem are practiced in the dark arts of skullduggery to the detriment of Celtic and French teams. Dayglo for Wasps instigated a number of unsavoury incidents and played the sinned against angel to the ref. Likewise Chesney for Saracens and as for the Tigers even their peers in the GP acknowledge their ability indulge in contrempts against opponents which invariably end in frayed tempers for their opponents.

Henson was clearly targeted after his comments the previous week, that he reacted is entirely in character with someone, who as the Lions tour showed, estimates himself and his ability way above anything his greatest fans can dream up. I've not much sympathy for him, it was brought about, part by his own arrogance, though the fact it was against the Tigers is hardly surprising given their track record for accruing trouble...

pwrmoore · Post by **pwrmoore** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:32 pm

yep BP consistency would seem to be the key for me. It will take some harsh punishments handed down tto sort out the cynical and dangerous play that seems to be escallating in top flight rugby these days. If there is a decision to take on these thugs it must be done with consistency

dead ball · Post by **dead ball** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:04 pm

Is this not down to the individuality of the match officials?
It is subjective stuff in my mind.

For instance if BP was the citing officer and I was too would we be able to agree on what was dangerous etc etc. or for that matter would anyone. I would argue not likely. leaving it down to one individual is always going to be open to this kind of obsurdity.

My view is we should have a committee of 3 and that a unamimous decision must be reached on the higher charges carrying say more than a 6 week ban, on lesser charges there should be a simple majority in favour of pressing charges.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:45 pm

Sensible comment there DB and something that the relevant authorities should look at but doubtfull if they will. BOD's old boy being on panel probably did not help Hensons case with the Lions fallout.

cables · Post by **cables** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:19 pm

It may have had nothing to do with the Lions Tour or selling books either.

Scotty 2 introduced the idea that he should be banned for half the 6N matches. That was agreed. He then proposed 5 weeks and 2 days. Paddy pointed out that that would only be for 2 matches and insisted that it had to be 3 matches to meet the agreed ban length. (Crafty Paddy). He proposed 7 weeks and 2 days. Scotty 1 (C), was then faced with two proposals and suggested (as a compromise) that as nobody cared whether he played against Italy or France they could make it an extra few weeks. The wordsmith checked the 6N dates and indicated that an extra 3 weeks would meet the decision of the panel, be in line with the IRB recommendations and no mention need be made of how the ban length was determined. They all headed for the bar.

Conspiracy theory? - no more than the first one!

Freddie Benson · Post by **Freddie Benson** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:01 pm

actually think Wales will be a better side without that numbnut

pwrmoore · Post by **pwrmoore** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:28 pm

I certainly think that he has been built up to be a much more significant part of the wales team than he really is.....