McCloskey

[Neill_M]

4 week ban. Will back for the Connacht game in April.

Ulster centre Stuart McCloskey has been given a four-week suspension after being found guilty of making a dangerous tackle against Edinburgh.

McCloskey appeared before an independent PRO12 Rugby Disciplinary Committee on Tuesday, following the red card he received in the second-half of the match on Friday, February 20. He was given his marching orders after lifting of an opponent to a vertical position in the process of clearing him from a ruck.

"The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Simon Thomas, along with Rhian Williams and Aurwel Morgan, having listened to representations by and on behalf of the player, viewed TV footage of the incident and asked questions of the referee, found that McCloskey had committed an act of foul play worthy of the red card and considered it to be at the low end of World Rugby's sanctions for this type of offence, carrying an entry-point of four weeks," read a PRO12 statement.

"The Committee added one week to reflect the need for a deterrent for this type of offence but reduced it by one week having noted the player's previous unblemished record, among other mitigating factors.

"Stuart McCloskey is suspended from playing for four weeks until midnight on Sunday 29 March 2015, taking into account a "down" week and has the right of appeal."

[Dave]

Feck

[Cornerfleg]

He would have got 6 weeks if he had tickled him in the ribs while assisting a cartwheel ....

[Jackie Brown]

Nonsense

[BaggyTrousers]

Actually the sanction is a shambles as effectively it is a 2 game ban. Given that Ulster play Welsh teams in these 2 games and that the Judge & Jury were called Thomas Williams & Morgan, a "Get out of Jail Free" card was never on the cards.

Two games for a red card is a result, let's not get our collective panties in a bunch.

When are the authorities going to get away from weeks & apply sanctions in games? As the season stands for non-international players it's an utter rarity that a 4 week suspension means 4 games will be missed. Dumbasses.

Correction 3 game ban - the reported 4 week ban is nonsense, I assumed that they banned him for 4 weeks from today but given today is 24th February & he is banned until 29th March, it appears that yet again the competence of the Welsh education system is in tatters.

Even a for week ban from our next game, 27th February should leave him clear to play on 27th March, the date of the 3rd game he will actually miss.

Of course, with the Welsh panel it should come as no surprise that they would ensure his ban includes all Ulster games against Welsh opposition. It appears on Wales 4 weeks comprises of 5 weekends - daft fu@kers the Welsh.

[Neill_M]

He misses the Cardiff game as well, thats 3 games v the Welsh! Ban not up until the Sunday after the Cardiff game due to a "down week".

[BaggyTrousers]

He misses the Cardiff game as well, thats 3 games v the Welsh! Ban not up until the Sunday after the Cardiff game due to a "down week".

I should be obliged Neill if you would explain how Welsh weeks work, to me it appears that 4 weeks means 5 weekends.

[Neill_M]

Its because we are playing Cardiff they make the rules up as they go along! I assume the ban takes in an extra game because there are 2 weeks with no pro 12 matches??

[Rooster]

Its because we are playing Cardiff they make the rules up as they go along! I assume the ban takes in an extra game because there are 2 weeks with no pro 12 matches??

That is not the normal procedure though and I think it is very harsh considering the flipping over was aided by one of the Edinburgh players taking McCloskey out, without that happening we will never know if he was going to turn him over at all.

[Russ]

Feck Wales

[rumncoke]

What was the charge under which Law of the game which defined the minimum Punishment because in my view McCloskey didn't tackle the player it was not an act of violent play it was reckless and dangerous but not violent .

It was a form of clear out at the break down which occurs in every game but the fact that he was held meant that hold of Allen made a fulcrum which meant the players legs rose higher than his waist .

I for one can not see the justification for adding an extra week to the minimum punishment the extra week has actual nothing to do with the offence committed by McCloskey . It is identified to deter the offence the punishment of the offence should of its self deter others without an extra week being added .
Thus the punishment of 5 weeks reduced to four has been improperly formulated .
If the offence was considered such as war rented 5 weeks then the ban of 4 weeks would be fair but that was not the finding of the committee


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[big mervyn]

Only a week off for an unblemished record.

How bad was his suit?

[Dave]

What was the charge under which Law of the game which defined the minimum Punishment because in my view McCloskey didn't tackle the player it was not an act of violent play it was reckless and dangerous but not violent .

It was a form of clear out at the break down which occurs in every game but the fact that he was held meant that hold of Allen made a fulcrum which meant the players legs rose higher than his waist .

I for one can not see the justification for adding an extra week to the minimum punishment the extra week has actual nothing to do with the offence committed by McCloskey . It is identified to deter the offence the punishment of the offence should of its self deter others without an extra week being added .
Thus the punishment of 5 weeks reduced to four has been improperly formulated .
If the offence was considered such as war rented 5 weeks then the ban of 4 weeks would be fair but that was not the finding of the committee


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your second paragraph is spot on.

[Russ]

Only a week off for an unblemished record.

How bad was his suit?

Welsh chavs look down on people in suits.
Suits are the symbol of the oppressive English

[thecrouch]

What a crock of tom kite this ban is.