Friday 13th January 7.45pm Leinster v Montpelier(RDS/Sky)

[simonokeeffe]

^ what he said

standard practice now is to factor in rest weeks unless the player captains Australia though with Healy think they tried to effectively make it internationals only

[blockhead]

To be fair, Triggs needed a rest anyhow.

[Dexter]

It was a bit of handbags and Triggs was unlucky to get cited. Once he was, however, they had to give him something. The fact that he got probably the lowest possible sanction reflects this.

[Raydollard]

I think 3 weeks is a shocking punishment for Twiggs doing nothing. He was shunted into the contact in fact

[Oldschoolsocks]

I think 3 weeks is a shocking punishment for Twiggs doing nothing. He was shunted into the contact in fact

Shocking in its leniency, hands should not be near faces. It only takes an instant to seriously injure an eye - and you can't fix them after


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fourthirtythree]

We've all seen a lot heavier punishments for a whole lot less...

[Oldschool]

I think 3 weeks is a shocking punishment for Twiggs doing nothing. He was shunted into the contact in fact

Shocking in its leniency, hands should not be near faces. It only takes an instant to seriously injure an eye - and you can't fix them after

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Define "instant" in terms of time frame and in the context of the two players physical positioning ie lying on the ground and proximity to each other and positioning relative to each other.
It's not as simple as you make it out to be and I've only mentioned a few of the variables. There are a lot more.
When the citing commission sit, I'd like to think they look at all the variables and in a lot of detail before making their judgement and passing sentence.

[Peg Leg]

Variables like - is he an international. Will he be playing my team in the next international window etc. All important aspects

[Oldschool]

Variables like - is he an international. Will he be playing my team in the next international window etc. All important aspects

And there's more!

[Oldschoolsocks]

I think 3 weeks is a shocking punishment for Twiggs doing nothing. He was shunted into the contact in fact

Shocking in its leniency, hands should not be near faces. It only takes an instant to seriously injure an eye - and you can't fix them after

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Define "instant" in terms of time frame and in the context of the two players physical positioning ie lying on the ground and proximity to each other and positioning relative to each other.
It's not as simple as you make it out to be and I've only mentioned a few of the variables. There are a lot more.
When the citing commission sit, I'd like to think they look at all the variables and in a lot of detail before making their judgement and passing sentence.

How would you define an instant in real time? Are you looking for a nano seconds definition OR maybe think about this, a friend of mine's child sliced a nail across her eye totally innocently while being lifted,
Now six months later she is blind in one eye. All it takes is one bit of dirt or grit or fingernail in the wrong place at the wrong time and that's it.

So, I'm not being glib, hands, fingers and faces don't mix the hazard AND risk just too big to defend IMHO.

FWIW - as a martial artist I understand the theory of injury in order to "defend yourself" and believe me there's a reason that in street fighting styles that the eyes are a primary target - small effort but big damage. And reciprocally a eyes are a banned target in sports martial arts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[riocard911]

As a fellow martial artist, I was just wondering: Does anyone know what Triggs' "finishing move" is?

[Oldschool]

Oldsocks I'm truly sorry to here about your friends child.

I'm not trying to defend or justify anything.
The citing officers have a job to do and made their ruling based on facts that only they are in possession of.
Their ruling was at the very lower end of the scale.
It's reasonable imho that they don't adopt a one size fits all approach to sentencing.
An instant in time can mean anything.
The length of time Triggs hand was in contact with the eye would be very important.
The speed at which his hand was moving would be important.
Was his victim's head moving toward or away (relative velocity)
Did Triggs move his fingers in scraping or gouging motion?
Do the citing panel take any of the above into account?
They surely must, otherwise how do they arrive at their decisions

[Oldschoolsocks]

Oldsocks I'm truly sorry to here about your friends child.

I'm not trying to defend or justify anything.
The citing officers have a job to do and made their ruling based on facts that only they are in possession of.
Their ruling was at the very lower end of the scale.
It's reasonable imho that they don't adopt a one size fits all approach to sentencing.
An instant in time can mean anything.
The length of time Triggs hand was in contact with the eye would be very important.
The speed at which his hand was moving would be important.
Was his victim's head moving toward or away (relative velocity)
Did Triggs move his fingers in scraping or gouging motion?
Do the citing panel take any of the above into account?
They surely must, otherwise how do they arrive at their decisions

Get where you're coming from, and I don't want to come across as holier than thou. But it seems as if you're trying to count angels on the head of a pin, hands and faces just don't mix. - intent should not be an issue here it's the risk that needs to be legislated for.

Similar to picking someone up and dropping them on their head, this should be an area of zero tolerance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oldschoolsocks]

As a fellow martial artist, I was just wondering: Does anyone know what Triggs' "finishing move" is?

I'd say blinding sacrifice or maybe dance of death ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ruckedtobits]

There's all sorts of stuff involved here. word is Citing Officer approaced White in Dublin and got one response. Also reported that White spoke to Triggs and outlined a comment not made to Citing Officer (but radically different in content). Leinster reviewed incident and spoke with Triggs and agreed that response would be " contact with eye area but totally accidental and inconsequential.

Upshot is 3 weeks for Triggs and 4 weeks for Steyn. Where is the proportionality in sanction vis a vis intent?

cr@p process and flawed decisions but Leinster not moaning, just getting on with business. No interview from Trigg, who knows he was careless. Options in the row and this evening and next few weeks will provide opportunities, if candidates are good enough. That's Pro Sport, suck it up and move on.

[Laighin Break]

I think Triggs got off quite lightly with 3 weeks. They usually get a lot worse. Agreed that it should be an area of zero tolerance and that things can happen in an instant (look at Ian McKinley - freak accident, albeit with a stud), but there still can be levels of eye-contact, as sometimes it can be very clearly intentional (Julian Dupuy a few years back). Like if someone does something similar to The Mountain on Oberyn (GoT reference), obviously before the head crushing part, they should get a lot more time, probably a lifetime ban.
It's hard to know with "accidental contact". I remember a gaelic footballer had a pretty incriminating photo of what looked like an eye-gouge. Nothing came of it (as it's the GAA) but he said he honestly didn't try to do anything and was as shocked as anyone to see the photo.

[riocard911]

@ Laighin Break: "Like if someone does something similar to The Mountain on Oberyn (GoT reference), obviously before the head crushing part, they should get a lot more time, probably a lifetime ban." Except of course if it were Dylan Hartley; then Eddie Jones and the RFU would make sure the length of the ban was dependent on when they wanted him next steering the chariot....

[Oldschool]

Oldsocks I'm truly sorry to here about your friends child.

I'm not trying to defend or justify anything.
The citing officers have a job to do and made their ruling based on facts that only they are in possession of.
Their ruling was at the very lower end of the scale.
It's reasonable imho that they don't adopt a one size fits all approach to sentencing.
An instant in time can mean anything.
The length of time Triggs hand was in contact with the eye would be very important.
The speed at which his hand was moving would be important.
Was his victim's head moving toward or away (relative velocity)
Did Triggs move his fingers in scraping or gouging motion?
Do the citing panel take any of the above into account?
They surely must, otherwise how do they arrive at their decisions

Get where you're coming from, and I don't want to come across as holier than thou. But it seems as if you're trying to count angels on the head of a pin, hands and faces just don't mix. - intent should not be an issue here it's the risk that needs to be legislated for.

Similar to picking someone up and dropping them on their head, this should be an area of zero tolerance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with zero tolerance in terms of the act itself.
Counting angels is about the penalty to be applied.
I imagine intent plays a part as does for example "previous"

[Oldschoolsocks]

Oldsocks I'm truly sorry to here about your friends child.

I'm not trying to defend or justify anything.
The citing officers have a job to do and made their ruling based on facts that only they are in possession of.
Their ruling was at the very lower end of the scale.
It's reasonable imho that they don't adopt a one size fits all approach to sentencing.
An instant in time can mean anything.
The length of time Triggs hand was in contact with the eye would be very important.
The speed at which his hand was moving would be important.
Was his victim's head moving toward or away (relative velocity)
Did Triggs move his fingers in scraping or gouging motion?
Do the citing panel take any of the above into account?
They surely must, otherwise how do they arrive at their decisions

Get where you're coming from, and I don't want to come across as holier than thou. But it seems as if you're trying to count angels on the head of a pin, hands and faces just don't mix. - intent should not be an issue here it's the risk that needs to be legislated for.

Similar to picking someone up and dropping them on their head, this should be an area of zero tolerance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with zero tolerance in terms of the act itself.
Counting angels is about the penalty to be applied.
I imagine intent plays a part as does for example "previous"

OK, I'm with you now.

I agree in principle, but I do feel a strong deterrent needs to be in place to discourage unfortunate accidents.

In the grand scheme of things three weeks is lenient IMHO, and while happy for Triggs and Leinster Rugby, I would just not feel comfortable defending any instance of "contact with the eye area"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[molloyjh]

I think 3 weeks is a shocking punishment for Twiggs doing nothing. He was shunted into the contact in fact

Shocking in its leniency, hands should not be near faces. It only takes an instant to seriously injure an eye - and you can't fix them after


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure you're calling for Heaslip to be suspended for the fend to the face in the same game then, yeah?