Ben Flower

It makes no difference whether he was 'entirely' innocent, the response was over the top.
Its mitigation, not a defence!
Either way, a Spots Governing body is not the appropriate place to hear what is a criminal allegation. This is.
 
if only 1 punch had been thrown it would have been the usual - red card, few games ban etc.

It's the going in for the second when the man was down and prone that's the issue - this goes beyond red mist/reactionary and what is deemed unacceptable but understandable, IIRC there is a caveat about what is deemed acceptable on a sporting pitch/arena and certain things go beyond that - e.g. boxing you expect to hit and get hit, but not to have half of your ear bitten off.

In this case I think the second punch may have been grounds for non-sporting authorities to have a close look and consider


ChrisHeathcote said:
what about the occasional stamp ;) a friend plays union and he regular comes off with stud marks on his shins
Click to expand...

raking =/= stamping - and most players are reasonable and rake 'fleshy' parts like calf, thigh or glutes, stay away from joints and bones.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
what about the occasional stamp ;) a friend plays union and he regular comes off with stud marks on his shins
Click to expand...

maybe, but if you're offside then yuo are part of the pitch!
 
Lynton said:
Speak for yourself, I have honestly never thrown a punch on a rugby pitch............. oh hang on though I played Union. Are the rules that different?
Click to expand...
Yes, you lot just stamp on each others heads, i played Union for Morley and i never played with a bigger bunch of thugs in my whole career.

Dont forget that a Police Officer playing Union was successfully prosecuted about 10 years ago for his onfield thuggery

Notice i said thuggery, because thats what it is, im not condoning it but s*** happens, kids are taught from 6 years old by coaches and parents alike not to let the opposition et the better of you.

Watch any Juniors game from about 10 years and upwards and listen to the parents baying for blood from the sidelines and whooping and hollering in excitement when it does happen
 
Last edited:
ACW said:
You cannot punch people in the face when playing rugby. That's not part of the sport and very different to the tackles and other permissible contact acts.
Click to expand...

exactly - which is why punching someonein the face while playing rugby should be dealt with by the standards of rugby, not by the standards of the street where tackles and other contact acts would also be illegal , that is you can't apply the standards of the street to the rigby feild because they are different.

What flowers did was wrong, but he should be punished by the RFL under the rules of the game he was involved in , not by civic law which has no bearing on the rugby feild
 
Bernie174 said:
Rugby may well be a contact sport, but I've had a quick look and thumping people isn't in the rules.

OK, everyone agrees it was unacceptable, what remains is how it is dealt with.

A disciplinary hearing isn't going to impose much of a sanction, sports ones never do. Does that matter? Yes, it does simply because it sends the wrong message to others, not just in rugby, but in wider society.

The problem is that UK wide we have a problem with people who think that OTT violence is acceptable, why? Because time and time again they see it happen and very often they see no consequences for that violence.

Like it or not Flowers put himself in the public eye when he signed on the dotted line, and in doing so he should be expected to set an example, part of that is facing up to the consequences of his actions.

A Dsciplinary board is not the answer here, it's a Court hearing that needs to happen. Excuses being made for him are not helping anyone, the contact sport argument is cobblers, contact means just that, it does not mean a thump in the face on another player who does not have the ball, who is on his back, and possibly unconscious.
Click to expand...

:agree: IMO too many excuses being made from folks who should know better and assault is assault no matter how you wrap it up!
 
i dont know why being on a bit of grass should hide the fact that assault is assault. its not a sporting incident, thats just plain thuggery.

if it was anywhere else he'd be in cuffs quicker than blinking.
 
AHILL said:
:agree: IMO too many excuses being made from folks who should know better and assault is assault no matter how you wrap it up!
Click to expand...

Trouble is though if you deal with this by the standards of civic street , lance is also guilty of an unprovoked assault , and all 26 involved in the ensuing brawl are guilty of affray ... the police and courts are going to be pretty busy if we start dealing with every episode ofsporting fisticuffs ass though its a crime ... personally i'd say they have better things to do
 
big soft moose said:
exactly - which is why punching someonein the face while playing rugby should be dealt with by the standards of rugby, not by the standards of the street where tackles and other contact acts would also be illegal , that is you can't apply the standards of the street to the rigby feild because they are different.

What flowers did was wrong, but he should be punished by the RFL under the rules of the game he was involved in , not by civic law which has no bearing on the rugby feild
Click to expand...

Sorry but your logic is flawed.
Yes you can apply street standards in a rugby game because punching someone in the face is not part of the game therefore the RFL should not be dealing with the offence.
What is civic law?
 
big soft moose said:
Trouble is though if you deal with this by the standards of civic street , lance is also guilty of an unprovoked assault , and all 26 involved in the ensuing brawl are guilty of affray ... the police and courts are going to be pretty busy if we start dealing with every episode ofsporting fisticuffs ass though its a crime ... personally i'd say they have better things to do
Click to expand...

Actually I always thought that going in with an elbow is permitted under RFL ruling so that would not have been an un provoked assault.
 
AHILL said:
Sorry but your logic is flawed.
Yes you can apply street standards in a rugby game because punching someone in the face is not part of the game therefore the RFL should not be dealing with the offence.
What is civic law?
Click to expand...

but that doesnt take into account the provacation which is part of the game (arguably , though by civic standards lance would be guilty of assault too ) - If you are standing in the street minding your own business and i run up and whack you round the head with my elbow , i'm not an innocent victim if you then retaliate by punching me to the ground.

and Civic law is the law as applied in civvy street (as opposed to Military Law applied to the millitary) I use the term here as the same parallel applies - we judge civic crimes by civic standards, we don't (or at least shouldn't) apply civic law to battlefeilds because the context is different.
 
AHILL said:
Actually I always thought that going in with an elbow is permitted under RFL ruling so that would not have been an un provoked assault.
Click to expand...

Sigh, not under RFL "law" but you want flowers judged by the standards of civic law in the street - and by that standard going in with an elbow would be assault - my point being that if you judge Flowers by Civic law you have to judge everyone arround him by the same standard ... however ridiculous that actally is

If you want to judge lance's conduct by the RFL rules then it stands to reason that flowers conduct be judged in the same way
 
big soft moose said:
Sigh, not under RFL "law" but you want flowers judged by the standards of civic law in the street - and by that standard going in with an elbow would be assault - my point being that if you judge Flowers by Civic law you have to judge everyone arround him by the same standard ... however ridiculous that actally is

If you want to judge lance's conduct by the RFL rules then it stands to reason that flowers conduct be judged in the same way
Click to expand...

I give up. you are now being deliberately silly.
 
big soft moose said:
but that doesnt take into account the provacation which is part of the game (arguably , though by civic standards lance would be guilty of assault too ) - If you are standing in the street minding your own business and i run up and whack you round the head with my elbow , i'm not an innocent victim if you then retaliate by punching me to the ground.

and Civic law is the law as applied in civvy street (as opposed to Military Law applied to the millitary) I use the term here as the same parallel applies - we judge civic crimes by civic standards, we don't (or at least shouldn't) apply civic law to battlefeilds because the context is different.
Click to expand...

Ah you mean "CIVIL LAW" :rolleyes: oh dear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
 
AHILL said:
Actually I always thought that going in with an elbow is permitted under RFL ruling so that would not have been an un provoked assault.
Click to expand...
Then you thought wrong. Any tackle to the head is against the rules just as any late tackle is. So, a late/off the ball tackle involving an elbow/forearm to the neck/head is definitely against the rules.
 
At the end of the day, some people will always believe that an unprovoked smack in the mouth (which is what the second punch was) is ok under some circumstances.
 
There is no such thing as 'civic' law or RFL law.
What Flowers has done is a breach of criminal law, I don't care about RFL rules, that's all they are rules of a 'club'.

There is absolutely no weight in your comment about affray, that is part of a game undertaken knowing that is part of how it is played. But there is nothing, nowt, b****r all in the rules of rugby about belting someone. That is the essential difference here!

Irrespective of what 'provocation' you consider there to be, the Criminal Law in the UK applies to all (Nearly every Military offence is also an offence against Criminal law as well!), and Flowers is included in that, whether he is wearing shorts and pretending to play a game, or not.

End of story, there's no discussion on it, there's very good evidence of a criminal offence. Police are investigating it, because like it or not they have a duty to. The CPS will consider that, and charge him if they feel the need. I hope they do. It's about time so called sportsmen stopped behaving like prima donas who can do what they like, and faced the consequences.
 
viv1969 said:
At the end of the day, some people will always believe that an unprovoked smack in the mouth (which is what the second punch was) is ok under some circumstances.
Click to expand...
Im assuming you dont have a Telly or didnt watch the whole of the incident.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Im assuming you dont have a Telly or didnt watch the whole of the incident.
Click to expand...

No, I've seen it.
The punch when he's already down is what I'm talking about.
 
Out of line and should and will receive a lengthy ban, same as Calum Clark's behaviour in RU a while back, not acceptable. But, not a criminal matter.

It's unlikely he knew the guy was out in that split second, usually you don't find out until everyone gets up and someone's left on the floor. It's a full on contact sport, you have to be aggressive and hurt people (speaking as someone who had a rib broken by a teammate during pre-season training a couple months ago). Sometimes people step over a line in the heat of the moment, that's what the sports disciplinary process is there for.
 
Rapscallion said:
Like an elbow in the face isnt provocation!!
Click to expand...

OK, and he smacked him for it.
But the second punch, he's on the deck....flat out....how is the second punch in any way ok?
Please don't give me "heat of the moment" or "all part of the game" because quite frankly that's laughable.
 
No-one is saying it's OK. It's not acceptable behaviour, but it is something that happens when you play an aggressive, physical sport with a big group of adrenaline charged men. It's why there are disciplinary processes in place and he will be punished for it.

Everyone that walks onto a rugby pitch knows you can and will end up hurt, be it from an over-eager teammate in training, a big hit, a cheeky dig in a ruck, or someone losing their rag and throwing a punch. It's the oldest tactic in the book to niggle someone with a temper so they throw a punch and get sent off.

Jeez if you arrested everyone that took a cheap shot there'd be no-one left playing.
 
viv1969 said:
OK, and he smacked him for it.
But the second punch, he's on the deck....flat out....how is the second punch in any way ok?
Please don't give me "heat of the moment" or "all part of the game" because quite frankly that's laughable.
Click to expand...

I don't thinks it is "OK", don't think anybody suggests it was.
But the point i was making that you can now see was that the it was provoked by an elbow in the face that you were disputing in post 107.
 
viv1969 said:
OK, and he smacked him for it.
But the second punch, he's on the deck....flat out....how is the second punch in any way ok?
Please don't give me "heat of the moment" or "all part of the game" because quite frankly that's laughable.
Click to expand...
Next time one of your kids gets beat up come back and tell me you dont want to smack their assailant 20 times even while their on the floor
 
Rapscallion said:
I don't thinks it is "OK", don't think anybody suggests it was.
But the point i was making that you can now see was that the it was provoked by an elbow in the face that you were disputing in post 107.
Click to expand...

The elbow was the reason he was decked. The following punch cannot be condoned as anything but thuggery.

Gary Coyle said:
Next time one of your kids gets beat up come back and tell me you dont want to smack their assailant 20 times even while their on the floor
Click to expand...

You're assuming things you know nothing about. Best not.
 
Rapscallion said:
So no prosecution for the first punch?
Click to expand...

For me personally, quite possibly.
But for the second, I just can't see any excuse for it, sorry.
 
viv1969 said:
You're assuming things you know nothing about. Best not.
Click to expand...
No Ruth, i have direct experience of incidents like this and much worse on a personal level, i might not know how you would react but i know how i would, i played the game for 20 years so please dont preach to me about something i DO know about. People snap, ive had a broken Jaw and other injuries but i picked myself up and played the first game when i was fit to do so, NO ONE IS SAYING ITS RIGHT OR CONDONING IT, but it happens everyday on every pitch at every age level.

Bottom line is you have a choice, you know when you take to the field theres potential for violence

Hohiah should consider himself lucky that John Hopoate wasn't second man in on the tackle.


 
@Gary Coyle I have not preached, I've expressed an opinion.
I don't care about your personal rugby experiences.
By saying "Oh he's lucky....." or "you should expect....." You ARE condoning, and as long as "sportsmen" (nothing of the kind IMO) keep condoning it, it'll become more acceptable.
I suggest we agree to disagree.
 
You seriously need to take to the field Ruth

You also need to distinguish between everyday life and the game, men have been crippled for life and men have lost their lives while playing the game, its a tough game and despite its barbarity its still played.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top