Shute Shield 2013

[the coach]

I think you are being way too harsh here.
You are speaking like he was minding his business and was king hit.
He was dragging Gower away from the play.He was cheating and, had Gower not knocked him out,most on here would agree it was a bit of "jungle justice"
Obviously things have moved on from the ''good old days",and it can't be condoned.But I think there was provocation involved in this case, and it should be factored in when sentencing him.

I didn't get a great view of it but he was provoked.
Over reaction, sure, but I doubt Gower expected the outcome that occurred ie player knocked out.
Surely we have to accept that players will react in these circumstances.
He deserves to be suspended but there is some mitigation.

 

[the coach]

PS: Papworth's over reaction (does he have some involvement with the Woodies? ) made it seem worse than it was.

 

[Blackers13]

PS: Papworth's over reaction (does he have some involvement with the Woodies? ) made it seem worse than it was.

Guys, I'm neutral on this from a club point of view, however the video clearly shows Plotzkys hanging on to Gower, delaying his arrival at the play following a lineout. Gower responds with a right cross that connects. Probably didn't intend to knock him out, but he did. The judiciary has been very harsh on much less so far this year.

 

[wamberal]

I doubt that provocation is a defense. There are many ways to get rid of a player hanging on to your jersey, a punch to the jaw should not be one of them.

 

[Rob]

I think you are being way too harsh here.
You are speaking like he was minding his business and was king hit.
He was dragging Gower away from the play.He was cheating and, had Gower not knocked him out,most on here would agree it was a bit of "jungle justice"
Obviously things have moved on from the ''good old days",and it can't be condoned.But I think there was provocation involved in this case, and it should be factored in when sentencing him.

Disagree. There was some minor jostling and holding as they both followed the ball. No more than happens at any breakdown or scrum. The KING HIT was a cowardly act. Gower had a poor game after the incident, so it didnt help his team at all.

The jungle justice comment is just bullshit! Imagine what rugby would turn into if every time someones jersey was pulled there was a king hit.

Gower will get plenty of time on the sidelines and deservedly so. I dont think Plotzkys is not on the Eastwood team list this week, so that may not help Gower either.

Can anyone tell me why the judiciary doesnt sit every week. Last time I took a player to the judiciary it was standing room only, and I think they were sitting two nights a week.

 

[Done that]

Disagree. There was some minor jostling and holding as they both followed the ball. No more than happens at any breakdown or scrum. The KING HIT was a cowardly act. Gower had a poor game after the incident, so it didnt help his team at all.

The jungle justice comment is just bullshit! Imagine what rugby would turn into if every time someones jersey was pulled there was a king hit.

Gower will get plenty of time on the sidelines and deservedly so. I dont think Plotzkys is not on the Eastwood team list this week, so that may not help Gower either.

Can anyone tell me why the judiciary doesnt sit every week. Last time I took a player to the judiciary it was standing room only, and I think they were sitting two nights a week.

Exactly.

 

[Knuckles]

I think you are being way too harsh here.
You are speaking like he was minding his business and was king hit.
He was dragging Gower away from the play.He was cheating and, had Gower not knocked him out,most on here would agree it was a bit of "jungle justice"
Obviously things have moved on from the ''good old days",and it can't be condoned.But I think there was provocation involved in this case, and it should be factored in when sentencing him.

Having sat on both sides of the judiciary table too many times to count, I can assure you all, provocation is certainly not either an excuse or an accepted defence.

Yes Plotsks was annoying Gower by attempting to stop his progress from coming through the lineout but guess what, that was Plotsks' job. Gower's punch was nothing short of a cowards cheap shot at a bloke not expecting it and not looking for it. Gower has for a long time been considered a 'hard man' of not only the Manly pack but of the comp in general too. He gets away with a hell of a lot more than I have seen other players taking similar actions and hopefully this time, his dog shot will see him receive 6 weeks or longer.

However, I seriously doubt that will happen. After all, he's a golden haired boy from Manly. He'll probably get a week!
Be interesting to see if he was a West Harbour or Penrith player nd how long he'd get!

Rant over.

 

[the coach]

Having sat on both sides of the judiciary table too many times to count, I can assure you all, provocation is certainly not either an excuse or an accepted defence.

Yes Plotsks was annoying Gower by attempting to stop his progress from coming through the lineout but guess what, that was Plotsks' job. Gower's punch was nothing short of a cowards cheap shot at a bloke not expecting it and not looking for it. Gower has for a long time been considered a 'hard man' of not only the Manly pack but of the comp in general too. He gets away with a hell of a lot more than I have seen other players taking similar actions and hopefully this time, his dog shot will see him receive 6 weeks or longer.

However, I seriously doubt that will happen. After all, he's a golden haired boy from Manly. He'll probably get a week!
Be interesting to see if he was a West Harbour or Penrith player nd how long he'd get!

Rant over.

What if he was a Gordon player?

I don't condone what he did but I thought the interference was well after the lineout and Plotzkys was trying illegally to stop him getting to the ball. I'm still at a loss to understand how none of the officials (including Peter Marshall who was the TMO and would have seen the replays on the ABC) didn't see the incident.

Does anyone know whether the TMO is able to report such incidents to the referee like they now can in S15?

 

[Knuckles]

I don't think the TMO can report Coach. But I may stand corrected on that one too.

I also don't believe the actions of Plotzkys was illegal and certainly didnt warrant getting clocked like he did. It is after all, one of only 3 jobs a tighthead has to do at lineout time.

I have the footage to attach but don't know how too.......................old dog, new tricks etc.

 

[AussieDominance]

No one has mentioned that Plokstys and Gower were teammates at Gordon!

 

[Knuckles]

No one has mentioned that Plokstys and Gower were teammates at Gordon!

Probably because it's irrelevant

 

[Rob]

Probably because it's irrelevant

Knuckes, do you know why the judiciary doest sit every week?

 

[BellyTwoBlues]

Knuckes, do you know why the judiciary doest sit every week?

I can answer that.

The judiciary might not sit every week because there were no send offs the previous saturday. As Gower was not sent off he wouldn't need to appear on the Monday.

The citing process is a different beast also. A club has til close of business on the Monday to notify the competition manager of their intention to cite. The club then has to submit all supporting documents, footage etc for the citing by close of business wednesday. The comp manager then sends it to the citing commissioner who determines whether or not there is a case to answer. If so, then the player's club is notified of the hearing date and supplied all the citing documentation.

In every citing case, players are free to play up until the citing hearing.

Assuming Eastwood cited Gower, the case would have gone through the above process.
If Eastwood did not cite Gower, then NOTHING will happen.

 

[The Galah]

Knuckes, do you know why the judiciary doest sit every week?

Because like so much of our game despite the growth of professionalism for the benefit of a few its made up of volunteers - usually busy rugby supporting barristers/solicitors juggling their professional and home lives.

Whatever the outcome (and he will likely cop an appropriate sentence ) and the rants above - Ed Gower is entitled to due process. Some of the preceding rants display the negative aspects of social media and Knuckles, really mate, "golden haired Manly boy" getting preferential treatment etc are you part of Wayne Swans media team!! Plotzkys was doing more than obstructing I believe holding Ed back and had done it earlier. Ed should however, had a whinge to the ref at the next breakdown.....

 

[The Galah]

Thanks BTB was typing (slowly) when you posted

 

[Rob]

I can answer that.

The judiciary might not sit every week because there were no send offs the previous saturday. As Gower was not sent off he wouldn't need to appear on the Monday.

The citing process is a different beast also. A club has til close of business on the Monday to notify the competition manager of their intention to cite. The club then has to submit all supporting documents, footage etc for the citing by close of business wednesday. The comp manager then sends it to the citing commissioner who determines whether or not there is a case to answer. If so, then the player's club is notified of the hearing date and supplied all the citing documentation.

In every citing case, players are free to play up until the citing hearing.

Assuming Eastwood cited Gower, the case would have gone through the above process.
If Eastwood did not cite Gower, then NOTHING will happen.

Thanks for that

 

[the coach]

I can answer that.

The judiciary might not sit every week because there were no send offs the previous saturday. As Gower was not sent off he wouldn't need to appear on the Monday.

The citing process is a different beast also. A club has til close of business on the Monday to notify the competition manager of their intention to cite. The club then has to submit all supporting documents, footage etc for the citing by close of business wednesday. The comp manager then sends it to the citing commissioner who determines whether or not there is a case to answer. If so, then the player's club is notified of the hearing date and supplied all the citing documentation.

In every citing case, players are free to play up until the citing hearing.

Assuming Eastwood cited Gower, the case would have gone through the above process.
If Eastwood did not cite Gower, then NOTHING will happen.

So does anyone know whether he has been cited?

 

[thecow]

What if he was a Gordon player?

I don't condone what he did but I thought the interference was well after the lineout and Plotzkys was trying illegally to stop him getting to the ball. I'm still at a loss to understand how none of the officials (including Peter Marshall who was the TMO and would have seen the replays on the ABC) didn't see the incident.

Does anyone know whether the TMO is able to report such incidents to the referee like they now can in S15?

I don't think they would be able to because only 1 of the 6 Shute Shield matches each weekend has a TMO, so there wouldn't be a consistent standard for every game.

 

[The Galah]

He has I am advised

 

[the coach]

I don't think they would be able to because only 1 of the 6 Shute Shield matches each weekend has a TMO, so there wouldn't be a consistent standard for every game.

You may be right but then again only one game is covered by the ABC from multiple camera angles with instant replays and I'm sure their footage would have been reviewed by Eastwood before deciding to cite the player. The commentators (and the on ground officials) didn't see the incident when it happened. They went back to the replay to see what had happened to the injured player. Only the TV game has resort to the TMO to decide on tries as well and this has been raised as an issue in the past ie not all games have the same benefit and tries may be disallowed or awarded incorrectly.

So if that's the reason why a very experienced referee in Peter Marshall could not have intervened I'd suggest it should be reviewed.