Penalise original offenders first and retaliators second

On reflection, Damo, I think your recollection is accurate. I suspect my memory may have been depleted by the damage inflicted by those undisciplined retaliators, who would never had done it to me if only I had "arbitro storico" QC (above) lying around in the ruck with me to properly represent my interests in the "anarchical wild west" of the front row in the '60s and '70s. "don’t retaliate – under any circumstances" opines "arbitro", which is in direct conflict with the my coach's half time instructions from time to time to "sort that bloke out, we don't want him running at us any more". The most unusual occassion was when he told me to give our dozy big centre, "Lumpy", a jab if I could, to get the lazy barsteward properly fired up and doing his job better.

Its all about composure. You simply have to 'card' the third man, for at least one good reason, to see that look of justifiable disgust as they go from knight to knobhead, always good for a laugh. But only an Aussie can feel that way because we usually play a very clean game. Most fans I know did not forgive Justin Harrison for his antics. With a bit of self control revenge could be dealt a tiny bit later - and that's the whole point, some blokes go into games looking for a stink and that is why we have these laws. Throwing a punch is often ignored, risking a brawl, never. Story: John Eales is explaining about composure. (a) Composure; Aus v Ire, late in the game, Irish get a try to go ahead, Lynagh lines up everyone and explains how they are going to get the lead back, it vitrtually goes to script, Aus win. (b) Lack of composure; pressure scrum 5 metres out, minutes to go, but the team under pressure has the feed. Suddenly the front row erupts and some paddy is whaling into his opposite and is duly sent off, penalty, score and match. The coach asks the prop why he lost control to which the prop replies "He said dirty things about my sister!" to which coach says "But you're an only child, you don't have a sister".

Agreed - no facial, no incident. As rugby players we all look after our team mates - it's what we do - so why victimize the "third man in" just because he's the closest team mate to the incident. Find the cheap shot artists, deal with them appropriately.

Take a look at this. The results of eye gouging. Makes me sick. This is precisely why, if I feel someone feeling around my eye socket, I hit first and then ask questions later. I'm not waiting for the ref to protect me. I have a job to do, and it requires two eyes. And frankly, if I seek retribution and get sent off, I don't mind, because if it makes the scumbags that behave like this think twice before doing it again and it saves something like this occurring, then I've done my fellow rugby players a service. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/8663226.stm

Matty / Damo, I think we're all off the same sheet of music. The last thing unions want, however, is all in brawls...and rightly so. Unfortunately, these are usually caused by a third person getting involved in a scuffle. Now, this person may only be trying to break things up, or it may be they think a scuffle is unfair (Humphries v Cowan) and so decide to throw their two bobs worth in and before you know it, everyone's involved. Referees usually go for that 3rd man who's inflamed the situation, as occured the other night. In this case, the highlanders Wing I think it was (name escapes me) started thrashing around and inflamed things. Humphries only wanted to let Cowan know (a serial offender, but does it well) that he didn't like the facial! If they got it right, the 3rd man in should have been binned, however, they seem to now be going for the retaliator rather than the 3rd man or originator. The only way to stop it, and I think we all agree on this, is giving the perpetrator a hefty sentence either during the game or after. Will soon cut out the perennial offenders. Referees and assistants will continue to be pissing in the wind until someone with balls in an appropriate position allows TMOs to adjudicate such instances. It's embarassing to watch referees continually getting it wrong when we have the technology to get it right!!

Good point Matty. The fact that some players use these "niggles" as part of their game plan to milk penalties is another factor. It's rugby's version of soccer diving. It's not what I pay to watch and till we develop rugby robots it's a "humans only" game and humans react defensively to physical attack. First offender must be dealt with at least equally with 'retaliator' on the spot or more harshly than 'retaliator' after the game .

I believe that we have to distinguish between acts in self defense and acts of retribution. Clearly, intent and circumstances are different. If I am to be sent off or penalised for snotting someone who is choking me, gouging me, or squirrel gripping me, then so be it. I am acting in self defense, and criminal law would legitimise my actions (to a point). I'm not waiting for the ref to come and politely ask my attacker to please refrain. The idea that I can be penalised in a game for what would be legal seems incongruous. Seeking out retribution is a different matter.

"the game was never meant to attract legions of the faint hearted" Quote of the week...

Sorry Mick the way I heard the story of Jesus coming to Manly back then It was "put him in the centres and move Bozo out to the wing"

Cowan is known for that type of play. He's a dirty player! We need to TMO in cases like that as the citing Commissioner was probably off for a pee.

stillmissit says "Jesus never played rugby" I recall a church at Manly (Sydney) decades ago had one of those chalkboards out the front where the priest or minister would pen an inspirational or thought provoking message. He had written "What would YOU do if Jesus Christ came to Manly?" Some clever League supporter took the opportunity to chalk an answer on the board "Move Fulton to the wing!"

AS, I understand where your coming from very well, but I also think your missing one of the fundamental basics of the Australian (and NZ) psych, and that's to stand up for yourself (protect yourself) and your mates. Probably goes further back than the ANZACs. I am not supporting thuggery in any way shape or form, and I too admire the likes of John Thornet and John Eales. However, the perennial offenders will never be brought to justice as pointed out by Stillmissit, if there isn't some form of accountability, and this will only occur if you begrudge your eyes being gouged, your nose spread all over your face or your cods heaved into the lower stomach! Believe me, I don't miss your point at all, however, there needs to be accountability for actions and this may only occur if Newton's law is followed!

SMI, I think we are both comparing oranges with oranges. I'm all for cleaning up the game AND getting the originator. This can often only be done by studying the footage...all very easy in this tecnological age. This is also the only way to get the perennial offender. Referees guess in a lot of instances as to who the culprits were, or see something, not as serious as other things, and that number / person remains in his head. This person will then get his marching orders. In instances where there's an altercation requiring action by officials, then use of the TMO should be mandatory. We have the technology, let's use it for heaven's sake!

stillmissit & cattledog - you're both missing my point. What I'm saying is, don't retaliate - under any circumstances. If the original infringement is seen by the referee or the AR, there's no question about who's at fault. If it's not been seen by the match officials, perhaps there's a citing procedure in place. If not - then the original offender has got away with one. John Thornett was one of Australia's best players - a leader in the best sense - and he didn't throw a punch, even in retaliation. John Eales responded to French teethmarks by alerting the referee to the fact of them. We're talking about a rugby match, not the wild west or the jungle. All this talk about who should be penalised the greater is irrelevant if there's no retaliation. Leave the "eye-for-an-eye" stuff to the fundamentalists.

Stillmissit, you have brought up a controversial, but very relevant point. For so long now, cheap shots on players has seen the guilty survive and the person protecting themselves or a team mate take the fall. It's come from the 'third man in' syndrome where most of the time, the refs, especially at club level, get it wrong. Having sat on a judiciary for many years, 90% of those who provide video / DVD evidence walked free due to the refs getting it wrong. Their human and unfortunately, only some of that snapshot remains in their mind when making a decision. Clearly, at the professional level, what's to stop the ref calling time out, going to the TMO and saying 'what caused the ruckuss'? Then penalise ALL offenders. Obviously, as was the case in the Reds / Highlanders match, the Assistant Ref generally only sees what the ref sees. That's why it would have been better if Steve Walsh had said 'tell me what you saw' rather than 'this is what I saw, do you have anything different'. Course he won't, let's not be controversial! Walsh made it easy for him not to make a decision. Both to the bin would have been a fair outcome. It was a facial, not gouging. Third man in is when two guys have a stouch and a third enters the fray, supposedly igniting the situation, but often to break it up. This then causes an 'all in', apparently. Not so much at the professional level but certainly at club level. So, use of the TMO should become mandatory when available. I saw in a club game, which was being videoed, the referee stop the match after a nasty incident. He went to the guy videoing the game, asked if he could see the last 30 seconds, went back to the field and got ALL offenders. 2 sent off one to the bin. He was criticised but he got it right. Good on him!

Stillmissit You are right i am an old hooker/prop of very average ability and I'm sure it does cloud my judgement but I just had to get that out of my system. Regards' Tock PS love the nom de plume