• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Leinster v Munster

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Oct 7 2009, 02:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
don't turn this into a *** for tat argument, you completely invalidate anything you say by stooping to such levels.[/b]
Agreed Tarbh.

And Dullonien I understand exactly what you saying but it is down to fact he connected with face.
Like if he connnected with legs etc it'd probably have went unnoticed (again not caying I condone stamping)

As regards comment to daylight fire Olly you correct everyone due an opinion.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (munstermuffin @ Oct 7 2009, 03:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
And Dullonien I understand exactly what you saying but it is down to fact he connected with face.
Like if he connnected with legs etc it'd probably have went unnoticed (again not caying I condone stamping)
[/b]


Unfortunately this is 100% correct. Unlike in other sports where the intent is the primary cause for punishment, in rugby it seems where you connected with is more of a concern.
 
Maybe other unions should cite particular things that happen in leagues other than their own. For example the GP cite the ML and the ML cite the GP. Then for more "intense" club competitions the IRB step in, like the Heineken Cup. That is probably too difficult and there would be far too many fights.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gavin @ Oct 7 2009, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Maybe other unions should cite particular things that happen in leagues other than their own. For example the GP cite the ML and the ML cite the GP. Then for more "intense" club competitions the IRB step in, like the Heineken Cup. That is probably too difficult and there would be far too many fights.[/b]

That is what i suggested except have a representation from all areas eg 1 from NZ, Japan etc for ML game etc
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (munstermuffin @ Oct 8 2009, 03:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gavin @ Oct 7 2009, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Maybe other unions should cite particular things that happen in leagues other than their own. For example the GP cite the ML and the ML cite the GP. Then for more "intense" club competitions the IRB step in, like the Heineken Cup. That is probably too difficult and there would be far too many fights.[/b]

That is what i suggested except have a representation from all areas eg 1 from NZ, Japan etc for ML game etc
[/b][/quote]
Oh right, didn't realise. You have said alot in this thread, it is hard to keep on top of everything :p
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gavin @ Oct 7 2009, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (munstermuffin @ Oct 8 2009, 03:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gavin @ Oct 7 2009, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Maybe other unions should cite particular things that happen in leagues other than their own. For example the GP cite the ML and the ML cite the GP. Then for more "intense" club competitions the IRB step in, like the Heineken Cup. That is probably too difficult and there would be far too many fights.[/b]

That is what i suggested except have a representation from all areas eg 1 from NZ, Japan etc for ML game etc
[/b][/quote]
Oh right, didn't realise. You have said alot in this thread, it is hard to keep on top of everything :p
[/b][/quote]
True :D but well Lads it should all be roll on Friday and the beginning of the cup we all want to win.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 7 2009, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 7 2009, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Let's hope Tony Buckley takes advantage of this situation.[/b]
A little late for Buckley. He's what 29 now?
[/b][/quote]

Not for a prop. Look at the ages of all the top props in the world right now and get back to me. I think you'll find they start realling coming into their own in their late 20's - early 30's.
 
Well hopefully the fact were all debating it here also means other people in places of authority (within the IRB) are also debating it. Afterall, they should be looking a these instances of unpunished (or ill punished) indicipline and shaking their heads at the respective Unions. It's about time all acts of foul play are punished with a sensible ban period (or amount of games). Every player in the professional game should be given similar punishments for similar acts of foul play. In this day and age, with the sheer amount of camera angles available, most incidents are picked up, meaning acurate accounts can normally be figured out.

I agree that previous record must be taking into acount with the majority of offenses, however with something as serious as this, I'm not so sure. Afterall, a punch or a headbut etc. can only cause so much damage, a broken nose etc. But stamping on someones face, or attempting to gouge someones eyes could end in career threatening injuries that are not justified in any shape or form, no matter how angel like a player's been in the past. Possibly in this instance a reduction of a week or two is justified, due to others pointing out that he's never even seen a yellow before and the intent could not be 100% proven. I suppose in some ways that's what he got, due to the weird rules that the maximum was an 8 week ban due to it being an internal hearing, odd rules...

Unfortunately, more and more of this is creeping into the game, and unless were careful and punish the ones responsible, our loved game is going to turn into a free for all on the pitch. Injuries are a big part of the sport, due to it's high impact nature. The occasional unintentional high tackle is going to happen, scrums will collapse (although this is also happening too much), and people will brake bones and tear musles. Therefore there's already enough possibility of a players career ending early due to a mistake or an unfortunate injury. We don't need intentional dirty play in the game.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dullonien @ Oct 7 2009, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Well hopefully the fact were all debating it here also means other people in places of authority (within the IRB) are also debating it. Afterall, they should be looking a these instances of unpunished (or ill punished) indicipline and shaking their heads at the respective Unions. It's about time all acts of foul play are punished with a sensible ban period (or amount of games). Every player in the professional game should be given similar punishments for similar acts of foul play. In this day and age, with the sheer amount of camera angles available, most incidents are picked up, meaning acurate accounts can normally be figured out.

I agree that previous record must be taking into acount with the majority of offenses, however with something as serious as this, I'm not so sure. Afterall, a punch or a headbut etc. can only cause so much damage, a broken nose etc. But stamping on someones face, or attempting to gouge someones eyes could end in career threatening injuries that are not justified in any shape or form, no matter how angel like a player's been in the past. Possibly in this instance a reduction of a week or two is justified, due to others pointing out that he's never even seen a yellow before and the intent could not be 100% proven. I suppose in some ways that's what he got, due to the weird rules that the maximum was an 8 week ban due to it being an internal hearing, odd rules...

Unfortunately, more and more of this is creeping into the game, and unless were careful and punish the ones responsible, our loved game is going to turn into a free for all on the pitch. Injuries are a big part of the sport, due to it's high impact nature. The occasional unintentional high tackle is going to happen, scrums will collapse (although this is also happening too much), and people will brake bones and tear musles. Therefore there's already enough possibility of a players career ending early due to a mistake or an unfortunate injury. We don't need intentional dirty play in the game.[/b]
Excellently Put :bravo: Agree 100%

But on 8 weeks maximun. That recommendation comes from IRB
 
Maximum in this case was apparently 8 weeks according to an Irish paper, because the cause was classified as an internal matter or some bullshit like that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 7 2009, 04:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 7 2009, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Oct 7 2009, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Let's hope Tony Buckley takes advantage of this situation.[/b]
A little late for Buckley. He's what 29 now?
[/b][/quote]

Not for a prop. Look at the ages of all the top props in the world right now and get back to me. I think you'll find they start realling coming into their own in their late 20's - early 30's.
[/b][/quote]

Careful, or you'll get the Leinster fans too excited about Cian Healy a few years down the line ;)
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Oct 7 2009, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
No it isn't. Maximum is 52 weeks.[/b]
Teh if you read IRB section John Hayes was santioned under the maximum is 8weeks. It been highlighted in Ireland since the sending off.
 
I wonder if it would have been an "internal matter" if someone like Doug Howlett had been doing the stamping?

Bullshit and drivel.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Oct 7 2009, 08:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I wonder if it would have been an "internal matter" if someone like Doug Howlett had been doing the stamping?

Bullshit and drivel.[/b]
Probably as Magners operates like that -> Each union deals with their own.

But what are chance of IRB acting on disciplinary status? Me think very slim ;)
 
There's absolutely none. I think the phrase you were looking for is "Each union looks after their own".

Amateur organisations in a professional world.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Oct 7 2009, 09:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
There's absolutely none. I think the phrase you were looking for is "Each union looks after their own".

Amateur organisations in a professional world.[/b]
Won't disagree but as long as IRB allow it nothing will change.
 
I think the 8 weeks limitation applies once it was deemed un-intentional. Thats where that limit came in I think (adding his confused thoughts to a confused debate). he stamped on his head, but he didnt aim to stamp on his head. Go figure :)
 
Unintentionally stamped on his head, or unintentionally stamped, full stop? Utter nonsence, as unless he lost control of his leg for a minute, he meant to stamp on Healey. Next comes the interpretation of 'unintentionally stamped on his head'. If he meant to stamp on the guy (he must have), he either meant it to stamp on his face, or didn't care where it landed. Because he did hit the face, he should have been up for the full 58 weeks, not the 8 he was.

Truly baffling verdict. Putting something a bit more serious in it's place, it's like a jury coming back with manslaugher instead of murder with a stabbing, because the guy was meant to stab someone but didn't aim for the heart, he was just waving it around aimlessly and where it hit was pot luck. It happened to hit his heart, but he didn't mean to as it might have just hit his leg. Probably slightly out, but not far imo.

Edit: Their verdict basically means that they believed (or there wasn't enough evidence against) that he didn't realise Healey was there atall, and he was just continuing to maul as he would have anyway. The video clearly shows a different story, with a few Munster players giving him a quick shoeing (none of the others were dangerous), then Hayes basically using him like a staircase.
 
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VTeNpIJPk4I&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VTeNpIJPk4I&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Donncha O'Callaghan is an utter f***wit
 
Top