Quinlan Banned

P_1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/irish/7734467.stm

Oh scheisse

marco_polo

And apparently a yellow card is punishment enough for a punch as Woodcock get off scot free.

On the plus side big chance for Ferris now.

Chucky the tree

I missed that match but was it really this bad? Was it near the players head?

International Rugby Board disciplinary officer Lorne Crerar said Quinlan should have been red-carded

[Jackass]

No, from what I remember seeing a clip of it on TV it was no worse than what you see in any rugby match. Players lying on the wrong side of the rook and the offensive player coming over giving him a shoeing. It was down his back / hip, but no worse than what you see in most matches iirc.

The ref saw it and didn't even reverse a penalty that was awarded to us, so to say it was a red card offence is a joke. Very bizare and harsh decision imo.

marco_polo

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I missed that match but was it really this bad? Was it near the players head?

It wasn't that forceful, but I would be of the opnion that a punch to the face is a red card offence regardless of whether the punch really hurt or not.

Oh wait you meant the stamp

Quinlans three weeks off are possibly deserved as the player was not interfering with play despite being on the wrong side, not that dangerous I suppose but stupid nonetheless. Just my opinion of course I am sure others will see it differently

puntosporting

marco_polo wrote: »

It wasn't that forceful, but I would be of the opnion that a punch to the face is a red card offence regardless of whether the punch really hurt or not.

Quinlans three weeks off are possibly deserved as the player was not interfering with play despite being on the wrong side. Just my opnion of course I am sure others will see it differently

Typical realy Quinlans reputation proceeded him on this i reckon!
He could have avoided the stamp but your man was there to be throdded on its rugby bit harsh in my mind!

marco_polo

puntosporting wrote: »

Typical realy Quinlans reputation proceeded him on this i reckon!
He could have avoided the stamp but your man was there to be throdded on its rugby bit harsh in my mind!

I think that would have been the comittees problem with it. And they have been clamping down on careless use of the boot in recent years

Perhaps if it was another player with less of a reputation (he's no angel to be fair) they may not gotten off with a slap on the wrist.

marco_polo

Hurrah, the good news is it finishes up on the day before the Clermont game according to the Irish Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/rugby/2008/1119/1227137487809.html

phog

According to GT in the IT it was the ABs that reported the incident to the citing comm. after he cited Woodcock for the punch. I think the ABs were laying down a marker, we'll lie offside, slow down your ball and you cant touch us.

Yeah, there was no backward movement from Quinny but how do you rake someone out if the offending player is in front of you?

Three weeks, not missing much but I'd guess Quinny would have loved a start against the Pumas and maybe Ireland needed his needle for this game but now Ferris will gat another opportunity to step up to the mark.

Serenity Now!

[Jackass] wrote: »

No, from what I remember seeing a clip of it on TV it was no worse than what you see in any rugby match. Players lying on the wrong side of the rook and the offensive player coming over giving him a shoeing. It was down his back / hip, but no worse than what you see in most matches iirc

Raking and stamping a player down their body is still illegal and if not punished properly on-field, can be punished via citation to judiciary.

What goes on in "most matches" is irrelevant. He was cited and found guilty so he takes a three week hiatus. This means he misses a RWC-ranking game, a Magners League game and an ERC game unless I'm much mistaken, the silly bugger.

twinytwo

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Raking and stamping a player down their body is still illegal and if not punished properly on-field, can be punished via citation to judiciary.

What goes on in "most matches" is irrelevant. He was cited and found guilty so he takes a three week hiatus. This means he misses a RWC-ranking game, a Magners League game and an ERC game unless I'm much mistaken, the silly bugger.

correct if im wrong.. but if the player is blocking the ball.. ie not rolling away are the other team not allowed to use the rake to get him to move his ass???

Serenity Now!

twinytwo wrote: »

correct if im wrong.. but if the player is blocking the ball.. ie not rolling away are the other team not allowed to use the rake to get him to move his ass???

Law 16.3 (f) states a big no to that one, I'm afraid.

bamboozle

and Woodcock gets nothing for a punch in the face!!!!!!!

bugler

I haven't seen any replays, but I saw it on Tuesday night, and this ban seems very harsh to me.

Serenity Now!

bamboozle wrote: »

and Woodcock gets nothing for a punch in the face!!!!!!!

Who cited Woodcock then? No-one.
His getting away with it does nothing to exonerate Quinny.
Moral relativism doesn't make anyone less or more guilty here.

andrewh5

marco_polo wrote: »

And apparently a yellow card is punishment enough for a punch as Woodcock get off scot free.

On the plus side big chance for Ferris now.

He should have had a red for that. The ref was useless on Saturday. He needs to go back to ref school.

Pshan

I dont think there are many condoning what Quinny did, he did what he did and now must accept his punishment. I think what most people question is how the match officials deal with infringements, like how a guy punches another player and doesn't get a straight red and why the ref sees Quinny's stamp and decides not to reverse the penalty. If the officials allow players to lie on the wrong side of the ruck then players will take the law into their own hands.

What's unfortunate in all this is that we probably need him more for Saturday's match then we did against the Kiwis, lets hope Ferris is as good as he was against the Cannuks. Contepomi must be delighted that Quinny wont be in his face, it all augurs well for a home defeat.

andrewh5

Pshan wrote: »

What's unfortunate in all this is that we probably need him more for Saturday's match then we did against the Kiwis, lets hope Ferris is as good as he was against the Cannuks. Contepomi must be delighted that Quinny wont be in his face, it all augurs well for a home defeat.

I thought Contepomi wasn't playing due to injury?

Serenity Now!

andrewh5 wrote: »

I thought Contepomi wasn't playing due to injury?

Don't be surprised if its all been a ruse.

twinytwo

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Law 16.3 (f) states a big no to that one, I'm afraid.

16.3(f) A player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball tries to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them.

it says nothing of guys not rolling away... it would depend on ur interpetation of the rule.. but then a rake is different to a stamp. If the player is impeading the ball and is able to roll away but wont the player is entitled to the foot.. if how ever he is pinned and unable to move then it is a peno... i mean a step is not a rake

Serenity Now!

twinytwo wrote: »

16.3(f) A player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball tries to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them.

it says nothing of guys not rolling away... it would depend on ur interpetation of the rule.. but then a rake is different to a stamp. If the player is impeading the ball and is able to roll away but wont the player is entitled to the foot.. if how ever he is pinned and unable to move then it is a peno... i mean a step is not a rake

???????
There is no "interpretation" required ffs. It really is that simple. No player is entitled to a raking or stamping.

Don't ever take up refereeing. You obviously haven't already..............and thankfully so.

bamboozle

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Who cited Woodcock then? No-one.
His getting away with it does nothing to exonerate Quinny.
Moral relativism doesn't make anyone less or more guilty here.

Woodcock was cited by the citing commissioner, when the AB's heard he had been cited, only then did the AB's cite Quinlan in what was purely a tit for tat move.

twinytwo

Serenity Now! wrote: »

???????
There is no "interpretation" required ffs. It really is that simple. No player is entitled to a raking or stamping.

Don't ever take up refereeing. You obviously haven't already..............and thankfully so.

Not too bright... why is it do u think that if the player is not rolling away and he is raked the ref 9 times out of 10 does not penalise it???

Serenity Now!

bamboozle wrote: »

Woodcock was cited by the citing commissioner, when the AB's heard he had been cited, only then did the AB's cite Quinlan in what was purely a tit for tat move.

I was unaware that Woodcock was nabbed by citing officer.
However, unless you're party to either of the team setups, the second half of your post is idle speculation. Even more so if you're quoting a journalist.

Pshan

andrewh5 wrote: »

I thought Contepomi wasn't playing due to injury?

Sorry, hadn't heard that. Searching for info I see it's supposed to be an infection, how would a doctor allow a cut on his arm to get infected? me thinks this is mind games.

Serenity Now!

twinytwo wrote: »

Not too bright... why is it do u think that if the player is not rolling away and he is raked the ref 9 times out of 10 does not penalise it???

A ref warns a player not to do it again. In case you hadn't noticed, rucks are reffed this season as they are meant to be reffed, according to the laws of the game. This doesn't only cover entering on feet and through the gate but also foul play.
If you could prove that a ref "9 times out of 10" lets it go, please fire away.

bugler

Only the citing officer cites. NZ or Ireland don't get to cite anyone, exactly because it was being done on a tit for tat basis.

This recent hysteria over stamping is to the detriment of the game though. If someone finds themselves on the wrong side they know what's coming, and it might "discourage" them from doing it routinely.

But stamping is a big naughty no no. I know I'd rather a tickle of Quinlan's studs in the ribs a couple of times than have Tony Woodcock punch me in the face though. I suspect given the choice the disciplinary panel might have chosen the same.

Serenity Now!

bugler wrote: »

But stamping is a big naughty no no. I know I'd rather a tickle of Quinlan's studs in the ribs a couple of times than have Tony Woodcock punch me in the face though. I suspect given the choice the disciplinary panel might have chosen the same.

A kidney-shot instead of a whack in the mush? I'd choose the other. At least my beautiful boyish good looks would heal.

Kdub

twinytwo wrote: »

correct if im wrong.. but if the player is blocking the ball.. ie not rolling away are the other team not allowed to use the rake to get him to move his ass???

The ball was on the other side of the ruck and was just about to be cleared when the stamp in question happened. the player was on the wrong side of the ruck but was no where near the ball. 3 weeks abit harsh should have been a 1 weeker...

Pshan

bugler wrote: »

Only the citing officer cites. NZ or Ireland don't get to cite anyone, exactly because it was being done on a tit for tat basis.

True, but both teams can bring an incident to the attention of the CO.

twinytwo

Serenity Now! wrote: »

A ref warns a player not to do it again. In case you hadn't noticed, rucks are reffed this season as they are meant to be reffed, according to the laws of the game. This doesn't only cover entering on feet and through the gate but also foul play.
If you could prove that a ref "9 times out of 10" lets it go, please fire away.

You obviously dont watch rugby then i take it

Pinetree Boy

bamboozle wrote: »

Woodcock was cited by the citing commissioner, when the AB's heard he had been cited, only then did the AB's cite Quinlan in what was purely a tit for tat move.

The ABs did note cite Quinlan- the citing commissioner did. In my view neither warranted any further action. The game is too bloody PC but Quinlans problem was that the TV replays were clearer than in Woodcocks case and ridiculous as it is, where an offence is dealt with on the field you can argue in the hearing that the punishment was sufficient.

Serenity Now!

twinytwo wrote: »

You obviously dont watch rugby then i take it

Replying with the stock 'cant answer' post won't get you anywhere near what you're looking for here.
From THIS season (ie. IRB instructing per-law reffing of rucks), point out examples of refs letting 90% of stamping/raking go in games without even giving a warning or penalising. Even one game.
Can't find any? Thats all you had to say.

And by the way, I 'watch' a hell of a lot of rugby.

Rattlehead_ie

Anyone know when the appeal hearing is? What time?

kensutz

3 week ban stands:

The IRB appointed Appeal Committee, consisting of Jeremy Summers (England, Chair), Terry Vaux (Wales) and Malcolm Philips (England) considered the various points raised by the player and his representatives and the Appeal Committee decided to dismiss the appeal and therefore the three-week suspension remains in effect.

twinytwo

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Replying with the stock 'cant answer' post won't get you anywhere near what you're looking for here.
From THIS season (ie. IRB instructing per-law reffing of rucks), point out examples of refs letting 90% of stamping/raking go in games without even giving a warning or penalising. Even one game.
Can't find any? Thats all you had to say.

And by the way, I 'watch' a hell of a lot of rugby.

Take most of englands games from the 2003 wc or even some of munsters games.. alot of back rows do it and get away with it.. Stringer has done it Buger has done, Dallagilo, etc etc need i go on..I mean you DO watch rugby right??? By your logic even time a player in a ruck used his foot to move a player and everyone has seen this done... he would get done for it. Everyone also knows that this is not the case...and im not "looking for anything here".. You might want to also get ur facts straight.. i said 9 out of 10 times let the raking go because the other team is infringing or they dont see it...I did not say "refs letting 90% of stamping/raking go in games without even giving a warning or penalising"... this has a completely different meaning to what i said.. You also seem to not understand the difference between a stamp and a rake .. can u not troll somewhere else

anonymous_joe

What Quinlan did is not uncommon, but it was relatively far from the ball, etc. I've no doubts the lads were under orders to give McCaw as much trouble as they could.