Quins fined £215,000 for faked blood injury

d'Oracle

Amabokke wrote: »

Was this the hand in the scrum against Munster and slapped it away from Stringer? Disgracefull. Real rugby players dont cheat.

Ah C'mon Richie McCaw cheats all the frickin time.

Gelio

Digifriendly wrote: »

If cheating is part of the game is this not a sad reflection on the game or maybe on our society today?

No, have you ever played rugby?

Amabokke

Zzippy wrote: »

LOL! I guess Burger isn't a real rugby player then??

I'm not referring to stupid, dangerous or foul play. I'm talking about cheating the system. Real rugby players like Burger, McCaw etc. might be considered to be "cheaters" by people who don't understand the breakdown area but if they were to try and cheat the system I'd say the same.

ajeffares wrote: »

What? Yes they do, all the time. If things had been the other way around not one Munster fan would have complained. You clearly have never played in the pack before. If I had done that I would be proud.

Do you really believe true and honest Munster supporters would've agreed with it? I don't need to play in the pack to know a coward act just so they can have the advantage.

Be proud of such a cowardness act says it all about the player. If you are playing against an opposition that does that and you loose the game would you be happy.

I guess then I should be proud of Burger :rolleyes:

Amabokke

d'Oracle wrote: »

Ah C'mon Richie McCaw cheats all the frickin time.

According to you and some other rugby supporters who don't have a healthy view of the breakdown. McCaw has been labelled a cheat for many years now, if he really was a cheat he would've been caught out and fined by now.

How exactly is he a cheat if a ref allows a free for all at the breakdown (which is acceptable as it is a grey area) and he uses the advantage? If it was illegal and he still does it and get away with it Id' consider it cheating.

danthefan

Digifriendly wrote: »

If cheating is part of the game is this not a sad reflection on the game or maybe on our society today?

No.

Gelio

Amabokke wrote: »

Do you really believe true and honest Munster supporters would've agreed with it? I don't need to play in the pack to know a coward act just so they can have the advantage.

Be proud of such a cowardness act says it all about the player. If you are playing against an opposition that does that and you loose the game would you be happy.

I guess then I should be proud of Burger :rolleyes:

Yes if JH had stuck his hand in to win the match, it would have been G'Wan the bull. Of course I wouldn't of been happy, but I would of understood why it was done. Whats the difference between doing that in a ruck and doing that in a scrum? Your saying you don't think McCaw doesn't cheat the system, he does the exact same thing in rucks. Its what makes him so great. One of his trademarks is he comes into the ruck from the side grabs on and swings his body onside. Thats cheating and its genius. No Burger tried to hurt another player, that is wrong.

Peter B

To be honest, I think there are two types of cheating.

There is the lying on the wrong side of the ball, hands in the ruck Richie McCaw type of stuff which I have no problem. I actually think it requires a large amount of skill to be able to do this and not be caught.

The problem is where there is cheating such as the fake blood incident and the hand of back, eye gouging and players diving that is completely wrong. It is not in the spirit of the game.

danthefan

Back should definitely be in the first category. Comparing it to the fake blood or eye gouging is ridiculous. He illegally turned over the ball, that's it.

Amabokke

ajeffares wrote: »

Yes if JH had stuck his hand in to win the match, it would have been G'Wan the bull. Of course I wouldn't of been happy, but I would of understood why it was done. Whats the difference between doing that in a ruck and doing that in a scrum? Your saying you don't think McCaw doesn't cheat the system, he does the exact same thing in rucks. Its what makes him so great. One of his trademarks is he comes into the ruck from the side grabs on and swings his body onside. Thats cheating and its genius. No Burger tried to hurt another player, that is wrong.

Scrum and a ruck? There is a huge difference. In a ruck refs can blow "free for all" so it makes it legal. As for the scrum if the ref had seen it it would've been a penalty, same as you push before the ball is thrown in or same as when hands in scrum, which makes it illegal.

How does McCaw do the same thing in the ruck? Do you have a clip of him coming in from the side, because that is illegal and he will get penalised for it. I think people brands him a cheat for playing the ball in the ruck and not for coming in from the side.

Gelio

Peter B wrote: »

To be honest, I think there are two types of cheating.

There is the lying on the wrong side of the ball, hands in the ruck Richie McCaw type of stuff which I have no problem. I actually think it requires a large amount of skill to be able to do this and not be caught.

The problem is where there is cheating such as the fake blood incident and the hand of back, eye gouging and players diving that is completely wrong. It is not in the spirit of the game.

Ok I agree with on all except "hand of back" that should go in the first group

Edit: The only reason you are saying that is because you are a munster fan, admit it

Amabokke

Peter B wrote: »

To be honest, I think there are two types of cheating.

There is the lying on the wrong side of the ball, hands in the ruck Richie McCaw type of stuff which I have no problem. I actually think it requires a large amount of skill to be able to do this and not be caught.

The problem is where there is cheating such as the fake blood incident and the hand of back, eye gouging and players diving that is completely wrong. It is not in the spirit of the game.

Good example of the two difference, which I agree with. However, eye gouging in my view is not cheating that is just plain dirty.

Gelio

Amabokke wrote: »

Good example of the two difference, which I agree with. However, eye gouging in my view is not cheating that is just plain dirty.

Why honestly do you think the hand of back was so bad? I just don't get it. Its the same as hands in the ruck etc.

danthefan

ajeffares wrote: »

Why honestly do you think the hand of back was so bad? I just don't get it. Its the same as hands in the ruck etc.

Munster fans are understandably raw about it but for me it's not worse than a ruck offence.

OldJay

Amabokke wrote: »

I'm not referring to stupid, dangerous or foul play. I'm talking about cheating the system. Real rugby players like Burger, McCaw etc. might be considered to be "cheaters" by people who don't understand the breakdown area but if they were to try and cheat the system I'd say the same

No need to condescend on people just because they've a different view to you.
A good backrower will push the laws to the limits at the ruck and will get away with as much as they possibly can. This is a form of cheating, no matter how much you address it.

And yes, you could say I know a fair bit about the breakdown.
Getting sidetracked however.
The main point of this thread was Harlequins getting done for shennanigans and making fun of the substitution laws.

Amabokke

ajeffares wrote: »

Why honestly do you think the hand of back was so bad? I just don't get it. Its the same as hands in the ruck etc.

Because the breakdown/ruck is a very grey area and there is a fine line between wrong/right. The scrum however is very clear "no hands in scrum" so therefore should be a penalty.

I'm not a Munster fan, I have both Leinster and Munster jersey's and enjoy watching both teams so unbiased with my view.

Chucky the tree

The hand of Back was genius, and I'm a Munster fan.

Gelio

Unbiased view :D:D:D
The ruck is not a grey area, no hands in the ruck - no hands in the scrum
Its black and white to me

danthefan

Amabokke wrote: »

Because the breakdown/ruck is a very grey area and there is a fine line between wrong/right. The scrum however is very clear "no hands in scrum" so therefore should be a penalty.

I'm not a Munster fan, I have both Leinster and Munster jersey's and enjoy watching both teams so unbiased with my view.

Course it should have been a penalty, no question, but I do have a problem with it being categorised along side fake blood and eye gouging.

Amabokke

Justind wrote: »

No need to condescend on people just because they've a different view to you.
A good backrower will push the laws to the limits at the ruck and will get away with as much as they possibly can. This is a form of cheating, no matter how much you address it.

And yes, you could say I know a fair bit about the breakdown.
Getting sidetracked however.
The main point of this thread was Harlequins getting done for shennanigans and making fun of the substitution laws.

No where did i condescend people :rolleyes: - it's not about different views it's about the difference between a ruck and loose ball and the fine line between right/wrong. There is no form of cheating at the breakdown if the ref allows it and if not then you'll get penalised, did you watch the Lions series?

Well, if you know the breakdown let's hear it and I'd be happy to change my view on it as I too are an expert on this area.

I was saying real rugby players don't cheat (i.e what Harlequins did) where some posters started bringing the McCaw debate into it, which is entirely different.

Gelio

danthefan wrote: »

Course it should have been a penalty, no question, but I do have a problem with it being categorised along side fake blood and eye gouging.

+1
He got away with it, well done

Amabokke

ajeffares wrote: »

Unbiased view :D:D:D
The ruck is not a grey area, no hands in the ruck - no hands in the scrum
Its black and white to me

I'm referring to breakdown/ruck (read my post again) grey area.

Gelio

thomond2006 wrote: »

His teams have a habit of cheating, remember The Hand of Back when Richards coached Leicester?

.

Amabokke wrote: »

Was this the hand in the scrum against Munster and slapped it away from Stringer? Disgracefull. Real rugby players dont cheat.

Actually this is your exact quote, you were defo refering to the "hand of back"

Gelio

Amabokke wrote: »

I'm referring to breakdown/ruck (read my post again) grey area.

And its very clear no hands in the ruck

smurphy29

Woah, miles off topic guys!

I'd be interested to know what ideas people have for tightening up the substitution laws which are currently to easily manipulated and got us into the spot of bother in the first place. The tactical/injury substitution ruling is a joke. Myself, I'd make it 'once you're subbed off you're off', so if you've no subs left and someone is bleeding, then you just have to soldier on with 14 until you can get your player back on - it's never more than a couple of minutes anyway. I'd also extend the panel to 23 with an additional prop there to stop this uncontested scrum nonsense.

OldJay

Amabokke wrote: »

There is no form of cheating at the breakdown if the ref allows it

There is if/when the ref doesn't see it.

Stev_o

Irish Times 21st July 2009
Players' boss slams Williams's 12-month ban

English Professional Rugby Players’ Association chief Damian Hopley has slammed Tom Williams’ 12-month suspension for faking a blood injury as “extraordinary” and “entirely disproportionate”.

The Harlequins winger was yesterday banned for a year and the club was fined €250,000 — 50 per cent of which was suspended — after being found to have fabricated a cut to the mouth in last April’s Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster at The Stoop.

Hopley questioned how Williams could deserve a one-year ban given Schalk Burger received an eight-week suspension for eye-gouging Luke Fitzgerald and former Ulster captain Justin Harrison got eight months for admitting three drug-related charges.

“In recent weeks we have seen players found guilty of eye-gouging receiving bans of between eight and 12 weeks, and another player found guilty of misconduct receive an eight-month ban,” said Hopley.

“For Tom Williams to be singled out and handed a 12-month ban is both excessive and entirely disproportionate. It is an extraordinary decision.”

Honestly a fair compromise for Williams would to ban him for taking part in the HC for a year.

anonymous_joe

Stev_o wrote: »

Irish Times 21st July 2009
Players' boss slams Williams's 12-month ban

English Professional Rugby Players’ Association chief Damian Hopley has slammed Tom Williams’ 12-month suspension for faking a blood injury as “extraordinary” and “entirely disproportionate”.

The Harlequins winger was yesterday banned for a year and the club was fined €250,000 — 50 per cent of which was suspended — after being found to have fabricated a cut to the mouth in last April’s Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster at The Stoop.

Hopley questioned how Williams could deserve a one-year ban given Schalk Burger received an eight-week suspension for eye-gouging Luke Fitzgerald and former Ulster captain Justin Harrison got eight months for admitting three drug-related charges.

“In recent weeks we have seen players found guilty of eye-gouging receiving bans of between eight and 12 weeks, and another player found guilty of misconduct receive an eight-month ban,” said Hopley.

“For Tom Williams to be singled out and handed a 12-month ban is both excessive and entirely disproportionate. It is an extraordinary decision.”

Honestly a fair compromise for Williams would to ban him for taking part in the HC for a year.

No, a fair compromise would be to ban Quins from European competition for a year.

Stev_o

anonymous_joe wrote: »

No, a fair compromise would be to ban Quins from European competition for a year.

They wouldn't though would cause a mass ruckus.

gar_29

anyone have a link to the wink?

have been hunting on youtube, but can't seem to find it.

thomond2006

gar_29 wrote: »

anyone have a link to the wink?

No, but I put a coat on my goat.

waraf

gar_29 wrote: »

anyone have a link to the wink?

have been hunting on youtube, but can't seem to find it.

You can see it clearly here at exactly 1.44

ch2008

Ah here, I think Neil Back is to blame for that and Neil Back alone. Its hardly something Richards could have slipped into the gameplan

anonymous_joe

Stev_o wrote: »

They wouldn't though would cause a mass ruckus.

Then it'll happen again. I can think of a few Leinster plays I'd not mind too much losing for a year to guarentee a Heineken Cup.

razorblunt

thomond2006 wrote: »

No, but I put a coat on my goat.

Well played sir!!

The 12 month ban is ridiculous there should be bannings and punishment across the board.

Whatever medical organisation is over there should investigate the medical staff, contrast their behaviour to James Robinson ( I think thats his name) the Lions and Scots team doctor who has often said he has to fight with players to get them off the pitch for their own good.

razorblunt

ch2008 wrote: »

Ah here, I think Neil Back is to blame for that and Neil Back alone. Its hardly something Richards could have slipped into the gameplan

Yeah I think Back said himself he just saw it and went for it, thinking he was gonna get caught.

Quint

I think the reason Williams was punished and no one else was because there was plenty of proof that he cheated. No proof that the doctors did or the management team. But a ban from europe for a year would have been a fare punishment, because even though they have no evidence that more than Williams was involved, banning the whole team would have punished everyone

Cuchulain

It was blatantly obvious that it was a fake, but just wondering how they actually proved it (or did they even need too)?

ch2008

Quint wrote: »

I think the reason Williams was punished and no one else was because there was plenty of proof that he cheated. No proof that the doctors did or the management team. But a ban from europe for a year would have been a fare punishment, because even though they have no evidence that more than Williams was involved, banning the whole team would have punished everyone

A good point, well made. I think maybe this might force Harlequins into admitting their part in all this to take some of the heat off Williams.

Its effectively saying "Your move quins "

Stealdo

Quint wrote: »

I think the reason Williams was punished and no one else was because there was plenty of proof that he cheated. No proof that the doctors did or the management team. But a ban from europe for a year would have been a fare punishment, because even though they have no evidence that more than Williams was involved, banning the whole team would have punished everyone

Banning the club would have punished the club and that would be perfectly fair. The Coach and the coach alone was behind this....the medic and player were following orders and deserve bans, but the instigator should be the one punished most harshly. If the evidence isn't there to pin the coach down on it, then rather than scapegoat an individual young player with a ban that is harsh in general, but in the extreme considering the context of the other two getting off completely, the club should take the blame for the actions of at least 4 of its agents. I'm including Evans in that because considering he was warming up before Williams came on, he was obviously in on it also.

Stealdo

ch2008 wrote: »

A good point, well made. I think maybe this might force Harlequins into admitting their part in all this to take some of the heat off Williams.

Its effectively saying "Your move quins "

And what's the only conclusion that can come about if Quins were to say - don't blame Williams, it was a club decision to bring blood capsules to the game? The club would have to be banned which is what should have happened in the first place.

I reckon Quins will hang him out to dry and I just hope a stupid decision to go along with something that his highly respected and experienced coach told him to do won't ruin his career.

ch2008

Stealdo wrote: »

And what's the only conclusion that can come about if Quins were to say - don't blame Williams, it was a club decision to bring blood capsules to the game? The club would have to be banned which is what should have happened in the first place.

I reckon Quins will hang him out to dry and I just hope a stupid decision to go along with something that his highly respected and experienced coach told him to do won't ruin his career.

The problem is that ERC have no proof that Quins as a club were involved. This might force them to admit guilt, or they might just leave Williams hanging ot to dry as you say

davylee

I'd like to see what quins would do if williams started spilling the beans and gave names. I think he should too.
Loyalty my arse - how loyal where the club to him

ch2008

davylee wrote: »

I'd like to see what quins would do if williams started spilling the beans and gave names. I think he should too.
Loyalty my arse - how loyal where the club to him

That would be brilliant

Chucky the tree

davylee wrote: »

I'd like to see what quins would do if williams started spilling the beans and gave names. I think he should too.
Loyalty my arse - how loyal where the club to him

I'm sure they'll be very loyal to him. He won't get sacked and when time comes to renewing his contract they won't forget him keeping quiet either. Him spilling the beans now won't do much good.

Stealdo

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'm sure they'll be very loyal to him. He won't get sacked and when time comes to renewing his contract they won't forget him keeping quiet either. Him spilling the beans now won't do much good.

Who's good at photoshop - pic of Dean Richards as Don Corleone right now would illustrate it nicely - the Omerta will be in full effect me thinks.

Third_Echelon

laugh

Cuchulain wrote: »

It was blatantly obvious that it was a fake, but just wondering how they actually proved it (or did they even need too)?

According to the Irish Times today and Paul Wallace soon after the incident there was a camera on him that wasn't shown live on tv that showed him geting the blood capsule from his sock and puting it in his mouth.

TarfHead

laugh wrote: »

According to the Irish Times today and Paul Wallace soon after the incident there was a camera on him that wasn't shown live on tv that showed him geting the blood capsule from his sock and puting it in his mouth.

Not exactly ..

IrishTimes wrote:

The former Ireland prop, Paul Wallace, who was working as an analyst for Sky television, was adamant Harlequins had bent the rules. “I saw Tom Williams kneel down and move his hand from his sock to his mouth before he came off,” he said.

But the tribunal's conclusion is based on the balance of probabilities, which means they had nothing to hang around the neck of Dean Richards & the 2 others, whereas the 'smoking camera' is what did it for Williams.

danthefan

The first line of the article:

PREVIOUSLY UNSEEN footage of the incident involving Tom Williams during Harlequins’ Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster at The Stoop is believed to have been central to the ruling by an independent disciplinary committee whose findings saw the player handed a 12-month ban and the club fined €250,000, 50 per cent of which will be suspended for two years.

davylee

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'm sure they'll be very loyal to him. He won't get sacked and when time comes to renewing his contract they won't forget him keeping quiet either. Him spilling the beans now won't do much good.

Well they''ll have to kiss some arse now because of all the ****e they got him into.
If he "spills the beans now", wouldn't the case be reviewed with potentially different results i.e. the club an individuals are heavily punished