Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread.

irishbucsfan

PhatPiggins wrote: »

There's no way it'll be that light if its ruled contact with the eye area. He'll get off scot free or he gets 12 weeks. I think he'll get the 12 based on the footage. Not because he deserves it but based on previous bans to other players.

Is Ruddock injured or being rested?

Based on the IRFU's track record there is no way he'll get a ban that severe

JustinDee

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

However, two offences occur with similar intent/effect/circumstance, they should get the same ban - not different bans depending on jurisdiction.

Other factors also weigh-in such as the player's disciplinary history, evidence available in the lead-up to and of the incident itself.

Disciplinary bans are not based on jurisdiction as you allude. They are based on the mitigating tenets in each individual case and as in regular civil law, no case is the exact same.

Crash

Funny thing is, actually, just thinking about it, if he went straight for the edge of the scrumcap he'd probably have been much more likely to accidently stick a finger in the guys eye - not making any comment on what occured really, just a thought.

PhatPiggins

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Based on the IRFU's track record there is no way he'll get a ban that severe

Sorry I didn't realise it was the IRFU that were doling out the punishment. He'll probably get a slap on the wrist and a lollipop.

Stev_o

Crash wrote: »

Funny thing is, actually, just thinking about it, if he went straight for the edge of the scrumcap he'd probably have been much more likely to accidently stick a finger in the guys eye - not making any comment on what occured really, just a thought.

Why the f*ck was even going for his scrum cap??? Mean seriously this is bonehead behaviour and for the life of me can't understand it after the year of citings and bans we had why in god's name would any player make contact with another players facial region??? Seriously if you have a problem with a player go out and hit him hard in a tackle or run him over on a carry but pissing around grabbing his face should earn you a ban. Can't understand what the hell he was dong. Stupid.

irishbucsfan

Stev_o wrote: »

Why the f*ck was even going for his scrum cap??? Mean seriously this is bonehead behaviour and for the life of me can't understand it after the year of citings and bans we had why in god's name would any player make contact with another players facial region??? Seriously if you have a problem with a player go out and hit him hard in a tackle or run him over on a carry but pissing around grabbing his face should earn you a ban. Can't understand what the hell he was dong. Stupid.

While I agree with you, I've done things in the heat of the moment on the pitch that I would describe as "boneheaded." Sometimes it just happens and you move on. Been on the receiving end of it as well. In a sport as physical as rugby it's going to happen. The main thing is that it wasn't particularly malicious and Treviso are happy that there was nothing in it.

There's a world of difference between that and what Burger did to Fitz on the Lions tour.

O'Brien cleared of all charges...

wixfjord

Proper order, a lot of ****e being spouted on here about it!

durkadurka

That decision is ridiculous. Should have got a few weeks for it.

Stev_o

Citing committee is joke. How can you advertise a sport that will cover up it's own players when they have clearly broken their sporting bodies own rules. Things like this really irk me about rugby.

danthefan

The Treviso player and management communicated to the hearing that they didn't even know there'd been a supposed contact with the eye incident until the citing was announced and they backed up SOB.

Sense has prevailed.

outwest

wixfjord wrote: »

Proper order, a lot of ****e being spouted on here about it!

hand to face is a no no. should of got a ban, this just shows why the mageners is farce in terms of diciplane. i can safely say if it was a player who wasnt a international he would of gotten a ban

thomond2006

danthefan wrote: »

The Treviso player and management communicated to the hearing that they didn't even know there'd been a supposed contact with the eye incident until the citing was announced and they backed up SOB.

Sense has prevailed.

Fair enough if they vouched for him but still...

danthefan

thomond2006 wrote: »

Fair enough if they vouched for him but still...

Still what? The Treviso player said he had no idea there was an incident. How the hell can you ban SOB for contact with the eyes when the supposed victim has no idea about it?

Stev_o

danthefan wrote: »

Still what? The Treviso player said he had no idea there was an incident. How the hell can you ban SOB for contact with the eyes when the supposed victim has no idea about it?

Because the ERC slapped a giant ban on Jennings for a incident that Kennedy said was "no issue". There is zero consitency to the appliance of the rules. If their is a zero tolerance on contact with a players face then it should be enforced.

danthefan

Stev_o wrote: »

Because the ERC slapped a giant ban on Jennings for a incident that Kennedy said was "no issue". There is zero consitency to the appliance of the rules. If their is a zero tolerance on contact with a players face then it should be enforced.

So slap bans on everyone, whether they gouged or not. Absolute genius.

Could you tell me, should all these have ended up in bans?

irishbucsfan

Stev_o wrote: »

Because the ERC slapped a giant ban on Jennings for a incident that Kennedy said was "no issue". There is zero consitency to the appliance of the rules. If their is a zero tolerance on contact with a players face then it should be enforced.

The ERC are the ones out of line with every other disciplinary body in the game. The 12 Week ban was OTT and they lost a lot of credibility over it. Jennings was made an example of for something that "wasn't an issue."

Gouging needs to be stamped out, but it doesn't work if you target players who aren't gouging, and have shown no intention of doing it.

wixfjord

outwest wrote: »

hand to face is a no no. should of got a ban, this just shows why the mageners is farce in terms of diciplane. i can safely say if it was a player who wasnt a international he would of gotten a ban

Bull****e. You want to ban someone for putting a hand accidentaly on another players face?! This crap about hand to face is a no no is crazy. There needs to be some rules around gouging sure, but a bit of cop on too. Him not getting a ban is nothing to do with him being an international, and everything to do with him not being guilty of anything. I can safely say if it was a Connacht player you'd be defending him. I'll condem any player who commits foul play regardless of where they're from, Heaslip fully deserved his ban in the Summer, O Brien and incidentally Jennings, did not.
People overreact way too much at gouging, the recent photos from the Munster Ulster A game for example. The fact is its a physical game.

danthefan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The ERC are the ones out of line with every other disciplinary body in the game. The 12 Week ban was OTT and they lost a lot of credibility over it. Jennings was made an example of for something that "wasn't an issue."

Gouging needs to be stamped out, but it doesn't work if you target players who aren't gouging, and have shown no intention of doing it.

Exactly, the idea that banning players who accidentally end up near another player's face or eyes will help prevent gouging is beyond stupid.


Steve_o, there's a double ban here, 3 months each:

wixfjord

Dead right there Dan, some crazy witchunt type comments on here in recent days about "Oh we cant have hands around the face" etc.

danthefan

wixfjord wrote: »

Dead right there Dan, some crazy witchunt type comments on here in recent days about "Oh we cant have hands around the face" etc.

It's as if in the middle of a full speed tackle/hand off or at the bottom of a ruck you'll actually be able to fully control where your hands go, and more importantly where the opposition players put themselves.

Intentional gouging should be dealt with harshly. Anything else isn't worth a ban.

Stev_o

danthefan wrote: »

Exactly, the idea that banning players who accidentally end up near another player's face or eyes will help prevent gouging is beyond stupid.


Steve_o, there's a double ban here, 3 months each:

Always nice to see Maurie Fa'asavalu running over Leeds in RL sorry Toom.

Hey Dan let's stick to Rugby Union right?

danthefan

Stev_o wrote: »

Always nice to see players running over Leeds in RL sorry Toom.

Hey Dan let's stick to Rugby Union right?

Hey Steve, care to engage any of the points made?

outwest

that pic there is a man ruuning with ball in hand,

sean put dragged his hand along a mans face who was lying on the ground, no need for it

danthefan

outwest wrote: »

that pic there is a man ruuning with ball in hand,

sean put dragged his hand along a mans face who was lying on the ground, no need for it

So what? It did absolutely no damage, he didn't touch they guy's eyes, the Treviso player didn't even seem to notice. Seriously, so what? How is that a banning offence?

phog

danthefan wrote: »

Exactly, the idea that banning players who accidentally end up near another player's face or eyes will help prevent gouging is beyond stupid.

But that's the point O'Brien's didnt accidently end up on the players face, he dragged his hand along the full lenght of his face, from his his chin to the scrum cap.

I dont think anyone has suggested that he meant to gouge or interfer with the eye area but then again I doubt Jennings did either.

danthefan

Ugh, I give up. I can't deal with any more "but OFMG he touched his face" posts.

danthefan

danthefan wrote: »

So what? It did absolutely no damage, he didn't touch they guy's eyes, the Treviso player didn't even seem to notice. Seriously, so what? How is that a banning offence?

People get speared all the time and their landing means they don't get hurt.

The problem was the O'Brien put himself in the situation where it could be (mis)construed that he was attempting to gouge another player.

The citing and appeals process needs to become standardised or else this is going to turn into a beyond farcical situation.

The onus will remain on the players to keep their hands away from other players faces at all times. If this does not remain the norm, it will provide too many instances for citing and mis-citing.

O'Brien is a lucky lucky guy imo, the IRB want to stamp out all facial contact, as it removes all shadow of a doubt. I don't believe that an IRB hearing would've had the same decision made. This is an opinion of course, and counts for little, but if the rules are sufficiently different between provincial and club games, compared with internationals, we are going to have a problem.

phog

danthefan wrote: »

Ugh, I give up. I can't deal with any more "but OFMG he touched his face" posts.

It seems to me that you cant differentiate between accidentally and purposely dragging a hand over a players face.

irishbucsfan

phog wrote: »

It seems to me that you cant differentiate between accidentally and purposely dragging a hand over a players face.

I don't think he intentionally dragged his hand over his face. Treviso obviously don't either.