Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread.

MaryKing

wixfjord wrote: »

Was he cited?

Yes. And suspended for a couple of weeks coming into the Autumn internationals.

phog

Hagz wrote: »

Rougerie has't been cited for his eye gouge either, don't make it right.

If this is the eye gouging in the W/C then I'm not sure the gouging was picked up until the deadline for citing was passed, while Horan's incident was clearly visible during the game.

Who's saying what Hroan did was right?

MaryKing

MaryKing wrote: »

No. I said Horan deserved a Yellow Card for that. He should not have done it. If Horan had that kind of contact with any other player on the pitch, they would have been fine.

Brian was not fit enough to be playing then which was very soon after his original injury.

but that's not what you said, you said that it wasn't thuggery because nobody was cited.

Try to rationalise your thoughts...

jacothelad

MaryKing wrote: »

I understand that Ulster offered him a contract and then withdrew it and went for Jared Payne instead. Ulster did compensate Carr though. Leinster took pity on him and gave him a 1 year contract.

Incorrect.

GerM

wixfjord wrote: »

Was he cited?

No. Any player that receives a red card isn't cited. They have to automatically appear in front of a disciplinary committee but I reckon you knew all this already.

phog

Hippo wrote: »

How many times have players been cited for incidents in interprovincial games in recent years?

I've no idea but you can be sure the citing commissioner saw the incident.

How many times have players not been cited for incidents during interprovincial games sine an independent citing commissioner was in place for M/L games?

phog

phog wrote: »

If this is the eye gouging in the W/C then I'm not sure the gouging was picked up until the deadline for citing was passed, while Horan's incident was clearly visible during the game.

Who's saying what Hroan did was right?

profitius mentioned that it "wasn't bad"
MaryKing seems to think that as it wasn't measured as a citing offence, that we should simply ignore it.
Cpt Blackbeard thinks that it was BOD's fault that Horan blindsided him completely illegally by playing in the game even though he wasn't fully fit.

That's an awful lot of bull**** defence concentrated in one corner of the country...

wixfjord

Deleted User wrote: »

profitius mentioned that it "wasn't bad"
MaryKing seems to think that as it wasn't measured as a citing offence, that we should simply ignore it.
Cpt Blackbeard thinks that it was BOD's fault that Horan blindsided him completely illegally by playing in the game even though he wasn't fully fit.

That's an awful lot of bull**** defence concentrated in one corner of the country...

If you look around the web this weekend, it's certainly a recurring theme.

Hagz

phog wrote: »

Who's saying what Hroan did was right?

What's your point then? That it wasn't worthy of a citing?
I dunno if it was or not. It seemed just as dangerous as a high tackle or a spear tackle.

I'm simply saying that just because it wasn't cited doesn't mean it wasn't worthy of a citing. A lot of things go un-cited.

wixfjord

GerM wrote: »

No. Any player that receives a red card isn't cited. They have to automatically appear in front of a disciplinary committee but I reckon you knew all this already.

No I wasn't 100% sure actually!

phog

Deleted User wrote: »

profitius mentioned that it "wasn't bad"
MaryKing seems to think that as it wasn't measured as a citing offence, that we should simply ignore it.
Cpt Blackbeard thinks that it was BOD's fault that Horan blindsided him completely illegally by playing in the game even though he wasn't fully fit.

That's an awful lot of bull**** defence concentrated in one corner of the country...

Equally mirrored in another part of the country.

phog

phog wrote: »

Equally mirrored in another part of the country.

yeah, the West Midlands of England is clearly out to get the lads from Munster...

What are you like!?

edit - the reason I pointed it out is that of all the people who have commented on the incident, from all walks of the country, north west south east, only those from Munster have done anything but condemn Horan.

Surely this strikes you as odd?

MaryKing

Deleted User wrote: »

profitius mentioned that it "wasn't bad"
MaryKing seems to think that as it wasn't measured as a citing offence, that we should simply ignore it.
Cpt Blackbeard thinks that it was BOD's fault that Horan blindsided him completely illegally by playing in the game even though he wasn't fully fit.

That's an awful lot of bull**** defence concentrated in one corner of the country...

Hold your horses there.
I think Horan should have been punished with a Yellow Card/penalty.

I think his coach was wrong to select him for that match when he was obviously not fit to play.

justsomebloke

Lads keep it civil!

MaryKing

MaryKing wrote: »

Hold your horses there.
I think Horan should have been punished with a Yellow Card/penalty.

I think was wrong to select him for that match when he was obviously not fit to play.

you're simply diverting the issue completely and utterly. As apparently has become the norm when these type of conversations arise.

As the analogy I gave earlier still stands, BOD and Schmidt and Kidney have all taken calculated risks by playing BOD when he hasn't been fit.

That doesn't mean that what Horan did is any less illegal, or thuggish.

I take a calculated risk every time I cycle my bike, if a drunk in a SUV turns me into mincemeat, do I share the blame?

Again I will reiterate, you honestly don't believe what you are saying, instead you are just turning on the defence as someone has pointed out something that "one of your own" has done wrong.

MaryKing

jacothelad wrote: »

Incorrect.

So, Ulster couldn't do better than a 1 year contract. Interesting.

MaryKing

Deleted User wrote: »

you're simply diverting the issue completely and utterly. As apparently has become the norm when these type of conversations arise.

As the analogy I gave earlier still stands, BOD and Schmidt and Kidney have all taken calculated risks by playing BOD when he hasn't been fit.

That doesn't mean that what Horan did is any less illegal, or thuggish.

I take a calculated risk every time I cycle my bike, if a drunk in a SUV turns me into mincemeat, do I share the blame?

Again I will reiterate, you honestly don't believe what you are saying, instead you are just turning on the defence as someone has pointed out something that "one of your own" has done wrong.

Well, as I've pointed out, I could see why Schmidt would play Brian in the Heineken Cup Final - but the Magners Final was just plain wrong - especially with Munster having two islanders known for some pretty dodgy tackling.

Cpt_Blackbeard

Deleted User wrote: »

profitius mentioned that it "wasn't bad"
MaryKing seems to think that as it wasn't measured as a citing offence, that we should simply ignore it.
Cpt Blackbeard thinks that it was BOD's fault that Horan blindsided him completely illegally by playing in the game even though he wasn't fully fit.

That's an awful lot of bull**** defence concentrated in one corner of the country...

Get off your high-horse and stop spouting clears lies to suit your agenda.

Where did I say anything that approaches what you accused me of saying? BOD was taken out and it deserved a yellow. BUT, BOD was unfit all season and continued to put himself forward for selection all the way through the HC and WRC. One little incident that happens in 3/5 rugby matches didn't help but, I doubt it exasperated his injury in any meaningful way.

If BOD misses the whole season, it is on his head and nobody elses. It is his body and he has chosen to destroy it. Great to see you are getting your excuses for why Leinster didn't win the double in early, though.

MaryKing

MaryKing wrote: »

Well, as I've pointed out, I could see why Schmidt would play Brian in the Heineken Cup Final - but the Magners Final was just plain wrong - especially with Munster having two islanders known for some pretty dodgy tackling.

so that entitles Horan to blindside him, to show Schmidt that he made a poor decision?

Come off it!!

wixfjord

MaryKing wrote: »

Well, as I've pointed out, I could see why Schmidt would play Brian in the Heineken Cup Final - but the Magners Final was just plain wrong - especially with Munster having two islanders known for some pretty dodgy tackling.

Jesus it gets better.

Cpt_Blackbeard

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Get off your high-horse and stop spouting clears lies to suit your agenda.

Where did I say anything that approaches what you accused me of saying? BOD was taken out and it deserved a yellow. BUT, BOD was unfit all season and continued to put himself forward for selection all the way through the HC and WRC. One little incident that happens in 3/5 rugby matches didn't help but, I doubt it exasperated his injury in any meaningful way.

If BOD misses the whole season, it is on his head and nobody elses. It is his body and he has chosen to destroy it. Great to see you are getting your excuses for why Leinster didn't win the double in early, though.

Its hilarious how you accuse me of spouting lies, and then completely validate my point by repeating the nonsense!

see quotes above and below for evidence

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

BOD's willingness to destroy his body for club and country has cost himself a full season. Leinster are better off being without him for the majority of the season and blooding a successor rather than allowing him to play when he wants and watching his missed tackle count rise exponentially. I said during/after the WC that BOD shouldn't play (much) for Leinster before Christmas.

He either does the smart thing, has surgery and continues playing for another 2-4 seasons or, he continues pushing himself and becomes a liability in defense and loses his place/retires.

MaryKing

Deleted User wrote: »

so that entitles Horan to blindside him, to show Schmidt that he made a poor decision?

Come off it!!

I've said that Horan should have got a yellow card, so, no I don't think he is entitled to do what he did.

I do believe Schmidt made a poor decision about playing him in that particular game - it wasn't worth the risk.

MaryKing

MaryKing wrote: »

I've said that Horan should have got a yellow card, so, no I don't think he is entitled to do what he did.

I do believe Schmidt made a poor decision about playing him in that particular game - it wasn't worth the risk.

not sure if you missed this post, but it pretty much nails again what you've just said,

Deleted User wrote: »

you're simply diverting the issue completely and utterly. As apparently has become the norm when these type of conversations arise.

As the analogy I gave earlier still stands, BOD and Schmidt and Kidney have all taken calculated risks by playing BOD when he hasn't been fit.

That doesn't mean that what Horan did is any less illegal, or thuggish.

I take a calculated risk every time I cycle my bike, if a drunk in a SUV turns me into mincemeat, do I share the blame?

Again I will reiterate, you honestly don't believe what you are saying, instead you are just turning on the defence as someone has pointed out something that "one of your own" has done wrong.

errlloyd

Here lads decidedly off topic.

I think maybe Emmet should concede we can't put the blame of BOD missing the season solely on Marcus Horan.

Maybe the other lads should concede it was a bit of a dodgy move from Marcus on the day should have been punished.

Everyone else should just concede that Carr probably should have worked harder to secure a contract at a club that didn't have 900 up and coming wingers.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

I think maybe Emmet should concede we can't put the blame of BOD missing the season solely on Marcus Horan.

I genuinely didn't say this once, or even insinuate it.

I was aghast and annoyed that people were jumping to the defence of a clearly indefensible incident!

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

I genuinely didn't say this once, or even insinuate it.

I was aghast and annoyed that people were jumping to the defence of a clearly indefensible incident!

I'm gonna admit I have been following the thread and I don't think you said it. But realistically the only relevance to this thread (IE team talk, gossip and rumours) is the fact that the incident was a contribution to a injury, the severity of which has only been fully exposed today.

phog

Deleted User wrote: »

the reason we're still talking about it is that it seems that it could be directly involved in costing BOD an entire season. That's a fairly huge matter.

Deleted User wrote: »

I genuinely didn't say this once, or even insinuate it.
I was aghast and annoyed that people were jumping to the defence of a clearly indefensible incident!

Cpt_Blackbeard

Deleted User wrote: »

so that entitles Horan to blindside him, to show Schmidt that he made a poor decision?

Come off it!!

Of course it doesn't and know one but you has said it does.

Rugby is a physical sport that is known for incidents like that. Someone should have put their hand up at some stage and said "I'm going to take a preventative step and rest BOD for a few weeks. He is clearly operating at 60% and he will only get worse if he continues to be played every week. We don't want to get the stage where he is incapable of tackling with one shoulder and he has to be dropped because he is a complete liability"

Deleted User wrote: »

Its hilarious how you accuse me of spouting lies, and then completely validate my point by repeating the nonsense!

see quotes above and below for evidence

How did that validate your point? That would only only validate your point if you, of sound body and mind, honestly believed that Horan is 100% responsible for BOD's injury troubles.

Talk about hyper-sensitivity... :rolleyes:

phog

phog wrote: »

What's wrong with my statement? Was Horan's hit not directly involved in BOD's injury? Is that not what Schmidt referenced?

Did I say that Horan was solely responsible for BOD's injury?

I am directly involved in the bottom line of my company, but I sure as **** amn't solely responsible for it. If you need any more clarifications, please feel free to ask away.

MaryKing

Deleted User wrote: »

not sure if you missed this post, but it pretty much nails again what you've just said,

Originally Posted by Deleted User

As the analogy I gave earlier still stands, BOD and Schmidt and Kidney have all taken calculated risks by playing BOD when he hasn't been fit.

Well, I would suggest that Schmidt badly miscalculated playing Brian in the Magners Final so soon after his original injury.

Its not as if Leinster are lacking with options there. As it turned out, Munster had a fairly inexperienced player, so it would have been good experience for one of the up and coming young Leinster backs.