BOD cited

Busted Flat.

Tox56 wrote: »

He was just nominated for 6 Nations player of the year.. he won't get it and he was lucky to be nominated, but he was pretty good this 6 Nations, absolutely nowhere near the levels of ROG. He was frustrated with how the game was going and lashed out, just as Healy did, Healy isn't some ageing icon lashing out because he can no longer impact a game as he wants, he just got caught up in the moment

:o:o Excuses Excuses, for bad behavior.

Tox56

Busted Flat. wrote: »

:o:o Excuses Excuses, for bad behavior.

I'm saying people are reading too much into it, not making excuses for what he did.

The Peoples Captain

Tox56 wrote: »

He was just nominated for 6 Nations player of the year.. he won't get it and he was lucky to be nominated, but he was pretty good this 6 Nations, absolutely nowhere near the levels of ROG. He was frustrated with how the game was going and lashed out, just as Healy did, Healy isn't some ageing icon lashing out because he can no longer impact a game as he wants, he just got caught up in the moment

All players who won a MOTM also receive a nomination for player of the tournament.

He lashed out meekly at a prone/unaware player just like ROG. Healy just had a moment of anger and the red-mist descended..

sydthebeat

The Peoples Captain wrote: »

All players who won a MOTM also receive a nomination for player of the tournament.

He lashed out meekly at a prone/unaware player just like ROG. Healy just had a moment of anger and the red-mist descended..

unaware??

im assuming youve never played rugby?
you do not lie on the wrong side of a ruck and not expect to get studs somewhere on your body.

This trick of lying with your arms flailing trying to denote you cant roll away is something that is tried by most offenders. Most refs dont buy it. If favaro had have shown he was attempted to roll / crawl away id have less sympathy for BOD... but he didnt. BODs intention was to move the player.

The Peoples Captain

sydthebeat wrote: »

unaware??

im assuming youve never played rugby?
you do not lie on the wrong side of a ruck and not expect to get studs somewhere on your body.

This trick of lying with your arms flailing trying to denote you cant roll away is something that is tried by most offenders. Most refs dont buy it. If favaro had have shown he was attempted to roll / crawl away id have less sympathy for BOD... but he didnt. BODs intention was to move the player.

The unaware bit was more aimed at ROG's trip tbf. It was a stamp on a prone player who was not slowing down the ball. If his intention was to move the player, he would have rucked with his boot, not stamped.

sydthebeat

The Peoples Captain wrote: »

The unaware bit was more aimed at ROG's trip tbf. It was a stamp on a prone player who was not slowing down the ball. If his intention was to move the player, he would have rucked with his boot, not stamped.

Firslt, the player was on the wrong side, he was slowing the ball by doing so... madigan had to present OVER him.

Of course he SHOULD have raked, if he had we wouldnt be having this argument. He didn't. That doesn't automatically negate the reason he brought his boot down on the player.

Im having the same argument here with different posters. Im not excusing anything bod did, however it WILL be borne out in the citing discipline report that:

1. there was extenuating circumstances, namely a player lying on the wrong side slowing down the ball
2. that the intent was to move the player but the performance of the action was clumsy.

SK12

I agree not much in it!

2-3match ban

Teferi wrote: »

For me there wasn't much in.

Italian backrow attempts to stop or slow the ball going back to the Irish side and gets a boot for his troubles.

Like any backrow he attempted to cheat but got stung for it. The amateur dramatics after it were Oscar worthy.

The Peoples Captain

sydthebeat wrote: »

Firslt, the player was on the wrong side, he was slowing the ball by doing so... madigan had to present OVER him.

Of course he SHOULD have raked, if he had we wouldnt be having this argument. He didn't. That doesn't automatically negate the reason he brought his boot down on the player.

Im having the same argument here with different posters. Im not excusing anything bod did, however it WILL be borne out in the citing discipline report that:

1. there was extenuating circumstances, namely a player lying on the wrong side slowing down the ball
2. that the intent was to move the player but the performance of the action was clumsy.

The Italian ensured that he fell on the wrong side of the ruck. The ball was placed cleanly, but the quality of the produced ball was reduced. If every such tactic resulted in such a shoeing, Ireland would have no fit players left. The ball was on Favaro's legs and there to be played. He couldn't effectively roll away.

I'm sure that the citing report will contain those points, but that's more because of the status of the player involved than anything else.

sydthebeat

The Peoples Captain wrote: »

The Italian ensured that he fell on the wrong side of the ruck. The ball was placed cleanly, but the quality of the produced ball was reduced. If every such tactic resulted in such a shoeing, Ireland would have no fit players left. The ball was on Favaro's legs and there to be played. He couldn't effectively roll away.

I'm sure that the citing report will contain those points, but that's more because of the status of the player involved than anything else.

dont expect the committee to take anything other than the players previous disipline into account... status means nothing.

if you consider presenting a ball ON the tackler as a clean presentation and not slowing down then ill excuse myself at this point and exit stage left....

Teferi

fryup wrote: »

take off your green tinted glasses will ya...he should have got a red card nevermind yellow

Give over, no tinted glasses here. If your man didn't act up we wouldn't even be discussing it.

Plenty of boots used by the Welsh and nothing said.

PhatPiggins

Filthy player. Tip tackles, gouging, late hits, stamping and sly digs. Hope they throw the book at him.

The Peoples Captain

sydthebeat wrote: »

dont expect the committee to take anything other than the players previous disipline into account... status means nothing.

if you consider presenting a ball ON the tackler as a clean presentation and not slowing down then ill excuse myself at this point and exit stage left....

The ball was there to be played when BOD stamped, was it not? If you consider that minimal spoiling as extenuating circumstances, you're wide of the mark. If was a run-of-the-mill ruck and BOD acted the maggot.

Artful_Badger

The Peoples Captain wrote: »

The ball was there to be played when BOD stamped, was it not? If you consider that minimal spoiling as extenuating circumstances, you're wide of the mark. If was a run-of-the-mill ruck and BOD acted the maggot.

Wasnt Zanni penalised for not rolling away before the penalty was reversed on recommendation by the touch judge for the stamp ?

sydthebeat

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Wasnt Zanni penalised for not rolling away before the penalty was reversed on recommendation by the touch judge for the stamp ?

Actually, thats a very good point, I hadn't homed in on that. Barnes blew up a penalty for not rolling away. We dont get to find out who exactly he calls it on, as there are two italians on the wrong side.

Kinda rubbishes the idea that it was a normal ruck and the italian wasnt offending.

Deano7788

The Peoples Captain wrote: »

All players who won a MOTM also receive a nomination for player of the tournament.

He lashed out meekly at a prone/unaware player just like ROG. Healy just had a moment of anger and the red-mist descended..

Just on this, this isn't the case anymore, it was changed this year. That said, some of the reasons are even stupider (Owen Farrell, I'm looking at you). BOD was nominated because he was only turned over once apparently.

Artful_Badger

sydthebeat wrote: »

Actually, thats a very good point, I hadn't homed in on that. Barnes blew up a penalty for not rolling away. We dont get to find out who exactly he calls it on, as there are two italians on the wrong side.

Kinda rubbishes the idea that it was a normal ruck and the italian wasnt offending.

On close inspection I think Zanni was the only Italian off his feet so it was definitely him that was done for not rolling away.

So much for no mitigating factors, I think the fact Barnes penalised Zanni will stand to BOD at the hearing.

sydthebeat

Artful_Badger wrote: »

On close inspection I think Zanni was the only Italian off his feet so it was definitely him that was done for not rolling away.

So much for no mitigating factors, I think the fact Barnes penalised Zanni will stand to BOD at the hearing.

Favaro no?

Artful_Badger

sydthebeat wrote: »

Favaro no?

Yeah it was Favaro. I dont know the Italians that well, I just picked up the name Zanni somewhere along the way.

.ak

sydthebeat wrote: »

unaware??

im assuming youve never played rugby?
you do not lie on the wrong side of a ruck and not expect to get studs somewhere on your body.

This trick of lying with your arms flailing trying to denote you cant roll away is something that is tried by most offenders. Most refs dont buy it. If favaro had have shown he was attempted to roll / crawl away id have less sympathy for BOD... but he didnt. BODs intention was to move the player.

Drop the 'you've never played rugby line', please.

Busted Flat.

Bod gets 3 weeks.

totallegend

Will miss the Amlin QF.

Fuuuuuuuck.

Dave_The_Sheep

totallegend wrote: »

Will miss the Amlin QF.

Fuuuuuuuck.

Unless it's reduced on appeal.

Is that likely?

.ak

3 weeks? Jaysus ott.

ssaye

.ak wrote: »

3 weeks? Jaysus ott.

Id say the appeal will mean he will be back for Amlin based on previously clean record.

Glasgow and Ulster - EOM/Macken your time to shine else Darcy at 13/Goodman 12
Ferg, Fitz not fit short on 13's

totallegend

Three weeks sounds very harsh for the man with the cleanest record in rugby.

Has he ever been suspended before?

Also, a three week suspension runs out the day after the Leinster v Wasps game. Does that mean if he was playing for Ulster or Munster he'd be available? That would seem to be very unfair.

Edit: I see the suspension runs until the Monday, disregard that last bit.

Busted Flat.

totallegend wrote: »

Three weeks sounds very harsh for the man with the cleanest record in rugby.

Has he ever been suspended before?

Also, a three week suspension runs out the day after the Leinster v Wasps game. Does that mean if he was playing for Ulster or Munster he'd be available? That would seem to be very unfair.

Maybe they were making up ground for the ones they mightn't have seen.

Quint2010

totallegend wrote: »

Three weeks sounds very harsh for the man with the cleanest record in rugby.

Has he ever been suspended before?

Also, a three week suspension runs out the day after the Leinster v Wasps game. Does that mean if he was playing for Ulster or Munster he'd be available? That would seem to be very unfair.

When they say 3 week suspension what they actually mean is 3 game ban.

schmanga

sydthebeat wrote: »

unaware??

im assuming youve never played rugby?
you do not lie on the wrong side of a ruck and not expect to get studs somewhere on your body.

This trick of lying with your arms flailing trying to denote you cant roll away is something that is tried by most offenders. Most refs dont buy it. If favaro had have shown he was attempted to roll / crawl away id have less sympathy for BOD... but he didnt. BODs intention was to move the player.

ah now thats a bit harsh. plenty of people have played rugby and never even been at the bottom of a ruck, never mind the wrong side of one.........heard it said before by the women in my family that a fella that comes off the pitch with unmarked white shorts should never be on it in the first place.......

sydthebeat

Quint2010 wrote: »

When they say 3 week suspension what they actually mean is 3 game ban.

"rugby weeks" tend to mean something completely different to chronology in citing terms.

ssaye

http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/28793.php

5 weeks reduced to 3, he has a right to appeal also

At a disciplinary hearing before an independent Six Nations disciplinary committee today, Ireland centre Brian O'Driscoll was suspended for three weeks having been cited for an alleged stamp on Italy's Simone Favaro in Rome last Saturday.



The player admitted that he had committed an act of foul play but denied that it warranted a red card. The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Robert Williams (Wales) along with Mike Hamlin and John Doubleday (both England), upheld the citing complaint and determined that the offending warranted a red card.
In applying the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee considered that the stamp, contrary to Law 10.4(b), was in the mid range of the IRB's sanctions for the type of offence and, after hearing from Brian O'Driscoll and his representatives, allowed a reduction of 2 weeks of mitigation, particularly taking into account the player's exemplary previous playing and disciplinary record.
Brian O'Driscoll is suspended until 8 April 2013 and has the right of appeal.

Busted Flat.

ssaye wrote: »

http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/28793.php

5 weeks reduced to 3, he has a right to appeal also

At a disciplinary hearing before an independent Six Nations disciplinary committee today, Ireland centre Brian O'Driscoll was suspended for three weeks having been cited for an alleged stamp on Italy's Simone Favaro in Rome last Saturday.



The player admitted that he had committed an act of foul play but denied that it warranted a red card. The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Robert Williams (Wales) along with Mike Hamlin and John Doubleday (both England), upheld the citing complaint and determined that the offending warranted a red card.
In applying the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee considered that the stamp, contrary to Law 10.4(b), was in the mid range of the IRB's sanctions for the type of offence and, after hearing from Brian O'Driscoll and his representatives, allowed a reduction of 2 weeks of mitigation, particularly taking into account the player's exemplary previous playing and disciplinary record.
Brian O'Driscoll is suspended until 8 April 2013 and has the right of appeal.

So it did warrant a red card, as a lot of posters claimed.

sydthebeat

ssaye wrote: »

http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/28793.php

5 weeks reduced to 3, he has a right to appeal also

At a disciplinary hearing before an independent Six Nations disciplinary committee today, Ireland centre Brian O'Driscoll was suspended for three weeks having been cited for an alleged stamp on Italy's Simone Favaro in Rome last Saturday.



The player admitted that he had committed an act of foul play but denied that it warranted a red card. The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Robert Williams (Wales) along with Mike Hamlin and John Doubleday (both England), upheld the citing complaint and determined that the offending warranted a red card.
In applying the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee considered that the stamp, contrary to Law 10.4(b), was in the mid range of the IRB's sanctions for the type of offence and, after hearing from Brian O'Driscoll and his representatives, allowed a reduction of 2 weeks of mitigation, particularly taking into account the player's exemplary previous playing and disciplinary record.
Brian O'Driscoll is suspended until 8 April 2013 and has the right of appeal.

8th april? so in effect a 23 day suspension from day of incident.

I wonder what the refs report said?? we'll find out in a few weeks i guess.

schmanga

sydthebeat wrote: »

8th april? so in effect a 23 day suspension from day of incident.

I wonder what the refs report said?? we'll find out in a few weeks i guess.

how? are referees reports made public?

sydthebeat

schmanga wrote: »

how? are referees reports made public?

the discipline committees report will be... and it will refer to the refs and assistants refs report in it.

have a look at healys report to see how they work

in it i love how they explain how a 20 day, 27 day and 34 day suspension are all "3 week" suspension in 'rugby weeks'.

penzo

bought my da a ticket to a leinster match next week for christmas, he only started watching rugby cos I started watching it a few years back and the last nearly 3 months has be talking about how he can't wait to see bod play live, feck.

ssaye

penzo wrote: »

bought my da a ticket to a leinster match next week for christmas, he only started watching rugby cos I started watching it a few years back and the last nearly 3 months has be talking about how he can't wait to see bod play live, feck.

Its always a gamble, you should be able to get a few more home games in before May hopefully and buy a ticket the day before when the team is announced. There is still a lot to be encouraged with esp watching Madigan play.

Enjoy the game.

irishbucsfan

Hopefully you might be able to take him to the Amlin semi if we beat Wasps. That will be against Gloucester or Biarritz in Dublin.

schmanga

sydthebeat wrote: »

the discipline committees report will be... and it will refer to the refs and assistants refs report in it.

have a look at healys report to see how they work

in it i love how they explain how a 20 day, 27 day and 34 day suspension are all "3 week" suspension in 'rugby weeks'.

tks. looks like it runs from the date the player is informed of the citing against him. that and the rule about "excluding any period the player may not ordinarily be playing"...so if there was a two week window after the citing he would in effect get 5 weeks for the same offence. it seems like there is a lot of leeway built into it from the disciplinary point of view. some of the defence healy used like the player didn't need treatment, or wasn't injured is pretty shameful and doesn't justify such behaviour.

sydthebeat

schmanga wrote: »

tks. looks like it runs from the date the player is informed of the citing against him. that and the rule about "excluding any period the player may not ordinarily be playing"...so if there was a two week window after the citing he would in effect get 5 weeks for the same offence. it seems like there is a lot of leeway built into it from the disciplinary point of view. some of the defence healy used like the player didn't need treatment, or wasn't injured is pretty shameful and doesn't justify such behaviour.

that defense is actually based on the RBS' own doctors report.

schmanga

sydthebeat wrote: »

that defense is actually based on the RBS' own doctors report.

it's on page 3 in relation to the severity of the offense the player and his representatives made the following points:

E3 required no treatment and there was no injury

Artful_Badger

schmanga wrote: »

it's on page 3 in relation to the severity of the offense the player and his representatives made the following points:

E3 required no treatment and there was no injury

How is that shameful ?

schmanga

Artful_Badger wrote: »

How is that shameful ?

It reduces the action to the effect. If a hunter goes badger baiting but doesn't injure you, do you think they should get away scott free?

Paddywiggum

First up ODriscoll only has himself to blame. If an Italian had stamped on BOD like that we'd all be up in arms.

Second, Im pretty sure he will appeal and get it reduced to 2 weeks, which in my view is about right.

Thirdly however, when is this farce of automatic appeal&reduce going to stop. it undermines the whole process. of course players should have the right to appeal, but the amount of times appeals are successful in reducing bans is ridiculous. It means the originally findings are consistently in error. If mitigating factors are taken into consideration already, as in this case, then the appeal would want to be very convincing to reduce it further. this is rarely the case. It does happen in other sports (GAA) but i would hold rule of law in Rugby in higher regard.

this is a general point about the flaw in the system, not about BOD per se.

Artful_Badger

schmanga wrote: »

It reduces the action to the effect. If a hunter goes badger baiting but doesn't injure you, do you think they should get away scott free?

What do badgers have to do with anything ?

Healy was arguing that it was a clumsy effort to remove an obstacle from the path of the ball. An effort that although breached the line of legality did not harm the player nor effect his ability to play the game. Something mentioned also by the commission in the report. All in relation to the severity of the incident.

He wasnt justifying his actions based on the fact there was no injury as you seem to be claiming. He admitted fault, argued it wasnt it cheap shot and logically added that there was no injury to the player to try lessen the view of how serious the offence was. I'd imagine its something done in pretty much every hearing like this.

sydthebeat

schmanga wrote: »

It reduces the action to the effect. If a hunter goes badger baiting but doesn't injure you, do you think they should get away scott free?

what you fail to realise here is that studs can be used on a player during a game.
The "action" that you refer to needs to be defined ie low range, mid range etc and the "effect" is a factor of this.

anyway, its the email from DR batty that supports what the player claimed, so NOT AT ALL shameful.... i fail to see how you can consider it otherwise.

Hagz

Fair enough in my opinion. He deserves it.

sydthebeat

Paddywiggum wrote: »

First up ODriscoll only has himself to blame. If an Italian had stamped on BOD like that we'd all be up in arms.

Second, Im pretty sure he will appeal and get it reduced to 2 weeks, which in my view is about right.

Thirdly however, when is this farce of automatic appeal&reduce going to stop. it undermines the whole process. of course players should have the right to appeal, but the amount of times appeals are successful in reducing bans is ridiculous. It means the originally findings are consistently in error. If mitigating factors are taken into consideration already, as in this case, then the appeal would want to be very convincing to reduce it further. this is rarely the case. It does happen in other sports (GAA) but i would hold rule of law in Rugby in higher regard.

this is a general point about the flaw in the system, not about BOD per se.

appeal on what grounds?

i dont see any

automatic appeal + reduction

system in play at all.

wheres the evidence of this? and before you cite healys appeal, that was based on a technical issue as to when the appeal started. There doesnt seem to be any apparent avenue of appeal here for BOD.

tolosenc

schmanga wrote: »

It reduces the action to the effect. If a hunter goes badger baiting but doesn't injure you, do you think they should get away scott free?

Punish the offence. End of.

The NHL has a habit of punishing based on how injured someone gets, and they just can't get rid of certain elements of foul play, because players know they have a chance of not getting suspended.

Ash.J.Williams

Paddywiggum wrote: »

First up ODriscoll only has himself to blame. If an Italian had stamped on BOD like that we'd all be up in arms.

Second, Im pretty sure he will appeal and get it reduced to 2 weeks, which in my view is about right.

Thirdly however, when is this farce of automatic appeal&reduce going to stop. it undermines the whole process. of course players should have the right to appeal, but the amount of times appeals are successful in reducing bans is ridiculous. It means the originally findings are consistently in error. If mitigating factors are taken into consideration already, as in this case, then the appeal would want to be very convincing to reduce it further. this is rarely the case. It does happen in other sports (GAA) but i would hold rule of law in Rugby in higher regard.

this is a general point about the flaw in the system, not about BOD per se.

could you imagine the whinging that would happen if that was the case!!

ssaye

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

could you imagine the whinging that would happen if that was the case!!

Bit like the last few posts.

Another reason for BOD to close his boards.ie account.:pac: