Treviso v Leinster Thread

[Hickiefan]

This came in 35 mins ago:

MEDIA RELEASE: DISCIPLINARY HEARING

For immediate release: Tuesday 21st September 2010

Issued on behalf of The Irish Rugby Football Union

The Irish Rugby Football Union Disciplinary Panel will hold a hearing to consider a citing complaint against Leinster player Sean O’Brien from the Benetton Treviso v Leinster Magners League game on Saturday, 18th September 2010.
O’Brien has been cited under law 10.4 (l) for allegedly making contact with the eye area of a Benetton Treviso player in the 62nd minute of the game. The hearing will take place in the Ulster Branch offices, Ravenhill, at 5.00pm on Wednesday 22nd September 2010. The hearing will be chaired by Harry McKibbin and he will be assisted by Stephen Hilditch and Neil Jackson.
The player was cited by the independent citing commissioner who was present at the game. The findings of the disciplinary panel will be released following the completion of the hearing.

Fockity focking fock!

[Sauvignon Blank]

Ah b*%&!x to that, 6 weeks minimum

[Logorrhea]

Based on the citing decisions from the Dragons Glasgow game last week, I expect Sean to be given a written apology for dragging him up to Belfast to answer a nothing charge and sent on his way.

That would be fair

Ah b*%&!x to that, 6 weeks minimum

That would be about right

Seriously, we complain about the likes of Quinlan, Dupuy, Burger and all the other gougers when it happens. We complain about the Welsh disciplinary process when they give sham penalties, yet here we are pretending nothing happened, and hoping he gets off scot free. He deserves a 6 week ban for being a stupid f*ckin numpty at least, especially given the ban that Jennings got last year. He raked the face, fingers in the eyes, there is no excuse for it.

Are people on this forum trying to get O'Brien cited and banned for ever? The above remarks are so inflamatory. If I had anything to do with the Mangers League and I read the above, I would go right, if they want their player banned I'll bloody well give it to them.
Don't forget lots of people, from players and coaches (and Kurt), ex-players and ex-coaches and Rocky, journalists, organisers etc, etc all have a read of this forum periodically. It's very important that as an organiser that one has ones finger on the pulse and what better way of getting a feeling for the general mood, than to tune into these sorts of forums.
A little bit of shut mouth wouldn't go amiss now and again, imho.

This has to be the post of the year. Seriously, can we sticky this? or frame it, or something?

[Dave Cahill]

He deserves a 6 week ban for being a stupid f*ckin numpty at least, especially given the ban that Jennings got last year. He raked the face, fingers in the eyes, there is no excuse for it.

No he didn't. He dragged a guy out of a ruck by his scrumcap.

[kendalgerty]

If he is found guilty he has to get 12 weeks, so there will be no two-to-four week bans I'm afraid. Either they let him off entirely or he faces a lengthy stint on the sidelines.

It's pretty gutting.

[Logorrhea]

No he didn't. He dragged a guy out of a ruck by his scrumcap.

I agree, but before that his fingers make contact with the eye area.

[Broken Wing]

A ban would be a bag of sh1te. There's clearly no intent to gouge, just to pull the player away. Does intent count for nothing? Didn't we have this whole debate after the Jenning's debacle. Barely a game goes by without a player's hand in another player's face.

This picky chickensh1t is so fu(king frustrating.

[Dave Cahill]

No he didn't. He dragged a guy out of a ruck by his scrumcap.

I agree, but before that his fingers make contact with the eye area.

Thats the problem with stills, they are not useful in this kind of thing. You can take a still at the right time of most players making a fend, and claim contact with the eye area. The moving image shows more in terms of intent.

I was disappointed with Sean though, in my younger days, when scrumcaps were much rarer, and not as good in terms of keeping their shape etc, pulling on an opponents scrumcap was not regarded well

[ceemec]

There's clearly no intent to gouge just to pull the player away.

The citing never mentions gouging.

Does intent count for nothing?

Not in the case of contact with the eye area as seen on several occasions in the past 18 months.

Didn't we have this whole debate after the Jenning's debacle.

We did which makes O'Brien's actions all the more frustrating. It's simply a no go area.

Don't mean to get at you specifically, BW but after all the fuss and publicity surrounding these incidents in the past 18 months I find it very frustrating that people and players still don't get that you cannot go near or around players eyes no matter what the intent or circumstances.

[JoseFantastique]

This trial by freeze frame is nonsense, of course his fingers were near the eye area, they were pulling at a scrumcap. That doesn't mean he was gouging or intended to gouge.

The same weirdo process was applied by internet heros with Quinlan and Jennings, do people not realise that sometimes a hand will hit a face in a way that looks at lot worse than it actually is? As well as that, slowing things down to micro-seconds when the entire incident only takes place in seconds anyway makes things look worse. A hand passing near an eye in real time can look awful in freeze frame simply because of it's proximity to the eye but if you're going to pull a scrumcap you'll have to place your hand near an eye.

Don't even get me started on the people who suggested Cullen lied to the ERC.

[Slipper1]

According to Gezza in today's IT - the Italians are on our side on this one.

I'll root it out.

[odyboody]

Camera angles and timing can make things look much worse, stills make it look worse again. Sure don't actors make a fortune out of making you think they have just planted someone with the biggest hay-maker ever but in reality make no contact whatsoever.

[gfo]

No he didn't. He dragged a guy out of a ruck by his scrumcap.

I agree, but before that his fingers make contact with the eye area.

Thats the problem with stills, they are not useful in this kind of thing. You can take a still at the right time of most players making a fend, and claim contact with the eye area. The moving image shows more in terms of intent.

I was disappointed with Sean though, in my younger days, when scrumcaps were much rarer, and not as good in terms of keeping their shape etc, pulling on an opponents scrumcap was not regarded well

Nick Lloyd certainly didn't regard it well when Denis Leamy tried to pull his scrum cap off, and expressed his displeasure through liberal application of fist to face.

Stupid move from SOB though, even if he wasnt gouging, he should be aware that it LOOKS like he is

[Broken Wing]

There's clearly no intent to gouge just to pull the player away.

The citing never mentions gouging.

Does intent count for nothing?

Not in the case of gouging as seen on several occasions in the past 18 months.

Well if there's no mention of gouging then what difference does it make if intent is irrelevant in cases of gouging?

I agree it was a stupid thing to do but it's clear he was just trying to pull the player away and not cause any harm to anyone. To ban him for that would be stupid. A stern talking to and a ruling of "boys will be boys" would probably do the job and he'll walk away knowing he could have been in a lot of trouble and won't do it again.

Or they could suspend the ban until 2027 like the Ospreys points deduction.

[Broken Wing]

According to Gezza in today's IT - the Italians are on our side on this one.

I'll root it out.

It is understood that Treviso would be supportive of O’Brien if they are asked for their view of the events. Their team manager, Marius Goosen, told The Irish Times yesterday: “All I can say is that we didn’t know about the incident until the Leinster manager, Guy Easterby, rang me yesterday. It does look bad on the video but as far as I’m aware nothing happened (to Pavenello). We didn’t even know it (the incident) had happened.”

[ceemec]

There's clearly no intent to gouge just to pull the player away.

The citing never mentions gouging.

Does intent count for nothing?

Not in the case of gouging as seen on several occasions in the past 18 months.

Well if there's no mention of gouging then what difference does it make if intent is irrelevant in cases of gouging?

I agree it was a stupid thing to do but it's clear he was just trying to pull the player away and not cause any harm to anyone. To ban him for that would be stupid. A stern talking to and a ruling of "boys will be boys" would probably do the job and he'll walk away knowing he could have been in a lot of trouble and won't do it again.

Or they could suspend the ban until 2027 like the Ospreys points deduction.

I've edited my original post now to remove the ambiguity and the evidence of my own stupidity. Meant to say contact with eye area instead of gouging.

[Broken Wing]

Fair enough.

I know you weren't having a go at me BTW. I'm as disappointed as everyone else over this citing and also over SO'B going near the eyes at all. I understand that he didn't intend it and was just trying to grab the scrumcap but after Jennings last season I'm amazed he took the risk.

[Darce]

Could equally say Strauss was gauged

[Turnip Boy]

According to Gezza in today's IT - the Italians are on our side on this one.

I'll root it out.

It is understood that Treviso would be supportive of O’Brien if they are asked for their view of the events. Their team manager, Marius Goosen, told The Irish Times yesterday: “All I can say is that we didn’t know about the incident until the Leinster manager, Guy Easterby, rang me yesterday. It does look bad on the video but as far as I’m aware nothing happened (to Pavenello). We didn’t even know it (the incident) had happened.”

Treviso backing him up should mean very little to be honest - see the Quinlan case and Cullen's statement.

I reckon it comes down to how much he is in the frame for the AI's. If he is they could easily give him the low end of the ban and knock at least half off for no previous and with a 5 or 6 week ban he could possibly be back for the Edinburgh game in the RDS before the internationals.

[Logorrhea]

I know you weren't having a go at me BTW. I'm as disappointed as everyone else over this citing and also over SO'B going near the eyes at all. I understand that he didn't intend it and was just trying to grab the scrumcap but after Jennings last season I'm amazed he took the risk.

That sums it up for me too. I dont believe this was anything other than an attempt to break up the kerfuffle. I'm just pissed off he could do something as dumb as this.

As for the Treviso statement. If they were to support him in the citing process it may be taken on board. Its not the ERC.