ruckruck wrote:firstly,touch Judge named the wrong player in his report, named the "victim" as Marys no.4, who can be clearly seen standing at the ruck where the alleged eye-gouging took place,
secondly,St Marys players could be clearly seen and heard stating "gouging ref" on a previous play whereby the referee said "no",
lastly the touch judge in question clearly reacted to the Marys players shouts and those of past pupils around him without actually having seen the alleged incident himself.
as for a senior counsel getting involved, if i had been accused of something like this and I hadnt done, id employ an entire legal team to ensure I got off but that wouldnt change the fact that my name had been tarnished.
A final point, where was the Marys player in all this, what does he have to say
But the video evidence didnt show he didnt do it either
Durkah Durkah wrote:
Whatever happens the refs are going to want something that doesn't make a mockery of their presence or decisions on a pitch. I don't think the disciplinary panel thought very thoroughly about their decision and were just anxious not to suffer in the same way as The I.T.
ruckruck wrote:firstly,touch Judge named the wrong player in his report, named the "victim" as Marys no.4, who can be clearly seen standing at the ruck where the alleged eye-gouging took place,
secondly,St Marys players could be clearly seen and heard stating "gouging ref" on a previous play whereby the referee said "no",
lastly the touch judge in question clearly reacted to the Marys players shouts and those of past pupils around him without actually having seen the alleged incident himself.
as for a senior counsel getting involved, if i had been accused of something like this and I hadnt done, id employ an entire legal team to ensure I got off but that wouldnt change the fact that my name had been tarnished.
A final point, where was the Marys player in all this, what does he have to say
How are preparations for the final going down in Clane?
they're going for shock and awe. believe ian presley is advising.
ruckruck wrote:firstly,touch Judge named the wrong player in his report, named the "victim" as Marys no.4, who can be clearly seen standing at the ruck where the alleged eye-gouging took place,
So what, that doesn't mean he got it wrong.
secondly,St Marys players could be clearly seen and heard stating "gouging ref" on a previous play whereby the referee said "no",
Again, so what?
lastly the touch judge in question clearly reacted to the Marys players shouts and those of past pupils around him without actually having seen the alleged incident himself.
What are you basing this on? James Fegan saw it from a couple of metres, of that I have no doubt.
as for a senior counsel getting involved, if i had been accused of something like this and I hadnt done, id employ an entire legal team to ensure I got off but that wouldnt change the fact that my name had been tarnished.
A final point, where was the Marys player in all this, what does he have to say
Mary's declined to send a player or a rep.
This case has highlighted the shambolic nature of Branch disciplinary procedures. I sincerely hope Michael's kick the fcuk out of CWC, they have brought the game into disrepute by their actions.
THE ASSOCIATION of Referees of the Leinster Branch (ARLB) have stated they will not be attending any further disciplinary hearings of the Leinster Branch until procedures are clarified and they are legally represented.
The decision was taken at a meeting late last night regarding the recent disciplinary hearing of Clongowes Wood College senior cup player Conor Gilsenan.
“The referees are not happy with the current disciplinary procedures followed by the Leinster Branch and we have asked a few points to be considered,” the referees say in their statement.
“Firstly, the number of people sitting on committees must be reduced.”
The recent Gilsenan hearing on March 5th resulted in the schoolboy being found not guilty of making contact with the eye area of a St Mary’s player in the Leinster Schools semi-final on February 28th. Gilsenan was red carded in the 66th minute of that match.
“There were six people on the committee and only three on the IRB. Normally there would be a four-man committee. No reason was given for this by the Leinster Branch. Until proper procedures are in place our members will not be attending any disciplinary hearings,” continued the statement.
“The touch judge at the centre of the whole affair (James Fegan) made a statement and said it was a very harrowing week for himself and his whole family.
“While we are not disappointed with the result that came from the disciplinary hearing and we have to respect that result we have a problem with the procedures that are laid down by the Leinster Branch.
“The referee can only be examined by the chairman of the committee (Fred Gilligan) and that didn’t happen.
“In future if an official is to attend a disciplinary hearing they will be legally represented.”
After the March 5th hearing the Leinster Branch stated: “The committee was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, on the evidence adduced and bearing in mind the video evidence as also adduced, that Conor Gilsenan was guilty of making contact with the eye or eye area of an opposing player. And, accordingly, the committee recommends no further sanction.”
The final between Clongowes and St Michael’s next Wednesday will be refereed by John Carvill.
The Ireland under-20s will take on their Welsh counterparts at Dubarry Park tonight (7.35pm).
This is shocking. I can only assume that the TJ was put under huge pressure by either the LB or CWC (or their representatives).
ARLB wrote:
“The touch judge at the centre of the whole affair (James Fegan) made a statement and said it was a very harrowing week for himself and his whole family.
Grumpy Old Man wrote:This is shocking. I can only assume that the TJ was put under huge pressure by either the LB or CWC (or their representatives).
ARLB wrote:
“The touch judge at the centre of the whole affair (James Fegan) made a statement and said it was a very harrowing week for himself and his whole family.
It is shocking - and these guys are doing it for the love of the game, they are not paid and probably took time off work to run the line that day.
Very glad that the decks have been cleared in relation to the Final at least and it can now procede without the drag factor of what the referees may or may not decide to do in respect of the Final.
I am troubled by the Referees insistence that in future they will ne legally represented. That is what we most definitely need to AVOID.
ruckruck wrote:firstly,touch Judge named the wrong player in his report, named the "victim" as Marys no.4, who can be clearly seen standing at the ruck where the alleged eye-gouging took place,
So what, that doesn't mean he got it wrong.
secondly,St Marys players could be clearly seen and heard stating "gouging ref" on a previous play whereby the referee said "no",
Again, so what?
lastly the touch judge in question clearly reacted to the Marys players shouts and those of past pupils around him without actually having seen the alleged incident himself.
What are you basing this on? James Fegan saw it from a couple of metres, of that I have no doubt.
as for a senior counsel getting involved, if i had been accused of something like this and I hadnt done, id employ an entire legal team to ensure I got off but that wouldnt change the fact that my name had been tarnished.
A final point, where was the Marys player in all this, what does he have to say
Mary's declined to send a player or a rep.
This case has highlighted the shambolic nature of Branch disciplinary procedures. I sincerely hope Michael's kick the fcuk out of CWC, they have brought the game into disrepute by their actions.
The Michael's marines will be out to kick ass comrade.
ruckruck wrote:firstly,touch Judge named the wrong player in his report, named the "victim" as Marys no.4, who can be clearly seen standing at the ruck where the alleged eye-gouging took place,
So what, that doesn't mean he got it wrong.
secondly,St Marys players could be clearly seen and heard stating "gouging ref" on a previous play whereby the referee said "no",
Again, so what?
lastly the touch judge in question clearly reacted to the Marys players shouts and those of past pupils around him without actually having seen the alleged incident himself.
What are you basing this on? James Fegan saw it from a couple of metres, of that I have no doubt.
as for a senior counsel getting involved, if i had been accused of something like this and I hadnt done, id employ an entire legal team to ensure I got off but that wouldnt change the fact that my name had been tarnished.
A final point, where was the Marys player in all this, what does he have to say
Mary's declined to send a player or a rep.
This case has highlighted the shambolic nature of Branch disciplinary procedures. I sincerely hope Michael's kick the fcuk out of CWC, they have brought the game into disrepute by their actions.
The Michael's marines will be out to kick ass comrade.
Sorry but what sort of a juvenile comment is that? What value does it add to this discussion?
Do you not suspect that the CWC 'marines' will also be out to 'kick ass'?!
At least viigand was not as gutteral as combatlogo's infantile trype about kicking 'the fcuk out of CWC'.
That is not a true rugby person's attitude or ethos. Keep that sort of moronic approach for whatever computer games you are into. By all means play the game as tough as you can, cheer with all you've got but keep respect at the core at all times.
We still have something special in this sport and in these competitions where the friendships between past pupils and their families developed through playing and supporting endure over the decdes and I for one am not prepared to let it be hijacked by people who don't get it.
backrower8 wrote:
Sorry but what sort of a juvenile comment is that? What value does it add to this discussion?
Do you not suspect that the CWC 'marines' will also be out to 'kick ass'?!
At least viigand was not as gutteral as combatlogo's infantile trype about kicking 'the fcuk out of CWC'.
That is not a true rugby person's attitude or ethos. Keep that sort of moronic approach for whatever computer games you are into. By all means play the game as tough as you can, cheer with all you've got but keep respect at the core at all times.
We still have something special in this sport and in these competitions where the friendships between past pupils and their families developed through playing and supporting endure over the decdes and I for one am not prepared to let it be hijacked by people who don't get it.
I chose my words poorly - I hope Michael's hockey CWC.
backrower8 wrote:Very glad that the decks have been cleared in relation to the Final at least and it can now procede without the drag factor of what the referees may or may not decide to do in respect of the Final.
I am troubled by the Referees insistence that in future they will ne legally represented. That is what we most definitely need to AVOID.
The ARLB withdrawing support for the final was never a runner, just a rumour out of control.
Also, Cumiskey's report was inaccurate - the ARLB did not say that refs will require legal representation in all future cases, only in those where the offending player brings legal representation.
backrower8 wrote:
Sorry but what sort of a juvenile comment is that? What value does it add to this discussion?
Do you not suspect that the CWC 'marines' will also be out to 'kick ass'?!
At least viigand was not as gutteral as combatlogo's infantile trype about kicking 'the fcuk out of CWC'.
That is not a true rugby person's attitude or ethos. Keep that sort of moronic approach for whatever computer games you are into. By all means play the game as tough as you can, cheer with all you've got but keep respect at the core at all times.
We still have something special in this sport and in these competitions where the friendships between past pupils and their families developed through playing and supporting endure over the decdes and I for one am not prepared to let it be hijacked by people who don't get it.
I chose my words poorly - I hope Michael's hockey CWC.
backrower8 wrote:
Sorry but what sort of a juvenile comment is that? What value does it add to this discussion?
Do you not suspect that the CWC 'marines' will also be out to 'kick ass'?!
At least viigand was not as gutteral as combatlogo's infantile trype about kicking 'the fcuk out of CWC'.
That is not a true rugby person's attitude or ethos. Keep that sort of moronic approach for whatever computer games you are into. By all means play the game as tough as you can, cheer with all you've got but keep respect at the core at all times.
We still have something special in this sport and in these competitions where the friendships between past pupils and their families developed through playing and supporting endure over the decdes and I for one am not prepared to let it be hijacked by people who don't get it.
I chose my words poorly - I hope Michael's hockey CWC.
Do you actually know what "gutteral" (sic) means?
Evidently not! But you get my drift.
Fair play BR.
"Viigand's" comments are directed at me - he's a lunatic from Munsterfans.
backrower8 wrote:
We still have something special in this sport and in these competitions where the friendships between past pupils and their families developed through playing and supporting endure over the decdes and I for one am not prepared to let it be hijacked by people who don't get it.
+1
So much sh1te written in this thread. It is evident from the various statements about Clongowes that these people literally know NOTHING about Clongowes or the values it promotes. There is no way on earth Gilsenan would have been defended by the school unless they had 100% faith in his innocence.
I like to think of Jesus like with giant eagles wings, and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with like an angel band and I'm in the front row and I'm hammered drunk!
backrower8 wrote:
We still have something special in this sport and in these competitions where the friendships between past pupils and their families developed through playing and supporting endure over the decdes and I for one am not prepared to let it be hijacked by people who don't get it.
+1
So much sh1te written in this thread. It is evident from the various statements about Clongowes that these people literally know NOTHING about Clongowes or the values it promotes. There is no way on earth Gilsenan would have been defended by the school unless they had 100% faith in his innocence.
Agreed. IMHO CWC is a great school with great management.
But you get my drift.
