Flannery to miss entire 6N

toomevara

8 week suspension, extremely harsh in my view and unnecessarily punitive. At least Munster will have him for the HC

colster

toomevara wrote: »

8 week suspension, extremely harsh in my view and unnecessarily punitive. At least Munster will have him for the HC

He's lucky he didn't get more. what he did was disgraceful.

legspin

colster wrote: »

He's lucky he didn't get more. what he did was disgraceful.

It was accidental ffs.

At least Cooder can't feck him up for us now

colster

legspin wrote: »

It was accidental ffs.

At least Cooder can't feck him up for us now

I doubt that very much. He was looking down when he was doing it.

toomevara

Jackman's a shoe in, hope his throwing holds up at 6N level....Would agree that Flannery deserved a punishment, but there was a clear question mark regarding intent/malice and to deprive the guy of the entire 6 nations is, in my view, extremely draconian.

EdgarAllenPoo

Accident me hole, he's lucky he didn't get a longer ban. He did look down. If this was anyone other than an Irish player people here would be calling for a total ban.

As much of a loss as he will be he deserved what he got.

gucci

tough sentence but i had a fair idea he would be found guilty. at least he will be available for munster. if his appeal fails (if he submits one) could his suspension be lengthened?

colster

http://rugbydump.blogspot.com/2008/01/jerry-flannery-stamp-on-julien-bonnaire.html

phog

If he knew what he was doing then he got what he deserved and should have got more, however, I don't believe for a moment he set out to stamp on Bonnaire's head and that is why I think the 8 week suspension is harsh.

This certainly opens the No 2 jersey to Jackman and hopefully he'll be up to international standard - he certainly has had a good run in the ML and HEC.

dc69

great news(i want jackman to start),hopefully jackman continues with his fine form

Funkstard

Wow, wasn't expecting such a harsh decision. Will Jackman definitely start ahead of Best?

zAbbo

Very harsh imo, if it was intentional it would have been much more.

Does anyone know if they take into account his record, he's an aggresive player but certainly not a dirty player.

colster

phog wrote: »

If he knew what he was doing then he got what he deserved and should have got more, however, I don't believe for a moment he set out to stamp on Bonnaire's head and that is why I think the 8 week suspension is harsh.

This certainly opens the No 2 jersey to Jackman and hopefully he'll be up to international standard - he certainly has had a good run in the ML and HEC.

Look, he has a duty of care on the rugby pitch. Each and every player at the bottom of a ruck is at the mercy of his fellow players. Flannery did not show that duty of care ins this instance. His leg was grabbed, he was looking down and moved toward the player and then stamped on the mans face. It was v. lucky that he missed a eye.

phog

colster wrote: »

I doubt that very much. He was looking down when he was doing it.

Just because he glanced down doesn't indicate he set out to stamp ... in the same match Foley ran back to cover a ball and stretched out to put his feet in touch, the TJ was standing over him looking at Foley lying on the ball (would have been a penalty if he wasn't in touch) yet never SAW his feet in touch - he only raised his flag when the ref told him to.

GDM wrote: »

Accident me hole, he's lucky he didn't get a longer ban. He did look down. If this was anyone other than an Irish player people here would be calling for a total ban.

As much of a loss as he will be he deserved what he got.

How can either of you say that if you looked at the replay? He was at the back of the ruck and was trying to move to his right and a player in the ruck grabbed his leg around his knee, he jerked (I'll even say STAMPED) to free his leg and at that moment Bonnaire looked up and was caught in the eye by Fla's boot.


I hope he appeals this crazy suspension.

phog

dc69 wrote: »

great news(i want jackman to start),hopefully jackman continues with his fine form

That's just plain juvenile, would you also like to see a few bad injuries to key players just so that the players you like might get a start. Cop On.

colster

phog wrote: »

Just because he glanced down doesn't indicate he set out to stamp ... in the same match Foley ran back to cover a ball and stretched out to put his feet in touch, the TJ was standing over him looking at Foley lying on the ball (would have been a penalty if he wasn't in touch) yet never SAW his feet in touch - he only raised his flag when the ref told him to.



How can either of you say that if you looked at the replay? He was at the back of the ruck and was trying to move to his right and a player in the ruck grabbed his leg around his knee, he jerked (I'll even say STAMPED) to free his leg and at that moment Bonnaire looked up and was caught in the eye by Fla's boot.


I hope he appeals this crazy suspension.

Look He may not have set out to do it but to claim it was totally accidental and that he didn't know the mans head was there is ridiculous. He needs to be more careful in that situation. The result could have been much worse for Bonnaire. The ban clearly takes into account that the stamp was not intentional, if it did he would have been banned for a lot longer, but lacked the duty of care in that situation.

EdgarAllenPoo

Funkstard wrote: »

Wow, wasn't expecting such a harsh decision. Will Jackman definitely start ahead of Best?

Knowing EOS Jackman will now probably be left out entirely with Frankie Sheahan being brought in as cover for Best;)

If Eddie has a brain and two functioning eyes then Jackman will start ahead of Best.

juvenal

OK, lets get real here, leave parochial allegiances aside for a moment and look at the facts;

From the same game, Clermont's Alexandre Audebert was cited for alleged punching of Alan Quinlan in contravention of Law 10.4 (a), and alleged stamping on Ronan O'Gara, in contravention of Law 10.4 (b).

Flannery was cited for alleged stamping on Bonnaire, also in contravention of Law 10.4 (b).

Law 10.4 (b) - Stamping or trampling: A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.

So this afternoon Audebert is found guilty of both charges, and banned for eight weeks. In their findings, the committee said that "the punching offence did not warrant a red card and accordingly the Disciplinary Committee did not impose a separate suspension."

As soon as I heard this it looked like Flannery would be getting the same punishment, and lo and behold, he did.

It is irrelevant that this happened in the middle of the peak season of European and Six Nations rugby, and while he is a massive loss to both Munster and Ireland, the punishment should be the same if it happened in January or at the end of the season in May.

IMO it was a strong punishment, but looking at the video evidence and considering the facts, not crazy, harsh or punative as some previous posters have opined.

colster

juvenal wrote: »

OK, lets get real here, leave parochial allegiances aside for a moment and look at the facts;

From the same game, Clermont's Alexandre Audebert was cited for alleged punching of Alan Quinlan in contravention of Law 10.4 (a), and alleged stamping on Ronan O'Gara, in contravention of Law 10.4 (b).

Flannery was cited for alleged stamping on Bonnaire, also in contravention of Law 10.4 (b).

Law 10.4 (b) - Stamping or trampling: A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.

So this afternoon Audebert is found guilty of both charges, and banned for eight weeks. In their findings, the committee said that "the punching offence did not warrant a red card and accordingly the Disciplinary Committee did not impose a separate suspension."

As soon as I heard this it looked like Flannery would be getting the same punishment, and lo and behold, he did.

It is irrelevant that this happened in the middle of the peak season of European and Six Nations rugby, and while he is a massive loss to both Munster and Ireland, the punishment should be the same if it happened in January or at the end of the season in May.

IMO it was a strong punishment, but looking at the video evidence and considering the facts, not crazy, harsh or punative as some previous posters have opined.

Exactly I wonder what the response would have been like if it had been Bonnaire on flannery

Funkstard

GDM wrote: »

Knowing EOS Jackman will now probably be left out entirely with Frankie Sheahan being brought in as cover for Best;)

If Eddie has a brain and two functioning eyes then Jackman will start ahead of Best.

Haha...Jackman has been playing great lately, but lets not forget what sort of idiot is behind the wheel. Could he be stupid enough to start Best based on his experience?

Amazotheamazing

Funny how the people who want Jackman to start overlook how he did worse Dowling last year? You can't pretend Flannery is a dirty player and then say Jackman in a clean one.

Funkstard

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Funny how the people who want Jackman to start overlook how he did worse Dowling last year? You can't pretend Flannery is a dirty player and then say Jackman in a clean one.

That's very much neither here, there or anywhere.

old boy

look guys he is gone, whats needed is the right replacement, and as our navigator does tend to steer clear of shark infected waters, or else navigate blindfolded, any premnitions are likely

Erin Go Brath

Didn't expect him to get 8 weeks tbh. Thought 4-6 max, but they're obviously stamping down (pun intended) on such offences. Timing is good for Munster anyway with him being back before the Quarter Final.

phog

old boy wrote: »

look guys he is gone, whats needed is the right replacement, and as our navigator does tend to steer clear of shark infected waters, or else navigate blindfolded, any premnitions are likely

I haven't seen much of Best in Ulster and Frankie isn't getting too much game time in Munster so my guess is it has to be Jackman to start against Italy and then see who'll start for France.

Timothy Bryce

phog wrote: »

I haven't seen much of Best in Ulster and Frankie isn't getting too much game time in Munster so my guess is it has to be Jackman to start against Italy and then see who'll start for France.

I'm fairly sure Best is ruled out because of the injury he sustained when Ulster played Leinster....so it looks like Sheahan would be drafted in as cover

dc69

phog wrote: »

That's just plain juvenile, would you also like to see a few bad injuries to key players just so that the players you like might get a start. Cop On.

get over yourself,what he did was absolutely disgracefull and that was leinient decision.Jackman has been playing better anyway,so this just will aid in eddies decision to play him,if i was the commisioner i would have giver him a 3 month ban,he is a thug.

obviously i dont want players to get injured so other players can get in ahead,in this case jackman deserved to get in ahead and maybe flannery will learn from the disgracefull act he commited.

Erin Go Brath

dc69 wrote: »

get over yourself,what he did was absolutely disgracefull and that was leinient decision.Jackman has been playing better anyway,so this just will aid in eddies decision to play him,if i was the commisioner i would have giver him a 3 month ban,he is a thug.

1) It wasn't a lenient decision.
2) Jackman isn't playing 'better anyway', although he is having a good season.
3) Flannery is not a thug.
4) Better spelling and punctuation wouldn't go amiss.

super_furry

Honestly I don't think he can have any complaints. There's a firm and obvious downward motion and I find it hard to believe there was no intent there.

mc23

While Jackmans play around the field has been excellent this season his inconsistency at finding his man at line out time is a big concern for an international hooker.

knightmare

Harsh Call, thought the fact someone was holding his leg might have reduced the sentence somewhat.
As for Jackman, at 32 and having never done it in the past at international level, albeit having a good club season this year but he is only a stand out because the rest of the leinster lions are such bottlers.
I wouldn't even include him in the squad.He will be past it when next world cup arrives.

randomname2005

Lets look at the offence in relation to lots of other incidents. Did he deserve the punishment - possibly, but ONLY if they are going to be consistent with other similar offences.

Flannery's offence was worse, but what Goode did to BOD - the high tackle and then diving in with hands and knees deserved a little more than a yellow card. Likewise, the series of punches thrown by White (I forget who it was) deserved more than a yellow. They need to stick to guidelines and be consistent, then no player can be upset with what punishment they get.

Another important factor is the fact that his leg was not free, it was being pulled. In a ruck you want your feet to be on the ground as much as possible. If somebody tries to grab your leg, making you unstable, it makes it very difficult to place your feet. Did he stamp on his opponent's head? Yes, was it deliberate - we will never know.

buck65

Flannery had a rush of blood, he is not a dirty player nor a thug, he is a hard player in a very tough sport and his form was quite good in the last 2 HCup matches. He will be a big loss to Ireland, Jackman despite being hyped beyond belief , is not the same type of player as Flannery and will now get his chance to prove himself. I hope he plays well. He is good in the loose but has never proved himself on the big stage like Jerry has. In fact apart from a few great games for Leinster this year his past performances at club level have been very inconsistent.
This Flannery bashing is just ridiculous , and seems to me to be coloured by a Leinster vs Munster spat.
BTW I agree with the ban on Flannery.

Amazotheamazing

It seems some people wanted Flannery banned simply so Jackman could play. Weird, that's like a Munsterfan wanted O'Driscoll banned for what he did to Dowling so Barry Murphy could play.

Jackman and O'Driscoll have both stamped at times in their careers, I'm sure all those calling Flannery dirty and a thug are applying the same standards to every player?

sickpuppy

Just reading on aertel Flannery might appeal.
Has he any chance?
Dissapointing and all as it is for him and ireland to miss the six nations
i think he would be better taking the ban on the chin and not going round the gaa route with appeals.
Jerry your guilty take your punishment and learn from it.

Ulstermell0

i think best has been improving - not seen much of jackman to comment.

Heres a question: If the ban is reduced so he could play in the England game, but best/jackman is playing pretty steady (ie well, but not amazing - hitting their man in line outs and carrying ok) would you bring in flannery for that match?

buck65

Not necessarily, I reckon Best playing well is certainly on a par with Flannery.

Colm_OReilly

How are penalties like this decided? Is there an IRB directive on the bans for stamps, punching, etc? Or is it a case by case basis? Also, is it a precedent so that if a 4 week ban is given to a similar offence last year, we'll use the same sentence for the next citing?

Danger_Dave

Have the people in this thread Critiscising Jackman's Throwing watched any of his games besides the one against munster?, because if you had the difference in his throwing from last season to this season is unreal, if you watched Jackman last year you could see the improvment at the tail end of last year as well. Personally i think a big factor to why hes throwing in well this season, is down to Leo Cullen making the lineout calls. Now we still have to see if he can handle it at international level, but his throwing for HC and Magners league has been outstanding.


Erin Go Brath : On top form Flannery is a better player than jackman on top form, but Flannery is not on Top form, Jackman is playing far the better rugby than flannery at the moment.

P.S I thinks its terrible that Flannery is going to miss the 6nations, imagine one of those two hookers coming off the bench for 30 mins ?, dont think anyone would mind that?, instead we have Frank Sheahan . Lets forget all the Munster vs Leinster Business and lets get behind Ireland on these boards ! ,, for at least the 6nations.

Ulstermell0

it says in some reports a 3 man board made the decision in Dublin - does anyone know who sits of these boards? and does the fact it was in Dublin mean they were irish? surely in the interest of fairness no one with an interest in the 6N should have been able to make a decision.

Amz

As far as I know the ERC is in Dublin and thus all of these boards sit here and the decisions are made here. There might have been an Irish member of it, but I'd say other Unions are also represented.

juvenal

A few things,

Anyone who is celebrating Flannery's ban on the basis that Jackman will get the starting jersey needs to get a grip.

What good is it for the Irish team if there is no genuine competition for places? While I personally would select Jackman for the first game, based on both form and the opposition, saluting Flannery's ban in the interests of provincial allegiance as opposed to the interests of sporting fair play is ridiculous. Sheahan is not a first choice hooker for province or country, and Rory Best is just returning from a serious injury.

Further to what appears to be a slight attempt to start some sort of conspiracy theory about the make-up of the citing panel, both the ERC and the IRB have their headquarters in Huguenot House in Dublin. Hence the hearings are generally held in Dublin, with the citing panel being made up of representatives of member Unions of the respective organisations.

Flannery is entitled to appeal, but I would much rather if he took his punishment and left it at that, rather than taking a leaf out of some of the inter-county GAA players that have been suspended. He's not a thug or anything of the sort; he had a rush of blood in a high pressure match with a lot at stake, and has paid the penalty.

Sure, it's a shame that he misses the entire 6 Nations, but as I said already, the ban must be the same irrespective of the timing during the rugby season.

Eoin

Amz wrote: »

As far as I know the ERC is in Dublin and thus all of these boards sit here and the decisions are made here. There might have been an Irish member of it, but I'd say other Unions are also represented.

I think it was two English and one Welsh guy on the board this time.

juvenile wrote:

What good is it for the Irish team if there is no genuine competition for places? While I personally would select Jackman for the first game, based on both form and the opposition, saluting Flannery's ban in the interests of provincial allegiance as opposed to the interests of sporting fair play is ridiculous. Sheahan is not a first choice hooker for province or country, and Rory Best is just returning from a serious injury.

Well said, though I'm not sure all of this is a Leinster v Munster thing.

Ulstermell0

thanks for help - just found the press release on the official site.
http://www.irishrugby.ie/22_10802.php

I wasnt trying to start a leinster-munster conspiracy if that comment was directed at me?

But two English blokes on the panel that issued the ban which means he just misses the England game just made me think. fortunately rugby is a paragon of virtue and there is no corruption on any level.

dc69

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

1) It wasn't a lenient decision.
2) Jackman isn't playing 'better anyway', although he is having a good season.
3) Flannery is not a thug.
4) Better spelling and punctuation wouldn't go amiss.

>I will reserve my Spelling and punctuation for more important matters tbh.
>Flannery isnt a thug but what he did was thugish behavior
>If i stamped on someones head out on the streets,i could face a harsher penalty,than flannery got.
>Jackman is playing"better anyway",if jackman nails down his throwing,he offers alot more all around the pitch.

buck65

you said he was a thug apologies if I'm mistaken

Jackz

Ulstermell0 wrote: »

But two English blokes on the panel that issued the ban which means he just misses the England game just made me think. fortunately rugby is a paragon of virtue and there is no corruption on any level.

Haha, I really didn't feel at the time he would get a ban, and then he was given the longest for that kind of incident. Ah well.

toomevara

juvenal wrote: »

Flannery is entitled to appeal, but I would much rather if he took his punishment and left it at that, rather than taking a leaf out of some of the inter-county GAA players that have been suspended. He's not a thug or anything of the sort; he had a rush of blood in a high pressure match with a lot at stake, and has paid the penalty.

Fair enough assessment...Also given that the committee stated that the offence was on the serious end of the spectrum, is there a chance that, should flannery's appeal be unsuccessful, a stiffer ban may be imposed?

juvenal

toomevara wrote: »

Fair enough assessment...Also given that the committee stated that the offence was on the serious end of the spectrum, is there a chance that, should flannery's appeal be unsuccessful, a stiffer ban may be imposed?

As far as I'm aware the ERC have the power to increase the ban on appeal if they feel it necessary.

It appears that Audebert will also be appealing his identical punishment, although given the fact that he also was cited for a punch, I'd say this will be fruitless.

Personally, while I empathise with Flannery's position, I don't think the ban was overly harsh, and lest we forget, he was lucky to be able to play the Wasps game as the citing committee took over ten days to convene.

On the face of it, he could have missed the Wasps game and the entire 6 Nations, so on balance he got a fairly decent deal. It will make a farce of the whole process if the ban if lessened at all.

Steffano2002

Eight weeks was fully deserved. I'm glad he's missing the 6N. The git will think twice before doing that again.

toomevara

Steffano2002 wrote: »

. The git .

No loss of perspective there then....a rush of blood to the head, not a dirty player,no previous at all..realise the victim was French which may fire your ardour but 'git? hardly, indeed the type of thing French forwards have given us many lessons in over the years....:D...there but for the grace of God go any of us....