Flannery ban reduced to one month

marco_polo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/irish/7231162.stm

He should consider himself very lucky

toomevara

Justice has been done. Fair and consistent suspension period in light of the offence

Delighted he can play in the 6n. He's a lucky git altogether.

demac

Good news !

chris85

Good news. i think Jackman will play a stormer against France to try keep his place ahead of Flannery for the rest of the games.

Bye bye Best

Tim Robbins

chris85 wrote: »

Good news. i think Jackman will play a stormer against France to try keep his place ahead of Flannery for the rest of the games.

Bye bye Best

It calls into disrepute the original decision of the 8 weeks. How can 8 weeks just become 4?

phog

From www.ercrugby.com

An independent Appeal Committee convened in Dublin today to hear the appeal lodged by Jerry Flannery, the Munster hooker (No 2), against the decision of an independent Disciplinary Committee.
The original independent Disciplinary Committee (Thursday, 24 January) found Mr Flannery guilty of stamping on ASM Clermont Auvergne player Julien Bonnaire during the Round 5 Heineken Cup Pool 5 match against ASM Clermont Auvergne at Parc des Sports Marcel-Michelin on Sunday, 13 January.
The original independent Disciplinary Committee had determined that the offence was of the top end in the level of seriousness and suspended the player for a period of eight (8) weeks up to and including Wednesday, 19 March, 2008.


The independent Appeal Committee was chaired by Professor Lorne Crerar (Scotland) and also comprised HHJ Jeff Blackett (England) and Russell Howell (Wales).


It was the view of the independent Appeal Committee that the original Disciplinary Committee was in error in its determination that the offence was deliberate and of the top end in the level of seriousness.


The Appeal Committee found that Mr Flannery had stamped on the player recklessly rather than deliberately and accordingly determined that the offence was of mid-range in the level of seriousness.

Having taken into account any mitigating and aggravating factors, the Appeal Committee reduced the period of suspension to four (4) weeks which will now run up to Thursday, 21 February, 2008.

NOTES
Independent Appeal Committee
a) Following a decision of an independent Disciplinary Committee, both the Club/player and ERC have the right to appeal the decision of the Committee.
b) The independent Appeal Committee is chosen by the Chairman of the independent Disciplinary Panel, Professor Lorne Crerar.
c) None of the members of the independent Disciplinary Committee who issued the decision being challenged in the appeal may sit on the independent Appeal Committee.
d) The full written decision of the independent Appeal Committee will be available on www.ercrugby.com/discipline when the disciplinary process is complete.

BTW - Audebert's appeal was dismissed and his suspension was upheld.



I'm delighted for him, I always felt it wasn't deliberate and obviously the Appeals Commission felt the same.

This should help the Irish cause a bit too in that there are now 3 Hookers looking for the 2 spots, Jackman will really have to have a good game in Paris to nail down a place on the 1st 15. Flannery will have to get match fit to be back in the reckoning but he should certainly get into the 22 and then fight for a place on the 1st 15.

Sherifu

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It calls into disrepute the original decision of the 8 weeks. How can 8 weeks just become 4?

Reason:

phog wrote: »

From www.ercrugby.com
It was the view of the independent Appeal Committee that the original Disciplinary Committee was in error in its determination that the offence was deliberate and of the top end in the level of seriousness.
The Appeal Committee found that Mr Flannery had stamped on the player recklessly rather than deliberately and accordingly determined that the offence was of mid-range in the level of seriousness.

Tim Robbins

rkm wrote: »

Reason:

How come the original hearing did not find the same?
4 weeks is very light for a foot in the face.

Sherifu

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How come the original hearing did not find the same?
4 weeks is very light for a foot in the face.

You should ask/tell them that. I'm not pushed one way or another so I won't be getting into a debate about it.

phog

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How come the original hearing did not find the same?
4 weeks is very light for a foot in the face.

That's why there's an independant appeal commission - if all appeals upheld the original decision then they'd be no need for appeal. I guess they decided 4 weeks is about right for being reckless with the boot rather than a deliberate stamp on the face.

Tim Robbins

phog wrote: »

That's why there's an independant appeal commission - if all appeals upheld the original decision then they'd be no need for appeal. I guess they decided 4 weeks is about right for being reckless with the boot rather than a deliberate stamp on the face.

I just check the IRB guidelines on foul play.

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17a4%5f874.pdf

The recommendation for stamping is 2 weeks (Low End), 5 weeks (medium range) and 9+ weeks for top end. So the initial hearing thought it was medium range and the appeal thought it was low end.

I would have said anywhere near the head would mean 8 weeks and if it was premeditated or he kicked him more than once it would be way over 9 weeks.

Stev_o

What annoys me is that nearly 9/10 of all cities give stupidly long bans then there is appeal and they are reduced i mean ffs can they not get it right the first time around???

suppafly

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I just check the IRB guidelines on foul play.

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17a4%5f874.pdf

The recommendation for stamping is 2 weeks (Low End), 5 weeks (medium range) and 9+ weeks for top end. So the initial hearing thought it was medium range and the appeal thought it was low end.

I would have said anywhere near the head would mean 8 weeks and if it was premeditated or he kicked him more than once it would be way over 9 weeks.

Yur a bit mixed up there, The original committe found that it was 'High end' and the appeals committee stated that it was 'mid-range'

I think this is a fair judgement as it definetely wasn't deliberate. U can see in the tv footage that he is not looking down at him or anything. Looking forward to seeing him coming back for the Scotland and England matches.

Stev_o wrote: »

What annoys me is that nearly 9/10 of all cities give stupidly long bans then there is appeal and they are reduced i mean ffs can they not get it right the first time around???

Agree

toomevara

Oh god, please not this whole debate again, a very comprehensive thread went into this ad nauseum...dear lord save us from the tale of Flannery's boot, no more no more!!!!

Steffano2002

Mot happy at all about this I have to say... Good for him though!

flyswatter

He's pretty lucky I reckon. I believe the stamp held some malicious intent. Still, he's our best hooker and his return will be of benefit to Ireland.

Tim Robbins

suppafly wrote: »

Yur a bit mixed up there, The original committe found that it was 'High end' and the appeals committee stated that it was 'mid-range'

If you read that link I sent, the IRB suggestions are:
High end = 9+ weeks
Mid range = 5 Weeks
Low end = 2 Weeks.
so the original found it > Mid but < High and the appeals found < Mid.

Ultimately it's a player responsibility where they put their fit a quick glance isn't hard. If that maxim isn't upheld any player can walk on eyes etc and just say they didn't mean it.
The real issue here is at the lower levels there are no touch judges, no sighting commissioner, no video ref. If players know they might get away with any sort of stamping they will. Therefore it's very important when someone is caught red handed at the top levels they are reprimanded appropriately.

I thought Flannery was lucky to get 8 weeks, a reduction to four is a farce.

Rattlehead_ie

I think it is fair, now what COULD have happened was dangerous no doubt about that, but there was no as the report said

"had stamped on the player recklessly rather than deliberately and accordingly determined that the offence was of mid-range in the level of seriousness."

The full original ban was too much, but a ban yes there should be.
Now here is the question if Jackman plays outa his skin on saturday, does Flannery get in easily to the 1st 15?

Podge_irl

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you read that link I sent, the IRB suggestions are:
High end = 9+ weeks
Mid range = 5 Weeks
Low end = 2 Weeks.
so the original found it > Mid but < High and the appeals found < Mid.

The bans are often reduced due to mitigating circumstances or previous behaviour - so if someone has never been banned before the ban will be reduced. So presumably they considered it high end but reduced the ban for previous behaviour. The appeal then found it mid range.
In contrast, it was decided White's incident was mid-range, but he got the full 5 weeks cause it ain't the first time they've seen him.

Incidentally, I thought 8 weeks was a perfectly fair ban, as whatever about intent, he was reckless at best. Not outraged by the reduction or anything though.

Zzippy

Rattlehead_ie wrote: »

Now here is the question if Jackman plays outa his skin on saturday, does Flannery get in easily to the 1st 15?

Pfft! Of course he does! It is still EOS picking the team isn't it........

Tim Robbins

Podge_irl wrote: »

So presumably they considered it high end but reduced the ban for previous behaviour.

In that case it should have been more than 9 weeks.

The appeal then found it mid range.

In that case it should have been 5 - 9 weeks.

Either way, I can't understand how the original can consider it one range and the appeal another. They are both looking at the same evidence surely.

Podge_irl

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In that case it should have been more than 9 weeks.

You're missing my point. It was considered high end so the ban was probably 10-12 weeks, which was cut to 8 due to a clean record or whatever. It's common practice in these things.

Either way, I can't understand how the original can consider it one range and the appeal another. They are both looking at the same evidence surely.

The original committee considered it intentional, the appeal committee decided it was unintentional but reckless.

il gatto

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you read that link I sent, the IRB suggestions are:
High end = 9+ weeks
Mid range = 5 Weeks
Low end = 2 Weeks.
so the original found it > Mid but < High and the appeals found < Mid.

Ultimately it's a player responsibility where they put their fit a quick glance isn't hard. If that maxim isn't upheld any player can walk on eyes etc and just say they didn't mean it.
The real issue here is at the lower levels there are no touch judges, no sighting commissioner, no video ref. If players know they might get away with any sort of stamping they will. Therefore it's very important when someone is caught red handed at the top levels they are reprimanded appropriately.

I thought Flannery was lucky to get 8 weeks, a reduction to four is a farce.

I agree. Although I'm glad he'll be available for Ireland, I thought the original ban was correct. He clearly looked down before stamping. Even if he looked and couldn't see Bonnaire, he seemed to use some force. He wasn't placing a foot on the ground in the normal manner. If it wasn't aimed specifically at Bonnaires head, as he was trying to release his leg which was being held illegally, it was still a stamp at a ruck. Negligence is no defence to breaking a law of the game.
I think it was reduced when he appealed it in light of the 6N and Munster's upcoming HEC QF. If they thought the ban was right at the time, these things should not come into consideration in an appeal. It seems to be a frequent occurance though.
Still glad he's back. Seems to be one of our few players with a fire in his belly and a bit of pride. "Hundred percent lads":)

juvenal

bbc.com/sport wrote:

Jerry Flannery will not be considered for Ireland's next Six Nations game against Scotland at Croke Park on 23 February because of a broken hand.
The hooker had an eight-week ban for stamping halved on appeal last week and had hoped to be in contention to start.

Flannery could be fit to join the squad to face Wales in Dublin on 8 March.

"I'm awaiting an update on him and if that's OK he'll still need a warm-up game to get in the Six Nations mood," said Irish coach Eddie O'Sullivan.

Munster lock Paul O'Connell remains on course to face the Scots after continuing his rehabilitation from a back injury in Friday's A team victory over Ulster.

Did he break it in training? Anyone more informtaion?

Oilrig

"Munster lock Paul O'Connell remains on course to face the Scots after continuing his rehabilitation from a back injury in Friday's A team victory over Ulster."

This is good news, it was looking very dodgy there for a while...

Amz

I'd be quite skeptical of Flannery's broken hand ...

Crash

I'd be wondering exactly how a Munster A game can be seen as a straight stepping stone into an international game?

Unless O'Connell played out of his bollocks in that match, i'm not sure how happy i'd be with him playing - how long since a full game now?

Sangre

With the amount of in form locks we have at the moment, picking POC would imo be his worse managerial decision ever.

suppafly

çrash_000 wrote: »

I'd be wondering exactly how a Munster A game can be seen as a straight stepping stone into an international game?

Unless O'Connell played out of his bollocks in that match, i'm not sure how happy i'd be with him playing - how long since a full game now?

yeah i agree. he hasn't played a match since the world cup afaik.

Podge_irl

I presume O'Connell will be playing in the Edinburgh game next weekend.

Stev_o

If he starts against Scotland then it ll be the most disgraceful decision iv seen EOS make

toomevara

Stev_o wrote: »

If he starts against Scotland then it ll be the most disgraceful decision iv seen EOS make

I'd second that, surely not even a consideration?

old boy

flas hands semed to be ok outside supermacs on saturday night