Harlequins to appear before ERC

kensutz

After the fiasco at the Stoop v Leinster they've been called up to a hearing before the ERC.

Harlequins Misconduct Hearing
Harlequins will be requested to appear before an independent Disciplinary Committee to answer a complaint of Misconduct under Heineken Cup 2008/09 Disciplinary Rules relating to an incident during the Harlequins v Leinster Heineken Cup quarter-final on Sunday, 12 April at the Twickenham Stoop.

The hearing follows an initial investigation by ERC's Disciplinary Officer into the circumstances surrounding the blood substitution of Harlequins replacement (No 22) Tom Williams during the match.

The independent Disciplinary Committee will be appointed as soon as practicable.

Noopti

Interesting.
They must have some evidence of foul play if they are bringing proceedings against them

Legion2008

Well didn't Leicester do something similiar in bringing back on a kicker in extra time due to a blood injury ... even the ref expressed doubt at the time but said he couldn't really prevent it.

If sactions are applied to quins then similiar should be applied to Leicester

conf101

Be interesting to see how this turns out.

I'm not saying whether I think they're guilty or not but if they are guilty then it's good to see them not getting away with it!

conf101

conf101 wrote: »

Be interesting to see how this turns out.

I'm not saying whether I think they're guilty or not but if they are guilty then it's good to see them not getting away with it!

Paul Wallace has already said he saw Williams taking something from his sock and puting it in his mouth,on one of the sky sports cameras that we didnt get to see on the tv.He described it as blatant.

I think they should be banned from Europe for at least 1 year if not 2.
Just imagine if Evans had got the drop goal because of the blood sub?

Stealdo

Legion2008 wrote: »

Well didn't Leicester do something similiar in bringing back on a kicker in extra time due to a blood injury ... even the ref expressed doubt at the time but said he couldn't really prevent it.

If sactions are applied to quins then similiar should be applied to Leicester

Bringing the player back on is not what's being investigated.

The laws allow a player to come back on if two conditions are fulfilled. One being that the player coming back on went off for tactical rather than injury reasons, and the second being that the player they're coming on instead of has a blood injury.

The first part of that as far as I know is only really of concern with the scrummaging specialist positions. So it's not really significant here.

Quins are being investigated for faking the blood injury part of it. In the Leicester game Alain Roland asked to see the blood injury to verify it was real which it was. Leicester acted completely within the rules.

Stealdo

Stealdo wrote: »

Bringing the player back on is not what's being investigated.

The laws allow a player to come back on if two conditions are fulfilled. One being that the player coming back on went off for tactical rather than injury reasons, and the second being that the player they're coming on instead of has a blood injury.

The first part of that as far as I know is only really of concern with the scrummaging specialist positions. So it's not really significant here.

Quins are being investigated for faking the blood injury part of it. In the Leicester game Alain Roland asked to see the blood injury to verify it was real which it was. Leicester acted completely within the rules.

They also marked Nick Evans downs as a tactitcal substitution when he should have been marked down as Injury.

Stealdo

Abril Many Tofu wrote: »

They also marked Nick Evans downs as a tactitcal substitution when he should have been marked down as Injury.

I don't think this is really relevant, they can mark it whatever way they want.

It makes a difference for front row players because games will or won't go to uncontested scrums based on how these cards are marked. i.e. if I take off a prop and mark it tactical and his replacement gets injured I have to put him back on. Whereas if I mark him as injured it's uncontested scrums.

For backs it doesn't really make a difference. There's no reason in the world to mark a back coming off as an injury that I can think of, can't even think of a reason why you should have to say it's one or the other.

anonymous_joe

Stealdo wrote: »

I don't think this is really relevant, they can mark it whatever way they want.

It makes a difference for front row players because games will or won't go to uncontested scrums based on how these cards are marked. i.e. if I take off a prop and mark it tactical and his replacement gets injured I have to put him back on. Whereas if I mark him as injured it's uncontested scrums.

For backs it doesn't really make a difference. There's no reason in the world to mark a back coming off as an injury that I can think of, can't even think of a reason why you should have to say it's one or the other.

Well it's lying.

If Evans had gotten a drop goal I'd be foaming at the mouth still. They were sneaky and could have gotten away with it.

Stealdo

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Well it's lying.

If Evans had gotten a drop goal I'd be foaming at the mouth still. They were sneaky and could have gotten away with it.

I disagree.....sure you could very easily say that taking an injured player off is 'tactical' in itself. My view of this is that they faked the blood injury or they've no case whatsoever to answer. If it wasn't for the front row situation there'd be no distinction between injuries and tactical changes.

anonymous_joe

Stealdo wrote: »

I disagree.....sure you could very easily say that taking an injured player off is 'tactical' in itself. My view of this is that they faked the blood injury or they've no case whatsoever to answer. If it wasn't for the front row situation there'd be no distinction between injuries and tactical changes.

Taking off an injured player is forced, not tactical. You don't leave a guy on whose carrying an injury (unless you're Kidney and it's O'Connell versus the All Blacks - and while that's a joke, the speed and efficiency with which he was targeted is indicative of just why that was a forced injury change, not a tactical one.).

And I've no idea if it was faked, but there's a lot of suspicious goings on surrounding the subsitution so it wouldn't surprise me.

Stealdo

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Taking off an injured player is forced, not tactical. You don't leave a guy on whose carrying an injury (unless you're Kidney and it's O'Connell versus the All Blacks - and while that's a joke, the speed and efficiency with which he was targeted is indicative of just why that was a forced injury change, not a tactical one.).

And I've no idea if it was faked, but there's a lot of suspicious goings on surrounding the subsitution so it wouldn't surprise me.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this, but I just don't see any reason why a team should have to say why they're taking someone off, it would be different if they were allowed additional changes or some such.

I can see what you're saying alright. Either way the rule is there I guess and there's no question he came off because he was injured and that they lied about the reason. However as far as an investigation is concerned I just think that if Richards says he took him off tactically (no matter how obvious) there's nothing you can do to prove otherwise.
The question of whether the blood injury was self inflicted or faked though is another question and that's where I think the focus is.

anonymous_joe

Stealdo wrote: »

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this, but I just don't see any reason why a team should have to say why they're taking someone off, it would be different if they were allowed additional changes or some such.

I can see what you're saying alright. Either way the rule is there I guess and there's no question he came off because he was injured and that they lied about the reason. However as far as an investigation is concerned I just think that if Richards says he took him off tactically (no matter how obvious) there's nothing you can do to prove otherwise.
The question of whether the blood injury was self inflicted or faked though is another question and that's where I think the focus is.

As you said yourself - it's in the rules. I'm not sure why it's in the rules but it is. And you have to obey the rules you're given, whether you agree with them or not.

Chucky the tree

anonymous_joe wrote: »

As you said yourself - it's in the rules. I'm not sure why it's in the rules but it is. And you have to obey the rules you're given, whether you agree with them or not.

It's a stupid rule though, and it cant be enforced. No one can say for 100% that the Evans substitution was not tactica, it should be the 4th official who decides what the injury is and not the team, because having this way justl eaves the door wide open for this kind of thing. I'd also like to see all blood subs having to been checked over by either a 4th offical or ERC sancitioned Doctor. I presume if the Quinns are going to be in trouble it will be over the "injury" to Williams and not allowing Leinster to check him out. If it's found that they faked there injury they could find them in serious trouble, a multiple year ban from all european competitions is a must.

anonymous_joe

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's a stupid rule though, and it cant be enforced. No one can say for 100% that the Evans substitution was not tactica, it should be the 4th official who decides what the injury is and not the team, because having this way justl eaves the door wide open for this kind of thing. I'd also like to see all blood subs having to been checked over by either a 4th offical or ERC sancitioned Doctor. I presume if the Quinns are going to be in trouble it will be over the "injury" to Williams and not allowing Leinster to check him out. If it's found that they faked there injury they could find them in serious trouble, a multiple year ban from all european competitions is a must.

Don't disagree with any of that really.

Podge_irl

Its pretty poor tactics to leave an injured and mobility impaired player on the pitch.

The player coming back on is not the issue. The only case to answer is the alleged faking of the bloody injury.

escobar

Legion2008 wrote: »

Well didn't Leicester do something similiar in bringing back on a kicker in extra time due to a blood injury ... even the ref expressed doubt at the time but said he couldn't really prevent it.

If sactions are applied to quins then similiar should be applied to Leicester

Hmmmm Leicester cheetas or Harlequins Cheetas ...or both

escobar

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's a stupid rule though, and it cant be enforced. No one can say for 100% that the Evans substitution was not tactica, it should be the 4th official who decides what the injury is and not the team, because having this way justl eaves the door wide open for this kind of thing. I'd also like to see all blood subs having to been checked over by either a 4th offical or ERC sancitioned Doctor. I presume if the Quinns are going to be in trouble it will be over the "injury" to Williams and not allowing Leinster to check him out. If it's found that they faked there injury they could find them in serious trouble, a multiple year ban from all european competitions is a must.

Spot on ...noboby wants any cynical tactics creeping into the game.

anonymous_joe

escobar wrote: »

Spot on ...noboby wants any more cynical tactics creeping into the game.

FYP.

We all enjoy the dark arts at the breakdown, etc. ^^

irishbucsfan

Theres a perfectly good reason why substitutions should be marked down as either tactical or injury, and it has nothing to do with ethics, just safety:

For example, lets pretend we're dealing with Leinster v. Leicester in the final in Edinburgh. It's a very close match. Leinster are up by 5 with 71 minutes to go and Johnny Sexton feels a tweak in his knee. He signals to the bench and asks to be taken off so Leinster replace him with Horgan (who was on the bench) and move Nacewa to 10 (from 14.. you get the picture). The Leinster management marks the subsitution down as "tactical" when it should be marked as "injury." (not saying they would IRL). But then disaster strikes. In the 78th minute Geordan Murphy runs the pitch and somersaults over the tryline, scoring a try, followed by a Vesty conversion. During all this, let's imagine Nacewa bloodies his nose (coincidentally of course), which allows the team to legally make a change. Cheika is under pressure, this is the final minute of the HC final, so they reintroduce the possibly injured Sexton, which they are allowed to do seeing as his substitution was marked as "tactical." Sexton really would have no say in this matter. He runs out onto pitch and steps into the pocket. Whitaker slings the ball back to him and... Snap, during the attempted drop goal, he seriously injures his knee. That could be a possible career ender, and if that happened to an AIL player that would cost him thousand of euros in missed work etc. which wouldn't be totally covered in his club's insurance. If the injury is more serious it could destroy his life (this is why we have the incredible people at the IRFU charitable trust).

These rules are in place to protect the players. What 'Quins did was inexcusable. Im sure this is something done across the world by teams everywhere, but its seriously dangerous. That's why you mark down the real reasons a player is removed from play.

Micky Dolenz

however about the Injury, tactical thing.

Did ye see what the guy spit out of his mounth and the little sly wink that accompanied it? Dodgy as.