Jennings Cited.

Paulw

I see from the ERC press release that Shane Jennings is being cited.

---

Shane Jennings, the Leinster back row forward (No 7), is due to appear before an independent Disciplinary Committee as a result of a citing arising from the Heineken Cup Round 1 match against London Irish at the RDS, Dublin, on Friday, 9 October, 2009.

The citing lodged by the Citing Commissioner for the match, Richard McGhee (Scotland), is for alleged contact with the eye / eye area of London Irish player Nick Kennedy (No 4) in contravention of Law 10.4 (l).

The independent Judicial Officer will be appointed as soon as practicable.

Law 10.4 (l) - Acts contrary to good sportsmanship.

TarfHead

According to Bob Casey ..

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2009/1012/1224256436755.html

I spoke to Nick Kennedy after the match about the incident involving himself and Shane Jennings and he admitted he had overreacted.

buck65

This could be bad for Jennings. Whatever is said after a game is not the point. It did look like Jennings had a thumb near the eye area as he pushed himself upwards from the ground. Might not have been intentional but a ban could be on the cards.

chupacabra

Here we go again :rolleyes:

I reckon the absolute worst he should get is a 1 match ban but really, he shouldn't get anything. Ive watched the footage a few times now and he barely made contact with Kennedys eye, it was more of an open hand push on the general face but close to the eye area.

It did look like Jennings had a thumb near the eye area as he pushed himself upwards from the ground.

If you can honestly see a thumb going near an eye in that footage then you sir, are Superman.

RuggieBear

any contact near the eyes needs to be punished tbh. Haven't seen the incident bnut i presume it occured during the scuffle near the supporters terrace...

It's beginning to really annoy me the number of players grabbing heads/faces while trying to drag players away from their teammates in scuffles.

That needs to be cracked down on big time too.

danthefan

Wonderful, just what we need.

If they find there's contact with the eye though, accidental or otherwise, he has to go.

buck65

chupacabra wrote: »

Here we go again :rolleyes:

I reckon the absolute worst he should get is a 1 match ban but really, he shouldn't get anything. Ive watched the footage a few times now and he barely made contact with Kennedys eye, it was more of an open hand push on the general face but close to the eye area.



If you can honestly see a thumb going near an eye in that footage then you sir, are Superman.

It happened before the push, it happened on the ground , watch where Jennings hands are as he pushes Kennedy's face downwards. The footage wasn't conclusive but Kennedy's face was definitely thumbed, I watched this a few times the other night and I think Jennings is in trouble.

RugbyFanatic

I watched the clip repeatedly and couldn't see anything. The fact that Nick Kennedy said himself he overreacted says a lot

Amazotheamazing

Remember Cullen said he didn't think Quinlan was gouging either, and medical evidence showed Quinlan hadn't made contact with Cullen's eyes. Jennings looks to be in the same boat, ie accidental or reckless use of his hand. Quinlan got 12 weeks so I presume that's what Jennings will be looking at.

Harsh, I felt Quinlan was stitched up and I wouldn't be surprised if Jennings was too.

danthefan

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Remember Cullen said he didn't think Quinlan was gouging either, and medical evidence showed Quinlan hadn't made contact with Cullen's eyes. Jennings looks to be in the same boat, ie accidental or reckless use of his hand. Quinlan got 12 weeks so I presume that's what Jennings will be looking at.

Harsh, I felt Quinlan was stitched up and I wouldn't be surprised if Jennings was too.

There were clear pictures of Quinlan with his fingers in Cullen's eye, that doesn't seem to be the case here. You can't give him 12 weeks if there's no proof.

Amazotheamazing

danthefan wrote: »

There were clear pictures of Quinlan with his fingers in Cullen's eye, that doesn't seem to be the case here. You can't give him 12 weeks if there's no proof.

Everyone involved in the Quinlan case said he didn't mean any injury (ie, Quinlan, Cullen, medical experts), he was still done for it, can't see how a different standard will apply to Jennings. It's about being reckless with your hands, not necessarily about contact.

RugbyFanatic

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Remember Cullen said he didn't think Quinlan was gouging either, and medical evidence showed Quinlan hadn't made contact with Cullen's eyes. Jennings looks to be in the same boat, ie accidental or reckless use of his hand. Quinlan got 12 weeks so I presume that's what Jennings will be looking at.

Harsh, I felt Quinlan was stitched up and I wouldn't be surprised if Jennings was too.

Cullen said he didn't think Quinlan intentionally did what he did, big difference to saying he didn't do it, I think we can all see from the footage Quinlan's hands are all over Cullens eye.

murphym7

I remember the incident, didn't think much of it really. I remember Kennedy pointing to his eye and shouting at the ref. I could not see it to be honest, but if there was any contact with the eye he should be gone. Considering he was banned last Jan for 3 weeks (lifted admitedly) he may get a ban.

danthefan

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Everyone involved in the Quinlan case said he didn't mean any injury (ie, Quinlan, Cullen, medical experts), he was still done for it, can't see how a different standard will apply to Jennings. It's about being reckless with your hands, not necessarily about contact.

Because you need to prove there was contact with the eyes is why, as I said.

Amazotheamazing

danthefan wrote: »

Because you need to prove there was contact with the eyes is why, as I said.

You sure you have to approve actual contact? I thought the standard was simply being reckless. What did Best get done for?

buck65

Best stuck his fingers into Haskell ( I think) eyesockets and dragged him -it was reckless, intentional and dangerous.
If there is a camera on the other side of the pitch where the lads grappled on the ground then it will prove it or not. Kennedy was very animated as he got up suggesting there might have been contact. Again this was before the push as they stood up.

[Jackass]

I haven't seen the incident, anyone have a link?

Chucky the tree

I'm pretty sure you don't need actually clear cut evidence. When Martin Corry got pinged last year against the Osphreys for "unitentional contact with the eye area." there was no video evidence. You could make a case for Jennings putting him hand on Kennedys face counts as "unitentional contact with the eye area." He got 6 weeks so I'd expect similiar for Jennings.

Stev_o

You just can't put your hands anywhere near a players face, for that he ll get a ban doubt it ll be huge but enough to continue the IRB's harsh stance on things.

MG

Looks really bad. Jennings is in big trouble. I think he's looking at the top end of the range and needs to hope for significant mitigation.

danthefan wrote: »

There were clear pictures of Quinlan with his fingers in Cullen's eye

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

I think we can all see from the footage Quinlan's hands are all over Cullens eye.

Both these statements are comprehensively refuted in the disciplinary hearing.
I don't think many bothered actually reading the disciplinary hearing transcripts but they are ruthless to the point of being legally unsound. The reading of it give a good indication of the trouble Jennings is in.

thebaz

to me a gouge is a deliberate act to stick a finger(s) in an oppents eye - a despicable cowardly act , whereas a hand push (as seams to be the case with Jennings) or even a punch is completly different - a real gouge should be severly punished , but Jennings looked nothing like the real thing to me ... Kennedy certainly also seamed to over-react

Hippo

Stev_o wrote: »

You just can't put your hands anywhere near a players face, for that he ll get a ban doubt it ll be huge but enough to continue the IRB's harsh stance on things.

That's not quite true, I remember POC grabbing Horgan by the face in the semi and nothing being said about it. Having said that, if Jennings went anywhere near the eye he deserves a ban, just haven't seen anything conclusive in the coverage so far.

danthefan

MG wrote: »

Both these statements are comprehensively refuted in the disciplinary hearing.
I don't think many bothered actually reading the disciplinary hearing transcripts but they are ruthless to the point of being legally unsound. The reading of it give a good indication of the trouble Jennings is in.

It was comprehensively refuted that Quinlan went near Cullen's eyes? What was he banned for then?

MG

danthefan wrote: »

It was comprehensively refuted that Quinlan went near Cullen's eyes? What was he banned for then?

I said that it was refuted that Quinlan put his fingers “in” or “all over” Cullens eye. These two statements are fully refuted.

danthefan wrote: »

There were clear pictures of Quinlan with his fingers in Cullen's eye

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

I think we can all see from the footage Quinlan's hands are all over Cullens eye.

“The committee did not conclude there was contact with the eye”. Quinlan was banned for being close to the eye. The hearing also accepted that there was not deliberate intent to target the eye. Did you read the transcript of the hearing?

Let’s not turn this into a Munster Leinster thing. I’m speaking purely from a legal standpoint and on that basis of the standard applied in the Quinlan case, Jennings has little chance of escaping.

danthefan

Nobody has mentioned Leinster or Munster.

I didn't read the transcript to be honest but there are some photos that would go against that, which is what I was going on.

Anyway there's no point getting into this again, it's ancient history.

nouveau_4.0

Anyone got the video to this?

MG

danthefan wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned Leinster or Munster.

I didn't read the transcript to be honest but there are some photos that would go against that, which is what I was going on.

Anyway there's no point getting into this again, it's ancient history.

I don't think many have read the transcript unfortunately, it would be a lot fairer on the player. It's worth a read. I wouldn't condemn Quinlan before reading it.

One other point (from the appeal) which points to Jennings being in trouble is the definition applied by the committee in relation to the eye - “any area of the face in close proximity to the eye, where contact would cause a victim to fear for the safety of his eye or where there is substantial risk there could be contact with the eye”.

Kennedy's reaction alone points to Jennings falling within this definition.

danthefan

Getting into dangerous territory there though, as a player (though you'd like to think it wouldn't happen in rugby) could easily fake a reaction to get someone into trouble. If it can be shown/proved he was near Kennedy's eye then he's certainly in trouble.

phog

danthefan wrote: »

If it can be shown/proved he was near Kennedy's eye then he's certainly in trouble.

Dont think there is any doubt that he near his eye, gouging it? I doubt it. The footage that I saw seemed fairly clear that his hand was in the eye area of the face, in fact he even seemd to switch hands which might cost him time as it may give rise to intent. My own view is it was handbags that turned into accidental contact with the face and eyes.

PhatPiggins

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

You sure you have to approve actual contact? I thought the standard was simply being reckless. What did Best get done for?

For being Irish and the RFU looking to make an example of someone.

He got a stupidly long ban.

The Rooster

Using Quinlan's 12 week ban as a barometer, and comparing incidents and disciplinary records, I'd say Jennings will get 4 weeks.

Profiler

The only thing we can predict with any certainty is yet more inconsistency from the IRB.

Once the ruling is handed down in the Jennings case it will be hard, if not impossible, to draw any parallels between the cases of Best, Corry, Quinlan and Burger.

I'm going to predict that whatever your leanings (Leinster, Munster or other) you will be baffled by the ruling.

Cards on the table (my guess) Jennings will be banned for 2 weeks.

[Jackass]

As I said, didn't see it, but if he did gouge then he deserves a lengthy ban. There's no point giving out when it happens to one of your players but looking to a clean record when one of the players you follow does it, I said it before and say it again, it's the lowest of the low in the sport and serious bans should follow regardless, it's a disgracefull act, but I haven't seen it, so don't know if Jennings did anything with intent or if he was grabbing and caught someones face...if he actually tried to gouge at the players eye, although he'll be badly missed, I'd have argument with whatever ban he got.

anonymous_joe

PhatPiggins wrote: »

For being Irish and the RFU looking to make an example of someone.

He got a stupidly long ban.

Was thinking about that myself.

I reckon it wasn't so much being Irish as not being an international, and not being crucial for his team. It's a good way to make an example of someone without fcuking over one or more teams.

PhatPiggins

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Was thinking about that myself.

I reckon it wasn't so much being Irish as not being an international, and not being crucial for his team. It's a good way to make an example of someone without fcuking over one or more teams.

You have a point but he's offence wasn't as bad as Quinlan's and no where near as brutal as Burgers.

I think Jennings will get 8 weeks btw or be completely cleared. Bans of 2-4 weeks for deliberate contact witht the face dont happen. It'll be all or nothing.

anonymous_joe

PhatPiggins wrote: »

You have a point but he's offence wasn't as bad as Quinlan's and no where near as brutal as Burgers.

I think Jennings will get 8 weeks btw.

I'm hoping he doesn't, but worried he could.

I think Burger's and Quinlan's were really bad, but again, contrast Quinlan, less valuable than Burger, and their respective treatment.

Chucky the tree

How often does someone get cited and and nothing happen to them? I can't think off one incident off the top of my head.

thehighground

From this video, Jennings is looking at about 12 weeks going on what Martin Corry got (his was reduced because he was retiring, ex-England captain, clean record etc. etc.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JBWYgfZPag

If you Stop it at 0:02 - you will see his hand has made inapproproate contact with the eye area. Jennings has a clear view of what he is doing.

Personally, don't think he was 'gouging' - but his hand is definately in the wrong area.

Nilther

Looks more like he's giving him a fish hook than anything else.

As has been stated 8 - 12 weeks(if not longer) or nothing..

Chucky the tree

Jesus, looking at that clip it really doesn't look good for him. At the 12 second mark he clearly makes a move with his hand at towards Kennedys eye area, Kennedy then quickly tries to pull it away and reacts with the gouge claim, while he might of said he over-reacted I see no reason for Kennedy to flat out lie and make it up. I can't see why he needs to move his left hand down towards Kennedys face for the purpose off balacing and then it looks like he swipes his thumb across the eye area.

[Jackass]

Jesus, could my glasses to be that tinted???

I'm trying to see an eye gouge, but all I see is Jennings gripping what appears to be the side of his scrum cap and his fingers never even go remotely near his eye...is anyone else seeing this?

davyjose

As a Leinster fan, that looks every bit as bad as Quinlan's "gouge" IMO

MG

Chucky the tree wrote: »

How often does someone get cited and and nothing happen to them? I can't think off one incident off the top of my head.

I can think of one - a certain open side flanker got off on a technicality after being cited for striking a Connacht player in the Magners. 6 week ban if you can name him (mitigated by 50% is you can explain why)

Remember 5 precedents were set in the Quinlan case which may come to bear on this case:

1. There need not be any contact with the eye
2. There need not be any intent
3. Mitigating evidence from the victim can be disregarded
4. Lack of injury is not a major factor in the ruling
5. The burden of proof on the commission is very light and does not need to be explained

Precendents aren't always followed as John Hayes will tell you and there is no media frenzy or pitch work wielding mob baying for blood in Jennings case so that may help him.

The Disciplinary panel created a legal monster with their appalling, flawed and farcical ruling on Quinlan. It will be interesting to see if they continue this precedent.

buck65

Look at the footage at.06 and.07 seconds Jennings looks to have a thumb near the eyesocket if not in it.

OldJay

chupacabra wrote: »

it was more of an open hand push on the general face but close to the eye area

Hence the citing.
No contact is allowed near eye area.

RugbyFanatic

Buck65 you can't see where his hand is at 0.05 and 0.07


Am I the only one who can't see any gouging????

At 0.02 his hand is on Kennedy's scrum cap

Also I really can't see Kennedy coming out and saying he overreacted if Jennings did indeed intentionally gouge.

murphym7

I can't see him near the eye but he had no business having his hand on/near Kennedy'd face anyway. Jennings was looking right at him.

RuggieBear

murphym7 wrote: »

I can't see him near the eye but he had no business having his hand on/near Kennedy'd face anyway. Jennings was looking right at him.

Yep I'd agree with this. I can't see any gouging (even looking at the aforementioned seconds) but he has absolutely no good reason to have his hands anywhere near kennedy's face.

danthefan

buck65 wrote: »

Look at the footage at.06 and.07 seconds Jennings looks to have a thumb near the eyesocket if not in it.

You must be joking :rolleyes:

It's nowhere near his eye and there's no reaction from Kennedy either. Seeing whatever you want to see there. It's his left hand that's the issue.

Zulu

it doesn't look good at all.

dub_skav

[Jackass] wrote: »

Jesus, could my glasses to be that tinted???

I'm trying to see an eye gouge, but all I see is Jennings gripping what appears to be the side of his scrum cap and his fingers never even go remotely near his eye...is anyone else seeing this?

I thought the same looking at the .02 seconds, but it's his left hand later in the clip that seems to be at issue and I can't see a clear shot of what is alleged.

Edit: looking at it again (with worryingly blue tinted glasses I might add) it appears as if kennedy will not release jennings jersey to let him up, so Jennings pushes him away by the forehead. Kennedy then pushes his hand away, rolls himself around and then starts screaming about a gouge.
Purely going on Kennedy's reaction it seems to me (again apologies for the tint of my glasses) that he is annoyed and after being pushed in the head considers that he can claim an attempted gouge to get jennings in trouble.

The video evidence appears inconclusive enough to warrant possible trouble for Jennings