Heineken & Amlin Cup 2012/13 General Discussion

decisions

Munster

Yeh, and he is an idiot. What he did is not acceptable on a rugby pitch, or anywhere else. He defiantly deserves a very long ban but I think what Clarke did was worse.

irishbucsfan

Munster

Callum Clark wasn't even provoked. At least Hazel seemingly had been gouged and had a reason to go nuts.

Clark shouldn't be let back on the field. Hazel should take a year out and learn to deal with the anger.

McCBrian

Ulster

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's their 2nd team but Gloucester have been very conservative all season.

36 is on fire.

And it was MdM's youth team, still proposing the Elite AP teams warrant more teams in the HC.
Zebre would have put 30+ points on MdM tonight:)

irishbucsfan

Munster

McCBrian wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's their 2nd team but Gloucester have been very conservative all season.

36 is on fire.

And it was MdM's youth team, still proposing the Elite AP teams warrant more teams in the HC.
Zebre would have put 30+ points on MdM tonight:)

1. This wasn't the Heineken Cup.
2. No-one is saying anyone should have more teams. The proposal is 6+6+6+2.
3. How on earth does the MdM 3rds v. the Gloucester 2nds mean anything.? If anything it reinforces the point that the Amlin needs to be strengthened. There'd be a stronger team in the group and Gloucester would be aiming for BPs.

McCBrian

Ulster

irishbucsfan wrote: »

1. This wasn't the Heineken Cup. But Glaws had a chance to qualify for the HC by winning or at least trying to in the Amlin, not on that performance
2. No-one is saying anyone should have more teams. The proposal is 6+6+6+2. But PRL are saying lets have 2 Unions with 6 teams and 4 Unions share the other 6 places +2, AP and T14 teams give up 0 teams in the HC but RP12 have to give up 4, My suggestion would be if the whole crux of the matter is the meritocraticness of qualification rather than money then why not have a qualifying process for the HC AP/T14 6/7th teams against against the 7/8/9/10th teams of the Rabo for the final places, think we know why, would Bath or Gloucester fancy their chances against Munster/Ulster or Cardiff Blues or rely on PRL trying to wrangle another undeserved place to the HC for their clubs
3. How on earth does the MdM 3rds v. the Gloucester 2nds mean anything.? If anything it reinforces the point that the Amlin needs to be strengthened. Re-inforces the argument that the Amlin is not viable no matter how you strengthen it. 1 team out of 20/24 gets to play in the HC the next year, the AP and T14 teams would concentrate their efforts on finishing in the top 6 in their domestics leagues to secure HC the following year and put out 2nd teams in the Amlin after losing 1 game, so Zerbe/Glasgow/Edinburgh would end up playing scratch sides in rounds 3/4/5/6 in the Amlin, that will bring the Scots and Italians up to competiveness in the 6N's There'd be a stronger team in the group and Gloucester would be aiming for BPs.

Shows how much value Gloucester put on the Amlin resting/rotating 14 players from last week, see Ulster have made one enforced change from last week in their starting 15 for tomorrow.
So much for the bete noire of the Rabo teams resting players unlike the AP teams who rotate them

totallegend

Clermont Auvergne

Just copped that the Toulon-Montpellier game is 8pm on Sunday, that's a great result (although it could be an awful game); 7 live HC games on Sky this weekend plus the Wasps-Dragons game in the Amlin.

The wife's to-do list ain't getting done this weekend.

irishbucsfan

Munster

But Glaws had a chance to qualify for the HC by winning or at least trying to in the Amlin, not on that performance

So winning away in France is a bad way to go about winning the competition? Who knew!?

But PRL are saying lets have 2 Unions with 6 teams and 4 Unions share the other 6 places +2, AP and T14 teams give up 0 teams in the HC but RP12 have to give up 4

So like I said, noone is asking for more teams. Glad you can admit you were wrong.

BTW, in 2011 there were 2,863,073 rugby players in England and France. There were 277,032 senior male players. In Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales there are 191,680 rugby players and 75,383 of them are senior males. So while there would be less equal representation across national borders, there would be a better representation of the actual rugby population of Europe. As if any of that matters! There will still be representation from everyone in Europe throughout the competitions and it will create a more competitive environment which is, despite the claims of some, not a bad thing.

Re-inforces the argument that the Amlin is not viable no matter how you strengthen it. 1 team out of 20/24 gets to play in the HC the next year, the AP and T14 teams would concentrate their efforts on finishing in the top 6 in their domestics leagues to secure HC the following year and put out 2nd teams in the Amlin after losing 1 game, so Zerbe/Glasgow/Edinburgh would end up playing scratch sides in rounds 3/4/5/6 in the Amlin, that will bring the Scots and Italians up to competiveness in the 6N's

The Amlins not viable? That's a new one!

Anyway there's a thread for this discussion, and it's not this one.

McCBrian

Ulster

totallegend wrote: »

Just copped that the Toulon-Montpellier game is 8pm on Sunday, that's a great result (although it could be an awful game); 7 live HC games on Sky this weekend plus the Wasps-Dragons game in the Amlin.

The wife's to-do list ain't getting done this weekend.

Same every HC weekend, when I can't attend and have to watch on TV
Ulster check
Munster check
Leinster check
Quins v BOPB check
Saints v Glasgow check
ST v Leicester check
Toulon v Montpellier check

Good job the Mrs is an avid rugby fan:)

McCBrian

Ulster

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So winning away in France is a bad way to go about winning the competition? Who knew!?


So like I said, noone is asking for more teams. Glad you can admit you were wrong.

BTW, in 2011 there were 2,863,073 rugby players in England and France. There were 277,032 senior male players. In Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales there are 191,680 rugby players and 75,383 of them are senior males. So while there would be less equal representation across national borders, there would be a better representation of the actual rugby population of Europe. As if any of that matters! There will still be representation from everyone in Europe throughout the competitions and it will create a more competitive environment which is, despite the claims of some, not a bad thing.


The Amlins not viable? That's a new one!

Anyway there's a thread for this discussion, and it's not this one.

Do you want to move over to the other thread where I can disabuse any point you want to make?

freyners

Ospreys

anyone have a screengrab or a video of the (for want of a better word) incident tonight, was on a club night out and forgot to record:o

Castre

totallegend

Clermont Auvergne

J*sus H Christ. Whatever about the punches, throwing a knee into the head of a guy who's panned out on the floor is absolutely despicable. Gloucester are claiming provocation but I don't care, that f**ker should get a ban measured in years rather than months.

totallegend

Clermont Auvergne

In happier news, there's quite a good interview with Stuart Barnes in this morning's Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/1012/1224325185630.html

I've a lot of time for Barnes, think he's a very good pundit and not afraid to call a spade a spade. Baxtard is tipping Clermont to win the tournament though.

freyners

Ospreys

I don't want to like that because it is absolutely sickening to see that but cheers for putting that up emmett

Gambas

Clermont Auvergne

totallegend wrote: »

J*sus H Christ. Whatever about the punches, throwing a knee into the head of a guy who's panned out on the floor is absolutely despicable. Gloucester are claiming provocation but I don't care, that f**ker should get a ban measured in years rather than months.

There's provocation, and then there is repeated gouging.

bamboozle

Castre

Gambas wrote: »

There's provocation, and then there is repeated gouging.

12 month ban for both.

agree with others the Clarke incident is still much worse and deserved a jail sentence.

Theta

Connacht

Gambas wrote: »

There's provocation, and then there is repeated gouging.

Who cares if he was gouged? Retaliation is not warranted under any circumstances and should be heavily punished. If you have a problem bring it to the attention of the captain who will bring it to the attention of the ref.

You didnt see Ferris knocking the lights out of Dupuis when he got gouged?

PS I voted for Ulster (Leinster man) as I dont think Leinster have it in the tank this year but Ulster look in good form.

molloyjh

Theta wrote: »

Who cares if he was gouged? Retaliation is not warranted under any circumstances and should be heavily punished. If you have a problem bring it to the attention of the captain who will bring it to the attention of the ref.

I can't say for certain that it was said to the ref but I know Tindall was onto the ref a few times about something. He clearly wasn't happy with what MDM were up to. Whether it was the gouging or not I don't know though as I couldn't really hear him.

danthefan

Clermont Auvergne

Theta wrote: »

Who cares if he was gouged? Retaliation is not warranted under any circumstances and should be heavily punished. If you have a problem bring it to the attention of the captain who will bring it to the attention of the ref.

You didnt see Ferris knocking the lights out of Dupuis when he got gouged?

PS I voted for Ulster (Leinster man) as I dont think Leinster have it in the tank this year but Ulster look in good form.

Firstly - nobody has said what Hazell did is ok. He should be and will be banned.

Secondly - the ref can't deal with anything that he doesn't see.

Theta

Connacht

danthefan wrote: »

Firstly - nobody has said what Hazell did is ok. He should be and will be banned.

Secondly - the ref can't deal with anything that he doesn't see.

I never said he could if he didnt see it, if you inform the ref it will go into his match report and be investigated.

Even if the ref doesnt see it it still doesnt mean take the law into your own hands.

Deano7788

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8160102,00.html

Saracens plans thwarted again. Had hoped to play Munster in New York but the Jets and Giants didn't want posts put into their artificial pitch

danthefan

Clermont Auvergne

Theta wrote: »

I never said he could if he didnt see it, if you inform the ref it will go into his match report and be investigated.

Even if the ref doesnt see it it still doesnt mean take the law into your own hands.

And hence he'll be banned!

"Who cares if he was gouged", I'm pretty sure Andy Hazell does actually, it's his eyesight at stake. Have you ever been gouged?

molloyjh

Theta wrote: »

danthefan wrote: »

Firstly - nobody has said what Hazell did is ok. He should be and will be banned.

Secondly - the ref can't deal with anything that he doesn't see.

I never said he could if he didnt see it, if you inform the ref it will go into his match report and be investigated.

Even if the ref doesnt see it it still doesnt mean take the law into your own hands.

Everyone agrees with that. I just think people prefer to knock both the gouging and the over reaction to it. Too often the reaction gets all the attention and the original offence is let slide. Neither should be acceptable and both should be highlighted.

Theta

Connacht

danthefan wrote: »

And hence he'll be banned!

"Who cares if he was gouged", I'm pretty sure Andy Hazell does actually, it's his eyesight at stake. Have you ever been gouged?

Punching a man who may or may not be unconscious and kneeing him in the head could have had far more serious ramifications. I have never been gouged and I don't condone it. I believe he should be stamped out with lengthy bans or lifetime ones. Andy Hazell if I recall was himself caught gouging.

molloyjh wrote: »

Everyone agrees with that. I just think people prefer to knock both the gouging and the over reaction to it. Too often the reaction gets all the attention and the original offence is let slide. Neither should be acceptable and both should be highlighted.

Both offences should be punished but Hazell has to be seriously dealt with here.

irishbucsfan

Munster

Gouging is completely inexcusable. That feeling of helplessness as you feel someones fans around your face is just horrible. It is so clearly out of place on a rugby field that I just can't put it anywhere near the same level as striking.

As for last night. Hazell was 100% wrong. However, the French player pulled him to the ground and then dived on him, punching him on the way down while Hazell was on the ground. Hazell flipped out and started punching him and took it way to far. It was the French player who struck out first and Hazell's reaction was a long way over the top. I don't have much sympathy for the French player though. It is just not, in any way shape or form, comparable to someone gouging someone unprovoked.

danthefan

Clermont Auvergne

Comment from Hazell himself:

Never had a red in 12 years, extremely embarrassed by my actions. It was the 3rd time someone tried to severely injury me and I reacted in a way I wish I could take back. But when you are in that situation you don’t know how you would react.

molloyjh

danthefan wrote: »

Comment from Hazell himself:

If the MDM players were actively looking to do damage to players and the ref wasn't doing anything about it (I'm convinced when Tindall was talking to the ref he was talking about this) I'm not sure what people can expect. It's not justification for what Hazell did, but the ref should have had better control over what was going on. It's a pretty bad reflection on him that MDM got that out of control (allegedly).

totallegend

Clermont Auvergne

Look at the back five that Clermont are putting out tomorrow:

15. Lee Byrne, 14. Sitiveni Sivivatu, 13. Aurélien Rougerie, 12. Wesley Fofana, 11. Napolioni Nalaga

Ridiculous amounts of power and pace. They are serious contenders.

molloyjh

totallegend wrote: »

Look at the back five that Clermont are putting out tomorrow:

15. Lee Byrne, 14. Sitiveni Sivivatu, 13. Aurélien Rougerie, 12. Wesley Fofana, 11. Napolioni Nalaga

Ridiculous amounts of power and pace. They are serious contenders.

Absolutely. Not happy we have them in the pool. Part of me thinks they deserve to win it this year. Most of me thinks "feck them" though!

Wouldn't begrudge them success in this tournament though. And if it came to a Clermont vs non-Irish final I'll be there cheering them on.

totallegend

Castre

totallegend wrote: »

Look at the back five that Clermont are putting out tomorrow:

15. Lee Byrne, 14. Sitiveni Sivivatu, 13. Aurélien Rougerie, 12. Wesley Fofana, 11. Napolioni Nalaga

Ridiculous amounts of power and pace. They are serious contenders.

can't wait for the away game tbh.

What a team!