Heineken & Amlin Cup 2012/13 General Discussion

irishbucsfan

Munster

I'd really like to see Ospreys finally deliver in Europe. I don't think it'll be this year though, they could even finish 3rd in their group.

I think the biggest surprise of the weekend was obviously the Saracens/Edinburgh game. I wonder if it's a false dawn for Sarries? I really can't wait for that Sarries Munster game... might grab some tickets.

cgpg5

Clermont Auvergne

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'd really like to see Ospreys finally deliver in Europe. I don't think it'll be this year though, they could even finish 3rd in their group.

I think the biggest surprise of the weekend was obviously the Saracens/Edinburgh game. I wonder if it's a false dawn for Sarries? I really can't wait for that Sarries Munster game... might grab some tickets.

I dunno with respect Sarries have a nice group and I'd fancy them to top it

No other surprises as you say, I'd have expected Biarritz to put it up to Quins more, especially after Evans got injured so early

Toulon really have a star-studded (if aging) team. Think I'll throw a few quid on them to win it out. They'll get a home quarter bar a massive upset and who knows from there

errlloyd

Munster

Anyone got a link to that Lions index? I am curious.

Swan Curry

errlloyd wrote: »

Anyone got a link to that Lions index? I am curious.

Here's an article that shows the result of their indexing.Seems like nothing more than an entertaining gimmick,to be honest.

http://http://www.balls.ie/news/sky-sports-lions-watch-is-quite-ridiculous/

justsomebloke

Deano7788 wrote: »

For anyone that was watching the Sale match, how good was Cipriani when he came on.

Pah, they are ignoring the fact that Tony Buckley basically won the game for them while blind folded:eek::D

GerM

Whilst it was far from a vintage performance from Irish sides in general at the weekend, one plus is that, out of the 60 players that started over the weekend, 11 were making their first ever HEC starts at the weekend along with 2 more lads who will be Irish qualified at the end of their current contracts. Good amount of youth getting a shot at a higher level.

cgpg5

Clermont Auvergne

How did Niall Morris play for Leicester anyone know? Good prospect?

irishbucsfan

Munster

cgpg5 wrote: »

How did Niall Morris play for Leicester anyone know? Good prospect?

He was pretty good. Strong defensively (which he always has been) but he didn't get to do much in attack.

He is definitely a good prospect.

totallegend

Clermont Auvergne

Citings from round 1: http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/19297.php

Citing for Andy Hazell (obviously) but none for any Mont de Marsan players; that's going to seriously weaken his defence of provocation...

ERC wrote:

Gloucester Rugby referred a number of incidents from the match to the Citing Commissioner, John West (Ireland), for consideration. The Citing Commissioner determined that there was no evidence to support any citings from this match.

Nathan Hines also cited for stamping.

irishbucsfan

Munster

totallegend wrote: »

Citings from round 1: http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/19297.php

Citing for Andy Hazell (obviously) but none for any Mont de Marsan players; that's going to seriously weaken his defence of provocation...

Nathan Hines also cited for stamping.

There must be no evidence.

It was clear as day that he'd been gouged during the game.

irishbucsfan

Munster

totallegend wrote: »

Citings from round 1: http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/19297.php

Citing for Andy Hazell (obviously) but none for any Mont de Marsan players; that's going to seriously weaken his defence of provocation...

Nathan Hines also cited for stamping.

There must be no evidence.

It was clear as day that he'd been gouged during the game.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Munster

nothing about Stodart after his red card??

GerM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

nothing about Stodart after his red card??

Two yellow cards for infringements rather than anything dangerous. I think you only have to go in front of a panel if it's a straight red.

Interesting on Hines. Don't mean to be cruel but him missing would be a significant bonus for Exeter and therefore Leinster.

.ak

I feel seriously bad for Hazell. He's really going to be made an example off now... but there's no doubt he was gouged, and I think that's the lowest form of attack you can dish out on a rugby field. I couldn't even imagine doing it to another player, never mind how I'd feel if it'd happen to me. I'd certainly lose the plot if it did.

.ak

Castre

.ak wrote: »

I feel seriously bad for Hazell. He's really going to be made an example off now... but there's no doubt he was gouged, and I think that's the lowest form of attack you can dish out on a rugby field. I couldn't even imagine doing it to another player, never mind how I'd feel if it'd happen to me. I'd certainly lose the plot if it did.

Of course there is, otherwise one of the 'several' reported incidents referred to the citing officer would have resulted in a citing?

irishbucsfan

Munster

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course there is, otherwise one of the 'several' reported incidents referred to the citing officer would have resulted in a citing?

Did you watch the game?

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course there is, otherwise one of the 'several' reported incidents referred to the citing officer would have resulted in a citing?

I dunno. Watching the game there were a lot of Gloucester players that looked to have taken a few knocks around the eye area. A few of them had red marks all around their eyes. I'd be fairly confident the MDM guys were gouging. They were doing plenty of other things too.

.ak

Watch him waking off, his eye has clearly been gouged by something, red raw... Considering this is a player that's never received a red card in his life of playing rugby, I'd imagine it was something very serious to set him off, and I doubt he's conjure up the excuse.

The citing officer takes it upon himself to issue a citing - just because someone complains about it in the press doesn't mean it'll get their attention. Quite simply there might be no evidence of it.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Munster

.ak wrote: »

Watch him waking off, his eye has clearly been gouged by something, red raw... Considering this is a player that's never received a red card in his life of playing rugby, I'd imagine it was something very serious to set him off, and I doubt he's conjure up the excuse.

The citing officer takes it upon himself to issue a citing - just because someone complains about it in the press doesn't mean it'll get their attention. Quite simply there might be no evidence of it.

They could easily decide that something was done but they have no evidence of who did it, (because its in a ruck and numbers are covered up perhaps)

irishbucsfan

Castre

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Did you watch the game?

nope.

Doubt clearly exists as there is no evidence to support a citing. That's not to say it didn't happen, but there clearly is major doubt that it did.

fwiw, a good friend of mine regularly comes off the pitch looking like he's taken several punches to the face. He plays openside flanker and because he actually scrummages as a flanker, he gets abrasive marks on his face and eyes.

Basically, I'm being overly pedantic, but it's a lot easier to prove the existence of some doubt, than it is to prove that there isn't any doubt surrounding an event.

/pedant

irishbucsfan

Munster

There's no doubt in my mind (or seemingly anyone here who watched the game) that there was gouging going on. The one thing I took away from the game is I'd never want to play Pro D2 rugby if this is what they're like down there!

I think it's very unfair to question it if you haven't seen the game.

Btw, I play openside and I've had burns as well. They're on your cheeks and temple as you need to obviously keep your head up and stay aware of whats going on ahead of you. Do you know who doesn't get the burns? People who wear scrum caps... like Andy Hazell!

totallegend

Clermont Auvergne

Here's a question; if Andy Hazell was gouged by a certain Mont de Marsan player, does that make it OK for him to beat the sh*t out of another MdM player?

So unless the dude who got the knee to the head while lying prostrate and defenceless was the one who actually did the alleged gouging, is it not completely irrelevant?

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

nope.

Doubt clearly exists as there is no evidence to support a citing. That's not to say it didn't happen, but there clearly is major doubt that it did.

fwiw, a good friend of mine regularly comes off the pitch looking like he's taken several punches to the face. He plays openside flanker and because he actually scrummages as a flanker, he gets abrasive marks on his face and eyes.

Basically, I'm being overly pedantic, but it's a lot easier to prove the existence of some doubt, than it is to prove that there isn't any doubt surrounding an event.

/pedant

I think the difference here is that there may be no doubt gouging occurred but if you can't identify a culprit then you can't proceed with the citing.

totallegend wrote: »

Here's a question; if Andy Hazell was gouged by a certain Mont de Marsan player, does that make it OK for him to beat the sh*t out of another MdM player?

So unless the dude who got the knee to the head while lying prostrate and defenceless was the one who actually did the alleged gouging, is it not completely irrelevant?

To Hazells citing? Yes it is irrelevant. However Hazell shouldn't be the only one getting cited. And that's really the major point here. Yes the reaction to the crime should be punished, but so should the original crime itself.

irishbucsfan

Munster

The player who was "lying prostrate and defenseless" on the ground puched Andy Hazell in the face literally seconds before Hazell flipped out. Another thing which should have been cited. The MdM player was on the ground in the first place because HE ran up to Hazell off the ball, pulled him to the ground, and punched him. They both should have seen red.

irishbucsfan

Castre

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The player who was "lying prostrate and defenseless" on the ground puched Andy Hazell in the face literally seconds before Hazell flipped out. Another thing which should have been cited. The MdM player was on the ground in the first place because HE ran up to Hazell off the ball, pulled him to the ground, and punched him. They both should have seen red.

not at all

5:15 in the video for the best angle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZYpljlcVHk

irishbucsfan

Munster

Deleted User wrote: »

not at all

Yes He did!

It was another thing shown clearly on Sky which you would have seen if you had watched the game!

irishbucsfan

Castre

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Do you know who doesn't get the burns? People who wear scrum caps... like Andy Hazell!

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, because in the 10 years I've known the guy I'm talking about I've never seen him play without a scrum cap.

irishbucsfan

Castre

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes He did!

It was another thing shown clearly on Sky which you would have seen if you had watched the game!

watch the video above.

He tackles him off the ball and falls on him. Exactly as guys like Cullen, Hines, McCaw have been doing for years.

irishbucsfan

Munster

Emmet you clearly are out to accuse Hazell of lying here!

Three people here who watched the game are telling you that there was gouging. You are arguing there wasn't based on the evidence that noone was cited (as if that shows anything other than they can't prove any individual did it). By that logic, Brian O'Driscoll was not speared in 2005!

I'm telling you, having seen it in slow motion during the Sky broadcast, that he was punched by the MdM player. You can see it there in the video. As he falls he closes his fist and drives it into Hazell's face. I actually don't know how you can't see it!

I wonder what Hazell has done to you!

Hazell will probably get 6-12 weeks after his sentence is reduced by the fact he has a very good record. But it's a real shame that the MdM player got away with a clear strike and the greatest shame of all is that the gouging wasn't picked up.


As for the scrum cap - fair enough. But if the guy is binding correctly and has his head up (as all opensides should) then I don't see how he's getting burns on his eye, certainly not ones that look like he's been gouged! The burns I get are usually on my temple and upper cheek. Maybe he has a periscope?!

totallegend

Clermont Auvergne

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It was another thing shown clearly on Sky which you would have seen if you had watched the game!

But presumably the citing commissioner had access to all the footage that Sky had, and probably more? If these things are so clearly visible, why no citing?

The actual incident that triggered Hazell's reaction was nothing more than an off-the-ball cheap shot; nothing particularly vicious or dangerous in it, happens every week. I don't like it but if you've guys reacting like Hazell did there'd be anarchy.