nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Munster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread II

RuggieBear

..continues from here

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

danthefan

Clareman wrote: »

If he does get cited what are the timings involved? I'd be thinking the citing has to be in by lunch time Tuesday to have a review by the end of the week. Munster could then appeal the decision to free him up to play in the semi-final, bit risky cause that'd probably mean he'd miss the final, but he could get to play in the semi even if he's banned

Don't think it works like that.

Clareman

danthefan wrote: »

Don't think it works like that.

I think (open to corrections here) that if an appeal is lodged then he can't be banned from other competitions

phog

Clareman wrote: »

I think (open to corrections here) that if an appeal is lodged then he can't be banned from other competitions

I doubt it and I'm not sure it's something we should do, unless it's the accepted practice.

awec

It has to be in 48 hours after the game does it not (the citing) ?

ConFurioso

Re: zebo and his 'antics'

I love them! The man has style and is destined to be a top class international winger. He's come on in leaps and bounds. I personally loved it when he was getting the crowd going, good crowd interaction.

Maybe some might see this as showboating, etc. but he seems to keep his head in the game and is never dickish to players and comes across quite well in the media (also a decent rapper

).

I'd love to have him at Leinster.

phog

This a long article but please take the time to read it. Really puts a lot of things in perspective.

Donal was on with Brendan O'Connor recently and you'd need a heart of stone not to be touched by his interview .

Donal Walsh: 'I wanted to live, to play for Munster, to travel the whole world'
Donal Walsh is 16. At 12, he was diagnosed with a tumour on his leg. Here he tells of his battle with cancer, how he won his life back, and how he has faced his terminal illness

Full article here.

molloyjh

athtrasna wrote: »

Really hope Paulie isn't cited and if he is that he isn't banned. There was no intent, no malice and he has no form.

I'm sorry but this attitude has to stop. In 2006 a player in SA died from a kick to the head. POC was reckless and the kick was incredibly dangerous. Intent does not matter.

I have the utmost respect for Paulie. The guy is a legend. I want to see him play against Clermont from a rugby perspective. But what he did cannot be ignored or brushed under the carpet. It needs to be dealt with. You can't just go around swinging your feet like that. He kicked a guy into unconsciousness ffs. Someone he was looking straight at when he did it. If a Munster player was on the receiving end of this would you be so forgiving?

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm sorry but this attitude has to stop. In 2006 a player in SA died from a kick to the head. POC was reckless and the kick was incredibly dangerous. Intent does not matter.

I have the utmost respect for Paulie. The guy is a legend. I want to see him play against Clermont from a rugby perspective. But what he did cannot be ignored or brushed under the carpet. It needs to be dealt with. You can't just go around swinging your feet like that. He kicked a guy into unconsciousness ffs. Someone he was looking straight at when he did it. If a Munster player was on the receiving end of this would you be so forgiving?

I think you're over reacting to a athtrasna's post. The post never once suggested that the incident should be brushed under the carpet. More hope that he gets off than anything else.

Originally Posted by athtrasna
Really hope Paulie isn't cited and if he is that he isn't banned. There was no intent, no malice and he has no form.

Podge_irl

phog wrote: »

I think you're over reacting to a athtrasna's post. The post never once suggested that the incident should be brushed under the carpet. More hope that he gets off than anything else.

I fail to see the big difference. If he gets off than the incident is essentially being written off as a complete fluke accident. It wasn't, it was reckless and dangerous play.

From a purely selfish, short term view I wouldn't want him getting banned. But I'm not about to suggest that it doesn't warrant a ban because POC didn't mean it.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

I think you're over reacting to a athtrasna's post. The post never once suggested that the incident should be brushed under the carpet. More hope that he gets off than anything else.

I don't think I am at all. When Drico stamped on Favaro I didn't hope he wasn't cited or banned. I knew he would be and it was right that he was. People shouldn't hope that a player gets away scot free for something that serious. If anything people should be disappointed to see something like that from him. I know I was very disappointed in Drico a few weeks ago. A players welfare is not secondary to a teams performance or prospects and nobody should be hoping that we start sending a message that it is.

budhabob

Podge_irl wrote: »

I fail to see the big difference. If he gets off than the incident is essentially being written off as a complete fluke accident. It wasn't, it was reckless and dangerous play.

From a purely selfish, short term view I wouldn't want him getting banned. But I'm not about to suggest that it doesn't warrant a ban because POC didn't mean it.

Agreed. The whole incident does create conflicting emotions of sorts. With the lions and clermont in mind I hope he doesn't get cited, but with my honest hat on it would be wrong if he isn't cited and the incident investigated.

totallegend

Just as a matter of interest for any citing which may or may not come about - is O'Connell's record clean, apart from the Jonathan Thomas incident? Can't remember him being cited or suspended apart from that

CIARAN_BOYLE

totallegend wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest for any citing which may or may not come about - is O'Connell's record clean, apart from the Jonathan Thomas incident? Can't remember him being cited or suspended apart from that

6 career yellows 1 red (Jonathan Thomas incident) and no citations that I recall

budhabob

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

6 career yellows 1 red (Jonathan Thomas incident) and no citations that I recall

I think he got a 4? week ban following the Jonathan Thomas incident.

ssaye

Michael Corcoran ‏@MichaelC_RTE 6m
@RaboDirectPRO12 confirm Paul O'Connell will not be cited after viewing footage of @Munsterrugby v @leinsterrugby #rterugby

Principal Skinner

ssaye wrote: »

Michael Corcoran ‏@MichaelC_RTE 6m
@RaboDirectPRO12 confirm Paul O'Connell will not be cited after viewing footage of @Munsterrugby v @leinsterrugby #rterugby

That's disgraceful. It should be up to committee to decide at least

[Deleted User]

phog wrote: »

This a long article but please take the time to read it. Really puts a lot of things in perspective.

Donal was on with Brendan O'Connor recently and you'd need a heart of stone not to be touched by his interview .

Full article here.

Incredible bravery from this young man, to face all he has gone through and yet still able to derive some pleasure from his life and gratitude for the few positives. I remember a teacher in school once told us that our health was the only thing that really mattered and all other problems were trivial by comparison. As a young fella whose leaving cert was the height of his concerns I brushed this piece of wisdom aside. Looking back, I don't think I've ever heard truer words said.

Lelantos

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm sorry but this attitude has to stop. In 2006 a player in SA died from a kick to the head. POC was reckless and the kick was incredibly dangerous. Intent does not matter.

I have the utmost respect for Paulie. The guy is a legend. I want to see him play against Clermont from a rugby perspective. But what he did cannot be ignored or brushed under the carpet. It needs to be dealt with. You can't just go around swinging your feet like that. He kicked a guy into unconsciousness ffs. Someone he was looking straight at when he did it. If a Munster player was on the receiving end of this would you be so forgiving?

I believe the word allegedly should be used in that claim

Buer

Principal Skinner wrote: »

That's disgraceful. It should be up to committee to decide at least

If it went to a committee he'd have been banned. It had to be nipped in the bud at this stage when the opportunity was there.

ssaye

Wont somebody think of the committee members.

There were dying for a good banning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiMOKmp0uZc

molloyjh

Lelantos wrote: »

I believe the word allegedly should be used in that claim

Rubbish. It was live on air, we all saw it. It happened.

Lelantos

molloyjh wrote: »

Rubbish. It was live on air, we all saw it. It happened.

The claim you made about someone dieing was what I referred to.

who_me

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm sorry but this attitude has to stop. In 2006 a player in SA died from a kick to the head. POC was reckless and the kick was incredibly dangerous. Intent does not matter.

I have the utmost respect for Paulie. The guy is a legend. I want to see him play against Clermont from a rugby perspective. But what he did cannot be ignored or brushed under the carpet. It needs to be dealt with. You can't just go around swinging your feet like that. He kicked a guy into unconsciousness ffs. Someone he was looking straight at when he did it. If a Munster player was on the receiving end of this would you be so forgiving?

The bolded bit is simply false. Intent DOES matter. If two players collide and one falls and breaks his neck, the other doesn't automatically get a red card and a lengthy suspension. You don't just an incident simply by its consequences, intent does have a massive bearing.

However, the lack of intent isn't a "get out of jail card" either. O'Connell was unquestionably reckless and could and (IMO) should have been cited. Not necessarily suspended - that's for the citing committee to judge, but at least it should have been looked at.

[Deleted User]

who_me wrote: »

The bolded bit is simply false. Intent DOES matter. If two players collide and one falls and breaks his neck, the other doesn't automatically get a red card and a lengthy suspension. You don't just an incident simply by its consequences, intent does have a massive bearing.

However, the lack of intent isn't a "get out of jail card" either. O'Connell was unquestionably reckless and could and (IMO) should have been cited. Not necessarily suspended - that's for the citing committee to judge, but at least it should have been looked at.

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/news/6632.php

Despite their acceptance that his action was unintentional an IRFU Disciplinary committee today handed John Hayes a six week suspension for the incident involving Cian Healy in the match against Leinster on Saturday evening in the RDS.

It matters when deciding the severity of the ban. Not whether or not the offence took place.

Principal Skinner

[Deleted User] wrote: »

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/news/6632.php

It matters when deciding the severity of the ban. Not whether or not the offence took place.

Forgot about that one, that was another bull**** decision. Anyone could see there was intent with that stamp

Riskymove

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/news/6632.php

It matters when deciding the severity of the ban. Not whether or not the offence took place.

Hayes was cited for stamping, very different scenario

imo they accepted that contact with the head was accidental but not that Hayes had stamped at Healy who was attempting to pull down the maul

[Deleted User]

Riskymove wrote: »

Hayes was cited for stamping, very different scenario

imo they accepted that contact with the head was accidental but not that Hayes had stamped at Healy who was attempting to pull down the maul

POC wasn't cited at all. Of course it was a different scenario.

Other than saying "it's a very different scenario" are there any reasons why it is different? That's what's baffling. It's completely inconsistent!

In both cases there was a head injury to a player caused by the boot of an opposition player.

In both cases (we would hope, and I reckon it's fairly certain) there was no intention to injure the player.

In both cases the offending player had an exquisite discipline record across a long career.

Now the differences.

In Hayes' case, he couldn't see Healy, or where he was putting his feet.
In POC's case, he could see Kearney, and where he was putting his foot.

Anything I'm missing that makes it a poor comparison?

trouttrout

Principal Skinner wrote: »

Forgot about that one, that was another bull**** decision. Anyone could see there was intent with that stamp

:rolleyes:

Six weeks was a fair ban for that

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

POC wasn't cited at all. Of course it was a different scenario.

Other than saying "it's a very different scenario" are there any reasons why it is different? That's what's baffling. It's completely inconsistent!

In both cases there was a head injury to a player caused by the boot of an opposition player.

In both cases (we would hope, and I reckon it's fairly certain) there was no intention to injure the player.

In both cases the offending player had an exquisite discipline record across a long career.

Now the differences.

In Hayes' case, he couldn't see Healy, or where he was putting his feet.
In POC's case, he could see Kearney, and where he was putting his foot.

Anything I'm missing that makes it a poor comparison?

Boot didn't make contact with head, it made contact with the ball.

The verdict achieved on examining the video footage was that O'Connell's shin came into contact with Kearney's head, but that his foot made contact with the ball, meaning the incident was not an insidious act of foul play.

justsomebloke

As mentioned in the match day thread the POC incident is currently not a debatable topic due to people inability to be civil. So please leave it at that