The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed May 14, 2014 8:16 am

First topic message reminder :

Well, according to Notch and repeated by rodders relating to non-appearance of Kearney before the disciplinary committee after the recent Ulster v Leinster game, it's true.

I feel that this is worthy of a broader debate.

In the past the Tigers for instance, had a policy of not citing anyone but that was overtaken I believe by the Jeff ruling that independent citing officers to make the decision.

But it is surely wrong for the IRFU to dictate to the provinces that they should not cite fellow Irish teams whilst they are free to do so against the Italians, the Scots and the Welsh.

Time for manadatory independent citing officers in the Rabo methinks.

by MrsP Wed May 14, 2014 2:04 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
MrsP wrote:There may be a discussion needs to occur about the fairness or otherwise of the disciplinary arrangements of various leagues but this is an very poor example to try to use to further such an arguement.

Maybe we should follow the example of the RFU disciplinary process which allowed a QC to mislead a judge in a hearing, thus allowing the most violent act any of us have probably ever witnessed to have the sanction reduced by a half erroneously!

Would that be a good place to start this discussion?
O Jeez. Having just been exposed as a complete idiot , I'm going to have to ask MrsP to provide a substantiated example again.

Pretty please.

Callum Clarke

Got 50% reduction because the QC acting for Clarke told the judge his previous record was accrued underage and too long ago to be considered. The QC was at best wrong on both counts. There are other interpretations of that misinformation available. Simple maths was all that was required.

by asoreleftshoulder Wed May 14, 2014 2:05 pm

ME-109 wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Sin é wrote:If the Provinces are forbidden to cite each other, Joe Schmidt was definately off messages because he was screaming for Paul O'Connell to be cited. Will I ever forget his 'think of the children watching it on youtube' comment.

Probably not but you'll forget John Hayes stamping on Cian Healys head

or Sexton kicking Mafi and opening a nasty wound ...

No Sin hasn't forgot that one,there's a pattern in there somewhere I'm sure.

by ME-109 Wed May 14, 2014 2:07 pm

Hayes was Cited though

by **profitius** Wed May 14, 2014 2:08 pm

Are us Paddies being picked on again. Time to bring out the race card. Very Happy

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed May 14, 2014 3:07 pm

MrsP wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
MrsP wrote:There may be a discussion needs to occur about the fairness or otherwise of the disciplinary arrangements of various leagues but this is an very poor example to try to use to further such an arguement.

Maybe we should follow the example of the RFU disciplinary process which allowed a QC to mislead a judge in a hearing, thus allowing the most violent act any of us have probably ever witnessed to have the sanction reduced by a half erroneously!

Would that be a good place to start this discussion?
O Jeez. Having just been exposed as a complete idiot , I'm going to have to ask MrsP to provide a substantiated example again.

Pretty please.

Callum Clarke

Got 50% reduction because the QC acting for Clarke told the judge his previous record was accrued underage and too long ago to be considered. The QC was at best wrong on both counts. There are other interpretations of that misinformation available. Simple maths was all that was required.

I had pre-supposed that that was the case you were referring to and the 32-week ban was a tad weak considering that the off-season was included (I've always been in favour of game bans at or higher than the level the game where the offence occurred). But some justice was done and seen to be done despite the fact that a QC did his day job and attempted to mislead the judge on behalf of his client.

Worse things have happened in the course of British justice - where they can get away scot free for mass-murder on a technicality.

Callum was guilty of mere bone-breaking and not potential permanent paralysis.

That's why I want to see high tackles censured and the laws changed to prohibit initial contact above armpit level.

[ed] Ooh. Nearly forgot: http://www.rugbydump.com/2012/03/2459/calum-clark-banned-for-32-weeks-for-breaking-another-players-arm

by MrsP Wed May 14, 2014 3:15 pm

I would have thought that misleading a judge on the facts of a case would be a serious matter.

I doubt there are many others who would use the words "mere" and "Callum Clarke" in the same sense in the same sentence. Or call the sentence "a tad weak" when it was reduced by 32 weeks because of lies!

by Kingshu Wed May 14, 2014 3:25 pm

Do the 2 Scottish teams ever cite each other? or the Italians?
Even the Welsh, I don't believe cite each other.

I don't think this is an IRFU only thing that the original title suggests. I also don't believe it is forbidden by the IRFU, as anything forbidding it would be against the rules of the game.

My belief is that simply the provinces don't cite each other and leave it up to the citing commissioner, same as Scottish teams, Italian teams and Welsh (possibly) do when playing each other. It is the fairest way to keep any infighting within a Union to an minimum, leave it in the hands of the 3rd party.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed May 14, 2014 3:26 pm

I would equally say that a player tackling an opponent around the neck and receiving nothing more than ten minutes on the naughty step is a disgrace, MrsP.

You are hot on potentially violent play. But you do tend to don the green glasses when Ulster/Irish players are involved.

I'm a Tiger as was Hawkins and Clarke was a Saint.
But some form of justice was seen to be done despite what any twot of a QC said.
It's called forgive and forget here in England.

by MrsP Wed May 14, 2014 3:29 pm

I am indeed very concerned about player safety.

Do you have any figures on the number of serious injuries that result from tackles such as the one on Jackson. Can you reference the examples of these serious injuries so we can assess them please.

by **rodders** Wed May 14, 2014 3:38 pm

Not sure about rugby MrsP but in professional wrestling such manoeuvres are common place without serious injuries.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed May 14, 2014 3:43 pm

Kingshu wrote:Do the 2 Scottish teams ever cite each other? or the Italians?
Even the Welsh, I don't believe cite each other.

I don't think this is an IRFU only thing that the original title suggests. I also don't believe it is forbidden by the IRFU, as anything forbidding it would be against the rules of the game.

My belief is that simply the provinces don't cite each other and leave it up to the citing commissioner, same as Scottish teams, Italian teams and Welsh (possibly) do when playing each other. It is the fairest way to keep any infighting within a Union to an minimum, leave it in the hands of the 3rd party.

So long as the third party is neutral.

by PenfroPete Wed May 14, 2014 4:01 pm

Have I missed something here ?

In the past didn’t TEAMS used to cite each other. However, it was felt that this caused too many boobie-for-tat citings and so responsibility for all citings was handed over to the ‘independent’ citing COMMISSIONER ? Is this still the case ? and if so, doesn’t that mean that TEAMS no longer cite ?

BOOBIE-for-tat - got to love the filter !!!

by Kingshu Wed May 14, 2014 4:01 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
Kingshu wrote:Do the 2 Scottish teams ever cite each other? or the Italians?
Even the Welsh, I don't believe cite each other.

I don't think this is an IRFU only thing that the original title suggests. I also don't believe it is forbidden by the IRFU, as anything forbidding it would be against the rules of the game.

My belief is that simply the provinces don't cite each other and leave it up to the citing commissioner, same as Scottish teams, Italian teams and Welsh (possibly) do when playing each other. It is the fairest way to keep any infighting within a Union to an minimum, leave it in the hands of the 3rd party.
So long as the third party is neutral.

The 3rd party will be from the home union in the Pro 12 in most games, due to the format of the assigned referee and assistances. Due you not believe that referees are impartial.
Should we insist the Jeff games citing commissioners are neutral, ie not from the RFU? and French games they are not from the FRU? it these are ok then whats the issue with an Irish derby having a commissioner from the IRFU?

or are IRFU ref's not to be trusted for interprovincial games, but RFU ref's are to be trusted for Jeff derbies?

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed May 14, 2014 4:17 pm

Kingshu wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
Kingshu wrote:Do the 2 Scottish teams ever cite each other? or the Italians?
Even the Welsh, I don't believe cite each other.

I don't think this is an IRFU only thing that the original title suggests. I also don't believe it is forbidden by the IRFU, as anything forbidding it would be against the rules of the game.

My belief is that simply the provinces don't cite each other and leave it up to the citing commissioner, same as Scottish teams, Italian teams and Welsh (possibly) do when playing each other. It is the fairest way to keep any infighting within a Union to an minimum, leave it in the hands of the 3rd party.
So long as the third party is neutral.

The 3rd party will be from the home union in the Pro 12 in most games, due to the format of the assigned referee and assistances. Due you not believe that referees are impartial.
Should we insist the Jeff games citing commissioners are neutral, ie not from the RFU? and French games they are not from the FRU? it these are ok then whats the issue with an Irish derby having a commissioner from the IRFU?

or are IRFU ref's not to be trusted for interprovincial games, but RFU ref's are to be trusted for Jeff derbies?

Portnoy wrote:One possibility might be for complete neutrals to be appointed for citing observers to be appointed : e.g. Franglos for the Rabo and Celtalians to the Jeff/T14.

by **Notch** Wed May 14, 2014 4:21 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I would equally say that a player tackling an opponent around the neck and receiving nothing more than ten minutes on the naughty step is a disgrace, MrsP.

You are hot on potentially violent play. But you do tend to don the green glasses when Ulster/Irish players are involved.

Don't you think it would benefit Ulster if one of Leinsters best players was suspended for our crucial playoff game against Leinster though? I'd be all for it if Kearney was suspended, definitely good news for Ulster if it had happened. Just don't agree with you that it would be merited for this specific incident. Reckless yeah- hence meriting the yellow. I think red cards are overused and should be reserved for deliberate acts. For violent play as you say- Kearneys tackle was bad but it could never be termed as violent. Or deliberate for that matter. Dangerous, yeah. It was dealt with at the time.

by **Notch** Wed May 14, 2014 4:23 pm

rodders wrote:Not sure about rugby MrsP but in professional wrestling such manoeuvres are common place without serious injuries.

Serious injuries are actually very common in pro wrestling, and thats when the other guy often knows what is going to happen and 'leans in' to it.

by **rodders** Wed May 14, 2014 4:40 pm

Notch wrote:
rodders wrote:Not sure about rugby MrsP but in professional wrestling such manoeuvres are common place without serious injuries.

Serious injuries are actually very common in pro wrestling, and thats when the other guy often knows what is going to happen and 'leans in' to it.

Agreed but statistically only a minority come from a "closeline" manoeuvre. If Kearney really intended to hurt Jackson he'd have used something more damaging like a tombstone pile driver or stone cold stunner. Therefore a yellow is probably sufficient.

by Submachine Wed May 14, 2014 4:42 pm

rodders wrote:
Notch wrote:
rodders wrote:Not sure about rugby MrsP but in professional wrestling such manoeuvres are common place without serious injuries.

Serious injuries are actually very common in pro wrestling, and thats when the other guy often knows what is going to happen and 'leans in' to it.

Agreed but statistically only a minority come from a "closeline" manoeuvre. If Kearney really intended to hurt Jackson he'd have used something more damaging like a tombstone pile driver or stone cold stunner. Therefore a yellow is probably sufficient.

A DDT? or has the the campaign for it's banning been successful?

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed May 14, 2014 4:54 pm

Notch wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I would equally say that a player tackling an opponent around the neck and receiving nothing more than ten minutes on the naughty step is a disgrace, MrsP.

You are hot on potentially violent play. But you do tend to don the green glasses when Ulster/Irish players are involved.

Don't you think it would benefit Ulster if one of Leinsters best players was suspended for our crucial playoff game against Leinster though? I'd be all for it if Kearney was suspended, definitely good news for Ulster if it had happened. Just don't agree with you that it would be merited for this specific incident. Reckless yeah- hence meriting the yellow. I think red cards are overused and should be reserved for deliberate acts. For violent play as you say- Kearneys tackle was bad but it could never be termed as violent. Or deliberate for that matter. Dangerous, yeah. It was dealt with at the time.

Well that's the stance I took in the Payne case (when if you recall, I made a point of voting neither red nor yellow on the 606 poll).

These things can and often are be best deferred to the reflection of the court where there's more time for considered reflection.

But that said, I'd have given both Court and Kearney their marching orders on the day.

by Sponsored content

The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.

Re: The provinces are forbidden to cite each other by the IRFU.