Champions Cup Pool 1: Munster v Glasgow Warriors, 22 October

First topic message reminder :

                              
Munster Rugby v Glasgow Warriors 
Saturday 22 October 2016
KO: 13:00
Thomond Park, Limerick

Live on BT Sport / beIN Sports

Referee Jerome Garces (France)
Touch Judge 1 Adrien Descottes (France)
Touch Judge 2 Sebastian Cloute (France)
TMO Arnaud Blondel (France)
Citing Commissioner Yves Thieffine (France)

A. Head to Head

Sides have never met in Europe.

In league play:

28 Played 28
16 Wins 11
11 Losses 16
1 Draws 1

B. Recent League Form

19 February 2016
Glasgow Warriors 27 - 24 Munster Rugby

2 October 2015
Munster Rugby 32 - 21 Glasgow Warriors

30 May 2015
Munster Rugby 13 - 31 Glasgow Warriors

28 February 2015
Munster Rugby 22 - 10 Glasgow Warriors

20 December 2014
Glasgow Warriors 21 - 18 Munster Rugby


C. Teams

Munster Rugby

15 Simon Zebo
14 Darren Sweetnam
13 Jaco Taute
12 Rory Scannell
11 Keith Earls
10 Tyler Bleyendaal
9 Conor Murray

1 Dave Kilcoyne
2 Niall Scannell
3 John Ryan
4 Donnacha Ryan
5 Billy Holland
6 Peter O'Mahony
7 Tommy O'Donnell
8 CJ Stander

16 Duncan Casey
17 Brian Scott
18 Stephen Archer
19 Robin Copeland
20 Jack O'Donoghue
21 Duncan Williams
22 Ian Keatley
23 Ronan O'Mahony

Glasgow Warriors 

15 Stuart Hogg
14 Sean Lamont
13 Alex Dunbar
12 Sam Johnson
11 Rory Hughes
10 Finn Russell
9 Henry Pyrgos

1 Gordon Reid
2 Fraser Brown
3 Zander Fagerson
4 Tim Swinson
5 Jonny Gray
6 Rob Harley
7 Ryan Wilson
8 Josh Strauss

16 Pat MacArthur
17 Alex Allan
18 Sila Puafisi
19 Lewis Wynne
20 Simone Favaro
21 Ali Price
22 Mark Bennett  angel
23 Peter Murchie

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Can anyone tell me what rugby law that offends and what is the punishment?

Not sure actually. Good question.

Maybe this:

10.4 (m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.

Yoann Maestri had to find out the hard way.

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

BigGee wrote:There are some idiots on the Glasgow forum, I read some of their stuff as well and it was awful.

There are always some idiot fans, for every team.

Earl's will get a couple of weeks ban and that will be the end of it. I very much doubt if Hogg, Brown or any of the Glasgow players will hold any grudges about it and that is what counts at the end of the day. As Hogg implied, they have already made up about it, end of. Any further comments by any of the players are just likely to throw petrol on a bonfire and it was not that sort of match.

Yeah I agree here too, except for Gwlad as I hear that's a really good forum...

If Earls is shown leniency because of the circumstances then it's pretty poor and inconsistent (again) IMO. How he supposedly stormed off is understandable but it was also unnecessary.

I don't think he will be shown leniency for the tackle. However, it seems some people want Earls to be punished for his reaction to being sent off. Can anyone tell me what rugby law that offends and what is the punishment?

I'm pretty sure there isn't a rule that covers that, unless it is suspected that the reaction was aimed at an official? #HartleyVsBarnes . What I do know, sadly, is that the criticism of Earls would be a hundred times worse if he was more Welsh.

The criticism would be justified if Earls had acquired a reputation for behaving badly like Hartley, Liam Williams and a few others I won't bother to mention.

I'm not sure how Williams has the reputation either but people do love to hate a good Wales player. If say Hartley and Earls both got themselves into a bit of bother then you wouldn't just punish Hartley on the account of thinking that Earls is usually well behaved so we'll let him off. They're all players playing to the same rules and regulations, unless you're an All Black.

Williams has the reputation because in his 127 pro games to date, he has got 6 yellow and 2 red cards. Williams is 25 - though in fairness to him, he seems to have improved his discipline a lot recently.

In 228 pro games, Earls has 4 yellow and his first Red last Saturday.

Hartley (172 pro games) - 11 YC, 2 Red.

I'd put Earls in a similar category to Sam Warburton - neither are dirty players, both got a bit carried away in the tackle. The big difference between them are the fans - most Irish people accept that Garces was correct in carding Earls .... now the Welsh fans didn't accept that Rolland was correct to card Warburton.

2 week ban for Earls

Full details:

Keith Earls, has been suspended for two weeks following an independent Disciplinary Hearing in London today arising from the Champions Cup win over Glasgow Warriors on Saturday.
Earls was sent off by referee, Jérôme Garcès (France), for a dangerous tackle on the Glasgow Warriors hooker Fraser Brown in the 19th minute of the match at Thomond Park in contravention of Law 10.4 (j).

Law 10.4 (j) Dangerous tackling
Under World Rugby's Sanctions for Foul Play, Law 10.4 (j), Lifting a player from the ground and either dropping or driving that player's head and/or upper body into the ground while the player's feet are off the ground, carries the following sanction entry points - Low End: 4 weeks; Mid-Range: 8 weeks; Top End: 12 to 52 weeks.

An independent Disciplinary Committee consisting of Mike Hamlin (England), Chairman, Roddy Dunlop QC (Scotland) and Andrea Caranci (Italy) heard evidence and submissions from Earls, who pleaded guilty to the offence, from Munster Rugby Team Manager, Niall O'Donovan, from Munster Rugby's legal representative, Derek Hegarty, and from the EPCR Disciplinary Officer, Liam McTiernan.

In upholding the red card decision, the Committee found that the offence was at the low end of World Rugby's sanctions and selected four weeks as the appropriate entry point.

As there were no aggravating factors, the Committee then reduced the sanction by a maximum of two weeks due to Earls' timely guilty plea, expression of remorse and clean disciplinary record before imposing a suspension of two weeks.

Earls will be free to play on Monday, 7 November. Both the player and EPCR have the right to appeal the decision.

I do find it very funny that as long as you say 'I'm very sorry, I was a very naughty boy' your suspension gets reduced by 2 weeks!

The clean disciplinary record is also a reason for its reduction - first time offender and all that!

A picture has been released of Earls during the citing panel:

He must've brought some premium biscuits.

munkian wrote:He must've brought some premium biscuits.

He is missing an interpro (v Ulster) and Ireland v ABs in Chicago - not just the Dragons on a wet night in Rodney Parade!

Sin é wrote:

munkian wrote:He must've brought some premium biscuits.

He is missing an interpro (v Ulster) and Ireland v ABs in Chicago - not just the Dragons on a wet night in Rodney Parade!

Hey, the sun always shines on the Dave Parade !

Sin é wrote:
I'd put Earls in a similar category to Sam Warburton - neither are dirty players, both got a bit carried away in the tackle. The big difference between them are the fans - most Irish people accept that Garces was correct in carding Earls .... now the Welsh fans didn't accept that Rolland was correct to card Warburton.

Another difference is that Warburton got 3 weeks and Earls got 2 weeks. (despite the tackled player landing on his back in Warburton's case, and the tackled player landing on his neck in Earl's case.)

Anybody know why Warburton received a longer ban?

Because Earls is not dat sort o player, soir.

Sin é wrote:Williams has the reputation because in his 127 pro games to date, he has got 6 yellow and 2 red cards. Williams is 25 - though in fairness to him, he seems to have improved his discipline a lot recently.

In 228 pro games, Earls has 4 yellow and his first Red last Saturday.

Hartley (172 pro games) - 11 YC, 2 Red.

I'd put Earls in a similar category to Sam Warburton - neither are dirty players, both got a bit carried away in the tackle. The big difference between them are the fans - most Irish people accept that Garces was correct in carding Earls .... now the Welsh fans didn't accept that Rolland was correct to card Warburton.

In 127 games that isn't bad. I can't remember what the other red card was for, but one was for two yellow card offence committed in a game and I believe Williams' 2nd yellow was more of a team yellow. So discipline-wise perhaps he hasn't been the best in the past but I'm not sure if this would have enabled him to carry some sorta bad reputation. Hartley is a forward so his YC count is not surprising.

The laws and regulations are pretty clear - I think there's still a bit of inconsistency which is my gripe with this scenario as well as some previous others. Earls was unlucky but it's been dealt with now so I'll move on.

Funny old world - I saw Earls' very lenient ban, just as my supervising partner asked me what area I was thinking of qualifying into. I'd be tempted to be a sports lawyer just to be in the room for the player who pleads innocent to dropping an opponent on his head in front of 26,000 fans and 50 TV cameras...

[Looking at clear footage of egregious assault]
"I'm not denying it happened sir, I'm saying that's not me in the footage.."
"You do wear the number 6, do you not?"
"Well the Telegraph says I'm more of a 6.5..."

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sin é wrote:
I'd put Earls in a similar category to Sam Warburton - neither are dirty players, both got a bit carried away in the tackle. The big difference between them are the fans - most Irish people accept that Garces was correct in carding Earls .... now the Welsh fans didn't accept that Rolland was correct to card Warburton.

Another difference is that Warburton got 3 weeks and Earls got 2 weeks. (despite the tackled player landing on his back in Warburton's case, and the tackled player landing on his neck in Earl's case.)

Anybody know why Warburton received a longer ban?

I'd imagine there was more force in Warburton's tackle (both Clerc's legs being on a 90 degree angle to the ground).

Earls was tackling a player 15 kilos heavier than he is and one of Brown's legs was at most about 3 inches off the ground. Brown landed on his shoulder (though I'm not sure if that is a mitigating factor).

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:Williams has the reputation because in his 127 pro games to date, he has got 6 yellow and 2 red cards. Williams is 25 - though in fairness to him, he seems to have improved his discipline a lot recently.

In 228 pro games, Earls has 4 yellow and his first Red last Saturday.

Hartley (172 pro games) - 11 YC, 2 Red.

I'd put Earls in a similar category to Sam Warburton - neither are dirty players, both got a bit carried away in the tackle. The big difference between them are the fans - most Irish people accept that Garces was correct in carding Earls .... now the Welsh fans didn't accept that Rolland was correct to card Warburton.

In 127 games that isn't bed. I can't remember what the other red card was for, but one was for two yellow card offence committed in a game and I believe Williams' 2nd yellow was more of a team yellow. So discipline-wise perhaps he hasn't been the best in the past but I'm not sure if this would have enabled him to carry some sorta bad reputation. Hartley is a forward so his YC count is not surprising.

The laws and regulations are pretty clear - I think there's still a bit of inconsistency which is my gripe with this scenario as well as some previous others. Earls was unlucky but it's been dealt with now so I'll move on.

Liam Williams has about 3 times the number of cards your average back gets - thats why he has a poor reputation. Though much improved in this department, he also like to take cheap shots as well.

As for Hartley being excused as a forward - Axel Foley ONE YC in his entire career. David Wallace 4YC (2 country, 2 club).

Edit: Just looked up the rest of that infamous Munster backrow: Quinlan 3 YCs (plus one citing at end of his career). Denis Leamy: 3 YC Munster, 3 YC International.

It shouldn't matter where you land, that's more down to good lucj and if the player can save himself in time.

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:Williams has the reputation because in his 127 pro games to date, he has got 6 yellow and 2 red cards. Williams is 25 - though in fairness to him, he seems to have improved his discipline a lot recently.

In 228 pro games, Earls has 4 yellow and his first Red last Saturday.

Hartley (172 pro games) - 11 YC, 2 Red.

I'd put Earls in a similar category to Sam Warburton - neither are dirty players, both got a bit carried away in the tackle. The big difference between them are the fans - most Irish people accept that Garces was correct in carding Earls .... now the Welsh fans didn't accept that Rolland was correct to card Warburton.

In 127 games that isn't bed. I can't remember what the other red card was for, but one was for two yellow card offence committed in a game and I believe Williams' 2nd yellow was more of a team yellow. So discipline-wise perhaps he hasn't been the best in the past but I'm not sure if this would have enabled him to carry some sorta bad reputation. Hartley is a forward so his YC count is not surprising.

The laws and regulations are pretty clear - I think there's still a bit of inconsistency which is my gripe with this scenario as well as some previous others. Earls was unlucky but it's been dealt with now so I'll move on.

Liam Williams has about 3 times the number of cards your average back gets - thats why he has a poor reputation. Though much improved in this department, he also like to take cheap shots as well.

As for Hartley being excused as a forward - Axel Foley ONE YC in his entire career. David Wallace 4YC (2 country, 2 club).

Don't let facts get in the way of a good burning...

I'm being kind to Williams here. For example, Zebo - similar age and position (wing/fullback) to Williams. 2 YC todate.

Felix Jones - 1 YC in his career.

Liam Williams - 6 yellow and 2 red cards so far.

Sin é wrote:I'm being kind to Williams here. For example, Zebo - similar age and position (wing/fullback) to Williams. 2 YC todate.

Felix Jones - 1 YC in his career.

Liam Williams -  6 yellow and 2 red cards so far.

And it was Williams against Ulster who did what Rob Kearney did at the weekend but the Welsh ref decided it wasn't a case of foul play

munkian wrote:Because Earls is not dat sort o player, soir.

Hmmm .... you've changed a bit as a poster. Maybe the influence Gwlad is having on you.

Here, don't mention the G-word on here please and thanks!

As much as Sin is being a bit obstinate (who woulda thunk it right? ) he does have a point in that he has a relatively clean disciplinary record. I do think we should also be cognisant that emotions where running particularly high and it was an unusual situation.

He should still get a ban, and I do feel the now-almost standard 2 week reduction for good behaviour should not fully apply given his reaction at time but its fair to point out he's usually a fair player. Obviously if he had previous citings he would have been much less liable to get that reduction.

I think the thing that annoys me most about this is the fact that he left the field calling Fraser Brown a "f*****g cheat" and then gets 2 weeks off his ban for pleading GUILTY!

So does he accept he committed a red card offence or not? It shouldn't matter either way, but IMO if he now accepts it was nobody's fault but his own, then it makes his remarks on leaving the field all the more unacceptable. I'm not baying for anybody's blood, but I am very disappointed his downright nasty reaction was not taken into account before his ban was reduced.

I'd have to agree with Senlac. I don't want some kind of witch hunt, and in the same circumstances as Earls I can't honestly say how I would have reacted, but we have to accept that Earls' reaction to Brown were totally unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances.

Either we have standards for how players should conduct themselves, or we don't.

IanBru wrote:I'd have to agree with Senlac. I don't want some kind of witch hunt, and in the same circumstances as Earls I can't honestly say how I would have reacted, but we have to accept that Earls' reaction to Brown were totally unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances.

Either we have standards for how players should conduct themselves, or we don't.

There's a fine line here. Players say stuff to other players all the time, some in the heat of the moment and others in the form of a deliberate sledge to get under the opponents skin. I'm not condoning Earls' reaction, but if he's going to be given extra punishment for something he said to another player on the field of play, you are on a slippery slope. I'm not saying that there aren't lines to be drawn, as the Joe Marler incident has shown. I'm perfectly happy for Earls to be judged solely on his illegal tackle. The bigger question for me is whether it's appropriate in rugby for a "guilty plea" discount (as opposed to the criminal law where I understand the reasons fully). I'm not entirely convinced that should matter in any circumstances.

Note that I'd feel differently had he aimed a comment of that nature at the ref.

Earls' reaction should have nothing to do with the ban,how many times do we see handbags where players call each other all sorts and then just walk away and play on.If you start punishing him for something he said to a player in the heat of the moment then you have to punish everyone.The fact the mic happened to pick this up doesn't make it a punishable offense.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

IanBru wrote:I'd have to agree with Senlac. I don't want some kind of witch hunt, and in the same circumstances as Earls I can't honestly say how I would have reacted, but we have to accept that Earls' reaction to Brown were totally unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances.

Either we have standards for how players should conduct themselves, or we don't.

There's a fine line here. Players say stuff to other players all the time, some in the heat of the moment and others in the form of a deliberate sledge to get under the opponents skin. I'm not condoning Earls' reaction, but if he's going to be given extra punishment for something he said to another player on the field of play, you are on a slippery slope. I'm not saying that there aren't lines to be drawn, as the Joe Marler incident has shown. I'm perfectly happy for Earls to be judged solely on his illegal tackle. The bigger question for me is whether it's appropriate in rugby for a "guilty plea" discount (as opposed to the criminal law where I understand the reasons fully). I'm not entirely convinced that should matter in any circumstances.

Note that I'd feel differently had he aimed a comment of that nature at the ref.

Theoretically I'd agree that it shouldn't make a difference,in practice however if you don't give the discount then no-one pleads guilty and you have a much more drawn out process.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

IanBru wrote:I'd have to agree with Senlac. I don't want some kind of witch hunt, and in the same circumstances as Earls I can't honestly say how I would have reacted, but we have to accept that Earls' reaction to Brown were totally unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances.

Either we have standards for how players should conduct themselves, or we don't.

There's a fine line here. Players say stuff to other players all the time, some in the heat of the moment and others in the form of a deliberate sledge to get under the opponents skin. I'm not condoning Earls' reaction, but if he's going to be given extra punishment for something he said to another player on the field of play, you are on a slippery slope. I'm not saying that there aren't lines to be drawn, as the Joe Marler incident has shown. I'm perfectly happy for Earls to be judged solely on his illegal tackle. The bigger question for me is whether it's appropriate in rugby for a "guilty plea" discount (as opposed to the criminal law where I understand the reasons fully). I'm not entirely convinced that should matter in any circumstances.

Note that I'd feel differently had he aimed a comment of that nature at the ref.

Theoretically I'd agree that it shouldn't make a difference,in practice however if you don't give the discount then no-one pleads guilty and you have a much more drawn out process.

Or you increase the ban when people plead not guilty but are obviously just chancing their arm. I realise this would require the members of the panel to, collectively, grow a pair. Which would make an interesting change.

For what it's worth, I think Earls' tantrum on leaving the field deserved a ban all of it's own. If any of my son's Under 14 team behaved like that myself and the other coaches would come down on them like the proverbial ton of building materials.

jimbopip wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

IanBru wrote:I'd have to agree with Senlac. I don't want some kind of witch hunt, and in the same circumstances as Earls I can't honestly say how I would have reacted, but we have to accept that Earls' reaction to Brown were totally unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances.

Either we have standards for how players should conduct themselves, or we don't.

There's a fine line here. Players say stuff to other players all the time, some in the heat of the moment and others in the form of a deliberate sledge to get under the opponents skin. I'm not condoning Earls' reaction, but if he's going to be given extra punishment for something he said to another player on the field of play, you are on a slippery slope. I'm not saying that there aren't lines to be drawn, as the Joe Marler incident has shown. I'm perfectly happy for Earls to be judged solely on his illegal tackle. The bigger question for me is whether it's appropriate in rugby for a "guilty plea" discount (as opposed to the criminal law where I understand the reasons fully). I'm not entirely convinced that should matter in any circumstances.

Note that I'd feel differently had he aimed a comment of that nature at the ref.

Theoretically I'd agree that it shouldn't make a difference,in practice however if you don't give the discount then no-one pleads guilty and you have a much more drawn out process.

Or you increase the ban when people plead not guilty but are obviously just chancing their arm. I realise this would require the members of the panel to, collectively, grow a pair. Which would make an interesting change.

For what it's worth, I think Earls' tantrum on leaving the field deserved a ban all of it's own. If any of my son's Under 14 team behaved like that myself and the other coaches would come down on them like the proverbial ton of building materials.

I bet you'd be a bit softer on them if someone close to them had died the week before the game.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Earls' reaction should have nothing to do with the ban,how many times do we see handbags where players call each other all sorts and then just walk away and play on.If you start punishing him for something he said to a player in the heat of the moment then you have to punish everyone.The fact the mic happened to pick this up doesn't make it a punishable offense.

The mic didn't pick it up. Lip reading. Unfortunately they couldn't lip read what the Glasgow players were saying to him as they had their backs to the camera.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

There's a fine line here. Players say stuff to other players all the time, some in the heat of the moment and others in the form of a deliberate sledge to get under the opponents skin. I'm not condoning Earls' reaction, but if he's going to be given extra punishment for something he said to another player on the field of play, you are on a slippery slope. I'm not saying that there aren't lines to be drawn, as the Joe Marler incident has shown. I'm perfectly happy for Earls to be judged solely on his illegal tackle. The bigger question for me is whether it's appropriate in rugby for a "guilty plea" discount (as opposed to the criminal law where I understand the reasons fully). I'm not entirely convinced that should matter in any circumstances.

Note that I'd feel differently had he aimed a comment of that nature at the ref.

Loads of factors are taken into consideration, not just the guilty plea. From Champs Cup site:

e) After deciding the entry point, the Disciplinary Committee will then consider whether the suspension should be increased from the entry point to take account of certain specified aggravating factors, such as a poor disciplinary record or the need for deterrence, and/or decreased from the entry point to take account of certain specified mitigating actions, such as a guilty plea, a good disciplinary record, the player's conduct at the hearing and expressions of remorse.

The guilty plea would safe Glasgow sending a representative for example. I think the purpose of the citings is to reform behaviour to reduce injuries/foul play. Most players learn from their mistakes and can modify their behaviour.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

jimbopip wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

IanBru wrote:I'd have to agree with Senlac. I don't want some kind of witch hunt, and in the same circumstances as Earls I can't honestly say how I would have reacted, but we have to accept that Earls' reaction to Brown were totally unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances.

Either we have standards for how players should conduct themselves, or we don't.

There's a fine line here. Players say stuff to other players all the time, some in the heat of the moment and others in the form of a deliberate sledge to get under the opponents skin. I'm not condoning Earls' reaction, but if he's going to be given extra punishment for something he said to another player on the field of play, you are on a slippery slope. I'm not saying that there aren't lines to be drawn, as the Joe Marler incident has shown. I'm perfectly happy for Earls to be judged solely on his illegal tackle. The bigger question for me is whether it's appropriate in rugby for a "guilty plea" discount (as opposed to the criminal law where I understand the reasons fully). I'm not entirely convinced that should matter in any circumstances.

Note that I'd feel differently had he aimed a comment of that nature at the ref.

Theoretically I'd agree that it shouldn't make a difference,in practice however if you don't give the discount then no-one pleads guilty and you have a much more drawn out process.

Or you increase the ban when people plead not guilty but are obviously just chancing their arm. I realise this would require the members of the panel to, collectively, grow a pair. Which would make an interesting change.

For what it's worth, I think Earls' tantrum on leaving the field deserved a ban all of it's own. If any of my son's Under 14 team behaved like that myself and the other coaches would come down on them like the proverbial ton of building materials.

I bet you'd be a bit softer on them if someone close to them had died the week before the game.

Aye, you could be right there: but they're only 13 year olds. I think Mr Earls is old enough to know better.

I see that Earls has come clean on the red card incident.

Lifted from the Glasgow Forum :

http://www.the42.ie/keith-earls-anthony-foley-axel-ireland-munster-3100904-Nov2016/?utm_source=shortlink

An extract :

"It was a massive game, it meant a lot to us,” says Earls. “It was a tough week in general, from burying your head coach and then an hour later doing a captain’s run. It’s just not right.

“I suppose the only thing I do apologise for – I don’t apologise for anything else - is kicking the bottles on the side of the pitch. I wouldn’t like to see a young lad doing that at underage or some young lad at Thomond Park.

“I suppose I’ve been waiting to be interviewed to apologise for that.

“I don’t apologise for the rest of it.

“I spoke to Fraser Brown on the phone and I felt he could have done a bit more. Yes, I did lift his leg but I felt he could have done a bit more to save the impact. The way he went, I thought he was going for it a small bit, to be honest with you. I spoke to him and he said he was just trying to protect himself.

“I felt I was cheated really going off the pitch; they denied me an opportunity to put in a performance for my head coach and the Munster supporters, so I kind of lost it a bit coming off the pitch.”

So he feels he has nothing to apologise for, even now.  And presumably definitely not for lying to the disciplinary tribunal - who gave him a lesser sentence for 'contrition'.  Lets see if THAT comes back to bite him.

He will get a warm welcome at Scotstoun, that's for sure!

I must say that I don't really understand the argument that Fraser Brown could have "done a bit more to save the impact".

There were special circumstances to consider in that game, as Earls himself acknowledges, but he ought to leave Fraser Brown out of it.

Thats a huge allegation to be throwing around, that Fraser Brown deliberately cheated to get him sent off. It would also imply that Brown was trying to put himself in a more dangerous position in order to manipulate the ref

I have just watched it back again, and all I can see is somebody instinctively trying to protect his neck.

I'm pretty surprised at Earls really. Given the situation I can, to an extent, understand and sympathise with his immediate reaction. But we are now a month down the track, to me that interview shows a real lack of class.

EST wrote:Thats a huge allegation to be throwing around, that Fraser Brown deliberately cheated to get him sent off. It would also imply that Brown was trying to put himself in a more dangerous position in order to manipulate the ref  

I have just watched it back again, and all I can see is somebody instinctively trying to protect his neck.

I'm pretty surprised at Earls really.  Given the situation I can, to an extent, understand and sympathise with his immediate reaction.  But we are now a month down the track, to me that interview shows a real lack of class.

I know we all complain about professional sports people becoming robots when it comes to interviews with the press, but this is a prime example of where Munster's PR and Media professionals should have made sure that Earls said the right things and moved on.  I'd pretty much forgotten about this incident even happening but this being released has brought it all up again.  

I also find it absolutely staggering to claim that a player would deliberately try and land on their neck (risking permanently disability or even death) to try and get a player red carded.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

EST wrote:Thats a huge allegation to be throwing around, that Fraser Brown deliberately cheated to get him sent off. It would also imply that Brown was trying to put himself in a more dangerous position in order to manipulate the ref  

I have just watched it back again, and all I can see is somebody instinctively trying to protect his neck.

I'm pretty surprised at Earls really.  Given the situation I can, to an extent, understand and sympathise with his immediate reaction.  But we are now a month down the track, to me that interview shows a real lack of class.

I know we all complain about professional sports people becoming robots when it comes to interviews with the press, but this is a prime example of where Munster's PR and Media professionals should have made sure that Earls said the right things and moved on.  I'd pretty much forgotten about this incident even happening but this being released has brought it all up again.  

I also find it absolutely staggering to claim that a player would deliberately try and land on their neck (risking permanently disability or even death) to try and get a player red carded.

Yeah, unlike a lot of more hardened GW fans, I could understand Earls original reaction to the card. These were very unique circumstances, and I can only imagine the emotion of the situation. But this is a totally different situation, Earls has gone down a long way in my estimation.

I am a GW fan, and I said at the time I had some sympathy. Now I don't what a Muppet.

EST wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

EST wrote:Thats a huge allegation to be throwing around, that Fraser Brown deliberately cheated to get him sent off. It would also imply that Brown was trying to put himself in a more dangerous position in order to manipulate the ref  

I have just watched it back again, and all I can see is somebody instinctively trying to protect his neck.

I'm pretty surprised at Earls really.  Given the situation I can, to an extent, understand and sympathise with his immediate reaction.  But we are now a month down the track, to me that interview shows a real lack of class.

I know we all complain about professional sports people becoming robots when it comes to interviews with the press, but this is a prime example of where Munster's PR and Media professionals should have made sure that Earls said the right things and moved on.  I'd pretty much forgotten about this incident even happening but this being released has brought it all up again.  

I also find it absolutely staggering to claim that a player would deliberately try and land on their neck (risking permanently disability or even death) to try and get a player red carded.

Yeah, unlike a lot of more hardened GW fans, I could understand Earls original reaction to the card.  These were very unique circumstances, and I can only imagine the emotion of the situation.  But this is a totally different situation, Earls has gone down a long way in my estimation.

I believe Schizoid favoured a combination of waterboarding, sarin gas and thumbscrews, which by his standards represents a proportionate response.

It's surprising he's come out with this.  I've got sympathy with him as it's never easy to lose someone you're close to, but this is an odd move.  To basically accuse Brown of risking serious injury just to get him sent off, is a strange accusation.

Also when he says:

"I felt I was cheated really going off the pitch; they denied me an opportunity to put in a performance for my head coach and the Munster supporters, so I kind of lost it a bit coming off the pitch.”

To me this seems very childish, trying to push the blame on someone else.  He made the tackle, no one else did, there is one person to blame for him getting a red card that day and it's him.

The fact he makes a point about not apologising for it as well, is just pathetic.  I've lost a lot of respect for him after this.  Which I'm sure will be keeping him up at night

funnyExiledScot wrote:

EST wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

EST wrote:Thats a huge allegation to be throwing around, that Fraser Brown deliberately cheated to get him sent off. It would also imply that Brown was trying to put himself in a more dangerous position in order to manipulate the ref  

I have just watched it back again, and all I can see is somebody instinctively trying to protect his neck.

I'm pretty surprised at Earls really.  Given the situation I can, to an extent, understand and sympathise with his immediate reaction.  But we are now a month down the track, to me that interview shows a real lack of class.

I know we all complain about professional sports people becoming robots when it comes to interviews with the press, but this is a prime example of where Munster's PR and Media professionals should have made sure that Earls said the right things and moved on.  I'd pretty much forgotten about this incident even happening but this being released has brought it all up again.  

I also find it absolutely staggering to claim that a player would deliberately try and land on their neck (risking permanently disability or even death) to try and get a player red carded.

Yeah, unlike a lot of more hardened GW fans, I could understand Earls original reaction to the card.  These were very unique circumstances, and I can only imagine the emotion of the situation.  But this is a totally different situation, Earls has gone down a long way in my estimation.

I believe Schizoid favoured a combination of waterboarding, sarin gas and thumbscrews, which by his standards represents a proportionate response.

I heard that Schizoid has taken a lot of inspiration from Joe Pesci's character in Casino.

Joe Schmidt keeps telling Earls it's Glasgow at the weekend. So it's now either five tries for Earls against the poor Aussies or a red card within 30 seconds of the start

I suppose, from Earls' point of view, he was holding one leg and trying to drive him to the ground and because Brown hopped off the other leg he ended up flipping over the horizontal. Players often hop when a defender has one leg to stay on their feet and look for the offload (which is what it looks like Brown was attempting). I do think it was a bit unlucky for Earls, but claiming that Brown did it on purpose is poor from him.