Steff Evans cleared to play in Pro12 Final

First topic message reminder :

Evans has been great this season and was having a fantastic game and was unlucky with the circumstances but he has strangely been cleared and not banned because apparently Samson Lee was the one who made the tackle dangerous even though Evans was the one who took Ringroses legs above the horizontal. Yet another baffling and contradictory judgement handed down


The incident for anyone who didn't see it

RDW_Scotland wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:As I said in my first post no ban because it is a final coming up - it has happened before.
If it was not a final coming next I suspect it would have been a nominal 1 match ban.

I am delighted for the player but the directive is clear - lifted above the horizontal in a tackle and landing on the head = red card.

Then I would suggest the panel also believe the Steff did not actually lift the player but rather the lift was created through the momentum created with 3 players coming together from different angles. But maybe Physics is different over there!
For a tackling player to have LIFTED a ball carrier they would have to have exerted upward force in the tackle, at no time does Steff appear to be LIFTING Ringrose himself. Simply been in contact with the thigh does not necessarily mean he is lifting anything. Clearly the panel understand this though as they could of just said the card stands but no ban is needed due to 1st offence and clearly no intent. Instead they have overturned the card which clearly states they do not believe he actually lifted the player.

If you look at the view from behind there is an initial hit them there is a deliberate leg lift.

1:06 onwards on the video above - you see his arms deliberately lifting the legs then he drops his shoulder down. The leg lift goes against momentum so is deliberate!

I have looked at it, frame by frame, and between 1.08 and 1.09 Ringrose's feet leave the floor before Steff has even completed wrapping his arms in the tackle, this to me indicates that Ringrose actually jumped into the tackle and contributed to the lifting effect himself. Unfortunately this tendency to jump into a tackle is becoming far more prevalent due to the automatic Red card directive.

Now you are just being ridiculous

marty2086 wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:There appears to be no similarity in that pic of the McClosky tackle whatsoever, the tackled player there is completely upside down and been dropped, Ringrose never went over anywhere near that far and was not dropped.
But hey why let simple facts get in the way.

The similarity is a second contributing player, no one said they were exactly the same

And you seem to be doing a find job of ignoring the simple fact that Ringrose was dropped on his head

No he landed head 1st after discounting the hand that he actually got to ground fractionally prior, at no time was he DROPPED!

marty2086 wrote:Now you are just being ridiculous

Not in the opinion of the panel of experts though clearly.

2ndtimeround wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Now you are just being ridiculous

Not in the opinion of the panel of experts though clearly.

Really? Because they make no mention of Ringrose jumping just pulled it out of thin air so yes are being ridiculous

2ndtimeround wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:There appears to be no similarity in that pic of the McClosky tackle whatsoever, the tackled player there is completely upside down and been dropped, Ringrose never went over anywhere near that far and was not dropped.
But hey why let simple facts get in the way.

The similarity is a second contributing player, no one said they were exactly the same

And you seem to be doing a find job of ignoring the simple fact that Ringrose was dropped on his head

No he landed head 1st after discounting the hand that he actually got to ground fractionally prior, at no time was he DROPPED!

Just because he was holding on doesn't mean he wasn't dropped

marty2086 wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:There appears to be no similarity in that pic of the McClosky tackle whatsoever, the tackled player there is completely upside down and been dropped, Ringrose never went over anywhere near that far and was not dropped.
But hey why let simple facts get in the way.

The similarity is a second contributing player, no one said they were exactly the same

And you seem to be doing a find job of ignoring the simple fact that Ringrose was dropped on his head

No he landed head 1st after discounting the hand that he actually got to ground fractionally prior, at no time was he DROPPED!

Just because he was holding on doesn't mean he wasn't dropped

Yet it does mean he was lifting him though !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It does, he lifted him beyond the horizontal which caused him to drop his upper body head first into the ground, see you finally figured it out

marty2086 wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Now you are just being ridiculous

Not in the opinion of the panel of experts though clearly.

Really? Because they make no mention of Ringrose jumping just pulled it out of thin air so yes are being ridiculous

Feel free to pause and view the frames on 1.08 and 1.09, he clearly does not have a grip capable of lifting a player who I would imagine weighs around 95kg.

marty2086 wrote:It does, he lifted him beyond the horizontal which caused him to drop his upper body head first into the ground, see you finally figured it out

You have it your way pal, I'll just leave it at knowing the Professional Panel see it mine and not worry to much about the opinions of a few disgruntled posters.

2ndtimeround wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Now you are just being ridiculous

Not in the opinion of the panel of experts though clearly.

Really? Because they make no mention of Ringrose jumping just pulled it out of thin air so yes are being ridiculous

Feel free to pause and view the frames on 1.08 and 1.09, he clearly does not have a grip capable of lifting a player who I would imagine weighs around 95kg.

Not familiar with physics or any form of grappling then, its a poorly executed double leg

marty2086 wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:There appears to be no similarity in that pic of the McClosky tackle whatsoever, the tackled player there is completely upside down and been dropped, Ringrose never went over anywhere near that far and was not dropped.
But hey why let simple facts get in the way.

The similarity is a second contributing player, no one said they were exactly the same

And you seem to be doing a find job of ignoring the simple fact that Ringrose was dropped on his head

No he landed head 1st after discounting the hand that he actually got to ground fractionally prior, at no time was he DROPPED!

Just because he was holding on doesn't mean he wasn't dropped

Drop
verb
past tense: dropped; past participle: dropped
1. let or make (something) fall vertically.
"the fire was caused by someone dropping a lighted cigarette"
2. fall vertically.
"the spoon dropped with a clatter from her hand"
synonyms: drip, fall in drops, fall, dribble, trickle, drizzle, flow, run, plop, leak

Hold
verb
verb: hold; 3rd person present: holds; past tense: held; past participle: held; gerund or present participle: holding
1. grasp, carry, or support with one's arms or hands.
"she was holding a brown leather suitcase"
synonyms: clasp, hold on to, clutch, grasp, grip, clench, cling to, have in one's hand; More
carry, bear;

Are those not the opposites of each other?

Did Ringrose fall vertically? Yes

Did Evans grasp him? Yes

So both things can be true at the same time

marty2086 wrote:Did Ringrose fall vertically? Yes

Did Evans grasp him? Yes

So both things can be true at the same time

Fall
verb
verb: fall; 3rd person present: falls; past tense: fell; gerund or present participle: falling; past participle: fallen
1. move from a higher to a lower level, typically rapidly and without control.
"bombs could be seen falling from the planes"
synonyms: drop, drop down, plummet, descend, come down, go down, plunge, sink, dive, nosedive, tumble, pitch;

For once on this thread you are actually correct

I personally would not have classed falling as that, but you are technically correct there. A bit like how you are technically incorrect with your view point on the red being recinded. But i somehow can't see you accepting that.

Well maybe you can explain how I am technically incorrect?

marty2086 wrote:Well maybe you can explain how I am technically incorrect?

"A Disciplinary Panel convened in Edinburgh this morning to consider the red card decision against Steff Evans.

"The incident occurred during Scarlets' Guinness PRO12 Semi-Final against Leinster Rugby at the RDS Arena on Friday, May 19 when referee Marius Mitrea deemed the player to have committed an act of foul play against an opponent player (No 13).

"The Disciplinary Panel - Roddy Dunlop QC (Chair), Roddy MacLeod and Iain Leslie (all Scotland) - decided, by a majority, that the Player undertook a lawful tackle in a manner that was consistent with the laws of the game.

"The tackle only became dangerous as a result of the intervention of Scarlets No 3 (Samson Lee).

"The Panel having directed itself under reference to the decision of the Appeal Committee in Ross Ford and Jonny Gray (RWC 2015) decided, by a majority, that this meant that the red card should be rescinded.

"The player is therefore free to play."

this time taken from http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/news/38866.php#.WSauw02GO70


Now this is the official line of what occured, not anyone on heres personal opinion (with or without bias). The official line is that it was not a red card offence, so the red card was recinded. The official line is tha the tackle was not dangerous, before the intervention of Samson Lee. And the official line is the there is a precident set, which the citing panel went by.

So every single comment that you have made in contrast to those have been technically incorrect.

It doesn't mean Im actually incorrect though, since it was Evans who took the legs above the horizontal which was the dangerous part, Lee contributed to the tackle but didn't make it dangerous not mitigate Evans culpability

So I'll leave you to argue away to your hearts content but the truth is, the committee were sympathetic to him, the laws are an arse and Evans got bloody lucky which many others don't

marty2086 wrote:It doesn't mean Im actually incorrect though, since it was Evans who took the legs above the horizontal which was the dangerous part, Lee contributed to the tackle but didn't make it dangerous not mitigate Evans culpability

So I'll leave you to argue away to your hearts content but the truth is, the committee were sympathetic to him, the laws are an arse and Evans got bloody lucky which many others don't

Sorry, when did i tell you your were actually incorrect, or when did you ask me to prove you were actually incorrect. The word was technically.

Can you prove the panel were 'sympathetic' to him? It is only fair. I provided you with proof, so go on humour me and do the same

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:It doesn't mean Im actually incorrect though, since it was Evans who took the legs above the horizontal which was the dangerous part, Lee contributed to the tackle but didn't make it dangerous not mitigate Evans culpability

So I'll leave you to argue away to your hearts content but the truth is, the committee were sympathetic to him, the laws are an arse and Evans got bloody lucky which many others don't

Sorry, when did i tell you your were actually incorrect, or when did you ask me to prove you were actually incorrect.  The word was technically.

Can you prove the panel were 'sympathetic' to him?  It is only fair.  I provided you with proof, so go on humour me and do the same

You mean other than the judgement contradicting the laws?

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:It doesn't mean Im actually incorrect though, since it was Evans who took the legs above the horizontal which was the dangerous part, Lee contributed to the tackle but didn't make it dangerous not mitigate Evans culpability

So I'll leave you to argue away to your hearts content but the truth is, the committee were sympathetic to him, the laws are an arse and Evans got bloody lucky which many others don't

Sorry, when did i tell you your were actually incorrect, or when did you ask me to prove you were actually incorrect.  The word was technically.

Can you prove the panel were 'sympathetic' to him?  It is only fair.  I provided you with proof, so go on humour me and do the same

You mean other than the judgement contradicting the laws?

Proof and precidents? Or more personal belief and conjecture?

Proof? Go look up the laws, there are plenty of precedents a simple google search and that should keep you busy for a while

The problem comes now that I presume that the citing window has passed before the review so lee can no longer be banned? Bit of a loop hole.

LordDowlais wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:2nd time, if it's any good the citing board agree with you.  So that's the main thing.

I cannot fathom how bitter some, not all, fans still are over last Friday nights result.

I haven't seen one Leinster/Irish fan bitter over Friday night's result on this forum. I've only seen those fans angry at their own team's performance. Care to highlight any examples?

I can point you to some bitter comments from others who wish to paint a different picture to suit their agenda though. Hopefully that isn't what you're doing as well, Dowlais.

marty2086 wrote:Proof? Go look up the laws, there are plenty of precedents a simple google search and that should keep you busy for a while

Not sure what that has to do with your earlier claims. The question i asked you was c"an you prove the panel were 'sympathetic' to him?", and i appreciate i am not a wizz with computers, but i can't find anything on google that supports your claim. Well actually i can, I have seen a handful of links to peoples opinions but not facts.

Come on Marty, i was nice enought to prove you were technically wrong, are you not going to be a good sport and prove that you are technically right?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:2nd time, if it's any good the citing board agree with you.  So that's the main thing.

I cannot fathom how bitter some, not all, fans still are over last Friday nights result.

I haven't seen one Leinster/Irish fan bitter over Friday night's result on this forum. I've only seen those fans angry at their own team's performance. Care to highlight any examples?

I can point you to some bitter comments from others who wish to paint a different picture to suit their agenda though. Hopefully that isn't what you're doing as well, Dowlais.

If you would please. Just so we can see the difference between bitter and angry

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:2nd time, if it's any good the citing board agree with you.  So that's the main thing.

I cannot fathom how bitter some, not all, fans still are over last Friday nights result.

I haven't seen one Leinster/Irish fan bitter over Friday night's result on this forum. I've only seen those fans angry at their own team's performance. Care to highlight any examples?

I can point you to some bitter comments from others who wish to paint a different picture to suit their agenda though. Hopefully that isn't what you're doing as well, Dowlais.

where have I mentioned the words Ireland or Leinster ?

It doesn't look as though they are saying Lee was at fault (which he clearly wasn't), just that Ringrose being dumped on his head was the result of an unfortunate co-incidence of events, which can happen. That isn't the way it seemed to me at the time, but I assume they looked at it very carefully and came to that view. The idea that they deliberately let Stef Evans off is unlikely. It isn't a panel that had any reason to favour him.

marty2086 wrote:It doesn't mean Im actually incorrect though, since it was Evans who took the legs above the horizontal which was the dangerous part, Lee contributed to the tackle but didn't make it dangerous not mitigate Evans culpability

So is this dangerous /  a red card offence? Because this, in my opinion (and probably the panel's) is what the tackle would have looked like if Samson Lee had not intervened

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:It doesn't mean Im actually incorrect though, since it was Evans who took the legs above the horizontal which was the dangerous part, Lee contributed to the tackle but didn't make it dangerous not mitigate Evans culpability

So is this dangerous /  a red card offence? Because this, in my opinion (and probably the panel's) is what the tackle would have looked like if Samson Lee had not intervened

Doubt it.

For one, I don't imagine Steff Evans would transform into a 110kg Samoan mid tackle...

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Proof? Go look up the laws, there are plenty of precedents a simple google search and that should keep you busy for a while

Not sure what that has to do with your earlier claims.  The question i asked you was c"an you prove the panel were 'sympathetic' to him?", and i appreciate i am not a wizz with computers, but i can't find anything on google that supports your claim.  Well actually i can, I have seen a handful of links to peoples opinions but not facts.

Come on Marty, i was nice enought to prove you were technically wrong, are you not going to be a good sport and prove that you are technically right?  

Well actually I wasn't technically wrong, my opinion of it differed from the panel but was the same as the ref

I pointed you in the direction of where to see they were sympathetic to him given that by the law he was still culpable as he took the legs past the horizontal which is what made the tackle dangerous, you know this but just refuse to acknowledge it

miaow wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:It doesn't mean Im actually incorrect though, since it was Evans who took the legs above the horizontal which was the dangerous part, Lee contributed to the tackle but didn't make it dangerous not mitigate Evans culpability

So is this dangerous /  a red card offence? Because this, in my opinion (and probably the panel's) is what the tackle would have looked like if Samson Lee had not intervened

Doubt it.

For one, I don't imagine Steff Evans would transform into a 110kg Samoan mid tackle...

But presumably you think Tuilagi should have been sent off given your comments on "taking the legs beyond the horizontal" ?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:It doesn't mean Im actually incorrect though, since it was Evans who took the legs above the horizontal which was the dangerous part, Lee contributed to the tackle but didn't make it dangerous not mitigate Evans culpability

So is this dangerous /  a red card offence? Because this, in my opinion (and probably the panel's) is what the tackle would have looked like if Samson Lee had not intervened

Except it wouldn't look like that since Ringrose was already heading sideways before Lee engaged and little input in how it ended up

RugbyFan100 wrote:

miaow wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:It doesn't mean Im actually incorrect though, since it was Evans who took the legs above the horizontal which was the dangerous part, Lee contributed to the tackle but didn't make it dangerous not mitigate Evans culpability

So is this dangerous /  a red card offence? Because this, in my opinion (and probably the panel's) is what the tackle would have looked like if Samson Lee had not intervened

Doubt it.

For one, I don't imagine Steff Evans would transform into a 110kg Samoan mid tackle...

But presumably you think Tuilagi should have been sent off given your comments on "taking the legs beyond the horizontal" ?

That's a yellow card as he didn't land on his head

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Proof? Go look up the laws, there are plenty of precedents a simple google search and that should keep you busy for a while

Not sure what that has to do with your earlier claims.  The question i asked you was c"an you prove the panel were 'sympathetic' to him?", and i appreciate i am not a wizz with computers, but i can't find anything on google that supports your claim.  Well actually i can, I have seen a handful of links to peoples opinions but not facts.

Come on Marty, i was nice enought to prove you were technically wrong, are you not going to be a good sport and prove that you are technically right?  

Well actually I wasn't technically wrong, my opinion of it differed from the panel but was the same as the ref

I pointed you in the direction of where to see they were sympathetic to him given that by the law he was still culpable as he took the legs past the horizontal which is what made the tackle dangerous, you know this but just refuse to acknowledge it

You made assumptions and guesses. That is not proof, and there won't be any either. Guess i'll just have to go to ignoring you again, as you can't seem to back anything up other than continuing in a circular arguement based on nothing.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Proof? Go look up the laws, there are plenty of precedents a simple google search and that should keep you busy for a while

Not sure what that has to do with your earlier claims.  The question i asked you was c"an you prove the panel were 'sympathetic' to him?", and i appreciate i am not a wizz with computers, but i can't find anything on google that supports your claim.  Well actually i can, I have seen a handful of links to peoples opinions but not facts.

Come on Marty, i was nice enought to prove you were technically wrong, are you not going to be a good sport and prove that you are technically right?  

Well actually I wasn't technically wrong, my opinion of it differed from the panel but was the same as the ref

I pointed you in the direction of where to see they were sympathetic to him given that by the law he was still culpable as he took the legs past the horizontal which is what made the tackle dangerous, you know this but just refuse to acknowledge it

You made assumptions and guesses.  That is not proof, and there won't be any either.  Guess i'll just have to go to ignoring you again, as you can't seem to back anything up other than continuing in a circular arguement based on nothing.

Of course it was an assumption, based on the fact he did wrong and wasn't punished contrary to all but one other judgement handed down

marty2086 wrote:

Of course it was an assumption, based on the fact he did wrong and wasn't punished contrary to all but one other judgement handed down

Where are ALL these other similar judgments handed down to 2 defenders that cause imbalance in the tackle?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Of course it was an assumption, based on the fact he did wrong and wasn't punished contrary to all but one other judgement handed down

Where are ALL these other similar judgments handed down to 2 defenders that cause imbalance in the tackle?

All ready posted one, I could post more but can't be assed

Also Lee didn't cause the imbalance that was Evans lifting the legs

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:2nd time, if it's any good the citing board agree with you.  So that's the main thing.

I cannot fathom how bitter some, not all, fans still are over last Friday nights result.

I haven't seen one Leinster/Irish fan bitter over Friday night's result on this forum. I've only seen those fans angry at their own team's performance. Care to highlight any examples?

I can point you to some bitter comments from others who wish to paint a different picture to suit their agenda though. Hopefully that isn't what you're doing as well, Dowlais.

If you would please.  Just so we can see the difference between bitter and angry

For you, that is rather simple. Check your posting history for bitterness. As for angry, well, it is normal for anyone to be frustrated by their team when they play well all year and then play at their very worst when they needed to be at their best. And of course, for further clarification, when one is annoyed at their own team performing badly, that isn't to take away from the opposition, who may well have been brilliant themselves.

That simple enough?

Rory, so that's an outright insult and a load of waffle. Ok, thanks for being of assistance.

A load of waffle it may be, but apparently that is what is needed for some. Or do you care to retract your nonsense from last weekend and acknowledge that in no way did I undermine the performance of the Scarlets and in fact think they deserve to be in the final?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Proof? Go look up the laws, there are plenty of precedents a simple google search and that should keep you busy for a while

Not sure what that has to do with your earlier claims.  The question i asked you was c"an you prove the panel were 'sympathetic' to him?", and i appreciate i am not a wizz with computers, but i can't find anything on google that supports your claim.  Well actually i can, I have seen a handful of links to peoples opinions but not facts.

Come on Marty, i was nice enought to prove you were technically wrong, are you not going to be a good sport and prove that you are technically right?  

Well actually I wasn't technically wrong, my opinion of it differed from the panel but was the same as the ref

I pointed you in the direction of where to see they were sympathetic to him given that by the law he was still culpable as he took the legs past the horizontal which is what made the tackle dangerous, you know this but just refuse to acknowledge it

You made assumptions and guesses.  That is not proof, and there won't be any either.  Guess i'll just have to go to ignoring you again, as you can't seem to back anything up other than continuing in a circular arguement based on nothing.

That's marty for you.

LordDowlais wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Proof? Go look up the laws, there are plenty of precedents a simple google search and that should keep you busy for a while

Not sure what that has to do with your earlier claims.  The question i asked you was c"an you prove the panel were 'sympathetic' to him?", and i appreciate i am not a wizz with computers, but i can't find anything on google that supports your claim.  Well actually i can, I have seen a handful of links to peoples opinions but not facts.

Come on Marty, i was nice enought to prove you were technically wrong, are you not going to be a good sport and prove that you are technically right?  

Well actually I wasn't technically wrong, my opinion of it differed from the panel but was the same as the ref

I pointed you in the direction of where to see they were sympathetic to him given that by the law he was still culpable as he took the legs past the horizontal which is what made the tackle dangerous, you know this but just refuse to acknowledge it

You made assumptions and guesses.  That is not proof, and there won't be any either.  Guess i'll just have to go to ignoring you again, as you can't seem to back anything up other than continuing in a circular arguement based on nothing.

That's marty for you.

Wales answer to Donald Trump is back

Rory_Gallagher wrote:A load of waffle it may be, but apparently that is what is needed for some. Or do you care to retract your nonsense from last weekend and acknowledge that in no way did I undermine the performance of the Scarlets and in fact think they deserve to be in the final?

Nah, I tend to stick to my guns, and if I remember I wasn't alone in the assessment you were off the mark. If I remember right there were a number of posts removed from that thread. All of mine seem to still be there, how about you.

And thank you again, I assume by harping back to old threads you are trying to show me what bitter posts look like. Much appreciated

Nope, didn't think you would be man enough to own up to mistakes. As you were.

And good luck in the final.

Thank you Rory let's hope for a good game with both teams performing to their potential.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Thank you Rory let's hope for a good game with both teams performing to their potential.

Good comments on this thread SS. Let's also hope that the Irish crowd don't act like bitter football fans after years of accusing us Welsh of just that.

Lol.

mikey_dragon wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Thank you Rory let's hope for a good game with both teams performing to their potential.

Good comments on this thread SS. Let's also hope that the Irish crowd don't act like bitter football fans after years of accusing us Welsh of just that.

Well that depends on whether you think Welsh fans were acting like bitter football fans. If you think they weren't, then you'll think the Irish won't be. If you think they were, then you'll think the Irish Crowd will be.

Hopefully.

Meanwhile, I'll be sitting in the crowd wishing the best team to win.

Looking forward to it.

mikey_dragon wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Thank you Rory let's hope for a good game with both teams performing to their potential.

Good comments on this thread SS. Let's also hope that the Irish crowd don't act like bitter football fans after years of accusing us Welsh of just that.

TBH, when I was watching BOTH semi finals, it felt as though the home fans were watching a pantomime the way they were booing and hissing, oh and the fact they never boo the kicker, don't make me laugh, when Liam Williams was stepping up to kick his pen the booing was in full force, but in fairness, I did here a lot of Shhhs following the booing.

The thing is, none of us have the right to get on our high horses in this regard, but lets not pretend we are all holier than thou when it happens.

If you lot haven't noticed, you are the ones who continually bring up this crap about crowds and booing and all the rest of it. But since you have brought it up, Irish crowds still don't chant "cheat" and I'm very glad they don't. So no, they aren't the same.

Anyway, hopefully the atmosphere will be good for tomorrow's game and no red cards please.

EDIT - can mods please not edit my posts without my permission? And try not to take everything so seriously. I'm sure they can handle being called morons from time to time.