Monday, February 15, 2010
Jerry Flannery cited for kick at Alexis Palisson's legs
Ireland hooker Jerry Flannery has been cited for his moment of madness against France on the weekend which resulted in French winger Alexis Palisson needing to leave the field injured.
Flannery will appear before a Six Nations independent committee after he was cited for the alleged kick at the Stade de France on Saturday. The hearing will take place this week, and doesnt look good for Flannery, or Ireland, as there's no doubt he'll be getting a few weeks on the sideline.
Incredibly, he was only penalised at the time, with both referee Wayne Barnes and his assistant ref failing to see the incident clearly. In fact, the touchjudge said it was a shoulder, and Flannery stayed on the field.
A red card should have been issued at the time, so Flannery will definitely be in hot water at the hearing later this week, as hell struggle to explain how he took a flyhack at a ball that was bouncing around a good few seconds before Palisson cleanly collected it.
Flannery looked apologetic, as though it were an accident, but you can clearly see that he had plenty of time to pull out of the challenge. That makes it all the more puzzling.
Such a fuss was made of the trip that Alun Wyn Jones made when England played Wales a week back, and the impact it had on his teams chances in the match.
That misdemeanour simply doesnt compare to this incident, and Ireland will surely play the rest of the championship without Flannerys services, perhaps further wrecking their hopes of a successful campaign, following on from a heavy 33-10 defeat to the French.
UPDATE 17 FEB 2010 :
Flannery has been suspended for six weeks. You can read more about it here.
Time: 01:59
Posted at 1:06 pm | 158 comments
|
Related Posts
Alun Wyn Jones retained despite Gatland's threat
Jerry Flannery stamp on Julien Bonnaire
|
|
Viewing 158 comments
Julien February 15, 2010 2:28 pm
red card.. oh no sorry, only for french players!
JPM February 15, 2010 2:35 pm
Late and very clumsy. What the heck did the touch judge see..."no arms tackle"?????? wtf
j b ellisalde February 15, 2010 2:37 pm
what was going through his head when he thought about doing that very strange and very stupid bye bye 6 nations flannery
Anonymous February 15, 2010 2:44 pm
Well, at least:
* It demonstrated how the french team was clearly superior that day wining 15 men against 15 (for 70 minutes after a well deserved yellow card for Irish #1 few minutes before)
* It's a test of the independance of the disciplinary comission. Let's see if all these french are right when they say these commisions are clearly anti-french.
Sad thing is the assistant refree. Just a shoulder...hmmm
On BCC, they called it Flannery's Cantona moment.
* It demonstrated how the french team was clearly superior that day wining 15 men against 15 (for 70 minutes after a well deserved yellow card for Irish #1 few minutes before)
* It's a test of the independance of the disciplinary comission. Let's see if all these french are right when they say these commisions are clearly anti-french.
Sad thing is the assistant refree. Just a shoulder...hmmm
On BCC, they called it Flannery's Cantona moment.
HM February 15, 2010 3:14 pm
I'm not going to lie, when you watch it first time, at full speed, and not knowing when something's going to happen (even given that we knew there was going to be a kick), it looks somewhat like a shouldercharge, especailly in terms of the way the French guy flips over.
Also, you just don't expect a kick like that - I tend to expect trips as a sort of last ditch attempt at a player that's too far away to reach when the 'tackler' is off balance.
Also, you just don't expect a kick like that - I tend to expect trips as a sort of last ditch attempt at a player that's too far away to reach when the 'tackler' is off balance.
3/4 centre February 15, 2010 3:14 pm
Srieusement, Julien, arrtons de nous ridiculiser en criant l'injustice chaque fois... surtout lorsque l'on gagne trs largement. Flannery a t cit, on verra bien sa punition. Et a fait bien longtemps que les franais ne se sont pas pris de cartons, en plus!
Geoff' February 15, 2010 3:26 pm
Julien...
Com'on...arrtons un peu! Ce n'est pas serieux de dire qu'il ne va rien prendre. ur le coup l'arbitre n'a pas vu...bon ben c'est comme a. (le juge de ligne moins bien...)
Let's see what he gets before saying anything. He was cited. That's one step.
Does anyone know if he already has been cited for this type of misconduct? I would like to better understand the possible decisions.
Cantona's moment! very good :-)
Com'on...arrtons un peu! Ce n'est pas serieux de dire qu'il ne va rien prendre. ur le coup l'arbitre n'a pas vu...bon ben c'est comme a. (le juge de ligne moins bien...)
Let's see what he gets before saying anything. He was cited. That's one step.
Does anyone know if he already has been cited for this type of misconduct? I would like to better understand the possible decisions.
Cantona's moment! very good :-)
Anonymous February 15, 2010 3:36 pm
That was a pretty awesome lowkick actually.
Anonymous February 15, 2010 3:47 pm
So how come Flannery escapes a red if not a yellow, at the very least, but Phil Godman gets a yellow for the smallest amount of contact on Lee Byrne?
but I have to say great weekend of rugby though!!!
but I have to say great weekend of rugby though!!!
Pitseleh February 15, 2010 3:54 pm
At last ! And as I just said on an old topic, please don't say "that's just a bad accident". We heard the same excuses when he stamped on Julien Bonnaire's face.
The fact that he stayed on the field is incredible. Some ref should buy a white stick.
The fact that he stayed on the field is incredible. Some ref should buy a white stick.
Pitseleh February 15, 2010 3:56 pm
Geoff > http://rugbydump.blogspot.com/2008/01/jerry-flannery-stamp-on-julien-bonnaire.html
(just noticed that I missed my login there, erf)
(just noticed that I missed my login there, erf)
Anonymous February 15, 2010 4:11 pm
This faul was very ...very disturbing. This compares with a defender punching in the face the ball-holder who is going around him.
Anonymous February 15, 2010 4:15 pm
wtf?? Phil Godman gets yellow for jumping in the air near Lee Byrne. And flannery gets nothing?????????????????????????? so far this years the levels of reffing have been odd, and vary greatly from match to match
Conor February 15, 2010 4:39 pm
We went through the same thing in the Autumn Bowe was hit with a high tackle so was Luke Mclean and Martin Roberts. Dan Carter was cited and banded for the tackle on Roberts, Faafili got red carded for the tackle on mc Lean and JP got nothing?
Indifference in the ref's is shocking ref's from the guinness prem with top 14 refs and magners league, they can't ref the scrum, the brake down or anything really
Indifference in the ref's is shocking ref's from the guinness prem with top 14 refs and magners league, they can't ref the scrum, the brake down or anything really
Anonymous February 15, 2010 5:00 pm
did he suddenly think he was inside an octagon or something he needs reminding that M M A is normally 1 on 1 not 15
ps
any one started the free Andy powell campaign yet
ps
any one started the free Andy powell campaign yet
Dozzy_X February 15, 2010 5:00 pm
I think he was aiming to kick the ball, if you watch it in real time, look when he winds the kick up, the ball is still loose, his movement is so ridiculously slow that he still follows through and Palisson gets crunked up. Only explanation i can see.
Flannery, not being new to disiplinary measures, will get hit with 8 weeks i reckon, and deservidly so. x
Flannery, not being new to disiplinary measures, will get hit with 8 weeks i reckon, and deservidly so. x
Anonymous February 15, 2010 5:02 pm
Ah! The hand of Thierry Henry, and now the kick of Jerry Flannery!!
Take care, Mr Earls.
Now back to Flannery: maybe ERC committee would state the same than Attoub: it's not the first time that Flannery hits instead of playing. Then they shall request a 70weeks stop!
Take care, Mr Earls.
Now back to Flannery: maybe ERC committee would state the same than Attoub: it's not the first time that Flannery hits instead of playing. Then they shall request a 70weeks stop!
Anonymous February 15, 2010 5:39 pm
It's not Julien Bonnaire !
It's Alexis Palisson !
It's Alexis Palisson !
Ted February 15, 2010 5:47 pm
The thing about reffing inconsistency is that they're all different games with different refs. There is a similar level of inconsistency at the breakdown as we know, where refs could give penalties either way depending on their POV. The ref at the time didn't have the benefit of the video playback...
As everyone says, let's wait for the citing blokes to have their say. If there's inconsistency from them then there's no excuse.
As everyone says, let's wait for the citing blokes to have their say. If there's inconsistency from them then there's no excuse.
Anonymous February 15, 2010 5:54 pm
one of the highlights of the game...it was hilarious! great to see a frenchie getting a good kicking hahahaha
Pitseleh February 15, 2010 6:01 pm
Anonymous > The final score was the funniest thing of the day. Comments from douchebags like you are music for my ears so please, one more.
Disco February 15, 2010 6:11 pm
I don't understand these references to refereeing inconsistencies. How can someone who is always right be inconsistent?
Le Brack February 15, 2010 6:23 pm
Hang on, the reason Flannery didn't get sent off at the time was not because the ref clearly saw the incident and decided it was only worth a penalty. It was because the incident wasn't properly seen and only deemed to be a shoulder charge... I don't think we can count this as inconsistent carding... He's correctly been cited and that's what the citing process is there for...
Pitseleh February 15, 2010 6:33 pm
The decision just came : 15 seconds-ban. M. Flannery told to the press that he's gonna make an appeal.
Lucas February 15, 2010 6:34 pm
Does anyone know which authority will judge this ? The IRB ? And if there is any page that sums up such decisions ?(like for the Heineken cup : http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/5019_4862.php)
paddy87 February 15, 2010 6:36 pm
It's a rugby match not a tickling competition. JF acted on impulse, he did what he had to and stopped his man. There's a massive difference between that and sticking your fingers in someones eyes.
Anonymous February 15, 2010 6:50 pm
70 week like attoub should be fair no?
In all the case, when France fake the game with a hand again Irland, no one is injured!
In all the case, when France fake the game with a hand again Irland, no one is injured!
Anonymous February 15, 2010 6:51 pm
A truly bizarre moment.
Also, please leave your judgment of the citing commission until AFTER they make a decision. Stop pretending you know everything. Yes he escaped a red card, but that's because neither the ref or the assistant saw it clearly - it says so in the write up!
Also, please leave your judgment of the citing commission until AFTER they make a decision. Stop pretending you know everything. Yes he escaped a red card, but that's because neither the ref or the assistant saw it clearly - it says so in the write up!
Va Va booommmmmmmm February 15, 2010 6:53 pm
pay back after the old theirry henry incident... hahahahaha... good man jerry....
Pitseleh February 15, 2010 6:54 pm
"There's a massive difference between that and sticking your fingers in someones eyes."
Yes : in a case, the other player had to quit the game.
"JF acted on impulse, he did what he had to and stopped his man."
It's a rugby match, not a free style competition.
Yes : in a case, the other player had to quit the game.
"JF acted on impulse, he did what he had to and stopped his man."
It's a rugby match, not a free style competition.
Anonymous February 15, 2010 7:02 pm
to Va Va booommmmmmmm
In both case France WIN ;-)
haha
In both case France WIN ;-)
haha
istya February 15, 2010 7:12 pm
It looks to me like he was going to kick the ball, and just had tunnel vision on it, so he didn't see Palisson. If he were really trying to kick out Palisson's legs, I think he'd have been much more subtle about it.
UK! February 15, 2010 7:48 pm
i really do not want France to win the six nations. i hate basteraud!! stinky player
MOD February 15, 2010 7:55 pm
At 1:08 you can clearly see that his foot has got stuck in a divot. His leg obviously kicking out like that as a reflex to get out of the divot. Happened to me many times.
The French just love to make a meal out of these situations, even going off 'injured' to get poor old Jezza cited.
J'adore la perroquet. Mon pere s'appelle Pat et ma mere s'appelle Christine. J'aime le fromage. Je joue au rugby. J'ai deux chien. J'taime.
The French just love to make a meal out of these situations, even going off 'injured' to get poor old Jezza cited.
J'adore la perroquet. Mon pere s'appelle Pat et ma mere s'appelle Christine. J'aime le fromage. Je joue au rugby. J'ai deux chien. J'taime.
Charles o'carroll ke February 15, 2010 7:57 pm
Don't think it was intentional.
50/50 ball clearly just had already commited,
dramatised by the french actor who later went of as a tactical sub
50/50 ball clearly just had already commited,
dramatised by the french actor who later went of as a tactical sub
goodNumber10 February 15, 2010 8:04 pm
It shouldn't be funny, but for some reason it is.
Terrible terrible thing, what on earth was he thinking, but it's the little pat on the chest as if to say "no worries mate2 that just makes me guffaw every time.
Terrible terrible thing, what on earth was he thinking, but it's the little pat on the chest as if to say "no worries mate2 that just makes me guffaw every time.
Pitseleh February 15, 2010 8:06 pm
"dramatised by the french actor who later went of as a tactical sub"
A tactical substitution after 20 minutes... Hope that most of Irish coachs get more tactical intelligence than you.
Many people would think that Ferris is a far greatest actor : he even didn't have to be hurt to get 3 players banned.
A tactical substitution after 20 minutes... Hope that most of Irish coachs get more tactical intelligence than you.
Many people would think that Ferris is a far greatest actor : he even didn't have to be hurt to get 3 players banned.
Calon Lan February 15, 2010 8:10 pm
Anonymous
any one started the free Andy powell campaign yet
I've been campaigning for months to get him locked up and separated from the Welsh team. You have no idea how difficult it was to set up this whole stolen golf cart escapade.
The only thing I was worried about is that nobody would believe that he managed to find his way to a service station that far away from the hotel as he's never shown any sense of direction while on a rugby pitch.
He didn't really stand a chance when the police handed him the breathalyser though, he dropped it twelve times and fell over without anybody touching him. It made them think he'd been drinking but the rest of us know that he does exactly the same every time he get's hold of a rugby ball.
PS - Anybody got any ideas how to get Gareth Cooper into a golf cart?
Seriously, I'll pay you!!!
any one started the free Andy powell campaign yet
I've been campaigning for months to get him locked up and separated from the Welsh team. You have no idea how difficult it was to set up this whole stolen golf cart escapade.
The only thing I was worried about is that nobody would believe that he managed to find his way to a service station that far away from the hotel as he's never shown any sense of direction while on a rugby pitch.
He didn't really stand a chance when the police handed him the breathalyser though, he dropped it twelve times and fell over without anybody touching him. It made them think he'd been drinking but the rest of us know that he does exactly the same every time he get's hold of a rugby ball.
PS - Anybody got any ideas how to get Gareth Cooper into a golf cart?
Seriously, I'll pay you!!!
Anonymous February 15, 2010 8:13 pm
"JF acted on impulse, he did what he had to and stopped his man. "
Hahaha! Funny! As far as i know kicking your opponent is not allowed in rugby, idiot. How can you find that normal???
Hahaha! Funny! As far as i know kicking your opponent is not allowed in rugby, idiot. How can you find that normal???
Anonymous February 15, 2010 8:18 pm
Some irish comments are unreal... How can you guys find an excuse to JF? That's a fukin intentional kick have you got some shit in the eyes????????
Anonymous February 15, 2010 8:21 pm
What the hell is wrong with Jerry's tackle? Nothing. Same old french, always cheating, acting up for the referee to get a penalty. Obviously not MAN ENOUGH for rugby and have to resort to cheating
Flooz February 15, 2010 8:34 pm
It's a bit silly to search polemic here. Erc and IRB are 2 different organisms.
But i can understand the complains when u see that the rules are often hards with the french and soft with others (lee byrne absolution or grewcock 7 little weeks as he was recidivist VS 95 weeks of dupuy and attoub also recidivist)
Flannery will have the ban he deserved but i really wonder how he will defended himself :) oh ah cantona!
But i can understand the complains when u see that the rules are often hards with the french and soft with others (lee byrne absolution or grewcock 7 little weeks as he was recidivist VS 95 weeks of dupuy and attoub also recidivist)
Flannery will have the ban he deserved but i really wonder how he will defended himself :) oh ah cantona!
Pitseleh February 15, 2010 8:38 pm
"Some irish comments are unreal..."
I'm quite sure that these guys aren't Irish. They're just saying bollocks to keep their hands busy, probably because there isn't much to say about their own team.
I'm quite sure that these guys aren't Irish. They're just saying bollocks to keep their hands busy, probably because there isn't much to say about their own team.
r reece February 15, 2010 8:41 pm
calon lan said
PS - Anybody got any ideas how to get Gareth Cooper into a golf cart?
gareth just needs running over with a golf cart
PS - Anybody got any ideas how to get Gareth Cooper into a golf cart?
gareth just needs running over with a golf cart
piopio February 15, 2010 8:55 pm
All the people saying that the assistant ref was wrong in his description of what happened to Wayne Barnes, well that's true. But if you're implying that something is amiss because he mis-read what happened...how many "knock-ons" have been called this week and last that were not really knock-ons (ie - hitting the palyer in the head, chest, legs, etc.)?
There are three of these guys watching the whole field, and sometimes angles obscure what really happened. Also, as it was mentioned here, you don't EXPECT something like this to happen - your first instinct would be that it was a shoulder charge, just as your first instinct would be that it was a knock-on.
In any case, this is up to the citing commission now. I think Flannery is a great hooker and a great rugby player for Ireland, but I think he deserves whatever he gets out of this. According to the IRB sactions list, he could get anywhere between 2-7+ or 4-12+ weeks, depending on whether they go with "kicking an opponent" or "tripping an opponent".
For the record, though, this isn't the same citing committee as for the ERC - so I'm not sure if it's still the same tit Jeff Blackett that gave Attoub a 70 week ban based on a single picture (though I thought Dupuy's ban was good...if not long enough).
There are three of these guys watching the whole field, and sometimes angles obscure what really happened. Also, as it was mentioned here, you don't EXPECT something like this to happen - your first instinct would be that it was a shoulder charge, just as your first instinct would be that it was a knock-on.
In any case, this is up to the citing commission now. I think Flannery is a great hooker and a great rugby player for Ireland, but I think he deserves whatever he gets out of this. According to the IRB sactions list, he could get anywhere between 2-7+ or 4-12+ weeks, depending on whether they go with "kicking an opponent" or "tripping an opponent".
For the record, though, this isn't the same citing committee as for the ERC - so I'm not sure if it's still the same tit Jeff Blackett that gave Attoub a 70 week ban based on a single picture (though I thought Dupuy's ban was good...if not long enough).
Anonymous February 15, 2010 9:19 pm
i'm french (sry about that...)
JF is the best hooker in the competition and even if it is a bit clumsy it really help france to win the game because Palisson was forced to leave the field.
however the fact that he'll probably miss the next game (against england)is probably the worse news ever for the french team...
JF is the best hooker in the competition and even if it is a bit clumsy it really help france to win the game because Palisson was forced to leave the field.
however the fact that he'll probably miss the next game (against england)is probably the worse news ever for the french team...
JJM February 15, 2010 9:19 pm
I really don't understand all the bad feeling that French people have towards the Irish regarding their players getting heavy bans for gouging. The IRB said they were bringing in huge bans for it and a few players gouge Ferris and then get the huge bans they were told would be coming.
Yes Jerry F did something utterly stupid and deserves the ban he gets, but lets not try and make mountains out of molehills here....... its not like he stopped you getting to the world cup.
Yes Jerry F did something utterly stupid and deserves the ban he gets, but lets not try and make mountains out of molehills here....... its not like he stopped you getting to the world cup.
Anonymous February 15, 2010 9:22 pm
"The French just love to make a meal out of these situations, even going off 'injured' to get poor old Jezza cited."
Hilariously wrong but listen mate.
One day during a lions tour in New Zealand, I heard lots of British and Irish complaining against poor old Tana Umaga because he just "touched" one of your beloved golden boy, Brian O'Driscoll.
You made a huge meal out of that situation if I remember well. Oh and that wasn't a lowkick.
"one of the highlights of the game...it was hilarious! great to see a frenchie getting a good kicking hahahaha"
Mate, I can fell a little bit of frustration here, you had a bad weekend ? Disappointed by your own team ? Broke with your dog ? Lost your cellphone ? Tell us, we will help you.
"70 week like attoub should be fair no?
In all the case, when France fake the game with a hand again Irland, no one is injured!"
Err, I thought the pride of some French supporters was badly injured to go at a world cup in this way. Lots of them told me that was a disgrace.
Hilariously wrong but listen mate.
One day during a lions tour in New Zealand, I heard lots of British and Irish complaining against poor old Tana Umaga because he just "touched" one of your beloved golden boy, Brian O'Driscoll.
You made a huge meal out of that situation if I remember well. Oh and that wasn't a lowkick.
"one of the highlights of the game...it was hilarious! great to see a frenchie getting a good kicking hahahaha"
Mate, I can fell a little bit of frustration here, you had a bad weekend ? Disappointed by your own team ? Broke with your dog ? Lost your cellphone ? Tell us, we will help you.
"70 week like attoub should be fair no?
In all the case, when France fake the game with a hand again Irland, no one is injured!"
Err, I thought the pride of some French supporters was badly injured to go at a world cup in this way. Lots of them told me that was a disgrace.
Pitseleh February 15, 2010 9:55 pm
"JF is the best hooker in the competition and even if it is a bit clumsy it really help france to win the game because Palisson was forced to leave the field."
So you're thinking that ending the game with Marty at wing was a good thing for France ? Interesting. Even Bernard Laporte didn't get a such insane idea...
So you're thinking that ending the game with Marty at wing was a good thing for France ? Interesting. Even Bernard Laporte didn't get a such insane idea...
Anonymous February 15, 2010 10:04 pm
he reacts badly to the fallbacks cheap shot on his teammate. No excuse i reckon 3 weeks ban
Michael February 15, 2010 10:31 pm
Fat idiot, what a stupid move. He cost us the game with that and when he came out of position for Jauzion's try
Tom February 15, 2010 10:38 pm
I'm quite surprised actually that it did not finish in a mass brawl!!!
Anonymous February 15, 2010 11:48 pm
I reckon he was trying to kick the ball that was loose, just slow reactions. He is a hooker after all, not a 1st 5.
Matty10 February 15, 2010 11:52 pm
Im irish and i want to just start by saying the french are on fire. Its Probably the mos talented set of backs in the world. Para and Trinh duc have been exceptional and off course you cant forget the two centres of Juazion and Bastaured. The only thing i dont get is where the hell is heymans ? :S but back to the video. Flannery was very stupid with this challenge and i know alot of people say "awh its rugby harden up" but if flanery caught Plassions in the right area of his leg and hit him hard enough that could have been a career ending injury. Im all up for big tackles and strong carries but i think the rugby community needs to relise that we are sliping into the relms of football scum here and all this indiscipline needs to be ironed out by the citing commision.
Pitseleh February 16, 2010 12:07 am
"The only thing i dont get is where the hell is heymans ? :S"
Heymans - like Medard - did average performances these last months. But if our wingers keep on being broken he might be called again. However we still get some good ones like Andreu (very fast) and Donguy (strong and efficient).
Heymans - like Medard - did average performances these last months. But if our wingers keep on being broken he might be called again. However we still get some good ones like Andreu (very fast) and Donguy (strong and efficient).
Gman February 16, 2010 12:25 am
Matty10, WHERE THE HELL IS HEYMANS! You are right buddy! I will be very interested to see what comes out of the comission, especially after all the controversy. Not a comparable offence but David Attoub coped 70 weeks...
sergeant stu February 16, 2010 12:29 am
its a ridiculously stupid foul and he deserves to be cited, (i'm an irishman and will champion flannery until i'm blue in the face). the only slightly redeeming fact is that he instantly realised he'd messed up and checked on pallison.
It was a rush of blood to the head and is inexcusable. he'll be missed givent that we only really have Best to fill in his shoes and Best isn't yet match fit.
It was a rush of blood to the head and is inexcusable. he'll be missed givent that we only really have Best to fill in his shoes and Best isn't yet match fit.
Fionn February 16, 2010 1:33 am
"Don't think it was intentional.
50/50 ball clearly just had already commited,
dramatised by the french actor who later went of as a tactical sub"
Couldnt agree more, typical english ref baying for irish blood. Everyone is making such a meal out of a simple 50/50 and massive dive on the french part. Let's remember rugby is a CONTACT sport!! next the french will be using their hands in football to beat the irish.....oh wait...did that already happen
50/50 ball clearly just had already commited,
dramatised by the french actor who later went of as a tactical sub"
Couldnt agree more, typical english ref baying for irish blood. Everyone is making such a meal out of a simple 50/50 and massive dive on the french part. Let's remember rugby is a CONTACT sport!! next the french will be using their hands in football to beat the irish.....oh wait...did that already happen
Gman February 16, 2010 1:41 am
Fionn, are you leaving football comments on a rugby website? You simply can't be serious when you say that it was a dive! Get serious mate.
Pitseleh February 16, 2010 1:49 am
"next the french will be using their hands in football to beat the irish.....oh wait...did that already happen"
And who cares ? We're talking about rugby. And for your information, rugby players are not allowed to use legs to stop opponents.
Next time I'll teach you the rules about knock-on, good night sweetie.
And who cares ? We're talking about rugby. And for your information, rugby players are not allowed to use legs to stop opponents.
Next time I'll teach you the rules about knock-on, good night sweetie.
Anonymous February 16, 2010 2:09 am
whilst it was reckless i really think it was too blatantly obvious and flannery was far too apologetic for it to be intentional and malicious.....
to me it looked like a massive flyhack of frustration that went wrong......
now french fans no doubt you have no belief in this comment, but dont even try and compare french bans to this...
ofcourse JF will be banned but speak truthfully, im sure you dont believe this was 100% intentional.
to me it looked like a massive flyhack of frustration that went wrong......
now french fans no doubt you have no belief in this comment, but dont even try and compare french bans to this...
ofcourse JF will be banned but speak truthfully, im sure you dont believe this was 100% intentional.
Anonymous February 16, 2010 2:12 am
pitseleh who is this M. flannery you keep mentioning?!
Anonymous February 16, 2010 2:49 am
"Couldnt agree more, typical english ref baying for irish blood. Everyone is making such a meal out of a simple 50/50 and massive dive on the french part. Let's remember rugby is a CONTACT sport!! next the french will be using their hands in football to beat the irish.....oh wait...did that already happen"
Fion, are you aware of rugby rules, just stupid, blind maybe or another guy full of frustration ?
Fion, are you aware of rugby rules, just stupid, blind maybe or another guy full of frustration ?
Anonymous February 16, 2010 5:28 am
Yeah, it's a bad foul but who gives a shit really?
It's not that bloody bad, and I'm glad he didn't get a red card.
For something that soft? Fuck that.
A penalty for that is fine, mayeb a week on the sidelines for being an idiot, but let's not hyperventilater about it.
It's not a big deal.
And I'm a neutral.
It's not that bloody bad, and I'm glad he didn't get a red card.
For something that soft? Fuck that.
A penalty for that is fine, mayeb a week on the sidelines for being an idiot, but let's not hyperventilater about it.
It's not a big deal.
And I'm a neutral.
Tom February 16, 2010 5:30 am
Matty10, as good as the French backline may be, they've got nothing on Aus or Nz in terms of backline play.
Best in the NH, but NZ and Aus are streets ahead.
Best in the NH, but NZ and Aus are streets ahead.
Emmet February 16, 2010 7:58 am
Ireland fan here.
He needs 8weeks ban for this.
One of the stupidest things I've ever seen a rugby player do.
He needs 8weeks ban for this.
One of the stupidest things I've ever seen a rugby player do.
Anonymous February 16, 2010 8:20 am
french fan here
the problem we (french) have is that we fell that there is some injustice. that's why we make such a big deal about it.
two french players (including our best srum half) are excluded for quite a long time for acts that were not half as dangerous as this one.
as said previously it is a test of the independance of the disciplinary comission. compared to attoub he deserves at least 70 weeks supension.
the problem we (french) have is that we fell that there is some injustice. that's why we make such a big deal about it.
two french players (including our best srum half) are excluded for quite a long time for acts that were not half as dangerous as this one.
as said previously it is a test of the independance of the disciplinary comission. compared to attoub he deserves at least 70 weeks supension.
Ben February 16, 2010 9:21 am
I'm completly agree with anonymous just above.
French aren't parano by nature but successions of bad referrings during last year Hcup + the 2 huge bans this year make them feel that ref and bans are not the same for every nations.
French shouldn't be parano. Let IRB does the job. U will have all the time to debate on the sanction :)
PS: i'm quite astonished by few irish reactions here. sour grapes make them say curious things, like confunding 2 sports, 2 spirits..
French aren't parano by nature but successions of bad referrings during last year Hcup + the 2 huge bans this year make them feel that ref and bans are not the same for every nations.
French shouldn't be parano. Let IRB does the job. U will have all the time to debate on the sanction :)
PS: i'm quite astonished by few irish reactions here. sour grapes make them say curious things, like confunding 2 sports, 2 spirits..
Anonymous February 16, 2010 9:26 am
Fucking Umaga the filthy animal... oh wait.
MOD February 16, 2010 9:54 am
The statement I made saying that Palisson made a meal out of it was said in jest, just trying to antagonise people who don't get sarcasm as the Flannery 'tackle' was blatantly a shocker (almost comical in how ridiculous it is).
However it's not really comparable to eye gouging, I don't think there was any great intent in Flannerys actions, just a rush of blood.
"the problem we (french) have is that we fell that there is some injustice. that's why we make such a big deal about it.
two french players (including our best srum half) are excluded for quite a long time for acts that were not half as dangerous as this one.
as said previously it is a test of the independance of the disciplinary comission. compared to attoub he deserves at least 70 weeks supension"
So Ferris needed to be injured for the French players to merit suspension? A player in my local league was blinded by an act of eye gouging, it is the lowest of the low, malicious with blatant intent to injure and needs to be kicked out of the game which is what I think the suspensions are trying to reflect.
However it's not really comparable to eye gouging, I don't think there was any great intent in Flannerys actions, just a rush of blood.
"the problem we (french) have is that we fell that there is some injustice. that's why we make such a big deal about it.
two french players (including our best srum half) are excluded for quite a long time for acts that were not half as dangerous as this one.
as said previously it is a test of the independance of the disciplinary comission. compared to attoub he deserves at least 70 weeks supension"
So Ferris needed to be injured for the French players to merit suspension? A player in my local league was blinded by an act of eye gouging, it is the lowest of the low, malicious with blatant intent to injure and needs to be kicked out of the game which is what I think the suspensions are trying to reflect.
sergeant stu February 16, 2010 10:19 am
alright, bottom line here is that eye gouging and that kick are not the same thing. i personally think the IRB got Attoub and Dupuy's bans mixed up. Dupuy has two goes at Ferris' eyes while Ferris is unprotected in a ruck, cannot see how they feel that they are being discriminated against, unless gouging is a regular occurence in French domestic rugby and they therefore allow it.
The kick's still stupid, but it's not a calculated targetting of someone's eyes.
The kick's still stupid, but it's not a calculated targetting of someone's eyes.
Jon February 16, 2010 10:22 am
Eye gouging is much, much, much worse than this.
This was a stupid play by flannery.
He lost his head it looks like and kicked the guys legs out, it was idiotic, and he deserves a couple of weeks penance on the sideline.
But gouging is way worse, much, much worse.
I'm glad the French prop got 70 weeks, so no one gouges intentionally again.
And I'm Australian, so I have no bias in this.
This was a stupid play by flannery.
He lost his head it looks like and kicked the guys legs out, it was idiotic, and he deserves a couple of weeks penance on the sideline.
But gouging is way worse, much, much worse.
I'm glad the French prop got 70 weeks, so no one gouges intentionally again.
And I'm Australian, so I have no bias in this.
Mike February 16, 2010 1:30 pm
Pitseleh said...
"Some irish comments are unreal..."
I'm quite sure that these guys aren't Irish. They're just saying bollocks to keep their hands busy, probably because there isn't much to say about their own team.
Pitseleh, I think you are right. The feeling of Irish rugby fans is that France were the better team on the day, and they took their chances while we did not.
About Flannery - it looks really bad. The only possible explanation is that he was trying to kick the ball before Palisson grabbed it (I have seen him do this before) but I have not seen a replay of the incident. If this explanation is not possible, he should be banned for some weeks for a dangerous challenge. He was very lucky not to get at least a yellow card in the game, maybe even red.
"Some irish comments are unreal..."
I'm quite sure that these guys aren't Irish. They're just saying bollocks to keep their hands busy, probably because there isn't much to say about their own team.
Pitseleh, I think you are right. The feeling of Irish rugby fans is that France were the better team on the day, and they took their chances while we did not.
About Flannery - it looks really bad. The only possible explanation is that he was trying to kick the ball before Palisson grabbed it (I have seen him do this before) but I have not seen a replay of the incident. If this explanation is not possible, he should be banned for some weeks for a dangerous challenge. He was very lucky not to get at least a yellow card in the game, maybe even red.
irishrover February 16, 2010 1:52 pm
the french were in no way superior all your tries came off our stuped mistakes though you did beat us in the scrum and out rucked us i cant take anything away from that win.but dont start believing your own press ireland were far from their best i think a few changes are in order best for flannery because of his stuped kick horan or court for healy teach dissaplin geordan murphy for rob kearney because lately i havent been impressed with kearney maby time on the bench will make him hungry and tomas o'leary axed from the 22 bring in reddan boss or stringer and rog can warm his arse on the bench or retire eather way i couldn't give a shit sexton is ten times better and can tackle and id also give sean o'brien a try at 7 wallace is in his early 30s we need a young back row havent been impressed by healy eather he is so dynamic but i noticed agenst italy to he never droped his shoulder a replacement needs to be found to put pressure on o'driscoll make him play better i thin o'connell and cullan are playin well
irishrover February 16, 2010 2:06 pm
also if even if flannery wasn't cited id still drop him for principle was my team i would drop him anyway with healy for a match flannery for the tournament i dont have anything agenst him but at international level you have to learn mistakes cost the entire team not just you it was a mile late u have to own up to it but to his credit he stayed with him to check he was ok i bet he gets 4 weeks cause of his record and if french fans aka thugs who have no respect for a goal kicker want to know why it probably wont be 24 weeks it because he didn't try to rip out a players eyes like to certain french players who also had the nerve to appeal the bans they were given.but all credit were we beaten by the french they capitalised on our mistakes we deserved to lose i have no complaints
Pitseleh February 16, 2010 2:26 pm
"ok i bet he gets 4 weeks cause of his record"
4 weeks is the lower ban possible. If you look at his record, ban should be quite longer. We'll see.
4 weeks is the lower ban possible. If you look at his record, ban should be quite longer. We'll see.
Pitseleh February 16, 2010 2:27 pm
"it because he didn't try to rip out a players eyes like to certain french players who also had the nerve to appeal the bans they were given."
Quinlan also tried to rip out a player's eye, and he also had the nerve to appeal... a 8-weeks ban for that offence. Don't forget it.
Quinlan also tried to rip out a player's eye, and he also had the nerve to appeal... a 8-weeks ban for that offence. Don't forget it.
Anonymous February 16, 2010 2:34 pm
This offense is much much worse than Steve Borthwick stepping on a guy on the that ground that is holding his leg.
Gavin February 16, 2010 3:00 pm
Irishrover, please do not embarrass Irish rugby fans by suggesting that France where in 'no way superior'. They were superier. 30-10 superior. You can argue about what could have been all you like, but France scored 30 points and won the game.
Also re. Flannery, if he was trying to kick the ball before Palisson picked it up, then it was not too bad - careless, short ban maybe. If he was not trying to kick the ball, then it was stupid and dangerous and he should get 8 weeks or more.
Well done France - I think you will now win the grand slam.
Also re. Flannery, if he was trying to kick the ball before Palisson picked it up, then it was not too bad - careless, short ban maybe. If he was not trying to kick the ball, then it was stupid and dangerous and he should get 8 weeks or more.
Well done France - I think you will now win the grand slam.
bib160 February 16, 2010 3:34 pm
reply to those who think eye gouging is worse than that kick
Palisson had to leave the field and then the other winger so that Marty had play as a wing and made a HUGE defence mistake which gives ireland a try.
Palisson will probably miss the next crucial game against Wales
Sephen ferris stayed on the field and continued the match as if nothing happended and played the week after.
I don't say that Dupuy and Attoub acts should'nt be condanned. i just think that one of the gesture had a direct influence on the result even if france would have won anyway.
that is why i think that JF should get at least 70 weeks supension
Palisson had to leave the field and then the other winger so that Marty had play as a wing and made a HUGE defence mistake which gives ireland a try.
Palisson will probably miss the next crucial game against Wales
Sephen ferris stayed on the field and continued the match as if nothing happended and played the week after.
I don't say that Dupuy and Attoub acts should'nt be condanned. i just think that one of the gesture had a direct influence on the result even if france would have won anyway.
that is why i think that JF should get at least 70 weeks supension
Gavin February 16, 2010 3:47 pm
bib160 -
I think you are damaging the credibiltiy of French rugby fans if you are arguing that someone should be banned for over a year for this kick. I understand the French feel that the ban on Attoub was unfair - but every other rugby nation seems to think it was fair. What does this tell you? So, if we exclude what the French fans say about Flannery and what the Irish fans say, what is the consensus?
Perhaps that will tell us more accurately whether it should be 4 weeks or 70 weeks...I personally think it should depend on his intentions. If trying to kick the ball, then a short ban. If only trying to kick Palisson, then maybe 8 weeks.
Do any neutral fans have a view?
I think you are damaging the credibiltiy of French rugby fans if you are arguing that someone should be banned for over a year for this kick. I understand the French feel that the ban on Attoub was unfair - but every other rugby nation seems to think it was fair. What does this tell you? So, if we exclude what the French fans say about Flannery and what the Irish fans say, what is the consensus?
Perhaps that will tell us more accurately whether it should be 4 weeks or 70 weeks...I personally think it should depend on his intentions. If trying to kick the ball, then a short ban. If only trying to kick Palisson, then maybe 8 weeks.
Do any neutral fans have a view?
Pitseleh February 16, 2010 3:53 pm
"I think you are damaging the credibiltiy of French rugby fans if you are arguing that someone should be banned for over a year for this kick."
When I used to play I saw a young player banned for life after a kick... this coward played in my team and trust me, he deserved it. That's an extremely dangerous fool.
As some people noticed, Flannery has been banned for stamping : "bad accident" he claimed. But you can't say this all the time. Well, if this player isn't able to avoid to hurt opponents then I think that he deserves a hard ban to teach him some lesson. He could have kicked Palisson in the head.
When I used to play I saw a young player banned for life after a kick... this coward played in my team and trust me, he deserved it. That's an extremely dangerous fool.
As some people noticed, Flannery has been banned for stamping : "bad accident" he claimed. But you can't say this all the time. Well, if this player isn't able to avoid to hurt opponents then I think that he deserves a hard ban to teach him some lesson. He could have kicked Palisson in the head.
Gavin February 16, 2010 4:04 pm
He could have kicked Palisson in the head
But Pitseleh, he didn't - he kicked his legs. Should we ban him for something he could have done? Also, I am not sure that he intended only to kick Palisson - that is also a factor, no?
If he was not trying to kick the ball, he certainly should be banned. But if you can find me similar example of a professional player being banned for over a year for kicking someone's leg, I will be surprised!
(By the way, notice how we do not say that this is a conspiracy by the French against the Irish because of Attoub - we must avoid paranoia!)
But Pitseleh, he didn't - he kicked his legs. Should we ban him for something he could have done? Also, I am not sure that he intended only to kick Palisson - that is also a factor, no?
If he was not trying to kick the ball, he certainly should be banned. But if you can find me similar example of a professional player being banned for over a year for kicking someone's leg, I will be surprised!
(By the way, notice how we do not say that this is a conspiracy by the French against the Irish because of Attoub - we must avoid paranoia!)
Pitseleh February 16, 2010 4:10 pm
What I mean exactly is I can't see how he tried to kick the ball whereas the ball was into Palisson's hands. If he acted intentionaly, that's dangerous. If he didn't, that's worse : this guy even doesn't know what he does and where his kick goes. So he certainly needs eyes or brain surgery (your choice).
I admit that I can't find exemples of long ban for kicking because I honestly never saw this happened from a professional player before. Fortunately.
I admit that I can't find exemples of long ban for kicking because I honestly never saw this happened from a professional player before. Fortunately.
Bib160 February 16, 2010 4:17 pm
Should we ban him for something he could have done?
if you see what happened to Attoub: 70weeks supension with only one photo (which could easily have been edited) and ferris was'nt even hurt.
in the facts attoub was ban for something that he might have done
does that answer your question ?
I think that the sanction should be based on the influence on the game and on the competition.
if you see what happened to Attoub: 70weeks supension with only one photo (which could easily have been edited) and ferris was'nt even hurt.
in the facts attoub was ban for something that he might have done
does that answer your question ?
I think that the sanction should be based on the influence on the game and on the competition.
Belgica February 16, 2010 4:28 pm
irishrover,
"but dont start believing your own press ireland were far from their best"
Was the same deal for the French, some injuries, lack of form, etc. But still that was only a game, not the end of the world. I don't see the point of find some excuses. Ireland played poorly and France was in fire, period.
"if french fans aka thugs who have no respect for a goal kicker want to know why it probably wont be 24 weeks it because he didn't try to rip out a players eyes like to certain french players who also had the nerve to appeal the bans they were given."
So apart of insulting the French, what's your point ? That a lowkick and eyes gouging are different ? No kidding mate, we're aware of that. Thank you for your contrib.
Gavin,
"Do any neutral fans have a view?"
As a Belgian I do think i'm neutral fan but that's hard to tell. Flannery lowkick was awful to watch and even worse with the replay.
His intentions. I do think he won't say to the inquiry he made it in order to stop Palisson, no way. He will claim he wanted to kick the ball.
I do think he will receive a fair ban between 4 and 12 weeks cos he injured Palisson and of his previous record of stamping, nothing more.
In another way, as the IRB wants to clean out the game of dangerous gestures, it's still possible he receives an exemplary ban as the French did, but wishing the same as Attoub is an utter nosense to my opinion.
"but dont start believing your own press ireland were far from their best"
Was the same deal for the French, some injuries, lack of form, etc. But still that was only a game, not the end of the world. I don't see the point of find some excuses. Ireland played poorly and France was in fire, period.
"if french fans aka thugs who have no respect for a goal kicker want to know why it probably wont be 24 weeks it because he didn't try to rip out a players eyes like to certain french players who also had the nerve to appeal the bans they were given."
So apart of insulting the French, what's your point ? That a lowkick and eyes gouging are different ? No kidding mate, we're aware of that. Thank you for your contrib.
Gavin,
"Do any neutral fans have a view?"
As a Belgian I do think i'm neutral fan but that's hard to tell. Flannery lowkick was awful to watch and even worse with the replay.
His intentions. I do think he won't say to the inquiry he made it in order to stop Palisson, no way. He will claim he wanted to kick the ball.
I do think he will receive a fair ban between 4 and 12 weeks cos he injured Palisson and of his previous record of stamping, nothing more.
In another way, as the IRB wants to clean out the game of dangerous gestures, it's still possible he receives an exemplary ban as the French did, but wishing the same as Attoub is an utter nosense to my opinion.
Mike February 16, 2010 4:32 pm
Bib160 -
In the Attoub case, there was something like 30 photos, taken over 5 seconds, shown to ERC. Only 1 was given to the press. Please learn the facts. So who edited these 30 photographs in this French paranoid conspiracy? And why did they do it? How could the mystery editor benefit from all this work?
This is nonsense. The photos were not edited. Also, the photographer who took the photographs - just an ordinary guy - was spat on and insulted by officials and fans when he went to Stade Francais for the next game. I guess this was not reported in the French press, like the true number of photgraphs? Nice way to treat an innocent man.
In the Attoub case, there was something like 30 photos, taken over 5 seconds, shown to ERC. Only 1 was given to the press. Please learn the facts. So who edited these 30 photographs in this French paranoid conspiracy? And why did they do it? How could the mystery editor benefit from all this work?
This is nonsense. The photos were not edited. Also, the photographer who took the photographs - just an ordinary guy - was spat on and insulted by officials and fans when he went to Stade Francais for the next game. I guess this was not reported in the French press, like the true number of photgraphs? Nice way to treat an innocent man.
28mate February 16, 2010 4:32 pm
If all the experts below had actually watched the game they would know that cian healy was sin binned a few minutes previously.. the long and short of it is, it was a horrible tackle & he should have got at least a yellow card but the ref & touch judge didnt have the sack to put two irish players in the bin...P.S. france far better side on the day .. irish supporter
Pitseleh February 16, 2010 4:53 pm
28mate > The experts who watched the video clearly heard that the touch judge has mistaken the action : he believed that it was a shoulder charge. This probably explains better why we didn't see any card.
Gareth February 16, 2010 5:36 pm
Mike,
The ordinary man u are talking about, is apparently known to shoot photos for ulster rugby club.
And principaly, photos in order to help more investigation before citings.
We are not talkin about french conspiracy, but about a true and curious method from a rugby club
For flannery action, few weeks ago, as french, i was a bit annoyed by attoub excessive ban.
I also pointed that eye-gouge was terrible and coward, but was the fashionnable thing of the moment for citings (burger, parisse, quinlan... dupuy)
Now, the new plague seems to turn in the trip from the slightest one (Aw Jones, Godman, shanklin) to the most violent (flannery). I have no doubt that flannery will take around 8 weeks ban...
But what would happened if o'driscoll or wilkinson have been seriously injured with the same trip? Irb would take serious sanctions... Do we have to wait for a broken leg? And what will be the reaction of our parano frogs if one of their player take 1 year ban for this type of trip?
Then, we will have the same discussion about eye-gougin, till the next new plague... the old-fashion nuts grabbing :)
The ordinary man u are talking about, is apparently known to shoot photos for ulster rugby club.
And principaly, photos in order to help more investigation before citings.
We are not talkin about french conspiracy, but about a true and curious method from a rugby club
For flannery action, few weeks ago, as french, i was a bit annoyed by attoub excessive ban.
I also pointed that eye-gouge was terrible and coward, but was the fashionnable thing of the moment for citings (burger, parisse, quinlan... dupuy)
Now, the new plague seems to turn in the trip from the slightest one (Aw Jones, Godman, shanklin) to the most violent (flannery). I have no doubt that flannery will take around 8 weeks ban...
But what would happened if o'driscoll or wilkinson have been seriously injured with the same trip? Irb would take serious sanctions... Do we have to wait for a broken leg? And what will be the reaction of our parano frogs if one of their player take 1 year ban for this type of trip?
Then, we will have the same discussion about eye-gougin, till the next new plague... the old-fashion nuts grabbing :)
Anonymous February 16, 2010 5:48 pm
Neutral here....
Flannery, regardless of intent or not was a either a dickhead,or slow and stupid. Neither are great attributes in pro rugby.
Simple.
Flannery, regardless of intent or not was a either a dickhead,or slow and stupid. Neither are great attributes in pro rugby.
Simple.
Gavin February 16, 2010 6:33 pm
Gareth - he may be the club photographer, but there is no question that the photographs are fake. So if there are 30+ photos of Attoub's attack on the eyes, then there is no doubt that it happened. So why spit on the man who took the photographs? You may blame Attoub for his actions, and you may blame the ERC for the length of the ban (I think they were correct) - but why blame the witness, and spit on and insult him? This does not make French rugby fans look good.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8426293.stm
I understand your point about 'fashionable' punishments, but I think it was very important that gouging is stopped - imagine the harm to the game if a professional goes blind due to an attack in a match? Hopefully these long bans will stop it happening.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8426293.stm
I understand your point about 'fashionable' punishments, but I think it was very important that gouging is stopped - imagine the harm to the game if a professional goes blind due to an attack in a match? Hopefully these long bans will stop it happening.
Pitseleh February 16, 2010 7:03 pm
"I understand your point about 'fashionable' punishments, but I think it was very important that gouging is stopped - imagine the harm to the game if a professional goes blind due to an attack in a match? Hopefully these long bans will stop it happening."
Honestly, I'll believe this when - and only when - I'll see a British (or SA, or NZ, etc) player taking a long ban for this.
Do you remember Tincu's case ? 4 months ban without any proof after being punched. Some times after we saw Quinlan and Burger taking ridiculous bans in spite of clear video footage. Tell me how and why we should trust these disciplinary commissions ?
Honestly, I'll believe this when - and only when - I'll see a British (or SA, or NZ, etc) player taking a long ban for this.
Do you remember Tincu's case ? 4 months ban without any proof after being punched. Some times after we saw Quinlan and Burger taking ridiculous bans in spite of clear video footage. Tell me how and why we should trust these disciplinary commissions ?
Gavin February 16, 2010 7:15 pm
Pitseleh -
I'll believe this when - and only when - I'll see a British (or SA, or NZ, etc) player taking a long ban for this.
They cannot ban a non-French player for gouging until they catch them doing it. People who have played both in France and in other countries say it is more common in French rugby (this is of course only anecdotal evidence).
The reason the strong bans were enforced was because the (French!) head of the IRB was angered by the light sentence for Burger in the summer. The other cases (Quinlan etc) were before this. So Attoub and Dupuy were the first to get long bans. When a non-French player is caught, I hope and expect they will get the same level of punishment (for the same level of crime). If they do not, I will be beside you asking why.
I'll believe this when - and only when - I'll see a British (or SA, or NZ, etc) player taking a long ban for this.
They cannot ban a non-French player for gouging until they catch them doing it. People who have played both in France and in other countries say it is more common in French rugby (this is of course only anecdotal evidence).
The reason the strong bans were enforced was because the (French!) head of the IRB was angered by the light sentence for Burger in the summer. The other cases (Quinlan etc) were before this. So Attoub and Dupuy were the first to get long bans. When a non-French player is caught, I hope and expect they will get the same level of punishment (for the same level of crime). If they do not, I will be beside you asking why.
Pitseleh February 16, 2010 7:20 pm
"The reason the strong bans were enforced was because the (French!) head of the IRB was angered by the light sentence for Burger in the summer. The other cases (Quinlan etc) were before this."
I just said it : Tincu case was BEFORE this too.
I just said it : Tincu case was BEFORE this too.
Gavin February 16, 2010 7:30 pm
I just said it : Tincu case was BEFORE this too
Sorry Pitseleh, I was only talking about the eye-gouging bans. I don't know enough about the Tincu case to comment intelligently.
But perhaps there is a conspiracy against Romania too :)
Sorry Pitseleh, I was only talking about the eye-gouging bans. I don't know enough about the Tincu case to comment intelligently.
But perhaps there is a conspiracy against Romania too :)
Pitseleh February 16, 2010 7:41 pm
Rhaaa ;)
Tincu has been accused and banned for googing without any proof but an accusation from the player who just punched him. No picture, no video, no hurt, no words from the refs. Just like Richard Nones, a prop from Colomiers, some years ago : a 2 years ban who broke his career.
Tincu has been accused and banned for googing without any proof but an accusation from the player who just punched him. No picture, no video, no hurt, no words from the refs. Just like Richard Nones, a prop from Colomiers, some years ago : a 2 years ban who broke his career.
JC February 16, 2010 9:59 pm
This is one of the worst things i've seen on a rugby field. He could easily have broken Palisson's leg, smashed his knee, ended his career. Fortunately he didn't, but people shouldn't only be banned if they cause serious damage.
A 12-16 week ban minimum for something like this.
A 12-16 week ban minimum for something like this.
Anonymous February 16, 2010 10:38 pm
If you watch the French player he has already turned his body and jumped before Flannery makes contact. JF then stands over him and stays there until told to walk away by the ref. He is a tight 5. Not a quick footed back. Accidental and the froggy makes more of this than needed!
Gavin February 16, 2010 10:51 pm
Hmm...I had an opportunity to look at this again and it looks like Flannery planned to kick the ball, but Palisson got there first. However, Flannery had at least a second to stop but did not - so he should be banned for sure. The only question is how long.
Once again, congratulations to France - they will succeed us as grand slam champions.
Once again, congratulations to France - they will succeed us as grand slam champions.
Phil February 16, 2010 11:30 pm
For the Frenchies :
I understand why you feel hard done by. Why should the French players get banned for between 35 and 70 weeks, but Burger and Quinlan only get 8 weeks? That is unfair.
However, the truth is that Burger and Quinlan should have got similar bans to the two French players. The length of bans for the French gougers was correct, it's Quinlan and Burger (and Parrise) who got off far too lightly.
In regards to this kick by Flannery, basically he's an idiot and deserves a few weeks on the sideline for it.
But it's not even close to being as bad as a gouging offence.
Gouging is disgusting, disgraceful, cowardly and could blind a man. It is the act of a low-life coward. Only scum bags eye gouge and it should not be in the game at all.
It is the lowest of the low, stop trying to defend dirty eye gouging bastards.
I understand why you feel hard done by. Why should the French players get banned for between 35 and 70 weeks, but Burger and Quinlan only get 8 weeks? That is unfair.
However, the truth is that Burger and Quinlan should have got similar bans to the two French players. The length of bans for the French gougers was correct, it's Quinlan and Burger (and Parrise) who got off far too lightly.
In regards to this kick by Flannery, basically he's an idiot and deserves a few weeks on the sideline for it.
But it's not even close to being as bad as a gouging offence.
Gouging is disgusting, disgraceful, cowardly and could blind a man. It is the act of a low-life coward. Only scum bags eye gouge and it should not be in the game at all.
It is the lowest of the low, stop trying to defend dirty eye gouging bastards.
Phil February 16, 2010 11:31 pm
Oh, and I'm an Aussie, not Irish, so I'm neutral.
Matty10 February 16, 2010 11:37 pm
Sorry to others who dont argee with my veiws on heymans but i think hes bloody magic :) and all the people preaching about atoub i was at ravenhill when he done it and he fully deserved the ban all tough 70 weeks is a bit harsh in my eyes. Flannery deserves everything he gets on this one.
Anonymous February 17, 2010 12:44 am
"If you watch the French player he has already turned his body and jumped before Flannery makes contact. JF then stands over him and stays there until told to walk away by the ref. He is a tight 5. Not a quick footed back. Accidental and the froggy makes more of this than needed!"
And soon, you'll tell us that the froggy ran on JF leg and injured himself isn't it ? For Pete's sake, some comments are unbelievable here.
And soon, you'll tell us that the froggy ran on JF leg and injured himself isn't it ? For Pete's sake, some comments are unbelievable here.
Bib160 February 17, 2010 8:06 am
"But it's not even close to being as bad as a gouging offence.
Gouging is disgusting, disgraceful, cowardly and could blind a man. It is the act of a low-life coward. Only scum bags eye gouge and it should not be in the game at all.
It is the lowest of the low, stop trying to defend dirty eye gouging bastards."
i totaly agree with your post except on the fact that this kick is not as bad as gouging. this gesture could have broke Palisson's leg. from my french POV Flannery as a ridicuously slow reaction time for a professionnal player so he di it on purpose. this is just my POV and i believe that the commision won't agree.
Sad but true
for the Attoub case i didn't say the fotos were fakes i said "wich could have been edited". The this is in this case a carrer was broken with only pictures wich might be fake (based on the origin of the picture) and this, plus the fact that the fact that the same comisionner juged two french players, are not a serious evidences to breake someone's carreer
Gouging is disgusting, disgraceful, cowardly and could blind a man. It is the act of a low-life coward. Only scum bags eye gouge and it should not be in the game at all.
It is the lowest of the low, stop trying to defend dirty eye gouging bastards."
i totaly agree with your post except on the fact that this kick is not as bad as gouging. this gesture could have broke Palisson's leg. from my french POV Flannery as a ridicuously slow reaction time for a professionnal player so he di it on purpose. this is just my POV and i believe that the commision won't agree.
Sad but true
for the Attoub case i didn't say the fotos were fakes i said "wich could have been edited". The this is in this case a carrer was broken with only pictures wich might be fake (based on the origin of the picture) and this, plus the fact that the fact that the same comisionner juged two french players, are not a serious evidences to breake someone's carreer
Phil February 17, 2010 10:11 am
Gouging is worse than a kick.
Rugby is a tough game. Everyone who plays rugby accepts that they might get a broken bone, or someone might lose it and hit them illegally.
It should be punished, Flannery should get a few weeks on the sidelines.
But eye gouging is on a different level.
No one who plays rugby can accept that someone will try to blind them.
No one should have their eye gouged in a rugby game, ever.
Anyone who does it is a scum bag and should get the worst punishment possible.
Rugby is a tough game. Everyone who plays rugby accepts that they might get a broken bone, or someone might lose it and hit them illegally.
It should be punished, Flannery should get a few weeks on the sidelines.
But eye gouging is on a different level.
No one who plays rugby can accept that someone will try to blind them.
No one should have their eye gouged in a rugby game, ever.
Anyone who does it is a scum bag and should get the worst punishment possible.
Pitseleh February 17, 2010 1:20 pm
Done : 6 weeks ban.
Considering that :
- Lower ban for kicking a player is 4 weeks
- Palisson had to left the field
- Flannery didn't receive any card
- in a recent past, Flannery was banned for stamping
You surely understand why we became quite "paranoid". That's a joke.
Considering that :
- Lower ban for kicking a player is 4 weeks
- Palisson had to left the field
- Flannery didn't receive any card
- in a recent past, Flannery was banned for stamping
You surely understand why we became quite "paranoid". That's a joke.
Greg February 17, 2010 2:27 pm
lol
the most funny is the explication of the jury:
"more mindless than intentional"
now, u can hurt somebody just cause u're an idiot :)
i understand the anger of the french..
the most funny is the explication of the jury:
"more mindless than intentional"
now, u can hurt somebody just cause u're an idiot :)
i understand the anger of the french..
bib160 February 17, 2010 3:14 pm
Those who don't understand why french are sometimes paranoid about the sanctions please explain me this cause i don't get it
Joe February 17, 2010 3:36 pm
Because they are French and the rugby world is against them............. supposedly. Just have a chip on their shoulders
Veji1 February 17, 2010 4:06 pm
If the ERC wants to make sure we the French turned into a bunch of paranoid lunatics, way to go...
Come on... 23 weeks for Dupuy and 70 for Attoub but 6 for Flannery?
Had Dupuy gotten 12 and Attoub 24, I would have been OK with 6, but in this instance the proportions are beyond skewed...
Add that to the history of Flannery getting squat for the stamping on Bonnaire's head, Tincu getting 10 weeks based on welsh accusations of gouging with no other witnesses while the welsh who punches him cold gets 1 week...
how should we not get paranoid ?
Come on... 23 weeks for Dupuy and 70 for Attoub but 6 for Flannery?
Had Dupuy gotten 12 and Attoub 24, I would have been OK with 6, but in this instance the proportions are beyond skewed...
Add that to the history of Flannery getting squat for the stamping on Bonnaire's head, Tincu getting 10 weeks based on welsh accusations of gouging with no other witnesses while the welsh who punches him cold gets 1 week...
how should we not get paranoid ?
Ben February 17, 2010 5:06 pm
6 weeks seem very short as he was a recidivist (he was already banned 8 weeks for a stamping on julien bonnaire)
He may have a good lawyer but this irb and erc decisions begin to lose credibility
Now, the new defence mode is "i was stupid forgive me, am i free now?" maybe the french should try the same argument... see u for the next 50 weeks frog ban
He may have a good lawyer but this irb and erc decisions begin to lose credibility
Now, the new defence mode is "i was stupid forgive me, am i free now?" maybe the french should try the same argument... see u for the next 50 weeks frog ban
Anonymous February 17, 2010 5:53 pm
6 Weeks Off for Flannery.
Hey Morgan (Parra), next time when you get the ball out of a ruck, clean up your shoes on an Irish guy and claim "it was not intentional, I was stupid. I apologize". Maybe you gonna get a bonus for this!
C'est affligeant de voir cette parodie de commission disciplinaire!!!!
Hey Morgan (Parra), next time when you get the ball out of a ruck, clean up your shoes on an Irish guy and claim "it was not intentional, I was stupid. I apologize". Maybe you gonna get a bonus for this!
C'est affligeant de voir cette parodie de commission disciplinaire!!!!
Pitseleh February 17, 2010 6:40 pm
Flannery should make an appeal. He ever proved twice that judges are muppets for him.
jay February 17, 2010 6:43 pm
Ze french are paranoid. You're godamm right we are.
This is a recidivist who INJURED someone... while Ferris is still running on the field.
Justice for all... not with the IRB and I think it was n7 or Maximus who was waiting for a proof (back when we were debating on Dupuy and Atoub)... I think you have one now.
Conclusion to that : My guess is that history between french and english has always been huge when it comes to fingers.
Back in the days we had them fellas showing us their 2 fingers to show that they could still use their bows... so it is natural that a frenchman USING his fingers get a big ass ban, whereas we've been pretty even regarding feet and kicks.
(And i'm not even talking about the hand of Maradonna in football or Henry's hands vs. Ireland)
just jokin'
This is a recidivist who INJURED someone... while Ferris is still running on the field.
Justice for all... not with the IRB and I think it was n7 or Maximus who was waiting for a proof (back when we were debating on Dupuy and Atoub)... I think you have one now.
Conclusion to that : My guess is that history between french and english has always been huge when it comes to fingers.
Back in the days we had them fellas showing us their 2 fingers to show that they could still use their bows... so it is natural that a frenchman USING his fingers get a big ass ban, whereas we've been pretty even regarding feet and kicks.
(And i'm not even talking about the hand of Maradonna in football or Henry's hands vs. Ireland)
just jokin'
Anonymous February 17, 2010 6:44 pm
6 weeks? come on ! it was a deliberate kick. lucky guy. it seems to be a clear message sent to the french : "let us taking our own decisions, we don't give a fuck about what you think"
Pitseleh February 17, 2010 6:47 pm
We could consider ourselves as lucky. If Harinordoqui (who was very close to the action) has reacted in any way he would have been carded.
TheOire February 17, 2010 7:02 pm
What a crying shame. Only a 6-weeks ban for such a brutal kick. There was no excuse for what Flannery did to Palisson, he could have broken his knee. For a player who was already convicted of stamping on a player's head (Julien Bonnaire's... another Frenchman). And then Julien Dupuy gets 24 weeks (end of season), David Attoub gets a year and a half.
Most people here in France really believe that the discplinary commissions are a joke, always leniant towards anyone from the UK and Ireland, always heavy-handed when it comes to the French. Whether in Heineken cup games or international matches.
I for one still need to be convinced that it isn't the case, and Flannery's very light punishment tends to prove the French fans point.
I am very disappointed with that decision and it grieves me to say that I really feel the game is biaised.
I'll get over it when the Irish get over the Thierry Henry incident.
Most people here in France really believe that the discplinary commissions are a joke, always leniant towards anyone from the UK and Ireland, always heavy-handed when it comes to the French. Whether in Heineken cup games or international matches.
I for one still need to be convinced that it isn't the case, and Flannery's very light punishment tends to prove the French fans point.
I am very disappointed with that decision and it grieves me to say that I really feel the game is biaised.
I'll get over it when the Irish get over the Thierry Henry incident.
Neutral February 17, 2010 8:38 pm
6 weeks, I think 8 would have been appropiate - FRENCHIES COMPARING THIS TO GOUGING ARE IDIOTS. THIS KICK WAS WRECKLESS BUT THE GOUGING YOUR PLAYERS DESERVEDLY GOT BANNED FOR WAS THE ACT OF SCUM.
SO SHUT UP WITH YOUR PARANOID WHINGING. You get so many hefty bans for your dumb antics in your leagues - brawls etc.....
OH AND IRELAND U SUCKED - BIGTIME.
SO SHUT UP WITH YOUR PARANOID WHINGING. You get so many hefty bans for your dumb antics in your leagues - brawls etc.....
OH AND IRELAND U SUCKED - BIGTIME.
MOD February 17, 2010 8:55 pm
It looks much much worse in slow motion, i'd say 6 weeks was about right. It's simply not comparable to the eye gouging bans! Eye gouging can and has caused irreparable damage to players. It didn't in the case of Ferris but it's the intent to cause such damage that needs to be punished (severely!).
Dylan Hartley got banned for 6 months for gouging, fair ban, you don't have englishman complaining on this board how they're hard done by! Tom Williams got an initial 12 month ban reduced to 4 months for the bloodgate scandal. Poor English always getting picked on.
Get a grip Frenchies and stop feeling hard done by. Also stop talking about what could have happened... the kick could have knocked Palissons knee cap off, hitting Jauzion decapitating him sending Harinordoquy wild leading in poor Ferris getting gouged later in the game. 70 week ban for Harinordoquy, more moaning froggies. Oh but that didn't actually happen.
Dylan Hartley got banned for 6 months for gouging, fair ban, you don't have englishman complaining on this board how they're hard done by! Tom Williams got an initial 12 month ban reduced to 4 months for the bloodgate scandal. Poor English always getting picked on.
Get a grip Frenchies and stop feeling hard done by. Also stop talking about what could have happened... the kick could have knocked Palissons knee cap off, hitting Jauzion decapitating him sending Harinordoquy wild leading in poor Ferris getting gouged later in the game. 70 week ban for Harinordoquy, more moaning froggies. Oh but that didn't actually happen.
Pitseleh February 17, 2010 10:14 pm
"Also stop talking about what could have happened..."
Oh, really ? Guess who just said "Eye gouging can and has caused irreparable damage to players". If THAT is not talking about what-could-have-happened...
Oh, really ? Guess who just said "Eye gouging can and has caused irreparable damage to players". If THAT is not talking about what-could-have-happened...
HM February 18, 2010 1:46 am
6 seems a little short for me - I'd say 8-10 would be more accurate.
However, the more I watch the video, the more it looks like JF is simply slow to react to the Frenchy picking up the ball.
The punishment to compare this to is Dupuy, who got 24 weeks (?) for two very bad gouging offenses. Is this incident 1/4 as bad? Well I'd say it's no more than 1/2 as bad as a gouge, and Dupuy did it twice...
Comparing this to Attoub is somewhat ridiculous. I believe that most of Attoub's ban was due to hsi repeated lies and attempts to besmirch the name of an honest photographer by claiming the photos were doctored. They have since been proved to be accurate, meaning Attoub did gouge and therefore knew he was lying. Scum.
However, the more I watch the video, the more it looks like JF is simply slow to react to the Frenchy picking up the ball.
The punishment to compare this to is Dupuy, who got 24 weeks (?) for two very bad gouging offenses. Is this incident 1/4 as bad? Well I'd say it's no more than 1/2 as bad as a gouge, and Dupuy did it twice...
Comparing this to Attoub is somewhat ridiculous. I believe that most of Attoub's ban was due to hsi repeated lies and attempts to besmirch the name of an honest photographer by claiming the photos were doctored. They have since been proved to be accurate, meaning Attoub did gouge and therefore knew he was lying. Scum.
Anonymous February 18, 2010 7:20 am
I cant even believe french fans are low down enough to throw in attoubs name into this....
....yes im sure there are plenty who think flannery did this on purpose....
who knows, it looks like he does because of the delay, but perhaps he went to fly hack it, and palisson scooped it up and flannery just thought 'what the heck'
i mean he stopped a probable try with his actions....(minus knock ons etc)
but attoub stuck his fingers in someones eyes....it doesnt happen via recklessness!!!!!!
....yes im sure there are plenty who think flannery did this on purpose....
who knows, it looks like he does because of the delay, but perhaps he went to fly hack it, and palisson scooped it up and flannery just thought 'what the heck'
i mean he stopped a probable try with his actions....(minus knock ons etc)
but attoub stuck his fingers in someones eyes....it doesnt happen via recklessness!!!!!!
MOD February 18, 2010 8:39 am
Surely the purpose of an eye gouge is to damage someones sight?! It's not because it tickles. As stated earlier, a guy in a local league was blinded by an eye gouge, IT HAS HAPPENED and the player will be looking at a life ban.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8489723.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8489723.stm
bib160 February 18, 2010 8:55 am
this message is for those who don't believe in the "anti french conspiracy..." please read the official rules(avaiable on the IRB web site) section 17 14 2. it said that the dangerosity of the act must be evaluated using a list of criterions including
-the influence on the game
-what happened to the victim
-the vulnerability of the victim at the moment of the act
these are just parts of the whole list. but i swear that there is no mention of what could have happened.
i've past through the list a couple of times and i'm now conveiced that Dupuy's gouging was, regarding the offical rule, less dangerous than Flanery' kick.
considering the 24 weeks given to Dupuy, Flannery should have had at least 25 weeks ban.
-the influence on the game
-what happened to the victim
-the vulnerability of the victim at the moment of the act
these are just parts of the whole list. but i swear that there is no mention of what could have happened.
i've past through the list a couple of times and i'm now conveiced that Dupuy's gouging was, regarding the offical rule, less dangerous than Flanery' kick.
considering the 24 weeks given to Dupuy, Flannery should have had at least 25 weeks ban.
Anonymous February 18, 2010 8:58 am
MOD
there a guy in my league whose kneen'cap was fractured by a scrum half stamping. he'll probably won't play rugby ever.
there a guy in my league whose kneen'cap was fractured by a scrum half stamping. he'll probably won't play rugby ever.
Tanora February 18, 2010 9:22 am
Dear French Whinge-bags,
Please shut the f*ck up regarding anti-French-bias, there is no such thing.
The recent suspensions of two French players for gouging were fair and just. The suspensions are completely proportionate to the crime. Your sense of injustice may be stemming from the lenient suspensions given to some players in the summer of 2009 (Burger, Parisse, Quinlan, etc.) but it is widely accepted that the IRB bottled these suspensions and they have since become far more robust in their punishment of gougers, and righty so. It was an unfortunate coincidence that the two most high-profile instances of gouging since then were both perpetrated by players from French clubs. Or at least I hope it was a coincidence, otherwise your league has a serious problem.
Now lets juxtapose a kick with gouging. A kick of the type Flannery indulged in has a good chance of minor injury such as a dead leg, a small chance of moderate injury such as ligament damage and no chance of rendering the leg useless for life.
A gouge on the other hand has a very high likelihood of serious injury such as a scratch to the eye or tearing of the eyelid. Further, a gouge has a decent chance of extremely serious damage such as dislodging the lens or stretching the shape of the eye, both of which would effectively render an eye blind. For life. Forever.
Flannery should have been carded on the day - probably red - but it is now clear that the touch judge must not have seen the incident clearly. The 6 week ban is fair and proportionate. As are the recent bans to Dupuy and Attoub.
So, please, whinge-bags, shut up. Rant out!
Please shut the f*ck up regarding anti-French-bias, there is no such thing.
The recent suspensions of two French players for gouging were fair and just. The suspensions are completely proportionate to the crime. Your sense of injustice may be stemming from the lenient suspensions given to some players in the summer of 2009 (Burger, Parisse, Quinlan, etc.) but it is widely accepted that the IRB bottled these suspensions and they have since become far more robust in their punishment of gougers, and righty so. It was an unfortunate coincidence that the two most high-profile instances of gouging since then were both perpetrated by players from French clubs. Or at least I hope it was a coincidence, otherwise your league has a serious problem.
Now lets juxtapose a kick with gouging. A kick of the type Flannery indulged in has a good chance of minor injury such as a dead leg, a small chance of moderate injury such as ligament damage and no chance of rendering the leg useless for life.
A gouge on the other hand has a very high likelihood of serious injury such as a scratch to the eye or tearing of the eyelid. Further, a gouge has a decent chance of extremely serious damage such as dislodging the lens or stretching the shape of the eye, both of which would effectively render an eye blind. For life. Forever.
Flannery should have been carded on the day - probably red - but it is now clear that the touch judge must not have seen the incident clearly. The 6 week ban is fair and proportionate. As are the recent bans to Dupuy and Attoub.
So, please, whinge-bags, shut up. Rant out!
Anonymous February 18, 2010 9:49 am
Tanora,
Fair to you, surely as a biased guy just so happy to have his player back for the H Cup..ah yes..6 weeks..hmmm.... H Cup 1/4 final! whahou..what a coincidence!
They don't even hide to advantage some team!
6 weeks, based on the impact of the injury..why not?
..but this guy has already had some severe misconduct! Just because he said I am stupid he should not be banned more than the first time? I am kind of lost...
I don't care about Attoub and Dupuy. They got what they deserved. But not Flannery I am afraid to say!
Fair to you, surely as a biased guy just so happy to have his player back for the H Cup..ah yes..6 weeks..hmmm.... H Cup 1/4 final! whahou..what a coincidence!
They don't even hide to advantage some team!
6 weeks, based on the impact of the injury..why not?
..but this guy has already had some severe misconduct! Just because he said I am stupid he should not be banned more than the first time? I am kind of lost...
I don't care about Attoub and Dupuy. They got what they deserved. But not Flannery I am afraid to say!
Veji1 February 18, 2010 12:00 pm
Again if you read the rules quoted above + take into account the fact that Flannery is a repeted offender (cf stamping Bonnaire), which was taken into account for Attoub, than this sanction makes no sense.
No one compares this with what Attoub did. the problem isn't there; it's the difference between 6 weeks for Flannery and 23 for Dupuy. Nonsense, read the rules again. If Dupuy gets 23 I don't see how Flannery can escape 12 weeks, at least half what Dupuy got..
No one compares this with what Attoub did. the problem isn't there; it's the difference between 6 weeks for Flannery and 23 for Dupuy. Nonsense, read the rules again. If Dupuy gets 23 I don't see how Flannery can escape 12 weeks, at least half what Dupuy got..
SillyBaggers February 18, 2010 12:15 pm
pallisson is a complete girl about it though. I Flannery is very strong, so it must have been a hard kick, but it catches him on the thigh, in a place where it could robably do no more harm than a dead leg. Unless he was really unlucky somehow, it doesn;t justify writhing around and grabbing his head like Rivaldo.
That said, a definate red card and suspension, six weeks is about right.
That said, a definate red card and suspension, six weeks is about right.
Jon February 18, 2010 1:15 pm
The French complaining on here are really putting themselves in a bad light.
Of course gouging is worse than this.
Of course.
If you can't understand that than you've got major problems.
Flanery's lashing out with a kick is foul play and deserves a ban. Six weeks is plenty harsh.
Gouging is the worst, worst thing someone can do on a rugby field. It's goddamn cowardly.
If you want to have a go, throw a punch like a man, don't try and tear out someone's eye with our finger, then pretend that you didn't do anything.
It's the act of a coward, or as we say in Australia, it's a dog act.
Of course gouging is worse than this.
Of course.
If you can't understand that than you've got major problems.
Flanery's lashing out with a kick is foul play and deserves a ban. Six weeks is plenty harsh.
Gouging is the worst, worst thing someone can do on a rugby field. It's goddamn cowardly.
If you want to have a go, throw a punch like a man, don't try and tear out someone's eye with our finger, then pretend that you didn't do anything.
It's the act of a coward, or as we say in Australia, it's a dog act.
jay February 18, 2010 2:26 pm
IT'S WORSE ? wait wait,I for one do agree with the theory (gouging more dangerous than kicking...) now as for the facts.
In this case it wasn't worse... OBVIOUSLY as again Ferris didn't miss a single game out of both gouges while palisson (the girl) has to come off the pitch... probably faked it ... a well known fact when it's one of your first cap.. you want to go off the field asap.
If tomorrow someone kicks some1 in the head and the guy becomes a veggie (as it's happened in the past, back when I was playing in college), what would you say is worse ?
Lose an eye or have consequent brain damages ?
So please stop teaching us what is worse or better as it is just relative to the foul play.
In this case it wasn't worse... OBVIOUSLY as again Ferris didn't miss a single game out of both gouges while palisson (the girl) has to come off the pitch... probably faked it ... a well known fact when it's one of your first cap.. you want to go off the field asap.
If tomorrow someone kicks some1 in the head and the guy becomes a veggie (as it's happened in the past, back when I was playing in college), what would you say is worse ?
Lose an eye or have consequent brain damages ?
So please stop teaching us what is worse or better as it is just relative to the foul play.
bib160 February 18, 2010 2:34 pm
i am part of the paranoid french. this is the first time i have he opportunity to debate with brits or irish about my doubts on the ERC and IRB disciplinary commision.
now i think i understand that there is a real misunderstanding.
all the frenchs who write comments here can speak (at least write)proper english and i don't know why you keep thinking that we want to justify Dupuy'act. gouging is awfull we all agree with that.
the problem we have is that this kick is as awfull as gouging. indeed the game was stopped by the referee, the player had to leave the field and this act had a direct influence on the result of the game.
because it is as bad as dupuy JF deserves at least the same ban.
just a question for those who still think Flannery deserve only 6 weeks.
who is the coward? Dupuy who did something awfull during the game and while Ferris can defend himself or Flanery who kicked a player after the game was stoped and who didn't even saw it comming?
now i think i understand that there is a real misunderstanding.
all the frenchs who write comments here can speak (at least write)proper english and i don't know why you keep thinking that we want to justify Dupuy'act. gouging is awfull we all agree with that.
the problem we have is that this kick is as awfull as gouging. indeed the game was stopped by the referee, the player had to leave the field and this act had a direct influence on the result of the game.
because it is as bad as dupuy JF deserves at least the same ban.
just a question for those who still think Flannery deserve only 6 weeks.
who is the coward? Dupuy who did something awfull during the game and while Ferris can defend himself or Flanery who kicked a player after the game was stoped and who didn't even saw it comming?
rodofle February 18, 2010 3:44 pm
"lol
the most funny is the explication of the jury:
"more mindless than intentional"
now, u can hurt somebody just cause u're an idiot :)
i understand the anger of the french.."
You summed up everything.
I'm french and i think we should all french people go over it... I mean if the other nations can't understand us cause they're too idiot, who gives a fuck? Just enjoy rugby and BRING ON THE WELSH!!!!
the most funny is the explication of the jury:
"more mindless than intentional"
now, u can hurt somebody just cause u're an idiot :)
i understand the anger of the french.."
You summed up everything.
I'm french and i think we should all french people go over it... I mean if the other nations can't understand us cause they're too idiot, who gives a fuck? Just enjoy rugby and BRING ON THE WELSH!!!!
HM February 18, 2010 4:04 pm
You can't just take the possible consequences (or indeed the actual consequences) of an act into account when making these decisions. For instance, plenty of people go into tackles with the primary aim of stopping the attacker, and the secondary aim of injuring them. But that's totally legal. On the other hand, biting (IMHO as bad or worse than gouging, having been the subject of both) is rarely in any way dangerous.
There are more basic reasons behind our judgement of crimes as being better or worse than others (the same way we view rape as worse than assault, although the effects of the latter can outweigh those of the former). Gouging and biting are simply worse than punching and kicking. End of.
There are more basic reasons behind our judgement of crimes as being better or worse than others (the same way we view rape as worse than assault, although the effects of the latter can outweigh those of the former). Gouging and biting are simply worse than punching and kicking. End of.
Maximus February 18, 2010 5:28 pm
If I understand your point, Dupuy should have punched Ferris right in the eye instead of playing with his hand in front of Ferris's eye area twice. He would have got 12 weeks for manly punch.
Thing is, I'm pretty ok with the gouging bans and Jay, even if I'm clearly disappointed with this ban, I'm still waiting for a non-French being guilty of gouging and see the IRB reaction.
JF shocking kick definitely deserves + than 6 wks because we can say whatever we want about it his kick is one of these gestures which are shocking on a rugby pitch, I couldn't believe my eyes when I first saw it.
I also find it amazing that Grewcock got more than 6 wks for stamping on Ferris's arm, it looked far less armful than this Thai low kick. Honestly, to all the rugby players, who never got stamped this way and who ever walked off the pitch for this?
Tanora, I agree with most of what you wrote and wanted to post something like this, it's a pity you ruin an interesting point with a couple of "whinge-bags". Whoever compares this to Attoub's ban is an idiot and all of us seem to agree. It's as if you asked "what do you find worse: breaking your leg or losing one eye?" Sincerely, come and break my leg.
Thing is, I'm pretty ok with the gouging bans and Jay, even if I'm clearly disappointed with this ban, I'm still waiting for a non-French being guilty of gouging and see the IRB reaction.
JF shocking kick definitely deserves + than 6 wks because we can say whatever we want about it his kick is one of these gestures which are shocking on a rugby pitch, I couldn't believe my eyes when I first saw it.
I also find it amazing that Grewcock got more than 6 wks for stamping on Ferris's arm, it looked far less armful than this Thai low kick. Honestly, to all the rugby players, who never got stamped this way and who ever walked off the pitch for this?
Tanora, I agree with most of what you wrote and wanted to post something like this, it's a pity you ruin an interesting point with a couple of "whinge-bags". Whoever compares this to Attoub's ban is an idiot and all of us seem to agree. It's as if you asked "what do you find worse: breaking your leg or losing one eye?" Sincerely, come and break my leg.
Veji1 February 18, 2010 6:12 pm
Agree with Maximus. No one is defending Attoub nor Dupuy, we are arguing on the scale of punishments between Flannery and Dupuy and can't understand why there is a difference of 1 to 4. That's it.
HM February 18, 2010 8:29 pm
I think the difference between Grewcock and Flannery is threefold.
Firstly I think stamping carries a higher tariff than kicking in the eyes of the IRB.
Secondly, whilst Flannery is no saint, Grewcock's got way more previous.
Thirdly, with Grewcock there was more intent involved - you could not argue that he was trying to do anything apart from stamp on Ferris (although that's what Ferris deserved). In this case, I think the initial intention was to hack the ball. That went wrong when Palisson picked it up, and Flannery should have pulled out and didn't.
Firstly I think stamping carries a higher tariff than kicking in the eyes of the IRB.
Secondly, whilst Flannery is no saint, Grewcock's got way more previous.
Thirdly, with Grewcock there was more intent involved - you could not argue that he was trying to do anything apart from stamp on Ferris (although that's what Ferris deserved). In this case, I think the initial intention was to hack the ball. That went wrong when Palisson picked it up, and Flannery should have pulled out and didn't.
Maximus February 18, 2010 10:11 pm
HM,
I agree with you of course BUT, in the end, I somehow find this more dangerous and completely out of the game than what Grewcock did which is, imo, only a game incident. Well, one of those which regularly go unnoticed or which are + or - accepted (like scrumhalves who stamp just a bit on opponent fingers slowing the ball down or who hammer the forward's arm holding his shirt) except this one was too blatant.
I'd give Flannery a longer ban than Grewcock and far shorter than Dupuy. 8? 10? 12? Seriously I don't know. Because 14 wks for someone who can't control his leg doesn't seem fair. (btw, I hope Jerry doesn't drive if he's that slow to put his foot off the accelerator)
And to all those who said that Palisson faked it... well, nothing. You can't be serious. Or Ferris faked Attoub's gouging.
I agree with you of course BUT, in the end, I somehow find this more dangerous and completely out of the game than what Grewcock did which is, imo, only a game incident. Well, one of those which regularly go unnoticed or which are + or - accepted (like scrumhalves who stamp just a bit on opponent fingers slowing the ball down or who hammer the forward's arm holding his shirt) except this one was too blatant.
I'd give Flannery a longer ban than Grewcock and far shorter than Dupuy. 8? 10? 12? Seriously I don't know. Because 14 wks for someone who can't control his leg doesn't seem fair. (btw, I hope Jerry doesn't drive if he's that slow to put his foot off the accelerator)
And to all those who said that Palisson faked it... well, nothing. You can't be serious. Or Ferris faked Attoub's gouging.
Huh!! the 3rd February 18, 2010 11:19 pm
bib160 said
'Sephen ferris stayed on the field and continued the match as if nothing happended and played the week after.'
Completely wrong mate. Ferris was subbed directly after his eye gouging with 2 red raw eyes.
'Sephen ferris stayed on the field and continued the match as if nothing happended and played the week after.'
Completely wrong mate. Ferris was subbed directly after his eye gouging with 2 red raw eyes.
Anonymous February 19, 2010 6:25 am
sorry guys, but please before posting read the link about flannerys ban, it is all explained!!!
Maximus February 19, 2010 11:43 am
I've read it. He pleaded flash insanity and apologized later on, flogging himself at the hearing by saying he deserved an instant red. It certainly saved him and makes the situation even weirder.
I still think this is worse than Grewcock's stamping.
I still think this is worse than Grewcock's stamping.
Brick Shithouse February 20, 2010 1:03 am
There is no anti-French bias.
French need to calm down, the system isn't out to get you, maybe it's flawed. Personally this should have been ten weeks.
And to the guy who said its a conspiracy and that he'll be back just in time for the HC quarters, he misses the rest of the 6N. . . Not that convenient.
If the French have the worst offences they'll get the longest bans. Simple as that
French need to calm down, the system isn't out to get you, maybe it's flawed. Personally this should have been ten weeks.
And to the guy who said its a conspiracy and that he'll be back just in time for the HC quarters, he misses the rest of the 6N. . . Not that convenient.
If the French have the worst offences they'll get the longest bans. Simple as that
No.7 February 20, 2010 3:36 am
Flannery said all the right stuff. whether he meant it or not is a different question.....he showed remorse and acceptance of his actions...
i mean bring back NH SH bashing, its far better than this french 'everyone is against us' bullshit!
Im sick and tired of it!
Burger, Parisse, Quinlan, all gougers, that recieved lenient bans, which, i might add, provided a big shock to fans all over the world...especially burger (because of what was at stake for the lions)
so maybe the irb thought, 'right, we f*cked up, next bunch are going to get royally shat on!!' and hey presto, the genius (or is it genii) dupuy and attoub step in with a highly malicious and awful gouge. So as stated above the IRB shat on them!
Then we have grewcock, who, lets face it, is like marmite, some of us love him, some of us hate him. But whats in common once again? most of us felt his ban was rather high, considering the provocation, and the fact he was carded.
Then this situation, worst case scenario, palisson broken leg...best case (sort of) palisson fakes it.....then end of the day, at the point of impact flannery was apologetic. Not forgetting the ball was bobbling around and the possibility of flannery trying to fly hack it is there as well.
I pose to all you french fans, what would satisfy you? 90 week ban? lifetime ban? death penalty?
the referee did not see the incident clearly and the touch judge told him shoulder charge......but i suppose you think that was all set up too!
i mean bring back NH SH bashing, its far better than this french 'everyone is against us' bullshit!
Im sick and tired of it!
Burger, Parisse, Quinlan, all gougers, that recieved lenient bans, which, i might add, provided a big shock to fans all over the world...especially burger (because of what was at stake for the lions)
so maybe the irb thought, 'right, we f*cked up, next bunch are going to get royally shat on!!' and hey presto, the genius (or is it genii) dupuy and attoub step in with a highly malicious and awful gouge. So as stated above the IRB shat on them!
Then we have grewcock, who, lets face it, is like marmite, some of us love him, some of us hate him. But whats in common once again? most of us felt his ban was rather high, considering the provocation, and the fact he was carded.
Then this situation, worst case scenario, palisson broken leg...best case (sort of) palisson fakes it.....then end of the day, at the point of impact flannery was apologetic. Not forgetting the ball was bobbling around and the possibility of flannery trying to fly hack it is there as well.
I pose to all you french fans, what would satisfy you? 90 week ban? lifetime ban? death penalty?
the referee did not see the incident clearly and the touch judge told him shoulder charge......but i suppose you think that was all set up too!
Hooker_ February 20, 2010 11:35 am
i like JF, but that was crazy. my immediate reaction was that he went for the ball, but he was FAR too late, and the look on his face when the ref says the penalty is only for a no arms tackle says it all really.
Maximus February 20, 2010 3:24 pm
Of course there is no conspiracy, that would be amazing with a Frenchman at the head of the IRB.
No7, I will be satisfied with consistency in bans, no more, no less, WHATEVER the nationality. The more dangerous the gesture, the longer the ban and I feel that's fair. Gougers? Long bans.
Concerning Flannery, I've already posted a lot.
And I will be even more satisfied when people stop posting cheap short ridiculous comments just to enrage everyone, especially when they pretend to belong to a country. Thanks to 3/4 centre and Geoff', to name but a few, and all others for sharing this vision.
No7, I will be satisfied with consistency in bans, no more, no less, WHATEVER the nationality. The more dangerous the gesture, the longer the ban and I feel that's fair. Gougers? Long bans.
Concerning Flannery, I've already posted a lot.
And I will be even more satisfied when people stop posting cheap short ridiculous comments just to enrage everyone, especially when they pretend to belong to a country. Thanks to 3/4 centre and Geoff', to name but a few, and all others for sharing this vision.
Jon February 21, 2010 6:53 am
Gouging is worse than this, much worse.
Rugby is a confrontational game, but gouging is the act of a coward.
It is sneaky and malicious, and could result in ripping someone's eyeball. Even in UFC, gouging is banned.
We need to get it out of the game.
On the other hand I can see why the French feel hard done by, when guys like Quinlan, Burger and Parisse get such lenient bans and Attoub gets 70 weeks.
To be honest I don't see why one French guy got double the ban of the other, the citing process is still broken.
They need to make the citing process more efficient and more structured. There should be clearer guidelines on what constitutes illegal play and what bans are to be applied.
As it is there is far to much inconsistency.
Rugby is a confrontational game, but gouging is the act of a coward.
It is sneaky and malicious, and could result in ripping someone's eyeball. Even in UFC, gouging is banned.
We need to get it out of the game.
On the other hand I can see why the French feel hard done by, when guys like Quinlan, Burger and Parisse get such lenient bans and Attoub gets 70 weeks.
To be honest I don't see why one French guy got double the ban of the other, the citing process is still broken.
They need to make the citing process more efficient and more structured. There should be clearer guidelines on what constitutes illegal play and what bans are to be applied.
As it is there is far to much inconsistency.
Pitseleh March 17, 2010 12:22 pm
"No7, I will be satisfied with consistency in bans, no more, no less, WHATEVER the nationality. The more dangerous the gesture, the longer the ban and I feel that's fair. Gougers? Long bans."
... and what do you think about Hartley case ? He even hasn't been cited in spite of his recidivist status.
... and what do you think about Hartley case ? He even hasn't been cited in spite of his recidivist status.
Commenting as Guest | Register or Login