Irish Lions 2009? [Archive] - Page 2

endabob1

05/05/2009, 12:14 PM

It'll be very tough but I'd surprised if they didn't at least hold their own in the lineout. That was one area where Munster were dominant on Saturday.

Really?? I haven't seen any stats but I remember thinking that Cullen & O'Kelly spoiled a lot of Munster line-out ball, not actually stealing ball but disrupting it and slowing it down, I now await the stats to be brought out and make me look like a fool!

Schumi

05/05/2009, 12:22 PM

Really?? I haven't seen any stats but I remember thinking that Cullen & O'Kelly spoiled a lot of Munster line-out ball, not actually stealing ball but disrupting it and slowing it down, I now await the stats to be brought out and make me look like a fool!

Don't have stats to hand but from the game I remember Munster stealing a good few Leinster line outs (can be partially put down to poor throwing but not entirely) and seemed to get a lot of quick ball off the top on their own throws.

endabob1

06/05/2009, 6:46 AM

http://www.scrum.com/europeancup/rugby/match/28467.html

Munster won 16 lost 2

Leinster Won 12 lost 6

I put it down to the beer :o

joeSoap

12/05/2009, 9:39 AM

Mike Blair in for O'Leary. Given Phillips loss of form and Harry Ellis' inability to get into the Leicester side at present, scrum half has to be a huge worry for McGeechan now.

Jamie Roberts is also doubtful, and Shanklin gone, so D'Arcy may well receive a call up.

Youths4Ever

13/05/2009, 5:00 PM

anybody know what time decision on Quinlan due?

DmanDmythDledge

13/05/2009, 5:53 PM

anybody know what time decision on Quinlan due?
It's been announced, 12 week ban.

Youths4Ever

13/05/2009, 7:12 PM

It's been announced, 12 week ban.

Hardly surprising to be honest. Munster will surely try appeal but unless some rules broken up to and including the hearing doubt he will get off but who knows

Rashers Baptisa

14/05/2009, 8:21 AM

I am so upset about the verdict in Quinny's case. It would have been great to see him play with the lions.

My old rugby coach used to say what happens in the ruck should stay in the ruck.

jbyrne

14/05/2009, 8:33 AM

I am so upset about the verdict in Quinny's case. It would have been great to see him play with the lions.

My old rugby coach used to say what happens in the ruck should stay in the ruck.

have to agree. the disipline committee have acknowledged that while it was reckless play the contact with the eyes wasnt intentional. surely the famous o'driscoll spear tackle was at the very least reckless play and yet those two NZ players were not even charged with anything!

Rashers Baptisa

14/05/2009, 10:18 AM

have to agree. the disipline committee have acknowledged that while it was reckless play the contact with the eyes wasnt intentional. surely the famous o'driscoll spear tackle was at the very least reckless play and yet those two NZ players were not even charged with anything!

I agree 100%. I should have said I would never condone a player going near another player's eyes. However I think Qunny is not that type of person. I do not think he would knowingly gouge another players' eyes.
I just think it was a heat of the battle thing.

With Thomas's horrific injury and the exit from the Heineken cup (still hasn't really sank in) it truly has been a rough few weeks for the Munster lads. I hope they can bounce back tomorrow night at TP. I do think they have the character and moral courage to end the season on a high against the Ospreys.

I also look forward to the Munster lads (especially young Keith Earls) doing us proud in South Africa.

Shilts

14/05/2009, 10:52 AM

I am so upset about the verdict in Quinny's case. It would have been great to see him play with the lions.

My old rugby coach used to say what happens in the ruck should stay in the ruck.

Thats the biggest crock of sh1t I have heard in a while.
He deserves his ban.
He should take it like a man.

By the way my old gaa coach told us that when a lad was bending down to pickup the ball we should kick him in the fingers... I was 9!!!

Rashers Baptisa

14/05/2009, 12:07 PM

Thats the biggest crock of sh1t I have heard in a while.
He deserves his ban.
He should take it like a man.

By the way my old gaa coach told us that when a lad was bending down to pickup the ball we should kick him in the fingers... I was 9!!!

Firstly, I am just stating my opinion. Secondly, I do believe that Quinny has to face a ban but I don't think he meant to intentionally hurt Leo Cullen. Thirdly, I think Quinny will take it like a man because he's made of the right stuff. Fourthly and finally, I don't want to hear about coaches telling young lads to bend down - it brings back some painful memories from my youth.

Roadend

14/05/2009, 1:46 PM

Why, had you a bad back?

Macy

15/05/2009, 8:13 AM

However I think Qunny is not that type of person. I do not think he would knowingly gouge another players' eyes.
I just think it was a heat of the battle thing.
Which is it? Either he's not that type of person or it was a heat of battle thing.

Didn't mean too, not intentional yada yada. What bull - he was busted big time and got the ban he deserves.

I'm old school enough to see nothing wrong with players on the wrong side getting a good shoeing, but gouging is, and always has been, disgusting.

Real ale Madrid

15/05/2009, 8:42 AM

I agree with Rashers - its looked a lot worse in slow motion - his fingers are in contact with Cullens eye's for less than a second in real time.

People are really up on thier high horse over this. Something unsavory happens in pretty much every rugby game. Quinlan deserves a ban, but thanks to a neanderthal type disciplinary system he's missing the biggest 6 weeks of his rugby life instead of being banned for 6/8 Munster games which would be resonable punishment.

Dodge

15/05/2009, 8:43 AM

People are really up on thier high horse over this. Something unsavory happens in pretty rugby game. Quinlan deserves a ban, but thanks to a neanderthal type disciplinary system he's missing the biggest 6 weeks of his rugby life instead of being banned for 6/8 Munster games which would be resonable punishment.

You mean thanks to him sticking his fingers in another players eyes he's missing the tour. No one to blame but himself. its not like he didn't know what the punichment would be (and remember that others have got worse)

Real ale Madrid

15/05/2009, 8:56 AM

You mean thanks to him sticking his fingers in another players eyes he's missing the tour. No one to blame but himself. its not like he didn't know what the punichment would be (and remember that others have got worse)

I agree he has no-one to blame but himself - but i don't think the punishment is just considering that his hands came in contact with Cullen's eye for less than a second. Cullen himself wrote a submission to the citing commissioner saying he was not gouged. I'm not going to defend his actions but people really would want to get off thier high horses with the issue. He was wrong - yes, he got banned - yes - was the punishment justified - imo - no.

jbyrne

15/05/2009, 9:12 AM

You mean thanks to him sticking his fingers in another players eyes he's missing the tour.

he didnt stick them in his eyes and yes there is a difference. a closed hand coming in contact with that part of the head is far less dangerous than a single finger actually being poked into someones eye. the incident has been deemed reckless rather than being actual intent

Dodge

15/05/2009, 9:13 AM

I agree he has no-one to blame but himself - but i don't think the punishment is just considering that his hands came in contact with Cullen's eye for less than a second. Cullen himself wrote a submission to the citing commissioner saying he was not gouged. I'm not going to defend his actions but people really would want to get off thier high horses with the issue. He was wrong - yes, he got banned - yes - was the punishment justified - imo - no.

What high horse? Nobody claimed he should be banned for life, and not too many made any statements at all about his punishment.

12 weeks in a non tour year is a nothing punishment, but 12 weeks for gouging is not excessive in anyway. You think otherwise, but don't be dismissing those who disagree as being on any high horse...

centre mid

15/05/2009, 9:20 AM

he didnt stick them in his eyes and yes there is a difference. a closed hand coming in contact with that part of the head is far less dangerous than a single finger actually being poked into someones eye. the incident has been deemed reckless rather than being actual intent

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:URKWNSUOzdQu_M:http://incontext.blogmosis.com/see%20no%20evil.jpg

Got what he deserved, Quinlan has been playing on the fringe of the laws for years and getting away with it (he wouldnt look out of place in the All Blacks). It usually works in our favour but he got caught out this time and its cost him a lions place, thats the tight rope he flirts with every week. He was lucky that Leinster didnt cite him, if it was any other team he would have been cited.

Real ale Madrid

15/05/2009, 9:52 AM

What high horse? Nobody claimed he should be banned for life, and not too many made any statements at all about his punishment.

12 weeks in a non tour year is a nothing punishment, but 12 weeks for gouging is not excessive in anyway. You think otherwise, but don't be dismissing those who disagree as being on any high horse...

I never dismiss anyone's argument, but i have to say there are plenty who are making too large an issue out of it, partly because of his so-called reputation. Not nessecarily pointing at yourself, plenty comments on here like.

"sticking his fingers In other people's eyes" - he didnt
"Quinlan on fringes of the law for years" - no worse than any back row forward worth his salt
"he should take his ban like a man" - im sure he will, but i don't think the punishment is justified given his actions were more reckless than intentional.

Again not defending his actions - it was still a fairly stupid thing to do.

Shilts

15/05/2009, 2:39 PM

I never dismiss anyone's argument, but i have to say there are plenty who are making too large an issue out of it, partly because of his so-called reputation. Not nessecarily pointing at yourself, plenty comments on here like.

"sticking his fingers In other people's eyes" - he didnt
"Quinlan on fringes of the law for years" - no worse than any back row forward worth his salt
"he should take his ban like a man" - im sure he will, but i don't think the punishment is justified given his actions were more reckless than intentional.

Again not defending his actions - it was still a fairly stupid thing to do.

You agree it was a stupid thing to do and deserves some punishment.
What punishment do you think that he deserves?
And if you say 4 weeks or something like that, would you be happy for some frenchie to do the same next year to one of ours and only get the same punishment???

Real ale Madrid

15/05/2009, 8:18 PM

You agree it was a stupid thing to do and deserves some punishment.
What punishment do you think that he deserves?
And if you say 4 weeks or something like that, would you be happy for some frenchie to do the same next year to one of ours and only get the same punishment???

Already said that he should be banned from Munster games, not for a one-off tour.

Anyway - this isn't done yet because he is to appeal the decision.

DmanDmythDledge

15/05/2009, 9:50 PM

Already said that he should be banned from Munster games, not for a one-off tour.

Anyway - this isn't done yet because he is to appeal the decision.
Hopefully it gets extended. Compared to other bans on the case he got off lightly.

joeSoap

19/05/2009, 12:28 PM

I fail to see the logic of banning him at all after they exonerated him of any intent to injure Cullen?:confused: They are suspending him for 12 weeks on the basis that he made contact with the eye area of Leo Cullen, but cleared him of intentionally doing so. So,are they banning him from the greatest moment of his career over something he didn't mean to do? A bit silly imo.

Don't be surprised to see him win his appeal...I hear there might be a technicality looming...

Shilts

19/05/2009, 1:53 PM

joeSoap

19/05/2009, 2:51 PM

I know I'd explore every opportunity to go on that tour if I were in his shoes, and reckon you'd be mad if you didn't.

37Beour

19/05/2009, 4:43 PM

If it was Brian O' Driscoll that got a ban I think most people's tone on here would change to one where he didn't deserve a ban :rolleyes:

Fact is there was minimal contact by Quinlan to Cullen's eyes and Cullen even supported this. And comments saying the ban should be extended is crazy. 12 weeks alone is too much for something deemed wreckless rather than intent.

I think anyone in Quinlans position would do everything to give themselves the best chance of being on the plane to South Africa, if you don't then your heart wouldn't be really in it then would it?!!

centre mid

19/05/2009, 4:54 PM

If it was Brian O' Driscoll that got a ban I think most people's tone on here would change to one where he didn't deserve a ban :rolleyes:

O'Driscoll has no history of this, Quinlan has.

Fact is there was minimal contact by Quinlan to Cullen's eyes and Cullen even supported this. And comments saying the ban should be extended is crazy. 12 weeks alone is too much for something deemed wreckless rather than intent.

I wouldnt argue that it should be extended, 12 weeks is punishment enough.

I think anyone in Quinlans position would do everything to give themselves the best chance of being on the plane to South Africa, if you don't then your heart wouldn't be really in it then would it?!!

He is entitled to appeal, good luck to him.

pete

19/05/2009, 5:36 PM

To some extent a separate topic but any chance rugby will change from amateur time bans & move to game bans like other professional sports.

If Quinlan had not been selected for the Lions the 12 week ban would be worthless. Also club bans extending into international sphere is stupid.

Youths4Ever

20/05/2009, 11:55 PM

another Irish player out of Lions Tour Flannery (http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2009/0520/lions2.html)

Bald Student

21/05/2009, 2:25 AM

If Quinlan had not been selected for the Lions the 12 week ban would be worthless. Also club bans extending into international sphere is stupid.The closed season doesn't count towards the ban. The clock will stop after the Lions' Tour and restart in September.

Macy

21/05/2009, 7:26 AM

The closed season doesn't count towards the ban. The clock will stop after the Lions' Tour and restart in September.
And Ireland are touring too, so even without the Lions there would've been an impact.

Aberdonian Stu

21/05/2009, 8:39 AM

The closed season doesn't count towards the ban. The clock will stop after the Lions' Tour and restart in September.

They said when it was announced that the close-season doesn't count so that's what will happen.