Irish Lions 2009?

**Shilts** · 14/05/2009, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Rashers Baptisa

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

Originally Posted by Shilts

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

Originally Posted by Rashers Baptisa

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

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

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

Originally Posted by Dodge

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

Originally Posted by Dodge

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

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

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

Originally Posted by jbyrne

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

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

Originally Posted by Dodge

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

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

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

Originally Posted by Shilts

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

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

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?

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

Originally Posted by joeSoap

I fail to see the logic of banning him at all after they exonerated him of any intent to injure Cullen?

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...

So, he's not taking his ban like a man then !!!

**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

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

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.