Corry banned for 6 weeks

[Albert]

and thats why he shoulnt let himself and his team down by doing stuff like this.

And it says on the BBC that he is guilty of being a bad sportsman. Or at least guilty of an act contrary to good sportsmanship which is the same.

[Captain Sensible]

With comments like this Albert for all their good intentions, every game every week would be stopped if the referee acted in such a way to cut out poor sportsmanship.
Bending the rules, winding players up is all part of the game.
To beat it, you have to play even better and rub the oppositions noise in it by stopping them get any points.
Had Hibbard concentrated on the game instead of trying to get Tigers players yellow or red carded the ospreys may have won by more than 7 points and they would have topped the group instead of us!

The authorities running the game are a bunch of idiots and certain decisions prove this.
At the end of the day Rugby is no different to all other sports, it's called lip service.
The money controls the game now.
Learn to live with it!

[Will S]

If you could get banned for winding people up and a bit of bad sportsmanship then Mark Regan would only have played out 5 games in his enitre career. Infact, I think there would be a large deficit of hookers in the game!

[Tircoeds]

And there's another dark mutterer.

I am interested in your statement .... what constitutes a dark mutterer. I merely expressed my opinion, though in the minority, which some on here commend, rather than go with the rest of the sheep ( I know that I will regret writing that later ...)

I have not been disrespectful of you, the Tigers or of Corry (I am not suggesting that you have of me either, unless dark mutterer means something else over the border). I have just stated my opinion. You use the 'mud pie' reference in a way that made it look that I suggested Corry was feeding mud to Hibbard .... you are better than that, you know what I meant, and Rizzo appeared to grasp the meaning, so it can't have been because of the way in which I had worded it.

Anyhow, I wish that we ( the supporters) can put this behind us and move on, dwelling on the injustice or not of particular cases for any length of time, will only serve to drive up blood pressure and aggravate stomach ulcers.

[NorthantsTiger]

Why should we put it behind us? Many Tigers fans feel that our players have been unfairly treated by both the Ospreys and now the citing board. I certainly feel let down by the 'system' as is and will continue to feel so as long as this saga rumbles on.

(Note: I said many tigers fans as i realise that this view is not held by everyone before anyone gets their metaphorical knickers in a twist)

[Gate]

There's a thin-skinned dark mutterer.

I meant no more than that there were those who, instead of saying exactly what it was they thought they had seen on whatever piece of video they had been watching, produced dark mutterings about things not looking good or similar. It makes you sound like Pte. Frazer.

[dailywaffle]

Thanks for that DW. I suppose whether I misrepresented your view depends on whether your view is (as I certainly read it to be) that what you describe as a "facial" wouldn't have constituted an offence had no contact been made with the eye area, and that it was the unintentional contact with the eye area that made it an offence, and a player who does that sort of "facial" runs the risk of it becoming more.

Or is it that the "facial" itself is an offence (or, if you prefer, illegitimate conduct), which becomes much, much worse if unintentional contact is made with the eye area?

I'm not convinced I buy either view personally, but they're certainly perfectly viable views in general (and quite possibly correct ones, since I am wrong often enough not to make any sort of claim to rightness - I just have a view and hold it quite strongly).

Sorry I couldn't answer earlier Gate, its been a rather busy day!
Paragraph 1 would be the closer of the two. Apologies for any confusion. That said, its a question of context, it would be silly of me to say that all 'facials' (assuming no accidental contact with the eye area) are automatically OK, and indeed one would not legitimise them in the same way as one would the hand-off.

If you like they fall into that category of 'slightly naughty, but who gives a stuff as long as it doesn't lead to anything worse'. Which it did in the Corry v Hibbard case.

[dailywaffle]

I have SKY HD + and I saw nothing either. I think he must have a different angle or super powers.

A very similar posting was made by a Tigers fanatic on the Ospreys forum, albeit under a different name. Are you one and the same?

Yes, I have a super power. Its called objectivity, very rare. You might want to try it some time.

[Gate]

Thanks for that DW. I suppose whether I misrepresented your view depends on whether your view is (as I certainly read it to be) that what you describe as a "facial" wouldn't have constituted an offence had no contact been made with the eye area, and that it was the unintentional contact with the eye area that made it an offence, and a player who does that sort of "facial" runs the risk of it becoming more.

Or is it that the "facial" itself is an offence (or, if you prefer, illegitimate conduct), which becomes much, much worse if unintentional contact is made with the eye area?

I'm not convinced I buy either view personally, but they're certainly perfectly viable views in general (and quite possibly correct ones, since I am wrong often enough not to make any sort of claim to rightness - I just have a view and hold it quite strongly).

Sorry I couldn't answer earlier Gate, its been a rather busy day!
Paragraph 1 would be the closer of the two. Apologies for any confusion. That said, its a question of context, it would be silly of me to say that all 'facials' (assuming no accidental contact with the eye area) are automatically OK, and indeed one would not legitimise them in the same way as one would the hand-off.

If you like they fall into that category of 'slightly naughty, but who gives a stuff as long as it doesn't lead to anything worse'. Which it did in the Corry v Hibbard case.

It's a fair argument. I'm still not sure I buy it for myself, but that may have as much to do with my beef about the structure of penalties under the "unsporting conduct" head as anything. But enough of that, or I'll have Dave Angel beating a tune on my sorry butt.

[Tircoeds]

There's a thin-skinned dark mutterer.

I meant no more than that there were those who, instead of saying exactly what it was they thought they had seen on whatever piece of video they had been watching, produced dark mutterings about things not looking good or similar. It makes you sound like Pte. Frazer.

Fair point, extremly thin skinned .....

Pte Frazer . remind me, despite my advancing years, i can't remember which one, I suspect the Scot who said "we're doomed" quite often.

[Gate]

That's the fella. The archetypal dark mutterer. Reminds me of my old boss.

[seldomrong]

It appears that gooders and I share the same view. If Martin did wrong then he should be punished but I still have yet to see what I would judge as foul play so why are we wrong in defending a situation which based on what I have seen there is no case to answer.

It appears that some folk are prepared to convict Corry on what might have happened which is ridiculous.

If you want to around banning players every time they wind up an opponent we would be playing 5 a side.

It is not a girlie game - get real

[R-K-1]

Corry was found not guilty of intentionally gouging but found guilty of an act which wasn't sportsmanlike...

That means that they're saying he was wrong to have his hand in Hibbard's face, and although he didn't try to gouge, what he did was unfair and not sporting... Can't you learn to read and interpret - you're like proverbial bulls chasing proverbial red flags, except your proverbial flag is the phrase "not guilty".

Read in context, please. He went for Hibbard's face, but not the eyes, and has been given an appropriate ban for the offence which he was found guilty of.

Seriously, the way you guys have missed the meaning, you'd think we were analyzing a piece of complex poetry.

You seem to think that Tigers have been hard done by, but we really haven't.

[Bill W]

Corry was found not guilty of intentionally gouging but found guilty of an act which wasn't sportsmanlike...

That means that they're saying he was wrong to have his hand in Hibbard's face, and although he didn't try to gouge, what he did was unfair and not sporting... Can't you learn to read and interpret - you're like proverbial bulls chasing proverbial red flags, except your proverbial flag is the phrase "not guilty".

Read in context, please. He went for Hibbard's face, but not the eyes, and has been given an appropriate ban for the offence which he was found guilty of.

Seriously, the way you guys have missed the meaning, you'd think we were analyzing a piece of complex poetry.

You seem to think that Tigers have been hard done by, but we really haven't.

It is not complex and it is not poetry.

1. Ospreys complained that White gouged Hibbert.
2. Citing Officer found no evidence of that.
3. Citing officer found prima facie evidence that Corry gouged or punched Hibbert
4. Ospreys changed their tune.
5. Disciplinary panel found that Corry did not gouge Hibbert and did not punch him.
6. Corry given six week ban.

If a six week ban is an appropriate ban under IRB disciplinary rules for not punching not and not making contact with the eye or eye area then something is very wrong with IRB rules.

IMHO

[WiggoTiger]

I know it annoys us all, but lets put old water under the bridge and cope for six weeks with out him. He will be back for th 1/4's so lets think positively. All this skullduggery at one another is pointless as we never change the ERC bans imposed on a tigers player.