Corry banned for 6 weeks

[el trombono]

All my geese are swans.

[CoalvilleBob]

As far as I'm concerned the only fact that matters is another one of our players has been found guilty of an offence and banned. It seems like our players are being banned a lot more than most other teams. I think its time to stop the petty arguements and trying to shift the blame and take a hard look at our own team as to why our disipline is so bad.

[Albert]

Well said. From my viewpoint, I think what was said by various people at the Ospreys over these alleged incidents was out of order. I'm not condoning what was said, in my opinion it was wrong. Plain wrong.

What I don't like is people complaining about them sounding off without evidence and then sounding off with the wrong 'facts' themselves.

[h's dad]

"what was said by various people at the Ospreys over these alleged incidents was out of order"

First intelligent thing you've said Albert.

[Lis113]

Didn't some french international get banned for only 4 weeks for intentionally striking someone's eyes?

[Albert]

"what was said by various people at the Ospreys over these alleged incidents was out of order"

First intelligent thing you've said Albert.

Maybe you haven't read all that I've said, then.

[dailywaffle]

Didn't some french international get banned for only 4 weeks for intentionally striking someone's eyes?

Assuming that you are referring to Florian Fritz, no.
He was cleared of making contact with the eye / eye area, but given a 3-week ban for the lesser offence of striking an opponent.

[Captain Sensible]

See link for bbc:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7849549.stm

Quoted in the the above article:

Ospreys assistant coach Jonathan Humphreys suggested there had been a couple of incidents involving White when the sides met at Welford Road in October but the Welsh side had opted not to cite on that occasion.

"It is disappointing it happens, and disappointing it happens with the same guy," said Humphreys.

"It seems to be becoming part of the game, and there are a few guys in the dressing-room who are upset with Julian.

They don't put Hibbards name but the implication is there, need anymore be said?

[Albert]

See link for bbc:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7849549.stm

Quoted in the the above article:

Ospreys assistant coach Jonathan Humphreys suggested there had been a couple of incidents involving White when the sides met at Welford Road in October but the Welsh side had opted not to cite on that occasion.

"It is disappointing it happens, and disappointing it happens with the same guy," said Humphreys.

"It seems to be becoming part of the game, and there are a few guys in the dressing-room who are upset with Julian.

They don't put Hibbards name but the implication is there, need anymore be said?

Nope, that's pretty much how I see it. IMPLIED, yes, but Bill W said:

1. Ospreys complained that White gouged Hibbert.

which is clearly incorrect. He also gave a list of FACTS. Now, you lot can dress this up any way you want. I'll agree implied. I'll agree innuendo, but to say that they actually stated it as fact is plain wrong.

End of.

[dailywaffle]

Hibbard in particular, and the Ospreys in general, were well aware that it was Corry who had made contact with Hibbard's eyes.

The reference to Julian was not necessarily in respect of the specific Hibbard incident. I really don't understand why posters wish to bang on about what they perceive to be 'facts' which, on closer examination, are not.

Albert has been refreshingly objective in his posts, and yet he is chastised for doing so.

[Gate]

A fool I may be, but a fool who understands the difference between innuendo and fact.

You can Google 'innuendo' it if you don't.

What on earth are you on about? It appears to be some sort of stubborn hair-splitting aimed principally at Bill W, to what end I simply cannot fathom. "Innuendo" was being used in the legal sense, by the way. The Sprays management knew exactly what they were up to, in my view. And that's my innuendo in the legal sense.

EDIT: I have just realised how very unpleasant the idea of my innuendo may be to some of the more sensitive posters. But I'm vile and nasty, so I'm leaving it there.

[Bill W]

What is a fact?

A fact is that which gains broad consensus in society.

The spreys innuendos where clearly and demonstrably designed to influence society so that their malicious rumous were accepted as fact. Only when the Citing Commissioner refused to be conned did they retract grudgingly and will bad grace.

[Albert]

What is a fact?

A fact is that which gains broad consensus in society.

Really, Bill?

Then I guess in Billworld, it is a fact that people catch cold from getting wet, not from the spread of a virus, as that has broad consensus in society. It was clearly a fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as that had broad consensus in society, and it was clearly a fact that he did not, as that is now the common consensus.

In Swansea, it is a fact that Corry gouged Hibbard, and in Leicester, it is a fact that he did not.

A peculiar place indeed, BillWorld, and one in which, who knows, it may still be a fact that the world is flat.

I've said enough, I leave the last words to you.

[gooders060981]

I think this subject has been done to death now, we will still be talking about this when Corry is back playing.

[Bruce Hornby-Trainset]

What is a fact?

A fact is that which gains broad consensus in society.

Really, Bill?

Then I guess in Billworld, it is a fact that people catch cold from getting wet, not from the spread of a virus, as that has broad consensus in society. It was clearly a fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, as that had broad consensus in society, and it was clearly a fact that he did not, as that is now the common consensus.

In Swansea, it is a fact that Corry gouged Hibbard, and in Leicester, it is a fact that he did not.

A peculiar place indeed, BillWorld, and one in which, who knows, it may still be a fact that the world is flat.

I've said enough, I leave the last words to you.

Ahem, er - it's also a fact at the ERC that Corry did not gouge Hibbard. Inadvertantly made contact with the face, but gouge (i.e. insert fingers or thumbs into eye socket - the top end of the seriousness scale) he most certainly did not.

By the way, can someone tell me if the decision to appeal or not has been taken - I may have missed it amongst all the other exciting threads on this forum