Sixteen men on pitch

[Nik]

they only have to watch the match again..........blood boiling again - got to go!! haha

[LeinsterCormac]

Bob Dyers main comments:

'With the Tigers in full cry and desperately striving for the try which would bring them level, Lee Byrne - at that time on the field illegally – played a significant role in a huge defensive effort by the Ospreys. Although there is precedent for such an occurrence, on this occasion, the illegal player actually joined in the play and made a significant contribution to the outcome. [England played for 34 secs with a 16th player during the 2003 RWC, but the illegal player made no contribution to the game.]

This is an extremely serious matter and the rugby world will eagerly await the deliberations of the European Rugby Cup officials. It’s not some new regulation that players are only permitted access to the playing field via the sideline official. There is no excuse whatsoever for the transgression by the Ospreys official or by Lee Byrne, a vastly experienced player. The incident calls for extreme action by the officials.

I have no doubt that Ospreys were the better team on the night, but, equally, I have no doubt that the Tigers could have conceivably scored but for the illegal play by the Ospreys. It a hellishly difficult decision for ERC, but they’ve made one or two of those in the recent past. They must bite the bullet and make another one. It won’t be enough, in my opinion, to fall back on to the laws of the game. They were not followed by the referee anyway, even after he was made aware of the transgression.

The European Rugby Cup is a highly professional competition in a highly professional game. It must be administered accordingly.'

Can't say I disagree with any of it.

He also raises another point which I noticed at the time and puzzeled over. Namely the fact that the blood bin substitution was for a small bleed to the foot, probably a toe, inside the boot and that as such there was no risk to others through blood contact. So, why the blood substitution?

I can find one point to easily disagree over and that's the fact than Dan Luger tackled a player and conceded a penalty during his illegal time on the pitch in 2003. Bob's memory must be fading.

As for the blood injury, the referee looked at it and gave him the ok to go off as a blood injury so no shady dealings there. Bet Deano wishes he'd thought of that last April.

[Nailsworthstiger]

I've not read all of the 197 or however many replies to this article but I would like to make a comment.
Firstly I agree we were awful and didn't merit a victory but had the letter of the law been adhered to, we would of been given a penalty which was pretty much in front of the posts at the re-start and a possible or probable 3 points. That would of made the game 17-15. With about 3 minutes remaining we were nearing the try line going for the 5 points. But had the score been only 2 points in deficit, we may of gone for a drop goal and secured an unlikely victory.
So all these people saying it wouldn't of made any difference... wrong... it could of made all the difference between winning and loosing.
In this day and age you don't always have to play attractive rugny to win... sometimes you have to grind out victories and if playing poorly is part of it... so be it.

[bluntiger]

You are right, the fact that the referee did not award a penalty did change the course of the game. However, that is NOT the Ospreys fault but the referees.

The only way that there will be any further action (other than a fine for having 16 men on the field illegally) is if, as was suggested when Tigers spoke to the referee after the game, that Ospreys suggested that Tigers also had 16 men on the field and that was why the referee did not award the penalty.

If that is found to be the case then Ospreys could be charged with deceiving the officials and may have points deducted and/or eliminated from the tournament.

Personally, I believe that the referee got if wrong as he was not fully aware of the rules and failed to give the penalty but then bottled it when Tigers questioned his decision after the game.

Either way, he has to be wrong as even if Ospreys did deceive him, he should have checked the facts not simply taken the word of a player or officials from either side.

[Suz]

If that is found to be the case then Ospreys could be charged with deceiving the officials and may have points deducted and/or eliminated from the tournament.

Personally, I believe that the referee got if wrong as he was not fully aware of the rules and failed to give the penalty but then bottled it when Tigers questioned his decision after the game.

Either way, he has to be wrong as even if Ospreys did deceive him, he should have checked the facts not simply taken the word of a player or officials from either side.

Yeah the ref bit has been bothering me. He had such a go at the Ospreys offical for allowing them to have 16 on the pitch. So surley if at the same time he thought we did aswel - shouldn't he have had words with our officals at the same time

[Nailsworthstiger]

You are right, the fact that the referee did not award a penalty did change the course of the game. However, that is NOT the Ospreys fault but the referees.

The only way that there will be any further action (other than a fine for having 16 men on the field illegally) is if, as was suggested when Tigers spoke to the referee after the game, that Ospreys suggested that Tigers also had 16 men on the field and that was why the referee did not award the penalty.

If that is found to be the case then Ospreys could be charged with deceiving the officials and may have points deducted and/or eliminated from the tournament.

Personally, I believe that the referee got if wrong as he was not fully aware of the rules and failed to give the penalty but then bottled it when Tigers questioned his decision after the game.

Either way, he has to be wrong as even if Ospreys did deceive him, he should have checked the facts not simply taken the word of a player or officials from either side.

If this is the case I am sure the club would of voiced a louder reply. I cant see anything coming from it now... too long a time has now elapsed... and the draw for the quarters has been made!!!

[Mr Macca]

You couldn't make it up!:

Shortcut to: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/18012010/ ... h-man.html

[Bill W (2)]

Actually,according to the regs Mr. Lewis should not have spoken to the Ospreys officials at all. He should merely have demanded of the Ospreys captain that he remove a player and awarded a penalty to Tigers. Should the Ospreys captain have remonstrated with him that "Well Tigers had too" he should have advanced the penalty 10 yards.

Unfortunately this is but another example of referees seeing their job as "managing the game" and "interpreting the laws".

If the fourth official wished to berate the Ospreys officials - fine. If he wished to bring disciplinary charges against those officials - again fine.

I have always regarded Mr.Lewis as a poor referee.

This was one of his worst moments.

ERC and IRB should take disciplinary action against him.

Perhaps a 70 week ban for him to be retrained as a second division touch judge?

[Noggs]

You couldn't make it up!:

Shortcut to: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/18012010/ ... h-man.html

As you say........

If it wasn't so serious it would be funny

[cunningcorgi]

This has been done to death now but just want to address this comment directed at Peter Wheeler:

Have a look at the game again. Whilst O's have 16 men on the field, Tigers have four attacking phases (including break by Youngs from scrum covered by Byrne and later on a tackle by Biggar on Tuilagi). The last act before the 16 men are pointed out to the ref is a two on two 10 metres from the O's line. Credibility retained (by Wheeler at least).

You must have awfully wide try lines at Welford Road

[cunningcorgi]

Mick Cleary's take from the telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... ateur.html

Which surely must be read alongside his article written 10 years ago where he pronounced that"Having 16 men on the field is not a heinous offence." More faces than a town hall clock.

[Noggs]

26 January 2010, 5:44 pmBy Gary SherrardLeicester Tigers Board of Directors issued the following statement on Tuesday in relation to Saturay's Heineken Cup tie against the Ospreys:The Leicester Tigers Board of Directors have reviewed the footage of Saturday's Heineken Cup Pool 3 game against Ospreys and believe there is a clear case for concern.
The Board has a duty to the Club and the other teams in the competition to do everything in their power to help ERC to determine, as fully and speedily as possible, who was responsible for a 16th player being on the pitch.

To that end, the Club have lodged an official written complaint with ERC which they are now in the process of investigating. Everyone at the Club is totally committed to supporting the investigation in any way they can.

Leicester Tigers Chairman, Peter Tom CBE, is also writing to the Chairman of ERC, Jean-Pierre Lux, to detail our concerns in respect of the incident and the Club has instructed a leading firm of sports law specialists to represent them in this matter

Clearly a long way from over. Looks like it's going legal

[Rizzo]

In which case, the winners will be the lawyers....

[Noggs]

I wouldn't be so sure Rizzo. I can't see that the board would go to such lengths (and costs) unless they felt that the likely outcome would be of benefit the club. They have to think they're in with a shout of doing more that just landing Ospreys with a fine.

[Bill W (2)]

Clearly a long way from over. Looks like it's going legal

I did observe some time ago that this would drag on and on, like the Tincu affair, Bloodgate, the Dupuy and Attoub cases.

Once ERC failed to act decisivey (as they said they would!) on the Sunday it followed as sure as night followed day that the affair would drag on and on and legal eagles become involved.

Of course, as with Bloodgate, no-one will win. It will merely be a case of how much how many lose. And, of course, the sport will be the ultimate losers. ERC may try and pin it all in Ospreys (as they pinned Bloodgate on Sequins). It is now too late to dress it up as a "storm in a teacup" - the media are engaged (two faced as they maybe). They could try and pin it all on Alan Lewis - the media will not let them get away with that even if it is close to the truth.

The imposition of a swinging fine (£100,000) on Sunday they could have got away with. Now, alas, every stone will be lifted, every skeleton in every cupboard exposed starting with the supposed "blood injury" (to a toe within a sock within a boot?) through to who said what to whom and why the laws of the game were disregarded.

Through the Tincu affair ECR brought the game into disrepute - IRB did little or nothing to resolve matters - the Dupuy and Attoub cases may well expose this further. Through the Bloodgate affair again ECR brought the game into disrepute.

They have done it again.

The game is the loser - but hopefully this time IRB will have to act. I will not be holding my breath.