All Ospreys discussion here please!

[Bill W (2)]

Charge - misconduct. Plea - guilty. Sanction - one match ban.

Bearing in mind no punishment was given on the field of play (wrongly) difficult to see what lower sanction the panel could have applied.

This isn't about the length of the ban - it's about the timing. Gatland has told byrne to appeal, in the hope that the appeal hearing will be scheduled after the England game, and confirmed as 2 weeks.

Thus, Byrne plays at Twickers and misses the Scotland game - much better for Wales. It's a bit cynical but, hey, this is rugby.

And if the appeal is heard on Thursday (as appears likely) and the sanction increased to four weeks?

[Snorbins]

Just as matter of interest what is the cost of an appeal? To get the great and good (sorry 3 persons of character, no that description doesnt work either); to get 3 people to hear the appeal cannot come cheap.

[TigerAlex]

I didn't like Back doing it, and likewise any other player. IMO it has no bearing whatsoever on the recent matter, other than disconnected arguments by rancid fans and lazy journos.

I know it doesn't have any bearing on the recent matter (hence, slightly off topic at the moment). But I thought it was relevant yto the topic as a whole given the recent list of reasons Tigers have no right to complain about the 16 men incident and something of a counter argument (ie along the lines of 'get off your high horses'). I also agree with not liking anyone doing it, just like I don't like anyone cheating (unless it's me )

On the recent topic, what do you think about the opinion expressed by many that the ban should only count for games in the Heinken Cup and not for the international? (Personally, I think it sets a dangerous precedent for other cases).

[Kinoulton]

For those of you that are thick, (there seem to be many), this is how sport works:

1) On the field of play, run-outs, penalties, drop goals, free-kicks, icing, no-balls, high-sticks, etc etc are the business of the referee/umpire and his/her decision has to stand and there ain't no going back.

The hand of Back, the hand of Maradonna, and the hand of Thierry Henry come into this category. Very sad but there is nowt that can be done about it once the ref has blown his flute.

2) Technical offences like fielding an illegible player, fielding too many players, failing to stop a pitch invasion, fielding a player on drugs, having the wrong sized pitch etc etc are not solely decided at the discretion of the ref but can be reviewed at a later date by the sport's governing body.

The Neil Back (category 1) thing has nothing to do with the 16 players thing (category 2). If you think it does, get help.

[Rizzo]

We seem to have two discussions going on the same subject = i.e. the Ospreys game, what happened, and the resulting fine and ban. I am considering merging the two.

[TigerAlex]

For those of you that are thick, (there seem to be many), this is how sport works:

1) On the field of play, run-outs, penalties, drop goals, free-kicks, icing, no-balls, high-sticks, etc etc are the business of the referee/umpire and his/her decision has to stand and there ain't no going back.

The hand of Back, the hand of Maradonna, and the hand of Thierry Henry come into this category. Very sad but there is nowt that can be done about it once the ref has blown his flute.

2) Technical offences like fielding an illegible player, fielding too many players, failing to stop a pitch invasion, fielding a player on drugs, having the wrong sized pitch etc etc are not solely decided at the discretion of the ref but can be reviewed at a later date by the sport's governing body.

The Neil Back (category 1) thing has nothing to do with the 16 players thing (category 2). If you think it does, get help.

Ok, let's get this straight. Never have I ever thought that the Hand of Back etc was a valid reason for why Leicester should never be able to complain about other teams cheating ever. I too think it is a stupid argument bourne out of pettiness and the hypocrisy they accuse us of. When I said 'relevant', I meant relevant in the sense that some idiots do still think it's a valid argument and the youtube link I posted was meant to illustrate that it is a stupid point to make. Every team has benefited from things the ref has missed just as every team has been on the wrong end of a bad decision. It's unfortunate, but just part of the game- the ref can't see everything. Although I suppose the people who like to bring it up as a reason why the Tigers are a disgrace to rugby are either trolls or blinded by their own bitterness and therefore beyond reason.

Also, I thought the video was quite funny and that some of you might be amused by it.

[Bill W (2)]

For those of you that are thick, (there seem to be many), this is how sport works:

1) On the field of play, run-outs, penalties, drop goals, free-kicks, icing, no-balls, high-sticks, etc etc are the business of the referee/umpire and his/her decision has to stand and there ain't no going back.

The hand of Back, the hand of Maradonna, and the hand of Thierry Henry come into this category. Very sad but there is nowt that can be done about it once the ref has blown his flute.

2) Technical offences like fielding an illegible player, fielding too many players, failing to stop a pitch invasion, fielding a player on drugs, having the wrong sized pitch etc etc are not solely decided at the discretion of the ref but can be reviewed at a later date by the sport's governing body.

The Neil Back (category 1) thing has nothing to do with the 16 players thing (category 2). If you think it does, get help.

In the interests of precision, in Rugby foul play detected or not by the referee and his assistants can be refered by the Citing Officer to a disciplinary panel. In this instance "foul" means
action that might hurt someone.

[salcombe bob]

what stands out for me in the decision is the quote something like ......Leic were not disadvantaged etc!! That is wrong. At least a penalty should have been awarded. I will always think Byrne knew there were 16 on the pitch.

[salcombe bob]

deaks, I agree. Ospreys knew there were 16 there,they are pros for gods sake.

Well done Dragons yesterday, perhaps Ospreys had to play with 15 this time.

[Smurphswillgetya]

Kinny agree with your points completely. People who cant see the difference do need help. Opens the doors for keeping a player stripped and ready on the touchline just in case an extra player is needed. The player can then just wave at a player on the pitch to come off and then come on and interfere with play to stop the opposition. Wasps must be rubbing their hands in glee.

[Bill W (2)]

cheating (unless it's me )

On the recent topic, what do you think about the opinion expressed by many that the ban should only count for games in the Heinken Cup and not for the international? (Personally, I think it sets a dangerous precedent for other cases).

Terribly difficult. Bans in Internationals should only apply in Internationals? Bans in the LV should only apply in LV games?

No. A ban is a ban and should apply (as IRB intend) to all competitions and in all jurisdictions.

The problem is for different bodies (and IRB) to sort out what constitutes "proof" and what constitues "low end", "mid range", and "high end". What ERC regards as proof appears not necessarily what CNOSF regard as proof.

It is no different I guess to the different standards in magistrates courts - but there the appeal process takes you ultimately to the House of Lords. In Rugby there is no overiding appeal body. Hence little consistency.

[BridgendOsprey]

It seems Januarie may not have been properly registered so the debacle may not yet be over.

This is a new one, given that he'd already played in 3 other pool games - where's the proof?

To be added to a Heineken cup squad a player must receieve a 3 month contract. Januarie was only with the Ospreys for around 6 weeks.

Januarie was given (and paid) a three month contract by the Ospreys. He just didn't play here for three months. His time at the O's was perfectly legal and by the books!

[Kinoulton]

TigerAlex, I did understand your post and definitely wasn't having a go at you.

It were them there trolls!

[kevf]

So Leicester are unhappy that something "unlawful" happened on the field of play that "had a bearing on the outcome of the match" - to the extent that they are demanding their Heineken Cup game with Ospreys be replayed.

Have they forgotten the 'Hand of Back' incident in the 2002 Heineken Cup final?

That was also unlawful, and had a bearing on the outcome of the match, depriving Munster of the cup. Did we hear any whining about replays then?

Discuss

could you please point out to me where tigers managment have insisted that the gme be replayed? I may have missed it but as yet i have not seen anything of the like. I have only seen a complaint to the ERC witha request it be investigated. feel fee to tell me i have missed the "wewant the game replayed" BillW am i missing something?

[Bill W (2)]

could you please point out to me where tigers managment have insisted that the gme be replayed? I may have missed it but as yet i have not seen anything of the like. I have only seen a complaint to the ERC witha request it be investigated. feel fee to tell me i have missed the "wewant the game replayed" BillW am i missing something?

I am not sure why you ask me this question.

However, several press reports quoted Peter Wheeler as saying that a replay would be a fair outcome (my words). The Leicester statements did not mention sanctions but merely called for an investigation. I believe Tigers sports lawyers did suggest a replay at the hearing.