Jerry Flannery - now banned for 6 weeks

[johnh]

As Jim Royale would (probably) say "Reckless my AR#E".

I've watched the incident a couple of times now and IMO there's intent there. 6 weeks, for that? I'll think I'll starting watching football again!

[bluntiger]

"An independent disciplinary panel found the offence, which forced Palisson from the field with a dead leg, had been reckless rather than deliberate. "
I would hate to see a deliberate act!!!!!

Here, Here! If that was not deliberate then what is?

It is common knowledge that you can't kick the ball when it is in someone else's hands let alone kick the ball THROUGH the person! That was a full-blooded act of sheer thuggery - nothing less.

[Noggs]

As I posted earlier, I can see could have been reckless rather than deliberate when you see it in real time.

A clumsy attempt to hoof the ball; a quick swooping pick up by the opposition player; the mind says 'stop' but the body doesn't respond in time. A ban, certainly, but if you give the player the benefit of the doubt 6 weeks seems reasonable, particularly as it means his international season is over for now.

[Bill W (2)]

IRB had the opportunity here to lay down a standard that foul play will not be tolerated.

They failed.

[kingol22]

They failed.

as usual

[Longshanks]

Seems to me they fell into the trap of judging the serious of the act in terms of the damage, rather than the intent or recklessness. I imagine if the victim had suffered a broken leg then the ruling would have been very different.

[Noggs]

If the agreed view was that it was reckless rather that deliberate then 6 weeks is about right. Having heard none of the evidence presented to the tribunal I struggle to see how you cant be so sure that you are right in the contention that hanging is too good for him (my words. not yours)

[Bill W (2)]

With great respect to those who see this particular incident as a mere reckless accident and to those who see it as premedited thuggery, this is not the issue, even on the balance of probabilities and having viewed and heard all the evidence.

The issue is that IRB have sent a very clear and unambiguous signal that they are prepared to tolerate foul play. Providing you plead guilty and feign remorse and have the right nationality/club/panel you can continue playing in national competitions - your career will not be threatened.

This is in stark contrast to the other three high profile cases (Tincu, Dupuy, Attoub) where a lower tier panel handed out swingeing suspensions in the latter two quoting IRB policy.

I know, I know, they were cases of gouging. A different form of foul play - and those committing them were players from French Clubs. Whereas in this case it was only a Frenchman who was fouled and the culprit is Irish - home of the IRB and ERC.

Very, very, very silly.

CNOSF will, I am sure, be most impressed.

I really do despair.

[1966]

It has been reported in the press this morning that Flannery was represented by Pat Barriscale, who I seem to remember being the chair of many citings.

This seems to me to be highly inappropriate and can only lead to the impression that decisions handed down by panels are really not that fair, open and honest.

[WhitecapTiger]

Flannery is contesting the severity of the punishment...........ahem

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 03,00.html

As is his right I guess, but severity? It's a joke! (IMO)

[Richard]

Also the 6 nations disciplinary officer is also contesting it...so it could be extended
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8534615.stm

[1966]

What's the betting that Barriscale will end up chairing the disciplinary hearing.