O'Connell Red Card

[McScotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0YW3AYA ... r_embedded

This to me is not a red, at most a yellow, as he clearly does not look round and try to punch him. I think that, if anything, Thomas should have been binned for his Drogba-esq dive.

Or is that just me?

[maskedsquid]

Red card was deserved. And Thomas did not appear to be making a meal of it, that was a fair old crack O'Connell gave him.

[Will S]

You don't have to be looking to know exactly where someone is. The guy shouldn't have been tugging his shirt but that is no excuse.

[BJ.]

O'Connell knew exactly what he was doing and got exactly what he deserved.

He almost pushed Thomas round the back of him with his left arm so it was practically a certainty he would make contact with something if he swung out with his right. Also, if you watch the clip right at the beginning, Thomas still had his left hand on O'Connell's left hip at the time he was hit so O'Connell knew where he was.

[mightymouse]

he deserved a red (just) and about a 2 week ban.... BUT why in these cases does the original perpetrator get away with it, it just encourages him to do it again.

I have said this before - when they give red for this type of thing they MUST give the provocater at least a yellow and a stern talking to.

[Norfolk & Goode]

McScotty - it is most definitely you!! Fending someone off, or giving them a hard shove is one thing, but drawing your arm back and then letting loose with a blind forearm smash (also called a spinning back fist in martial arts) to the head/jaw is violent conduct. And I believe there was no Drogba-esque dive about the consequence either, and to show no remorse and then have a niggle with the ref may get himself deservedly cited.

O'Connell is so much better a player than that, so I hope he does'nt turn into a liability when things go against him on the pitch.

[tigerben]

he deserved a red (just) and about a 2 week ban.... BUT why in these cases does the original perpetrator get away with it, it just encourages him to do it again.

I have said this before - when they give red for this type of thing they MUST give the provocater at least a yellow and a stern talking to.

However, generally the reason why the provocater gets away with it is its not seen by the officials, whereas the reaction is.
Prime example was Sheridan against White couple of years ago. Sheridan attempts to hit Jules with an awful punch and misses, which despite being seen by atleast half the terrace and being right in front of the linesman, was missed by the officials. Jules retaliates with a much better punch that puts Sheridan on his backside. Result: White gets Red Card, Sheridan gets nothing.

Agree with you that the provocater should be penalised as well, but if they've not been spotted, how can they be penalised?

[Bill W (2)]

The assistant referee thought a yellow. The referee decided a red. There was less than 10 minutes left.

Good decision. The disciplinary panel can now conclude that a red card was sufficient punishment.

[tommo]

A shirt tug hardly warrants a yellow card....penalty maybe, but def not a yellow. Players are held into ruck etc by their shirt all the time. Usually sorted by a downward smack to the forearm.

Now if O'Connell had done that, he would have got away with it!

[Bill W (2)]

Perhaps of greater concern than the incident itself is that representatives of "another club" see fit to compare it to the previous actions of other (of their own) players and suggest punishments that should be applied.

On this let the record show:

Henson was only banned for three weeks (on appeal) for breaking Moreno's nose and then stamping on him in retaliation for a shirt pull.

Would suggest again that O'Connell should get let off on the basis that the red card was sufficient punishment.

[4071]

Perhaps of greater concern than the incident itself is that representatives of "another club" see fit to compare it to the previous actions of other (of their own) players and suggest punishments that should be applied.

On this let the record show:

Henson was only banned for three weeks (on appeal) for breaking Moreno's nose and then stamping on him in retaliation for a shirt pull.

Would suggest again that O'Connell should get let off on the basis that the red card was sufficient punishment.

Henson was banned for 7 weeks. It was reduced by 3 from the original 10.


Though given that he was banned for 7 weeks it is a mystery why Humphreys felt the need to claim to the media that Henson had been banned for 16 weeks. As coach, he would have surely known that this was not true.

Typically shoddy BBC fact-checking let it slip through into an article on their wesite.

Result being that even if POC gets a fair ban, there will be a lingering feeling that he got off lightly because (apparently) Henson had been banned for 16 weeks for the same offence.

[Chobbsy]

[quote="maskedsquid"]Red card was deserved. And Thomas did not appear to be making a meal of it, that was a fair old crack O'Connell gave him.[/quote]

I have to say I agreed as much as I like O'Connell he knew what he was doing...if it had been against Tigers we would be calling for O'Connell's head

[Hull Fan]

I agree that POC should of been sent off but this type of thing happens week in week out in local rugby and the person pulled back often does what POC did.

I've done it, it's just a reaction to being pulled back. I've also been to puller back and half expected to receive one for my trouble, its just part of the game.
(Or it was when i played, been finished about 4 years now)

[Bill W (2)]

Henson was banned for 7 weeks. It was reduced by 3 from the original 10.


Though given that he was banned for 7 weeks it is a mystery why Humphreys felt the need to claim to the media that Henson had been banned for 16 weeks. As coach, he would have surely known that this was not true.

Typically shoddy BBC fact-checking let it slip through into an article on their wesite.

Result being that even if POC gets a fair ban, there will be a lingering feeling that he got off lightly because (apparently) Henson had been banned for 16 weeks for the same offence.

You are, of course, right. Memory fade!!

Why did Humphreys have to shoot his mouth off anyway?

Dignified silence or at most "it will be down to the disciplinary panel" would IMHO be preferable.

[4071]

Henson was banned for 7 weeks. It was reduced by 3 from the original 10.


Though given that he was banned for 7 weeks it is a mystery why Humphreys felt the need to claim to the media that Henson had been banned for 16 weeks. As coach, he would have surely known that this was not true.

Typically shoddy BBC fact-checking let it slip through into an article on their wesite.

Result being that even if POC gets a fair ban, there will be a lingering feeling that he got off lightly because (apparently) Henson had been banned for 16 weeks for the same offence.

You are, of course, right. Memory fade!!

Why did Humphreys have to shoot his mouth off anyway?

Dignified silence or at most "it will be down to the disciplinary panel" would IMHO be preferable.

Because the Ospreys management got away with accusing an innocent player of gouging in a post-match press conference not so long ago and therefore have not had to learn the benefit of thinking before speaking.