Lee Byrne ban... How is this fair????
Discussion
Lee Byrne has been banned for two weeks for his part in the Ospreys having 16 players on the pitch at one point in their match against the Leicester Tigers recently.
Given that it is quite possible that his being on the field made the difference between the Tigers scoring or not, I have absolutely no argument with his getting a ban, but it does seem completely unfair that one of those two weeks will be from a game he would've been playing for Wales, not for the Ospreys.
He and his club screwed up, not Wales, so surely the ban should cover the next 2 weeks in which he would normally be playing for his club? Why should Wales suffer for something they had nothing to do with?
Just for the sake of clarification, I'm not Welsh, I'm English. The Wales game he's going to be missing is the 6 Nations game against England, so I've certainly not any reason to feel personally aggrieved about it, but it just seems wrong.
Given that it is quite possible that his being on the field made the difference between the Tigers scoring or not, I have absolutely no argument with his getting a ban, but it does seem completely unfair that one of those two weeks will be from a game he would've been playing for Wales, not for the Ospreys.
He and his club screwed up, not Wales, so surely the ban should cover the next 2 weeks in which he would normally be playing for his club? Why should Wales suffer for something they had nothing to do with?
Just for the sake of clarification, I'm not Welsh, I'm English. The Wales game he's going to be missing is the 6 Nations game against England, so I've certainly not any reason to feel personally aggrieved about it, but it just seems wrong.
I normally try to stay neutral on independant matters like this, but this time I can't, it's a f
king disgrace.
This entire ban serves nobody:
Bullst.
king disgrace. This entire ban serves nobody:- How do the Tigers gain from this? They don't, they're exactly where they were before.
- How are the Ospreys punished? They aren't, Byrne doesn't miss a single game for them.
Bulls
t.Totally unfair. I'm absolutely fuming about this. There is no precedent for this ban at all....IIRC Dan Luger did the same thing for England in 2003 and didn't get banned. By all means ban the officials for sending him on, but how can you rule it's the player's fault - so much so that he's banned in international season for two weeks?!
If the WRU are canny then they'll appeal last thing on Thursday. Wouldn't put it past the panel to conveniently be available first thing Friday morning though
If the WRU are canny then they'll appeal last thing on Thursday. Wouldn't put it past the panel to conveniently be available first thing Friday morning though
I suppose there has to be some sort of sanction to avoid teams "accidentally" doing this at a critical moment, so I don't think the ban is totally unreasonable, just the bit where it's not the team in question that suffers!
The only reason I can see for being more lenient to England in 2003 was that Luger (if it was he) was in no way involved in play during the time they had 16 men on against Samoa, whereas Byrne was pretty critical in stopping a Tigers move.
The only reason I can see for being more lenient to England in 2003 was that Luger (if it was he) was in no way involved in play during the time they had 16 men on against Samoa, whereas Byrne was pretty critical in stopping a Tigers move.
Symbolica why are you blaming the Tigers? This is nothing to do with them, the independant panel in Dublin came up with this.
I agree with the other posters about it being unfair on Wales though. The Ospreys cop a £30k fine I think and Byrne cops 2 weeks, but its all competitions, not just the one in which the transgression happened. Now, I understand that Byrne is copping it because he came on without informing the ref and getting permission.
It just seems a little farcial. As all the rugby boys on here know Im a Tigers man through and through, but I agree with Cockers immediate thoughts after the match that the Ospreys won a tight game pretty fairly and deserve to go through. Im happy (well not really but I can take it) to let that stand, but I think the Ospreys should take a hit for the next round of the competition, the ban is ok, but Byrne should be banned for playing for them for the rest of the competition/next 2 or 4 weeks or something of that nature.
I agree with the other posters about it being unfair on Wales though. The Ospreys cop a £30k fine I think and Byrne cops 2 weeks, but its all competitions, not just the one in which the transgression happened. Now, I understand that Byrne is copping it because he came on without informing the ref and getting permission.
It just seems a little farcial. As all the rugby boys on here know Im a Tigers man through and through, but I agree with Cockers immediate thoughts after the match that the Ospreys won a tight game pretty fairly and deserve to go through. Im happy (well not really but I can take it) to let that stand, but I think the Ospreys should take a hit for the next round of the competition, the ban is ok, but Byrne should be banned for playing for them for the rest of the competition/next 2 or 4 weeks or something of that nature.
DJC said:
Symbolica why are you blaming the Tigers? This is nothing to do with them, the independant panel in Dublin came up with this.
To be honest it was aimed more at the board than the players. They knew they didn't have a cats chance of a replay, yet they wheeled out the big guns and spent all week whinging about the situation. For a team which hasn't exactly always played above-board to start complaing about something like this is a bit rich IMO, this whole complaint was brought about purely by spite.Being from Cardiff I'm hardly a big Ospreys fan, but this entire situation stinks. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if the 'Spreys cut a deal for the guilty plea, which would explain why they're virtually unaffected (keep their place in the HC, a pittance of a fine and a ban for a player that wasn't going to play for them anyway), but the national team gets royally f
ked over. And for what?I was wrong to aim my anger at the Tigers team/fans, but this situation is utter bulls
t.
Just seen this topic.
I think the ban was deserved, he was seen signalling to Sonny Parker to come off the pitch, when he didn't come off, he chose to stay on the pitch.
He also knew that changes should happen through the fourth official, it isn't schoolboy rugby where you just swap on and off.
He then interefered with a passage of play (what was going on was irrelevent, he still interefered by being on the blindside of the pitch where the attack was taking place)
He then pleaded guilty to all of this at the hearing.
Whether he did it deliberately or not (i don't think he did) he still knew what he was doing and that Sonny Parker hadn't left the field of play.
Tigers knew they wouldn't get a replay, what they were saying is that is should be looked at to see why it happened and how it could be stopped from happening again.
IMO giving out a ban and then overturning it 5 days later makes a mockery of the system.
However, it's good that Byrne is playing on Saturday, should make it interesting.
I think the ban was deserved, he was seen signalling to Sonny Parker to come off the pitch, when he didn't come off, he chose to stay on the pitch.
He also knew that changes should happen through the fourth official, it isn't schoolboy rugby where you just swap on and off.
He then interefered with a passage of play (what was going on was irrelevent, he still interefered by being on the blindside of the pitch where the attack was taking place)
He then pleaded guilty to all of this at the hearing.
Whether he did it deliberately or not (i don't think he did) he still knew what he was doing and that Sonny Parker hadn't left the field of play.
Tigers knew they wouldn't get a replay, what they were saying is that is should be looked at to see why it happened and how it could be stopped from happening again.
IMO giving out a ban and then overturning it 5 days later makes a mockery of the system.
However, it's good that Byrne is playing on Saturday, should make it interesting.
ORLY?
What happened here in my view was Leicester threw their toys out of the pram big style as they'd just been unceremoniously dumped out of Europe's premier club competition. Desperate to cling on in any way, Wheeler then went on a media frenzy in order to get the incident investigated by the ERC. It was refreshing to note Cockerill did not have the same view of the incident, stating it had no influence whatsoever on the result.
Peter Wheeler said:
We were pressing on their line and we had three or four periods of attack during the time they had 16 men on the field, the player [Byrne] who came on interfered or was involved in at least two of them close to the line. Any neutral person who saw that happen would say it affected the result of the game.
A remarkably one-eyed view from Mr Wheeler there. Asked what should happen next, Wheeler replied: Peter Wheeler said:
We want what is right and fair for that situation. The only way to put us back in that situation is to replay the game. It was our best opportunity of the match to score and we’ve inquired to ERC to say where do we go from here?
Mr Wheeler is delusional. If he were sane and rational he would know that there is provision within the laws of the game for such an offence. IRB Laws said:
3.11 PLAYER WISHING TO REJOIN THE MATCH
(a) A player who has an open or bleeding wound must leave the playing area. The player must not return until the bleeding is controlled and the wound has been covered.
(b) A player who leaves a match because of injury or any other reason must not rejoin the match until the referee permits the player to return. The referee must not let a player rejoin a match until the ball is dead.
(c) If a player rejoins or a replacement/substitute joins the match without the referee’s permission, and the referee believes the player did so to help that player’s team or obstruct the opposing team, the referee penalises the player for misconduct.
Sanction: A penalty kick is awarded at the place where play would restart.
Job done, case closed, move along please, nothing to see here.(a) A player who has an open or bleeding wound must leave the playing area. The player must not return until the bleeding is controlled and the wound has been covered.
(b) A player who leaves a match because of injury or any other reason must not rejoin the match until the referee permits the player to return. The referee must not let a player rejoin a match until the ball is dead.
(c) If a player rejoins or a replacement/substitute joins the match without the referee’s permission, and the referee believes the player did so to help that player’s team or obstruct the opposing team, the referee penalises the player for misconduct.
Sanction: A penalty kick is awarded at the place where play would restart.
What happened here in my view was Leicester threw their toys out of the pram big style as they'd just been unceremoniously dumped out of Europe's premier club competition. Desperate to cling on in any way, Wheeler then went on a media frenzy in order to get the incident investigated by the ERC. It was refreshing to note Cockerill did not have the same view of the incident, stating it had no influence whatsoever on the result.
Edited by hornetrider on Friday 5th February 11:22
hornetrider said:
ORLY?
What happened here in my view was Leicester threw their toys out of the pram big style as they'd just been unceremoniously dumped out of Europe's premier club competition. Desperate to cling on in any way, Wheeler then went on a media frenzy in order to get the incident investigated by the ERC. It was refreshing to note Cockerill did not have the same view of the incident, stating it had no influence whatsoever on the result.
It was also complicated by the fact that Leicester weren't awarded a penalty at the time by the referee, meaning the ERC couldn't just say 'it was dealt with there and then'Peter Wheeler said:
We were pressing on their line and we had three or four periods of attack during the time they had 16 men on the field, the player [Byrne] who came on interfered or was involved in at least two of them close to the line. Any neutral person who saw that happen would say it affected the result of the game.
A remarkably one-eyed view from Mr Wheeler there. Asked what should happen next, Wheeler replied: Peter Wheeler said:
We want what is right and fair for that situation. The only way to put us back in that situation is to replay the game. It was our best opportunity of the match to score and we’ve inquired to ERC to say where do we go from here?
Mr Wheeler is delusional. If he were sane and rational he would know that there is provision within the laws of the game for such an offence. IRB Laws said:
3.11 PLAYER WISHING TO REJOIN THE MATCH
(a) A player who has an open or bleeding wound must leave the playing area. The player must not return until the bleeding is controlled and the wound has been covered.
(b) A player who leaves a match because of injury or any other reason must not rejoin the match until the referee permits the player to return. The referee must not let a player rejoin a match until the ball is dead.
(c) If a player rejoins or a replacement/substitute joins the match without the referee’s permission, and the referee believes the player did so to help that player’s team or obstruct the opposing team, the referee penalises the player for misconduct.
Sanction: A penalty kick is awarded at the place where play would restart.
Job done, case closed, move along please, nothing to see here.(a) A player who has an open or bleeding wound must leave the playing area. The player must not return until the bleeding is controlled and the wound has been covered.
(b) A player who leaves a match because of injury or any other reason must not rejoin the match until the referee permits the player to return. The referee must not let a player rejoin a match until the ball is dead.
(c) If a player rejoins or a replacement/substitute joins the match without the referee’s permission, and the referee believes the player did so to help that player’s team or obstruct the opposing team, the referee penalises the player for misconduct.
Sanction: A penalty kick is awarded at the place where play would restart.
What happened here in my view was Leicester threw their toys out of the pram big style as they'd just been unceremoniously dumped out of Europe's premier club competition. Desperate to cling on in any way, Wheeler then went on a media frenzy in order to get the incident investigated by the ERC. It was refreshing to note Cockerill did not have the same view of the incident, stating it had no influence whatsoever on the result.
Edited by hornetrider on Friday 5th February 11:22
johnnywb said:
It was also complicated by the fact that Leicester weren't awarded a penalty at the time by the referee, meaning the ERC couldn't just say 'it was dealt with there and then'
The referee made a mistake and should have awarded a penalty. However, the referee's mistake is not the fault of Lee Byrne and certainly doesn't entitle the losing side to have the match replayed.hornetrider said:
Well indeed. But to go from a penalty being awarded on the pitch, to demanding a replay of the fixture is in my view, and pretty much everyone else's view, ridiculous.
But you're thinking of it purely as a sporting spectacle. The only impact it can have on you is whether or not you get to watch the teams you want to watch in the next stage of the HC.For Peter Wheeler and the board of Leicester, it makes a difference of many thousands of pounds in revenue. I'd say that would probably put a different slant on most people's views on going purely with the spirit of the game.
johnnywb said:
Just seen this topic.
I think the ban was deserved, he was seen signalling to Sonny Parker to come off the pitch, when he didn't come off, he chose to stay on the pitch.
He also knew that changes should happen through the fourth official, it isn't schoolboy rugby where you just swap on and off.
He then interefered with a passage of play (what was going on was irrelevent, he still interefered by being on the blindside of the pitch where the attack was taking place)
He then pleaded guilty to all of this at the hearing.
Whether he did it deliberately or not (i don't think he did) he still knew what he was doing and that Sonny Parker hadn't left the field of play.
Tigers knew they wouldn't get a replay, what they were saying is that is should be looked at to see why it happened and how it could be stopped from happening again.
IMO giving out a ban and then overturning it 5 days later makes a mockery of the system.
However, it's good that Byrne is playing on Saturday, should make it interesting.
You missed the point I was making in starting the whole thread.I think the ban was deserved, he was seen signalling to Sonny Parker to come off the pitch, when he didn't come off, he chose to stay on the pitch.
He also knew that changes should happen through the fourth official, it isn't schoolboy rugby where you just swap on and off.
He then interefered with a passage of play (what was going on was irrelevent, he still interefered by being on the blindside of the pitch where the attack was taking place)
He then pleaded guilty to all of this at the hearing.
Whether he did it deliberately or not (i don't think he did) he still knew what he was doing and that Sonny Parker hadn't left the field of play.
Tigers knew they wouldn't get a replay, what they were saying is that is should be looked at to see why it happened and how it could be stopped from happening again.
IMO giving out a ban and then overturning it 5 days later makes a mockery of the system.
However, it's good that Byrne is playing on Saturday, should make it interesting.
Whether or not you think the ban was deserved, Wales hadn't done anything that would've meant they deserved to have a player banned.
If the ban wasn't deserved, then fine, overturn it. If it was deserved, then it should be for the next X number of games in which the player could be selected to play for the team he was playing for when the offence occurred, not the next X number of weeks.
Kermit power said:
johnnywb said:
Just seen this topic.
I think the ban was deserved, he was seen signalling to Sonny Parker to come off the pitch, when he didn't come off, he chose to stay on the pitch.
He also knew that changes should happen through the fourth official, it isn't schoolboy rugby where you just swap on and off.
He then interefered with a passage of play (what was going on was irrelevent, he still interefered by being on the blindside of the pitch where the attack was taking place)
He then pleaded guilty to all of this at the hearing.
Whether he did it deliberately or not (i don't think he did) he still knew what he was doing and that Sonny Parker hadn't left the field of play.
Tigers knew they wouldn't get a replay, what they were saying is that is should be looked at to see why it happened and how it could be stopped from happening again.
IMO giving out a ban and then overturning it 5 days later makes a mockery of the system.
However, it's good that Byrne is playing on Saturday, should make it interesting.
You missed the point I was making in starting the whole thread.I think the ban was deserved, he was seen signalling to Sonny Parker to come off the pitch, when he didn't come off, he chose to stay on the pitch.
He also knew that changes should happen through the fourth official, it isn't schoolboy rugby where you just swap on and off.
He then interefered with a passage of play (what was going on was irrelevent, he still interefered by being on the blindside of the pitch where the attack was taking place)
He then pleaded guilty to all of this at the hearing.
Whether he did it deliberately or not (i don't think he did) he still knew what he was doing and that Sonny Parker hadn't left the field of play.
Tigers knew they wouldn't get a replay, what they were saying is that is should be looked at to see why it happened and how it could be stopped from happening again.
IMO giving out a ban and then overturning it 5 days later makes a mockery of the system.
However, it's good that Byrne is playing on Saturday, should make it interesting.
Whether or not you think the ban was deserved, Wales hadn't done anything that would've meant they deserved to have a player banned.
If the ban wasn't deserved, then fine, overturn it. If it was deserved, then it should be for the next X number of games in which the player could be selected to play for the team he was playing for when the offence occurred, not the next X number of weeks.
Im happy for his National Team ban to be knocked on the head, but what about a ban for Ospreys matches? I dont think that has been dealt with particularly well.
It is annoying that given every chance rugby seems to take them all to make a fool of itself in the administration of the game.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff