Quins face hearing

[An Tarbh]

Harlequins face a disciplinary hearing after being called to account over an incident in their Heineken Cup quarter-final defeat to Leinster in April.

The Quins are the victims of a misconduct complaint over the blood substitution of Tom Williams and subsequent return to the field of fly-half Nick Evans.

Former All Black out-half Evans limped off the pitch after 47 minutes, to be replaced by Chris Malone in what was marked down as a tactical substitution. Malone then sustained a knock and was replaced by Williams, who himself sustained a blood injury to his mouth and was take on for the returning Evans.

TV cameras showed Williams appear to wink at a team-mate as he left the field and an initial investigation into the incident was launched by Roger O'Connor, European Rugby Cup's disciplinary officer. That has led to the fresh call for a hearing and if the Guinness Premiership club are found guilty of misconduct then they could face a fine or even a possible points deduction.
A disciplinary committee will be convened at a later date.

The news continues a bad few days for Quins, who saw their Guinness Premiership hopes ended when beaten 17-0 by London Irish on Saturday.

Setanta Sports

 

[dundeesmiffy]

They deserve a tap on the wrist if there is foul play at hand, but nothing more, not unless it counted for something.

 

[shazbooger]

They engineered an illegal substitution through blatant manipulation of the rules. Its taking the **** out of the law makers and puts a question mark over all substitutions or a similar manner........... allegedly.

If its true, which given their silence on the matter, then they deserve a lot more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[Bullitt]

Whilst the morals of the substitution are questionable, there's nothing that can be done. At the end of the day, what the ref says is king and the Llanelli-man-lover allowed him back onto the pitch.

Either:

1. Owens f***ed up and allowed Evans on when the law book says only front-row can make the return, so by highlighting his regular incompitence, he has put himself in the firing line for a major bollocking.

or

2. The law book itself has a glaring ommision by not stating that front-row players can return to the pitch after substitution. This is understandable, considering the Australians overhauled the lawbook last season, so being Australian didn't understand anything about the front row and completely missed the point. Nett result - Egg on the face for the IRB.

Quins tried their luck and got away with it. It it has worked, it would have been frowned upon but seen as inspiried - It didn't, so does it really matter?

 

[O'Rothlain]

What the Quins did was a load of shite. True, they got away with it during the match, but I'm glad it's being looked into. It was blatant manipulation and advantage taking of the laws. While they were still defeated, it was definitely an unfair advantage for them.

 

[An Tarbh]

nothing seems to have been made of Hipkiss' convenient blood injury which let Dupuy back on for the shootout, that looked as dodgy at the time.

 

[Thingimubob]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ May 12 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

nothing seems to have been made of Hipkiss' convenient blood injury which let Dupuy back on for the shootout, that looked as dodgy at the time.[/b]

Exactly what I was thinking <_< Dupuy's one was a lot more significant in the end (not saying we lost because of it - but the rules are the rules), so now that I hear that Quins have a diciplinary hearing, I'll be very disgusted if Leicester don't get the same treatment.

 

[dullonien]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thingimubob @ May 12 2009, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ May 12 2009, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nothing seems to have been made of Hipkiss' convenient blood injury which let Dupuy back on for the shootout, that looked as dodgy at the time.[/b]

Exactly what I was thinking <_< Dupuy's one was a lot more significant in the end (not saying we lost because of it - but the rules are the rules), so now that I hear that Quins have a diciplinary hearing, I'll be very disgusted if Leicester don't get the same treatment.
[/b][/quote]

Was thinking the same. What would be the result if it did happen and were found guilty, because it seemed a little too convenient to me. And althout there had obviously been bleeding, it seemed dried up to me by the time he left the field.

Again, as Thingimubob said, it didn't cost the Blues the match, but it would be interesting.

 

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ May 12 2009, 12:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Whilst the morals of the substitution are questionable, there's nothing that can be done. At the end of the day, what the ref says is king and the Llanelli-man-lover allowed him back onto the pitch.

Either:

1. Owens f***ed up and allowed Evans on when the law book says only front-row can make the return, so by highlighting his regular incompitence, he has put himself in the firing line for a major bollocking.

or

2. The law book itself has a glaring ommision by not stating that front-row players can return to the pitch after substitution. This is understandable, considering the Australians overhauled the lawbook last season, so being Australian didn't understand anything about the front row and completely missed the point. Nett result - Egg on the face for the IRB.

Quins tried their luck and got away with it. It it has worked, it would have been frowned upon but seen as inspiried - It didn't, so does it really matter?[/b]

I'm not sure about the Evans one. Leinster were complaining vehemently on the touchline that their doctor wasnt allowed to verify it was a valid blood replacement (suppoedly thats ment to be allowed). While Evans was brought off for tactical reasons, I remember Owens saying he was allowed to come back in to cover a blood replacement. Leinster didnt accuse Quins of cheating but were pished they werent allowed to confirm it was a valid blood bin.

The ref can only go with what the team doctors tell him. If its a bllodbin, then the ref has to allow a replcement on. He was clearly told it was so by the laws had no choice.

The question is whether Quins cheated the rules or not.

Again, I'm not sure and am open to correction, but thats what I recall from the match itself.

 

[aligmacd123]

I think that these guys should be punished. Rugby has always been known as a sport that maintains a high level of discipline and this is just ruining that reputation. There have been three incidents in the past few weeks (Quinlan, Dupuy in the HC semis and this) which just totally go against what the sport is about. RANT OVER!

 

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ May 13 2009, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I think that these guys should be punished. Rugby has always been known as a sport that maintains a high level of discipline and this is just ruining that reputation. There have been three incidents in the past few weeks (Quinlan, Dupuy in the HC semis and this) which just totally go against what the sport is about. RANT OVER![/b]

Very short rant. No cursing, no questioning the parenting of the players or management in quesiton. You need to work on your ranting mate, we expect at least three paragraphs or low quality nastiness on this forum Quantity over quality i say!

 

[aligmacd123]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ May 14 2009, 08:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alexmac @ May 13 2009, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that these guys should be punished. Rugby has always been known as a sport that maintains a high level of discipline and this is just ruining that reputation. There have been three incidents in the past few weeks (Quinlan, Dupuy in the HC semis and this) which just totally go against what the sport is about. RANT OVER![/b]

Very short rant. No cursing, no questioning the parenting of the players or management in quesiton. You need to work on your ranting mate, we expect at least three paragraphs or low quality nastiness on this forum Quantity over quality i say!
[/b][/quote]
HAHAHA!!!! :lol: Ill try again some other time...or ill just call it a mini rant...