S
Sir Speedy
Guest
Luckily for him the Lunar rugby team have an opening for the upcoming season.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
B
Bullitt
Guest
M
monkeypigeon
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Aug 18 2009, 11:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
If it was common a practise as that article seems to be claiming then I don't think there would have been a wink.
All comes back to the blooooody wink.
I'm sure it has happened before but not as often as the article suggests.
If it was common a practise as that article seems to be claiming then I don't think there would have been a wink.
All comes back to the blooooody wink.
I'm sure it has happened before but not as often as the article suggests.
B
best_fullback
Guest
Its funny because when I played at Bath junior level the use of blood capsules was even used then.
And that was at U11s level.
And that was at U11s level.
M
monkeypigeon
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (best_fullback @ Aug 18 2009, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
...I revoke my previous comment.
...I revoke my previous comment.
T
Thingimubob
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (St Helens RLFC @ Aug 17 2009, 11:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Funny that you ask...
In the Blues v Leicester HC semi final this year, Dan Hipkiss had a genuine cut sometime after half time ( I think), was treated and came back on, but near the end of the 2nd period of extra time his cut convieniantly re-opened to allow specialist goalkicker Julien Dupuy to come back on the field. The reason it was convieniant was that a penalty shoot-out was looking very likely, and Toby Flood had been injured and Dupuy subbed for Harry Ellis earlier in the match, so Leicester had no goalkickers on the pitch.
I think nobody's kicked off about it (apart from me ) because there was no wink, and Hipkiss had been bleeding earlier. But I really can't see it to be a coincident that Hibkiss started bleeding again at the time they needed Dupuy back on, so I'm a bit annoyed that nobody's even looked into this <_< . Not saying that it would have changed the outcome of the shoot-out, but if Quins are having the book thrown at them, why aren't Leicester?
Have Quins been banned from the HEC then? If they are banned, would that mean they're entered into the Challenge Cup, or would it be from both?
And best fullback, you are joking right? That's just crazy...
Funny that you ask...
In the Blues v Leicester HC semi final this year, Dan Hipkiss had a genuine cut sometime after half time ( I think), was treated and came back on, but near the end of the 2nd period of extra time his cut convieniantly re-opened to allow specialist goalkicker Julien Dupuy to come back on the field. The reason it was convieniant was that a penalty shoot-out was looking very likely, and Toby Flood had been injured and Dupuy subbed for Harry Ellis earlier in the match, so Leicester had no goalkickers on the pitch.
I think nobody's kicked off about it (apart from me
) because there was no wink, and Hipkiss had been bleeding earlier. But I really can't see it to be a coincident that Hibkiss started bleeding again at the time they needed Dupuy back on, so I'm a bit annoyed that nobody's even looked into this <_< . Not saying that it would have changed the outcome of the shoot-out, but if Quins are having the book thrown at them, why aren't Leicester?Have Quins been banned from the HEC then? If they are banned, would that mean they're entered into the Challenge Cup, or would it be from both?
And best fullback, you are joking right? That's just crazy...
M
monkeypigeon
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thingimubob @ Aug 19 2009, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Funny that you ask...
In the Blues v Leicester HC semi final this year, Dan Hipkiss had a genuine cut sometime after half time ( I think), was treated and came back on, but near the end of the 2nd period of extra time his cut convieniantly re-opened to allow specialist goalkicker Julien Dupuy to come back on the field. The reason it was convieniant was that a penalty shoot-out was looking very likely, and Toby Flood had been injured and Dupuy subbed for Harry Ellis earlier in the match, so Leicester had no goalkickers on the pitch.
I think nobody's kicked off about it (apart from me ) because there was no wink, and Hipkiss had been bleeding earlier. But I really can't see it to be a coincident that Hibkiss started bleeding again at the time they needed Dupuy back on, so I'm a bit annoyed that nobody's even looked into this <_< . Not saying that it would have changed the outcome of the shoot-out, but if Quins are having the book thrown at them, why aren't Leicester?
Have Quins been banned from the HEC then? If they are banned, would that mean they're entered into the Challenge Cup, or would it be from both?
And best fullback, you are joking right? That's just crazy...
[/b][/quote]
They're being allowed keep their Place in the Heineken Cup. Which is fair considering that there's no need to punish the whole team and all their fans.
Funny that you ask...
In the Blues v Leicester HC semi final this year, Dan Hipkiss had a genuine cut sometime after half time ( I think), was treated and came back on, but near the end of the 2nd period of extra time his cut convieniantly re-opened to allow specialist goalkicker Julien Dupuy to come back on the field. The reason it was convieniant was that a penalty shoot-out was looking very likely, and Toby Flood had been injured and Dupuy subbed for Harry Ellis earlier in the match, so Leicester had no goalkickers on the pitch.
I think nobody's kicked off about it (apart from me
) because there was no wink, and Hipkiss had been bleeding earlier. But I really can't see it to be a coincident that Hibkiss started bleeding again at the time they needed Dupuy back on, so I'm a bit annoyed that nobody's even looked into this <_< . Not saying that it would have changed the outcome of the shoot-out, but if Quins are having the book thrown at them, why aren't Leicester?Have Quins been banned from the HEC then? If they are banned, would that mean they're entered into the Challenge Cup, or would it be from both?
And best fullback, you are joking right? That's just crazy...
[/b][/quote]
They're being allowed keep their Place in the Heineken Cup. Which is fair considering that there's no need to punish the whole team and all their fans.
S
shazbooger
Guest
For allowing them in the competition, would have caused all sorts of problems if they were booted. Season tickets would have been refunded, travel plans already made would have been ruined etc. They settled for an increased fine, paid in full instead.
As for the Wink. I think that was just another factor but you have to remember Leinster were making a big deal about it well before then. Nick Evans had actually been warming up for a few minutes before the "incident" so they knew damn well what was going on. Even without the wink, the fact the Leinster doctor was remonstrating with the fourth official before banging on the door of the dressing room trying to get access to see the injury.
There were so many factors, but I think having an "injured" player stay warm on the touchline was a big big factor.
As for the Wink. I think that was just another factor but you have to remember Leinster were making a big deal about it well before then. Nick Evans had actually been warming up for a few minutes before the "incident" so they knew damn well what was going on. Even without the wink, the fact the Leinster doctor was remonstrating with the fourth official before banging on the door of the dressing room trying to get access to see the injury.
There were so many factors, but I think having an "injured" player stay warm on the touchline was a big big factor.
S
stevemagoo
Guest
According to Planet Rugby: http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,1...5501415,00.html
Former Harlequins Director of Rugby Dean Richards lifted the lid on his role in the 'Bloodgate' scandal on Wednesday.
In a statement released to Press Association Sport, a "mortified" Richards confirmed he ordered Tom Williams to fake a blood injury in last season's Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster.
Richards revealed he discovered eight days after the incident Williams had insisted on having his own lip cut to cover up the fabrication.
At that point, and with Williams' agreement, Richards decided to orchestrate a cover-up, which he now admits was "obviously wrong".
Richards, the former England number eight, was banned for three years at a European Rugby Cup disciplinary hearing on Monday.
Harlequins were fined £260,000 and Williams had a 12-month suspension reduced to four months after coming clean.
Richards said: "I have always been passionate about rugby and in the dying minutes of that Heineken Cup quarter-final - a stage that Harlequins had never reached before - I allowed my passion for the club to compromise my judgment.
"I ordered a blood substitution to be made using fake blood. Thankfully the substitution did not affect the outcome of the game.
"Some eight days later I was told by Tom Williams that, in the heat of the moment and at his direction, he had his lip cut to make it appear as if there had been a real injury if anyone asked to look at it.
"Believing this to be true, I felt a managerial duty and sense of loyalty to safeguard the professional position of those involved.
"From then on, with the agreement of Tom Williams, I suggested the fabrication of a story which led to us all withholding the true facts, a position that was obviously wrong.
"I have since made clear that I accept full responsibility for what happened and have apologised for my actions. I honestly believed that I was acting in the best interests of the club and my colleagues, a clearly mistaken belief.
"I am mortified that this matter has brought damaging publicity on Harlequins, members of its staff, my own family and the wider game of rugby, a game that I am passionate about.
"I have co-operated fully with the Harlequins' internal investigation that is still ongoing and I am relieved for all at the club that my actions have not cost them a place in the Heineken Cup this season.
"I will review the full judgment of the appeal committee when it is released and I will be making a decision on my future and any appeal after that."
The 'Bloodgate' incident occurred with five minutes remaining in last season's quarter-final and Harlequins trailing Leinster 6-5.
Quins did not have a specialist kicker on the field, having replaced Nick Evans earlier in the match and then seen back-up fly-half Chis Malone carried off injured.
A blood replacement was the only way Harlequins could legitimately send Evans, who had been struggling with a knee injury but was officially replaced for tactical reasons, back on to the field.
Television cameras had spotted Williams winking towards the bench as he left the field. Harlequins engineered one late drop-goal attempt but Evans missed.
The original ERC disciplinary panel dropped charges against Richards, physio Steph Brennan and doctor Wendy Chapman due to lack of evidence.
But when Williams decided to appeal against his 12-month ban and come clean on the cover-up, the spotlight was turned back on the club.
Richards was banned for three years. Brennan, now an England physio, received a two-year suspension and the RFU are currently reviewing his position.
Charges against Chapman were again dropped because the appeal committee lacked jurisdiction.
The ERC appeal hearing on Monday heard evidence that Harlequins could have faked injuries on four other occasions, the details of which are being passed to the Rugby Football Union.
Unreal!
Former Harlequins Director of Rugby Dean Richards lifted the lid on his role in the 'Bloodgate' scandal on Wednesday.
In a statement released to Press Association Sport, a "mortified" Richards confirmed he ordered Tom Williams to fake a blood injury in last season's Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster.
Richards revealed he discovered eight days after the incident Williams had insisted on having his own lip cut to cover up the fabrication.
At that point, and with Williams' agreement, Richards decided to orchestrate a cover-up, which he now admits was "obviously wrong".
Richards, the former England number eight, was banned for three years at a European Rugby Cup disciplinary hearing on Monday.
Harlequins were fined £260,000 and Williams had a 12-month suspension reduced to four months after coming clean.
Richards said: "I have always been passionate about rugby and in the dying minutes of that Heineken Cup quarter-final - a stage that Harlequins had never reached before - I allowed my passion for the club to compromise my judgment.
"I ordered a blood substitution to be made using fake blood. Thankfully the substitution did not affect the outcome of the game.
"Some eight days later I was told by Tom Williams that, in the heat of the moment and at his direction, he had his lip cut to make it appear as if there had been a real injury if anyone asked to look at it.
"Believing this to be true, I felt a managerial duty and sense of loyalty to safeguard the professional position of those involved.
"From then on, with the agreement of Tom Williams, I suggested the fabrication of a story which led to us all withholding the true facts, a position that was obviously wrong.
"I have since made clear that I accept full responsibility for what happened and have apologised for my actions. I honestly believed that I was acting in the best interests of the club and my colleagues, a clearly mistaken belief.
"I am mortified that this matter has brought damaging publicity on Harlequins, members of its staff, my own family and the wider game of rugby, a game that I am passionate about.
"I have co-operated fully with the Harlequins' internal investigation that is still ongoing and I am relieved for all at the club that my actions have not cost them a place in the Heineken Cup this season.
"I will review the full judgment of the appeal committee when it is released and I will be making a decision on my future and any appeal after that."
The 'Bloodgate' incident occurred with five minutes remaining in last season's quarter-final and Harlequins trailing Leinster 6-5.
Quins did not have a specialist kicker on the field, having replaced Nick Evans earlier in the match and then seen back-up fly-half Chis Malone carried off injured.
A blood replacement was the only way Harlequins could legitimately send Evans, who had been struggling with a knee injury but was officially replaced for tactical reasons, back on to the field.
Television cameras had spotted Williams winking towards the bench as he left the field. Harlequins engineered one late drop-goal attempt but Evans missed.
The original ERC disciplinary panel dropped charges against Richards, physio Steph Brennan and doctor Wendy Chapman due to lack of evidence.
But when Williams decided to appeal against his 12-month ban and come clean on the cover-up, the spotlight was turned back on the club.
Richards was banned for three years. Brennan, now an England physio, received a two-year suspension and the RFU are currently reviewing his position.
Charges against Chapman were again dropped because the appeal committee lacked jurisdiction.
The ERC appeal hearing on Monday heard evidence that Harlequins could have faked injuries on four other occasions, the details of which are being passed to the Rugby Football Union.
Unreal!
S
stevemagoo
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Aug 19 2009, 11:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Why is that fair by the way? The coach, the players and the medical staff were all in on it, and it now looks like they have been involved in more than one occasion of this.
I think that they definitely should have been banned from the HEC - The players are all part of the team and need to take it on the chin like the rest. The new whistle blowing policy is a good one imo.
The fans will be punished, of course, but they should be blaming the club, not the officials.
Why is that fair by the way? The coach, the players and the medical staff were all in on it, and it now looks like they have been involved in more than one occasion of this.
I think that they definitely should have been banned from the HEC - The players are all part of the team and need to take it on the chin like the rest. The new whistle blowing policy is a good one imo.
The fans will be punished, of course, but they should be blaming the club, not the officials.
S
shazbooger
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stevemagoo @ Aug 20 2009, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
And they have been sanctioned. I suppose if you look at the alternative e.g. the re-issuing of season tickets and re-funds for the loss of HEC pool games, along with the travel plans made by the minority of fans. Removing Harlequins at this late stage would have been extremely messy.
It may not be fair (I too believe they should have been booted) but it does feel right to let them stay.
And they have been sanctioned. I suppose if you look at the alternative e.g. the re-issuing of season tickets and re-funds for the loss of HEC pool games, along with the travel plans made by the minority of fans. Removing Harlequins at this late stage would have been extremely messy.
It may not be fair (I too believe they should have been booted) but it does feel right to let them stay.
O
Olyy
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stevemagoo @ Aug 20 2009, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
If he only did it in the heat of the moment or whatever, how come they had fake blood capsules with them?
It's obviously been thought out before hand, not necesarily just for that game, but it's obviously something they've planned for, just to have the fake blood on them at all times.
This whole situation is crazy =/
If he only did it in the heat of the moment or whatever, how come they had fake blood capsules with them?
It's obviously been thought out before hand, not necesarily just for that game, but it's obviously something they've planned for, just to have the fake blood on them at all times.
This whole situation is crazy =/
M
mohamed_ali12
Guest
quite an interesting interview if anyone's interested - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8212831.stm
S
shtove
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stevemagoo @ Aug 21 2009, 02:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Why is that fair by the way? The coach, the players and the medical staff were all in on it, and it now looks like they have been involved in more than one occasion of this.
I think that they definitely should have been banned from the HEC - The players are all part of the team and need to take it on the chin like the rest. The new whistle blowing policy is a good one imo.
The fans will be punished, of course, but they should be blaming the club, not the officials.
[/b][/quote]
Spot on. Nobody really goes in for justice, and we all end up getting screwed. Hypocrites always wail - "Won't somebody think of the children!" - but their real concern is with revenues and the gravy train.
Must say, Brian Moore has been wrong about this all the way through. Disappointing. Read an article by him today and could hardly understand it - full of tailchasing arguments and legal nonsense.
Bah!
Why is that fair by the way? The coach, the players and the medical staff were all in on it, and it now looks like they have been involved in more than one occasion of this.
I think that they definitely should have been banned from the HEC - The players are all part of the team and need to take it on the chin like the rest. The new whistle blowing policy is a good one imo.
The fans will be punished, of course, but they should be blaming the club, not the officials.
[/b][/quote]
Spot on. Nobody really goes in for justice, and we all end up getting screwed. Hypocrites always wail - "Won't somebody think of the children!" - but their real concern is with revenues and the gravy train.
Must say, Brian Moore has been wrong about this all the way through. Disappointing. Read an article by him today and could hardly understand it - full of tailchasing arguments and legal nonsense.
Bah!
S
shazbooger
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ali12 @ Aug 20 2009, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
A 12 min full disclosure interview from Richards himself. A great listen.
Fair does to Richards to be honest, pretty candid stuff. Fair does to Dawson too, he didnt shirk from the questions either.
A 12 min full disclosure interview from Richards himself. A great listen.
Fair does to Richards to be honest, pretty candid stuff. Fair does to Dawson too, he didnt shirk from the questions either.
W
Wally
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DonBilly @ Aug 12 2009, 01:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Also what happened?
Haha f***ing French.
Also what happened?
T
Thingimubob
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (stevemagoo @ Aug 20 2009, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Why is that fair by the way? The coach, the players and the medical staff were all in on it, and it now looks like they have been involved in more than one occasion of this.
I think that they definitely should have been banned from the HEC - The players are all part of the team and need to take it on the chin like the rest. The new whistle blowing policy is a good one imo.
The fans will be punished, of course, but they should be blaming the club, not the officials.
[/b][/quote]
Would have a big affect on the other clubs in the pool too, I mean any Cardiff, Toulouse or Sale fan whoo might have already planned their trip to the Stoop would have had to cancel and be refunded.
Why is that fair by the way? The coach, the players and the medical staff were all in on it, and it now looks like they have been involved in more than one occasion of this.
I think that they definitely should have been banned from the HEC - The players are all part of the team and need to take it on the chin like the rest. The new whistle blowing policy is a good one imo.
The fans will be punished, of course, but they should be blaming the club, not the officials.
[/b][/quote]
Would have a big affect on the other clubs in the pool too, I mean any Cardiff, Toulouse or Sale fan whoo might have already planned their trip to the Stoop would have had to cancel and be refunded.
M
monkeypigeon
Guest
Ian McGeechan has been offered a two year contract to be 'da Gaffer' for Quinnies.
P
Prestwick
Guest
Just one thing guys.
Has anyone explained to Nate why we're calling it "Bloodgate"?
Has anyone explained to Nate why we're calling it "Bloodgate"?
M
monkeypigeon
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Aug 24 2009, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I presumed he thinks its a stupid name because it genuinely sounds stupid rather than needing it explained.
I presumed he thinks its a stupid name because it genuinely sounds stupid rather than needing it explained.
Similar threads
