Leicester Tigers comment: ERC must get Heineken Cup decision right
Oh to be a fly on the wall of the European Rugby Cup (ERC) meeting that will decide the fate of the Ospreys for having 16 men on the field in Saturday's Heineken Cup win over Leicester Tigers.
The incident involving Lee Byrne playing 70 seconds of a game as a 16th man for the Welsh region was not only the latest in a long line of controversies between Leicester and the Ospreys, it was also the latest in a string of recent occurrences which have caused the game nothing but bad publicity.
-
Lee Byrne
Bath's drugs shame, the scandal of Bloodgate and the horrendous act of eye-gouging have dragged the game through the mud. It will be fascinating to see how the Irish-based organisers of the northern hemisphere's biggest competition deal with this one.
Last year, ERC were saved having to impose serious sanctions on Harlequins because they lost their Bloodgate game with Leinster and were out of the competition anyway. This time, the perpetrators of a breach in the game's laws have gone through to the last eight, while Leicester have been knocked out.
Some will argue that what seems like an administrative mistake should be punished with no more than a fine and a slap on the wrists. Naughty boys. Don't do that again.
The trouble is that in doing so, ERC would be telling sides if you throw an extra man on the pitch for a minute or so, you will just be a bit shorter in the pocket.
The Ospreys fielded 15 internationals in their starting line-up on Saturday. They clearly have a bob or two and will not care if they get fined.
Worse still, if they escape with just a fine for that misdemeanour, where does the buck stop? Should coaches in tightly-fought cup finals chuck on a 16th man when they fancy it, score a match-winning try and gladly take a fine with a trophy sitting nicely in their cabinet?
The key area on Saturday was whether the 16 men was a result of an error by the fourth official or by the Ospreys management?
If the fourth official had told Byrne to go on, you can hardly blame the Ospreys for the confusion.
But if the Ospreys ignored the fourth official and told Byrne to go on of their own accord, that is not only devious but it is a two-fingered salute to one of the most important laws of the game. You must tell a referee when a substitution is being made. It is, after all 15 versus 15.
If that was the case and the Ospreys escape serious punishment, it sets a ridiculous precedent and one that ERC should be very careful of in light of a recent eye-gouging incident.
Last season, Perpignan played hooker Marius Tincu in their domestic Top 14 despite a lengthy ban for eye-gouging in the Heineken Cup that was supposed to cover all competitions.
They bypassed the ERC ruling and claimed that a French law system told them he could play. It was an outrageous flaunting of the rules.
The International Rugby Board 'launched' an enquiry which seemed to take forever and resulted in nothing more than slapped wrists.
Stade Francais duo Julien Dupuy (23 weeks) and David Attoub (70 weeks) have just been given lengthy bans for the same crime in a Heineken Cup match.
Word from Paris is that not only will Stade contest the length of the bans, it is likely they will seek to ensure, through the French legal system, that it applies only to European and not domestic rugby, a-la Tincu.
Deja-vu, as they would say.
That would again make a mockery of the ERC's judicial system. But the Tincu case has created a loophole that Stade could be keen to exploit.
Would a slap on the wrists for the Ospreys create similar problems down the line?
The game's governing bodies have recently started to come down hard on offenders to clean up the image of the game.
Dean Richards was slapped with a three-year ban from the game for his part in Bloodgate, Bath players were given suspensions of almost a year for their involvement in a drug scandal, and Attoub's 70-week ban for eye-gouging is a huge warning to those who want to keep committing rugby's most disgusting act.
Will the same harsh penalties apply to the Ospreys? There is no precedent for having them thrown out of the competition but the deduction of points could effectively do just that, as well as likely send Leicester through as their replacements.
Tigers chairman Peter Tom said he did not want to come across as "whingers" following their formal complaint to ERC but Leicester were hard-done to. That is a fact.
Byrne played a significant role in stopping what looked like being a try-scoring burst from Ben Youngs and then referee Alan Lewis failed to award the penalty he should have done. That could have put a different perspective on a last 10 minutes with Tigers two points behind instead of five. ERC must act quickly. The quarter-finals may not be until April 10, but sides need to know their fate.
Nobody from ERC was available for comment after the game and, 24 hours after the final whistle, there was no mention whatsoever of Tigers' complaint, let alone the incident itself on the ERC website. The phone line in their Dublin-based headquarters rang dry all Sunday morning.
ERC have to front-up and earn their corn. Saturday saw a serious breach of the laws of the game and they must act upon it. Fining the Ospreys would be the easy option but, in this case, if certain facts come to light, not necessarily the right one.
10 Comments
by Pam Deaville, Staffordshire
Tuesday, January 26 2010, 3:15PM
“I don't pretend to be an expert but 70 SECONDS out of an 80 MINUTE game . If the Tigers couldn't do the job in the 78 Minutes they had then surely they should try holding their heads up and say it wasn't their day. Don't the governing bodies have more important things to sort out like the recent eye gouging incidents rather than spending time on whinging.”
by Gavinensonwitch., Gower
Tuesday, January 26 2010, 2:49PM
“Wheeler is a pathetic loser. It's not as if Leicester have a unblemished pedigree of honest, law abiding endeavour in this tournament.
I'm surprised Gavin Henson hasn't copped a life ban over this.”
by Richard Walker, Welford
Tuesday, January 26 2010, 1:49PM
“'This only adds to Leicester Tigers reputation as sore losers and champion whingers. Did the Cardiff Blues make an official complaint after last years semi when Dupuy was remarkably fit again to go back on when there was a very dubious blood injury, in order to take a kick. No they didn't but I guess if that situation was reversed you can bet your life that Leicester would complain. Its what they do.'
What reputation? Rather the opposite! We never cite or seek the citing of an oppostion player. Can *any* Welsh side say as much? As for Dupuy's return in Cardiff - make a vague effort to get your facts right! it was entirely within the laws and checked and approved by the referee at the time!
I know who sounds like they are whingeing!”
by Jo Rich, Bath
Tuesday, January 26 2010, 1:34PM
“Are the Leicester management familiar with the concept of karma? 'The Hand of Back' and Hipkiss's tearing off of his bandage to enable Dupuy (IIRC) to get back on the pitch in last season's HEC spring to mind.
But anyway, a suggestion:
Throw the Ospreys out of the HEC, but ensure England's similar actions in the 2003 World Cup are punished in the same way. I suggest expunging England's name from the list of RWC winners and awarding the 2003 title to the other finalists - Australia.
Also, any knighthoods and other awards the resulted from said win be relinquished.
Yes, the Ospreys may feel hard done by, but a greater evil will then be put right.
Everyone's happy.”
by mark, SWANSEA
Tuesday, January 26 2010, 1:26PM
“Wheeler's comments have been outrageous.Particularly in respect of what he said on Radio 5. Pressing on our try line at the time? 3 or 4 attacking opportunities while we had 16 men on the field? Economical with the truth there or the long lost Grimm Brother? We seem to have learned our lesson about making ill judged public comments but perhaps we should take a leaf out of Leicester's book. Wheeler the Squeeler takes "serial whinging" to new heights (or depths)”
by Nick, Cardiff
Tuesday, January 26 2010, 12:37PM
“What nonsense.
If you look at most rugby blogs the general consensus (and this includes most Tigers fans and the coach) is just get on with it , the Ospreys won.
The Leicester hierarchy are making themselves look like a laughing stock and are acting like spoilt little children throwing their toys out of the pram.
The sanction for this was a penalty....thats it....not points deduction, not being thrown out.
England never got thrown out of the WC2003 did they, no they had a £10k fine, end of.
This only adds to Leicester Tigers reputation as sore losers and champion whingers. Did the Cardiff Blues make an official complaint after last years semi when Dupuy was remarkably fit again to go back on when there was a very dubious blood injury, in order to take a kick. No they didn't but I guess if that situation was reversed you can bet your life that Leicester would complain. Its what they do.
As for asking for a replay on a neutral ground? Please!
Just be gracious in defeat if that's possible. Leicester were well beaten in Swansea and scraped a home draw earlier in the comp. Accept the fact they are not good enough this year to proceed in the HC or Amlin cup.”
by Keeley, Oadby
Tuesday, January 26 2010, 11:49AM
“In response to Matt from Manchesters second question to the author of the story. England's opposition were not in a trying scoring situation when England had the 16th Man on the pitch in the 2003 world cup. However it is being said that if Byrne had not been there to impinge on Youngs then he was likely to have had a big enough break to score a try. Also when has there been any allegations made that Leicester had 16 men on the pitch at the same time.
I myself being a tigers fan do not agree with the points being deducted from the Ospreys as i feel after watching the game that we would not have won with the way our team were playing, however as was suggested it would be nice for the ERC to award Leicester the positioning for next year as if they had been knocked out in the Quarter final stages rather than group stages.
I feel that Mr Lewis does need to put his point across as to what happened on Saturday, he seemed more concerned with penalising at the Scrum rather than actual faults that were occuring. Like the Janurai incident with Toquiri. The linesman pulled up Mr Lewis stating that Januari struck Toquiri to the facial area which was unprovoked or retaliated to by Toquiri, for this it should have been an immediate Red Card or at the very least 10 minutes in the bin, but instead got a slap on the wrist. Then again with Januari constantly commiting deliberate knock on's, nothing was done for these.
The game would have been very different, possibly not the result, if the official had been awake on the day. However in my opinion Mr Lewis seemed to want to blame everyone else for his lack of ability on the day.”
by Keeley, Oadby
Tuesday, January 26 2010, 11:46AM
“In response to Matt from Manchesters second question to the author of the story. England's opposition were not in a trying scoring situation when England had the 16th Man on the pitch in the 2003 world cup. However it is being said that if Byrne had not been there to impinge on Youngs then he was likely to have had a big enough break to score a try. Also when has there been any allegations made that Leicester had 16 men on the pitch at the same time.
I myself being a tigers fan do not agree with the points being deducted from the Ospreys as i feel after watching the game that we would not have won with the way our team were playing, however as was suggested it would be nice for the ERC to award Leicester the positioning for next year as if they had been knocked out in the Quarter final stages rather than group stages.
I feel that Mr Lewis does need to put his point across as to what happened on Saturday, he seemed more concerned with penalising at the Scrum rather than actual faults that were occuring. Like the Janurai incident with Toquiri. The linesman pulled up Mr Lewis stating that Januari struck Toquiri to the facial area which was unprovoked or retaliated to by Toquiri, for this it should have been an immediate Red Card or at the very least 10 minutes in the bin, but instead got a slap on the wrist. Then again with Januari constantly commiting deliberate knock on's, nothing was done for these.
The game would have been very different, possibly not the result, if the official had been awake on the day. However in my opinion Mr Lewis seemed to want to blame everyone else for his lack of ability on the day.”
by Matt, Manchester
Tuesday, January 26 2010, 11:10AM
“Three genuine questions to the author:
1. What do you make of the allegations that Leicester also had 16 men on the field at one point? Should this affect any judgement against the Ospreys? Should any punishment net off against the other (if of course it is true that Leicester had 16 players on the field)?
2. Should the England incident in the 2003 World Cup be used as a precedent? In that case, we apparently defied the instructions of the 4th official and sent Luger on anyway (who actually made a tackle) and, if memory serves me right, Dave Reddin was banned.
3. Where is the authority to deduct points from the Ospreys? The IRB rules obviously say a penalty should have been awarded but I can't see where the point deduction punishment comes from (or the disqualification punishment) - please could you point this out!
Thanks”
by Richard Walker, Welford
Tuesday, January 26 2010, 9:53AM
“'The key area on Saturday was whether the 16 men was a result of an error by the fourth official or by the Ospreys management?' And after the way that David Rose was hung out to dry by the PRL enquiry into 'mudgate' I think we can safely expect the fourth official to cop it from the ERC - an organisation with less principle and backbone than even PRL.
As for the Tincu appeal - if, of course, the ban had been based on any evidence rather than an unsubstatiated complaint by the serial whingers from South Wales then maybe the French courts would not have been involved at all.”