Schools Rugby 2009-10 - SCT

[leinstergirl975]

St.Michaels 15 St,Gerards 6.Three tries to two penalties.St.michaels backs were very good,would think they will be too good for clongowes.

I cant see Michaels beating Clongowes unless their kicker spends the next 2 weeks on the park practising his place kicks!

[Donny B.]

donny,was it not the vinnie murray cup,and the final also ?

Apologies, schools rugby is not my forte. However in my defense the Leinster site had it listed as a semi-final

VINNIE MURRAY SENIOR SEMI FINAL: CBC Monkstown10 v 11 Gonzaga College SJ

http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/domestic/3858.php

[Donny B.]

Excellent match between Gonzaga and Monkstown today in the Teddy Moran semi-final.

Monkstown had led 10-3 and were playing against 14 after a red card for the Gonzaga sub. But they fought back with a drop and a try to take the lead and then hang on for the win.

Another red card!

What is it with the Jesuits these days? They must be putting something in their soup.

The Monkstown full back was taken out in the air. Game held up a long time while he got treatment.

[true blue 06]

St.Michaels 15 St,Gerards 6.Three tries to two penalties.St.michaels backs were very good,would think they will be too good for clongowes.

I cant see Michaels beating Clongowes unless their kicker spends the next 2 weeks on the park practising his place kicks!

dunno about that. he missed no kicks in the first round or the second round and i think we scored about 10 tries over the 2 rounds. he had an off day with the kicking tee.

michaels have the ability to score from anywhere, cwc will have the bigger pack and will most likely keep it up front. both teams seem to have good defences, and while i've only seen one cwc game, the kicker missed all his kicks too and they seemed to turn down a few kickable penalties to go to touch instead which was strange in a tight game .

[tate]

Excellent match between Gonzaga and Monkstown today in the Teddy Moran semi-final.

Monkstown had led 10-3 and were playing against 14 after a red card for the Gonzaga sub. But they fought back with a drop and a try to take the lead and then hang on for the win.

another magnificent victory in the only schools competition worth mentioning, must have been all the pre-season conditioning and coaching i did with them.

[bunty85]

…

[bgmusic]

Any news of disciplinary action against the Clongowes No.8.?

[Project Scorpio]

Any news of disciplinary action against the Clongowes No.8.?

Heard he got off and will be playing in the final, what a disgrace.

[pomegranate]

Any news of disciplinary action against the Clongowes No.8.?

Heard he got off and will be playing in the final, what a disgrace.

I'm presuming that's because he was not proven guilty. How is that a disgrace?

[hugonaut]

Eh, because he was sent off in the semi for eye-gouging?

Oh no, I'll take the word of an 18 year old and his friends with a massive stake in the game over the word of a totally unaffiliated 25+ year old touch judge. I'm sure the latter just made up the fact that the Clongowes No.8 eye gouged another player, he probably has a hidden agenda.

No he f*cking doesn't.

[pomegranate]

Eh, because he was sent off in the semi for eye-gouging?

Oh no, I'll take the word of an 18 year old and his friends with a massive stake in the game over the word of a totally unaffiliated 25+ year old touch judge. I'm sure the latter just made up the fact that the Clongowes No.8 eye gouged another player, he probably has a hidden agenda.

No he f*cking doesn't.

Who suggested that the linesman had a hidden agenda? Surely if he was guilty of the offence then he would have been banned? I don't for a second think that the disciplinary committee would hear a claim of innocence from the player himself and base their judgement on that.

How the f%~k does the word of his friends come into it?

[hugonaut]

RUGBY : Clongowes Wood College number eight Conor Gilsenan has been cleared to play in the Leinster Schools Senior Cup final against St Michael’s College on St Patrick’s Day after a Leinster Branch disciplinary process last night found him not guilty of “making contact with the eye, or eye area” of a St Mary’s College player in the semi-final on February 28th, writes Gavin Cummiskey.

An incident occurred in the 66th minute that led referee Brian MacNeice, on the recommendation of touch judge James Fegan, to show Gilsenan a red card.

The match officials subsequently submitted separate reports to the Leinster schools disciplinary committee.

A statement from the Leinster Branch last night stated: “An independent disciplinary panel was convened to hear the very serious allegations against Conor Gilsenan of making contact with the eye, or eye area, of an opposing player and spent several hours over two days hearing and considering the evidence, including detailed video evidence.

“The committee viewed the video evidence available which was very helpful in reaching a decision. The committee was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, on the evidence adduced and bearing in mind the video evidence as also adduced, that Conor Gilsenan was guilty of making contact with the eye or eye area of an opposing player. Accordingly, the committee recommends no further sanction.”

[source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/spo ... 13112.html ]

I suggested that he had a hidden agenda [sarcastically, I hasten to add].

I firmly believe that it's a disgrace if a player is sent off in a semi-final for eye-gouging and then is allowed to play in the final.

Given that it's a schools rugby match and there's not 12+ cameras at the ground, how could this disciplinary committee imply that the touch-judge, only 2-3m away from the incident, got it wrong? Given that you could clearly hear another player accusing him of eye-gouging at a ruck on the opposite side of the pitch a couple of minutes earlier, I'm convinced that he's a gouger.

[pomegranate]

RUGBY : Clongowes Wood College number eight Conor Gilsenan has been cleared to play in the Leinster Schools Senior Cup final against St Michael’s College on St Patrick’s Day after a Leinster Branch disciplinary process last night found him not guilty of “making contact with the eye, or eye area” of a St Mary’s College player in the semi-final on February 28th, writes Gavin Cummiskey.

An incident occurred in the 66th minute that led referee Brian MacNeice, on the recommendation of touch judge James Fegan, to show Gilsenan a red card.

The match officials subsequently submitted separate reports to the Leinster schools disciplinary committee.

A statement from the Leinster Branch last night stated: “An independent disciplinary panel was convened to hear the very serious allegations against Conor Gilsenan of making contact with the eye, or eye area, of an opposing player and spent several hours over two days hearing and considering the evidence, including detailed video evidence.

“The committee viewed the video evidence available which was very helpful in reaching a decision. The committee was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, on the evidence adduced and bearing in mind the video evidence as also adduced, that Conor Gilsenan was guilty of making contact with the eye or eye area of an opposing player. Accordingly, the committee recommends no further sanction.”

[source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/spo ... 13112.html ]

I suggested that he had a hidden agenda [sarcastically, I hasten to add].

I firmly believe that it's a disgrace if a player is sent off in a semi-final for eye-gouging and then is allowed to play in the final.

Given that it's a schools rugby match and there's not 12+ cameras at the ground, how could this disciplinary committee imply that the touch-judge, only 2-3m away from the incident, got it wrong? Given that you could clearly hear another player accusing him of eye-gouging at a ruck on the opposite side of the pitch a couple of minutes earlier, I'm convinced that he's a gouger.

I firmly believe it's a disgrace if a player is sent off in a semi-final for eye-gouging, is found guilty by an independent disciplinary committee and then is allowed to play in the final. If he had been found guilty he should have been made an example of but the fact that you are convinced he's a gouger doesn't make a difference to the fact that he was found not guilty.

From the report on the decision, do ye think it's reasonable to assume that the touch-judge could not state with absolute certainty that he saw an eye-gouge? If he did, it'd have been a guilty verdict. That leads me to believe that the touch-judge was unsure and that's no basis for such serious allegations to be proved.

[true blue 06]

Any news of disciplinary action against the Clongowes No.8.?

Heard he got off and will be playing in the final, what a disgrace.

poor form from the branch..they had a chance to make an example of a guy whom i believe most certainly did gouge because i doubt the linesman would have made that call unless he was 100% sure, i'm not too surprised the branch bottled it though..if the final wasnt coming up and if this was maybe an invident from a vinne murray cup game i'm sure the player would have got banned for a couple of weeks

[bgmusic]

No mention of any evidence from the St.Marys player who was(allegdly)gouged. Was he even asked to the hearing?

[Blue Steel]

I heard from a very reliable source that:

The Clongowes 8 brought a senior counsel with him who threatened to take the Branch to court if he was banned.

There were no camera angles that showed it conclusively and the Branch, facing the thought of effectively facing down a school boy in court in a case that would have been plastered all over the papers, bottled it and backed down.

The fact is it is next to impossible to get a red card in the schools cup. There have been hardly any red cards over the years. In my opinion, if he got a red for gouging on the recommendation of a touch judge who was 2-3m away, he definitely deserved it.

If you got a red card in any game representing St. Michaels, you'd be hanging on for dear life to keep your place in the school, let alone the team.

Whatever about the legal manouvering pulled to stop any further sanctions, if Clongowes allow him to play, they will plummet in my estimation.

[Grumpy Old Man]

I don't know how much of the above is true or not (and people connected with Michaels seem to be making an amount of noise about it), but I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two of the Michaels players getting up from the first ruck and doing a Nick Kennedy!

[Blue Steel]

I don't know how much of the above is true or not (and people connected with Michaels seem to be making an amount of noise about it), but I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two of the Michaels players getting up from the first ruck and doing a Nick Kennedy!

St Michaels operate under the Holy Ghosts' strict code of conduct - foul play of any kind is not tolerated (especially gouging) and if you get a straight red, you get expelled.

Would it were that the Jesuit schools had the same moral compass, the same inate decency.

If they had, any alledged gouger would be doing his leaving certificate on his own in some GAA club rented especially for the occasion and not lining out for the senior cup side.

The Jesuits famous motto is "give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man" - clearly that senior counsel should have been more worried about the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

[pomegranate]

I don't know how much of the above is true or not (and people connected with Michaels seem to be making an amount of noise about it), but I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two of the Michaels players getting up from the first ruck and doing a Nick Kennedy!

St Michaels operate under the Holy Ghosts' strict code of conduct - foul play of any kind is not tolerated (especially gouging) and if you get a straight red, you get expelled.

Would it were that the Jesuit schools had the same moral compass, the same inate decency.

If they had, any alledged gouger would be doing his leaving certificate on his own in some GAA club rented especially for the occasion and not lining out for the senior cup side.

The Jesuits famous motto is "give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man" - clearly that senior counsel should have been more worried about the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

I'm pretty sure you're a wum. If not, my faith in humanity just fell a notch.

[Blue Steel]

I don't know how much of the above is true or not (and people connected with Michaels seem to be making an amount of noise about it), but I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two of the Michaels players getting up from the first ruck and doing a Nick Kennedy!

St Michaels operate under the Holy Ghosts' strict code of conduct - foul play of any kind is not tolerated (especially gouging) and if you get a straight red, you get expelled.

Would it were that the Jesuit schools had the same moral compass, the same inate decency.

If they had, any alledged gouger would be doing his leaving certificate on his own in some GAA club rented especially for the occasion and not lining out for the senior cup side.

The Jesuits famous motto is "give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man" - clearly that senior counsel should have been more worried about the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980.

I'm pretty sure you're a wum. If not, my faith in humanity just fell a notch.

Guilty as charged m'lud.

Some of my best work was when I implied the OLSC was on the take. Carnage!

But seriously, my sources are impeccable in this regard.