Leinster v Salarysins

A forum for true blue Leinster supporters to talk about and support their team

Moderator: moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Twist
Mullet
Posts: 1354
Joined: September 14th, 2011, 2:33 am

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by Twist »

LeRouxIsPHat wrote:
Twist wrote:
Thats the opposite of what I said. I do apply the same black & white logic to the punishment. The precedent was already set that points are deducted for such infractions.
Can you show your workings of how those incidents were the same as this one?

A work permit, one day out, same competition etc etc?
Its not a question of degree, there’s no gradations involved. An inelligible is an inelligible player.

User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Cian Healy
Posts: 13207
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by LeRouxIsPHat »

Twist wrote:
LeRouxIsPHat wrote:
Twist wrote:
Thats the opposite of what I said. I do apply the same black & white logic to the punishment. The precedent was already set that points are deducted for such infractions.
Can you show your workings of how those incidents were the same as this one?

A work permit, one day out, same competition etc etc?
Its not a question of degree, there’s no gradations involved. An inelligible is an inelligible player.
I disagree but ignore that for a second. Can you point to the rule that says that if a team fields an ineligible player they'll be docked points?

Edit: I'm not just talking about the degree btw. I'm saying that if you're arguing that there's a precedent then the circumstances must be the same. Racing's argument that someone in the Top14 was docked points is b*%&!cks, it's a different competition.

User avatar
MylesNaGapoleen
Mullet
Posts: 1156
Joined: September 18th, 2009, 11:04 am

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by MylesNaGapoleen »

Lotu Taukeiaho, who was not registered as a tournament squad member with organisers European Rugby Cup (ERC), played in Grenoble's 20-9 victory over London Welsh on December 7.

An independent disciplinary committee handed down the punishment and changed the result of the match to a 28-0 win for London Welsh.

It means the Aviva Premiership newcomers gain five points and move from third to second in the pool, now three points above Grenoble, and five behind group leaders Stade Francais.


That was 2012-13

User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Cian Healy
Posts: 13207
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by LeRouxIsPHat »

MylesNaGapoleen wrote:Lotu Taukeiaho, who was not registered as a tournament squad member with organisers European Rugby Cup (ERC), played in Grenoble's 20-9 victory over London Welsh on December 7.

An independent disciplinary committee handed down the punishment and changed the result of the match to a 28-0 win for London Welsh.

It means the Aviva Premiership newcomers gain five points and move from third to second in the pool, now three points above Grenoble, and five behind group leaders Stade Francais.


That was 2012-13
That's great...but it's a different thing. That guy wasn't registered for the tournament, the Sarries guy was, but his work permit had expired the day before. So any precedents for that please?

User avatar
fourthirtythree
Rob Kearney
Posts: 9397
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 11:33 pm
Location: Eight miles high

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by fourthirtythree »

I'm not sure that's as persuasive a point as you think: breaking the law as well as the rules of the tournament doesn't make it better.

Anyway Racing don't seem to want to bring it to court. Looks like they'd have a case if they did.
Datta: what have we given?
My friend, blood shaking my heart
The awful daring of a moment's surrender
Which an age of prudence can never retract
What the thunder said to Brian Lenihan

User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Cian Healy
Posts: 13207
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by LeRouxIsPHat »

fourthirtythree wrote:I'm not sure that's as persuasive a point as you think: breaking the law as well as the rules of the tournament doesn't make it better.

Anyway Racing don't seem to want to bring it to court. Looks like they'd have a case if they did.
Where did I say it was better? I said it's different so therefore isn't a precedent.

There can be no outrage at a different indiscretion resulting in a different punishment.

User avatar
fourthirtythree
Rob Kearney
Posts: 9397
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 11:33 pm
Location: Eight miles high

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by fourthirtythree »

If I were in a disciplinary panel in Ireland, subject to judicial review, I would not feel confident that the high court wouldn't screw me on appeal if I had done this.

And I'm genuinely not outraged, I didn't thi k it was a big deal but it is a pain that this sh!t follows Saracens around constantly.

I won't miss them.
Datta: what have we given?
My friend, blood shaking my heart
The awful daring of a moment's surrender
Which an age of prudence can never retract
What the thunder said to Brian Lenihan

User avatar
MylesNaGapoleen
Mullet
Posts: 1156
Joined: September 18th, 2009, 11:04 am

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by MylesNaGapoleen »

LeRouxIsPHat wrote:
fourthirtythree wrote:I'm not sure that's as persuasive a point as you think: breaking the law as well as the rules of the tournament doesn't make it better.

Anyway Racing don't seem to want to bring it to court. Looks like they'd have a case if they did.
Where did I say it was better? I said it's different so therefore isn't a precedent.

There can be no outrage at a different indiscretion resulting in a different punishment.
They both fielded an illegible player. Same rule broken but different reasons for the illegibility.

User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Cian Healy
Posts: 13207
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by LeRouxIsPHat »

MylesNaGapoleen wrote:
LeRouxIsPHat wrote:
fourthirtythree wrote:I'm not sure that's as persuasive a point as you think: breaking the law as well as the rules of the tournament doesn't make it better.

Anyway Racing don't seem to want to bring it to court. Looks like they'd have a case if they did.
Where did I say it was better? I said it's different so therefore isn't a precedent.

There can be no outrage at a different indiscretion resulting in a different punishment.
They both fielded an illegible player. Same rule broken but different reasons for the illegibility.
Can you point to this catch-all rule in the participation agreement please?

Have you never seen one player get a 4 week ban for something on the pitch and then another gets a shorter ban for the same offence because the circumstances weren't quite the same?

User avatar
ronk
Leo Cullen
Posts: 10529
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by ronk »

If you go on holiday legally but your passport expires After you get there, should you be arrested the same way as someone who illegally crosses a border might.

They are different situations. Saracens had an administrative oversight in the middle of a huge crisis off the field. They have been punished and it's not a trivial punishment. They are fortunate it was not more.

User avatar
MylesNaGapoleen
Mullet
Posts: 1156
Joined: September 18th, 2009, 11:04 am

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by MylesNaGapoleen »

LeRouxIsPHat wrote:
MylesNaGapoleen wrote:
They both fielded an illegible player. Same rule broken but different reasons for the illegibility.
Can you point to this catch-all rule in the participation agreement please?

Have you never seen one player get a 4 week ban for something on the pitch and then another gets a shorter ban for the same offence because the circumstances weren't quite the same?
Yep, Here: https://www.epcrugby.com/champions-cup/format/rules/ Section 3 covers the 3. ELIGIBILITY OF PLAYERS rules which both Grenoble and Saracens broke for different reasons.

Grenoble got fined, points deducted and the result of the match in question against London Irish (IIRC) was reversed 28-0 to LI. Grenoble won the game comfortably but I cannot remember the score.

Saracens were down to 14 men because of a red card....were relegated to the championship the day before the game with Racing and were struggling to edge ahead when they brought on the ineligible player at 60mins.

As an aside, I sincerely doubt they gave a flying flip at the time. Context is everything. the independent committee ruled that it (bringing on an ineligible player) didn't have a significant impact on the game. I tend to disagree but I also understand the chaos it would cause if the same punishment that happened grenoble was given to saracens.

IN the same breath, I am sorta glad we get a chance to knock out saracens in the quarters. sweet revenge for last year in newcastle and a good tester to see where we are at as a team.

User avatar
ronk
Leo Cullen
Posts: 10529
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by ronk »

" All such players must, on registration, be fully and properly registered with their club and Union"

And there is the difference. Saracens could argue that they haven't broken the rules.

User avatar
MylesNaGapoleen
Mullet
Posts: 1156
Joined: September 18th, 2009, 11:04 am

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by MylesNaGapoleen »

ronk wrote:If you go on holiday legally but your passport expires After you get there, should you be arrested the same way as someone who illegally crosses a border might.

They are different situations. Saracens had an administrative oversight in the middle of a huge crisis off the field. They have been punished and it's not a trivial punishment. They are fortunate it was not more.
Ah here, not sure if you have the passport analogy right. Saracens knowingly put an ineligible player into a match where they were down to 14 men and were facing been du. Led out of the champions cup after finding out they were relegated to the championship.

I don't buy the excuse that the dog slept on the homework. Or 'admin error'. It's not as if they have a squeaky clean reputation for not cheating.

User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Cian Healy
Posts: 13207
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by LeRouxIsPHat »

"All such players must, on registration, be fully and properly registered with their club and Union."

He was fully and properly registered for Saracens on registration. The other player wasn't registered at all.

I'm sorry but they really are two different things. If someone complies with the rules for 99% of the time then it's not the same as someone who never did, and a work permit expiring is just not the same as never registering.

I suspect there's an element about the extension that we're not hearing about. Either it was in the works or had already been granted but not updated in the EPCR register or something. If not then you would think we'd hear about him being kicked out of the country or it will cause more hassle with the GP as well. And if that does happen then I'll certainly change my mind on the intent around this.

Look I know it's Saracens and they've done enough to justify people thinking this was deliberate in some way but it just reads like an honest mistake to me and in reality is a minor oversight. There's no point going round in circles, for me the situations aren't the same and it's just not that big a deal. But to be clear again, I 100% agree that they should be punished and also think that the player not being available for the QF would be a fairer punishment.

User avatar
LeRouxIsPHat
Cian Healy
Posts: 13207
Joined: January 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by LeRouxIsPHat »

ronk wrote:" All such players must, on registration, be fully and properly registered with their club and Union"

And there is the difference. Saracens could argue that they haven't broken the rules.
I've never argued that they didn't break the rules :?

User avatar
MylesNaGapoleen
Mullet
Posts: 1156
Joined: September 18th, 2009, 11:04 am

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by MylesNaGapoleen »

LeRouxIsPHat wrote:"All such players must, on registration, be fully and properly registered with their club and Union."

He was fully and properly registered for Saracens on registration. The other player wasn't registered at all.

I'm sorry but they really are two different things. If someone complies with the rules for 99% of the time then it's not the same as someone who never did, and a work permit expiring is just not the same as never registering.

I suspect there's an element about the extension that we're not hearing about. Either it was in the works or had already been granted but not updated in the EPCR register or something. If not then you would think we'd hear about him being kicked out of the country or it will cause more hassle with the GP as well. And if that does happen then I'll certainly change my mind on the intent around this.

Look I know it's Saracens and they've done enough to justify people thinking this was deliberate in some way but it just reads like an honest mistake to me and in reality is a minor oversight. There's no point going round in circles, for me the situations aren't the same and it's just not that big a deal. But to be clear again, I 100% agree that they should be punished and also think that the player not being available for the QF would be a fairer punishment.
I think you are probably right. Fair points well made. I just hope we smash them in Dublin in the quarters.

User avatar
LeinsterLeader
Mullet
Posts: 1726
Joined: May 23rd, 2010, 8:51 pm

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by LeinsterLeader »

Statement from Racing (via Google Translates):

"Le Plessis Robinson, February 08, 2020

ludicrous

Following the complaint lodged by the EPCR against the Saracens for misconduct, the Independent Disciplinary Commission decided on the following penalty: a fine of 50,000 euros, including 25,000 euros suspended until the end of the 2020 season / 2021.

Racing 92 takes note of this grotesque decision. Congratulations to the Saracens for this new feat.

We now know that a club can play in its highest national division by sitting on the Salary Cap for several seasons.
We now know that a club has the possibility of being consecrated this season in a major international competition while continuing to make fun of its regulations.
We now know that a club risks only 0.07% of its budget if it aligns an ineligible international.

Rugby school of life, this wonderful sport does not have the same value for everyone but we will be happy to go play with our friends in Clermont.

Find the press release here: https://www.racing92.fr//content/upload ... racens.pdf"


I assume that's the end of it so! :shock:

User avatar
ronk
Leo Cullen
Posts: 10529
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by ronk »

LeRouxIsPHat wrote:
ronk wrote:" All such players must, on registration, be fully and properly registered with their club and Union"

And there is the difference. Saracens could argue that they haven't broken the rules.
I've never argued that they didn't break the rules :?
I didn't think you had.

User avatar
kermischocolate
Mullet
Posts: 1259
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 2:56 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by kermischocolate »

Glasgow head coach is around and has an opinion on something he's prepared to speak about publically. Who knew?!

https://www.theoffsideline.com/dave-ren ... ssion=true

D4surfer
Graduate
Posts: 588
Joined: May 13th, 2009, 11:34 am

Re: Leinster v Salarysins

Post by D4surfer »

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/51495200

Reported already, but now confirmed that Allianz have severed their links at the end of this season.

Post Reply