Montferrand vs UAB Round 2

[Dave]

Don't get this time off for remorse thing. Who is seriously gonna turn up at a hearing and say "Yeah I gouged him, I loved it and I'd do it again in a heartbeat."

Pleaded not guilty too ...

What was he remorseful for then? You couldn't make this brad pitt up. Did the epcr release a statement saying we were shat upon?

[Rémy63]

What was he remorseful for then? You couldn't make this brad pitt up. Did the epcr release a statement saying we were shat upon?

Well, it was not intentional, but he did make contact with Marshall's eyes, exactly the same for Best just one week ago... So Falgoux apalogized because he did something wrong but he plaided not guilty because he didn't intended to do it.

The fact is that in one case, the commissionner said it deserves a red card, but in the other case, he said no, which is unfair.

That's all.

You can't say that there was nothing on Zirakashvili :

[Dave]

What was he remorseful for then? You couldn't make this brad pitt up. Did the epcr release a statement saying we were shat upon?

Well, it was not intentional, but he did make contact with Marshall's eyes, exactly the same for Best just one week ago... So Falgoux apalogized because he did something wrong but he plaided not guilty because he didn't intended to do it.

The fact is that in one case, the commissionner said it deserves a red card, but in the other case, he said no, which is unfair.

That's all.

You can't say that there was nothing on Zirakashvili :

Remy, my comment was in relation to the epcr releasing a statement indicating that wasps were hard done by. I honestly haven't seen either incident, involving Best or Zirakashvili. If you have a video clip, I can review and give you my decision if that helps.

[Joe Schmo]

What was he remorseful for then? You couldn't make this brad pitt up. Did the epcr release a statement saying we were shat upon?

Well, it was not intentional, but he did make contact with Marshall's eyes, exactly the same for Best just one week ago... So Falgoux apalogized because he did something wrong but he plaided not guilty because he didn't intended to do it.

The fact is that in one case, the commissionner said it deserves a red card, but in the other case, he said no, which is unfair.

That's all.

You can't say that there was nothing on Zirakashvili :

Remy, my comment was in relation to the epcr releasing a statement indicating that wasps were hard done by. I honestly haven't seen either incident, involving Best or Zirakashvili. If you have a video clip, I can review and give you my decision if that helps.

Remy is talking through his hoop about the Best incident.

[Russ]

What was he remorseful for then? You couldn't make this brad pitt up. Did the epcr release a statement saying we were shat upon?

Well, it was not intentional, but he did make contact with Marshall's eyes, exactly the same for Best just one week ago... So Falgoux apalogized because he did something wrong but he plaided not guilty because he didn't intended to do it.

The fact is that in one case, the commissionner said it deserves a red card, but in the other case, he said no, which is unfair.

That's all.

You can't say that there was nothing on Zirakashvili :

Remy, my comment was in relation to the epcr releasing a statement indicating that wasps were hard done by. I honestly haven't seen either incident, involving Best or Zirakashvili. If you have a video clip, I can review and give you my decision if that helps.

Remy is talking through his hoop about the Best incident.

Best had as much of a case to answer as their prop IMO

Both appeared to be accidental contact with the eye

Neither were Ashton on Marshall

[Rémy63]

My bad.

And agreed both accidentel. But two different decisions at the end.

[Eggs]

FFS that black eye didn't come from Rory's contact

[shamalicious]

FFS that black eye didn't come from Rory's contact

The damage was done by a flailing arm of a Clermont player.

[BaggyTrousers]

Just watched the second half. We are still brill.

What was wrong with PJs third conversion?

Should have had a pen try.

Ah You is brill.

What was wrong with Ludiks catch off their penalty?

Corrupt touch judges ...

Absolutely nothing wrong with it and I couldn't understand at the time why it wasn't challenged. It was the difference between their lineout in our 22 and our ruck in their half.

That is exactly the point, I hope someone has told Paddy , if that ever happens again, turn and appeal to the ref, no way can he reasonably refuse to check it.

Ah, sorry I see you were talking about Louis's fair catch, again, Ulster needed to be stronger and kick up a row with the ref. That was just such a ridiculous call, he was well in the field of play.

[BaggyTrousers]

As for the contact with eyes, I know Rory's was accidental, I can see no evidence in any video that I've seen that the Clermont prop was anything other than accidental. I'm quite shock ha has received that suspension unless thee is a very clear video I haven't seen.

Given the lack of any intention from what I've seen compared to Hartley, how can he get a stiffer penalty than that thug whose action was absolutely deliberate.

Of course, I have for a very long time believed that France & French players have for decades got the wrong side of decisions, at least partly because of language issues. Of course most refs are now at least "rugby fluent" in French and Italian but that was far from the case for long years.

[scrum5]

I'm going to over simplify this for World Rugby, Citing Commissioners and referees, if it's accidental no punishment and if it's deliberate, nail the culprit to the door.

[Snipe Watson]

I'm going to over simplify this for World Rugby, Citing Commissioners and referees, if it's accidental no punishment and if it's deliberate, nail the culprit to the door.

If only proving intent were that easy.