Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Harlequins hit hard with massive fine and suspension after fake injury

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Harlequins hit hard with massive fine and suspension after fake injury

Harlequins have been slapped with a mammoth £215, 000 fine for faking an injury to their wing Tom Williams during the closing stages of the Heineken Cup quarter final.

Williams has been suspended for a year for his part in the incident as he came off the field during the 6-5 defeat by Leinster in April.

His departure from the field, which was supposedly for a blood injury, allowed Harlequins to bring specialist flyhalf Nick Evans back on, for the remainder of the tense finish to the match.

There were complaints against Dean Richards and two members of the medical team, but those were dismissed.

"We are both surprised and disappointed at this decision - particularly so in the light of the acquittal of Dean Richards, Steph Brennan and Dr Wendy Chapman on similar or identical charges," said a statement from the club.

"The club and the player will consider their position in the light of the written judgement due to be handed down by the disciplinary committee."

TV footage formed part of the evidence looked at by the ERC panel, as well as statements from witnesses, both of which highlighted the fact that Williams appeared to wink as he left the field.

"It was the view of the committee that this was a very serious offence and one that damaged the reputation of the tournament and of rugby union," said a statement from ERC.

"Accordingly the committee imposed a fine of 250,000 euros (£215,000) on Harlequins, of which 50% is suspended for two years.

"The committee also suspended Mr Williams from playing rugby for a period of 12 months up to and including 19, July 2010."

Harlequins are considering appealing.

"Williams' 12-month ban is lengthier than Justin Harrison's eight months for drug-related offences, and Schalk Burger's eight weeks for gouging, bringing into question the continuity of how bans are administered," said Richards.

Time: 03:48

Holy fuck, that's massive. Pretty sneaky though considering it was just to bring Evans on.

They should institute this in soccer, although there may not be many players left afterwards.

By decepti0n, at July 21, 2009 4:05 pm
Wow that's massive. So is this offense 6 times worse than Burgers? Which has got to be one of the most deliberate and stupid gougings i've ever seen.

By Andy, at July 21, 2009 4:13 pm
That is grossly unfair on williams, it was blatantly a managerial decision he should not be punished at all in my opinion he was just doing what he was told to do by his boss. The fine seems very heavy but i dont know enough of harlequins finances to know how much it will affect them.

By bonzai, at July 21, 2009 4:18 pm
so the RFU looks down more harshly on this that taking class A drugs or eye gouging? I can only assume theres a leinster fan on the committee who took a dim view of this

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 4:26 pm
I think this kind of behaviour should be severely punished. That said it really highlights the nonsensically light punishments handed down in recent gouging cases.

As to the relevance of whether Williams was only doing it because he was put up to it at managerial level - I think it is reasonable to assume that this is so. If on appeal he tells the full truth of how it came to be that he co-operated with the faking of the injury then he should be dealt with far more leniently.

If he does not, he'll have to take the pain on his own account.

I'm just recalling Dean Richard's post match interview where he said something smug about needing to know the rules well or something (regarding the designation of the initial Evans substitution as being a replacement as opposed to for injury). It does him no credit in light of this.

By Eoghan, at July 21, 2009 4:33 pm
I think it's a bit hard, I think that eye gouging someone should be punished harder then faking an injury, altough I still think it's sneaky.

By Rik, at July 21, 2009 4:42 pm
@decepti0n LOVE the soccer comment! So true.

@Andy yes it is worse. It is an affront to the spirit of the game, its players and fans.

Having said the above I agree with Eoghan: eye gouging is too lightly punished for what could be a carrier ending injury.

By Stubby, at July 21, 2009 5:23 pm
a few weeks would be fair enough but 1 year?! sorry but there is a huge contrast in severity between taking class A drugs and faking an injury, how can the comittee justify punishing someone much more severly for faking an injury than someone who indulged in drugs, or eye gouging (potentially a career ending injury, not to mention the inconvienience of losing an eye)? granted its against the spirit of the game and i thuroughly disagree with this behaviour in rugby but 12 months is overkill...

By Keith, at July 21, 2009 5:39 pm
i totally agree with bonzai:it shud be mostly the managers who planned this who shud be punished, williams was only a pawn

By Ireland for WC 2011!!!!!, at July 21, 2009 5:46 pm
i don't know how to interpretate this decision

Tom Williams is finally the great "actor" of Harlequins "production"
On the video, u can clearly see that was fake: tomato juice and wink.

His punition seems a bit harsh because nor the doctor, nor dean richards were punished...

So i find this story typically british. Hiding the unfair tactics of quins staff and save dean richards (and english rugby) reputation.

There is a lot of hypocrisy here, charging one player and saving the staff. And now, the same cheating staff will appeal the decision...

A video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjuWyKVH3aM

By Flooz, at July 21, 2009 6:02 pm
bloody harsh if you ask me, its all part of the game!!

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 6:05 pm
"He has been banned from all rugby for 12 months (until 19 July 2010) after faking an injury to allow Nick Evans on in the dying minutes of their 2008-09 Heineken Cup quarter-final defeat by Leinster [1]

Williams was caught swallowing a blood pill to fool the authorities into believing he had a cut lip. Williams was also found guilty of carrying a false moustache, whoopee cushion and live rabbit in his kitbag."

Wikipedia

By Rui Silva, at July 21, 2009 6:06 pm
poor williams...
whats he going to do for a year :|

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 6:32 pm
What a winker.

By noikz, at July 21, 2009 6:57 pm
What would have happened had he knocked the kick over and won the game for harlequins, i wonder?

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 6:59 pm
Williams should not be punished. In his 7 year career he has had 1 yellow card and that was from persistent infringing. I don't even see much wrong with what they did and even if they were wrong they lost the game. The IRB seem to be fucking up the game in my opinion, not helping it. Harlequins have a lot of integrity to their approach to rugby as well.

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 7:37 pm
omg......this is fucking stupid he was clearley just doing what th manager was telling him to do..... and he gets 12 MONTHS... were as Schalk Burger gets eight weeks for gouging....absoulutely stupid ... and i think that the fine is a bit havy but deserved.... but there is no way the poor buger should be banned for 12 MONTHS :O:(

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 7:42 pm
omg......this is fucking stupid he was clearley just doing what th manager was telling him to do..... and he gets 12 MONTHS... were as Schalk Burger gets eight weeks for gouging....absoulutely stupid ... and i think that the fine is a bit havy but deserved.... but there is no way the poor buger should be banned for 12 MONTHS :O:(

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 7:42 pm
Williams is in on it and deserves something. However, Bonzai is spot on that the punishment is disproportionate when compared to the punishment of the others in the Quins organization.

This is a "fix" on the game itself, and attacks the very roots of the game itself, like gambling would.

While physical attacks like Burgers are indeed negative to the game, they don't attack to the core of it's integrity in the same way something like this does.

If the fix goes up at a higher level, the fairer outcome is a forced relegation of the club.

Williams should be given leniency for a testimony

If it was a blood pill, how did it arrive? The medical staff should be banned for a much longer term for faking an injury.

By cheyanqui, at July 21, 2009 8:18 pm
Hang on.

So it has been established that the blood was fake and that he took a 'blood-pill'.

Well surely then, presuming that Quins players dont all carry blood pills in their jock-straps all day, it was the manager or the physio that gave it to him and told him to take it.

If there was a blood pill, whoever gave it to him and told him to take it is the guilty party...

How can richards be let of the hook?

By Mi Vida, at July 21, 2009 8:51 pm
what an embarassment this is..

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 8:56 pm
very amusing! good stuff!

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 9:02 pm
Wait a minute how come the quins staff had a blood pill as part of their 'kit' in the first place!!was this all planned or is it something that goes on more often than we think. I'm confused and disgusted if thats the case and the management are the ones who should be punished heavily not the player however i'm sure he'll pick up a few acting roles in romero's next zombie film should keep him busy for the next year!!

By roddymac, at July 21, 2009 9:09 pm
This sort of stuff does not belong to the beautiful sport that Rugby is!!

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 9:14 pm
Well done, faking an injury is a fukin disgrace.

By Unknown, at July 21, 2009 9:23 pm
to RS...i lol'd XD

on the matter at hand...what with 12 months....did schlack have a brwn envolope under the desk at his hearing or what??

even though thats got noting to do with this i dont see how the IRD can punish this and let bigger stuff just pass on by!!

and why did it take so long anyway?? that game was played 3 months ago....!!!

By creggs08, at July 21, 2009 9:49 pm
Flooz. Please dont associate anything the english do as british:P
Its Wales, Ireland and Scotland in the uk:P not just england lol.
We're not all evil:D!

By Matt, at July 21, 2009 9:57 pm
williams shouldnt be punished at all. It should be the managerial staff who should be punished, but 1 year ban on willaims and massive fine is taking it way too far.
If Quins won because of this, it would be slightly more reasonable, but nonetheless far to harsh.

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 10:06 pm
I remember seeing this - not cool. I can't see how they couldn't punish an individual though, because at the very least a medic would have had to verify that the player was injured.

Didn't Leicester do something similar as the final headed towards the dropgoal shootout?

By HM, at July 21, 2009 10:16 pm
"If Quins won because of this, it would be slightly more reasonable, but nonetheless far to harsh."

That is absurd. If they had won then you could just as easily defend Williams say, 'Well its only because they won...if they had lost then nothing would have been done' which seems rather contradictory to the prevailing opinion at the time of the Bakkies Botha citing in which everyone was bitching about how the citing commission only notices illegalities when they result in injuries.

No doubt you thought the Bakkies citing was harsh and found yourself thinking, "How is fair that this is only punished when it causes injury?" which is contradictory to your argument in this case which says, "Its fair that the outcome of the game in which they cheated determines whether or not the cheaters are punished."

By bigox, at July 21, 2009 10:39 pm
Williams was in a no win situation. He presumably was asked/told to do this by management/other players......if he didn't, no future at Quins, he did and he got a 12 month ban. The fact he isn't taking others down with him is the reason he is being so severely punished which frankly is stupid, punitive and petty.

As many others have highlighted how this is worse than extreme foul play or drug taking I do not know. Sure fine the club if you believe it was deliberate cheating/although the line between this and gamesmanship is marginal (he could have claimed a dead leg/cramp and who would know).

I feel he has got some very rough treatment here. They had better ban Lipman et al for a great deal longer then!

By Ally, at July 21, 2009 10:54 pm
I'm French, sorry for my poor english.

The sanction may look hard for Williams, however, a specificity of rugby is that it has remained a "honest" sport, if you see what I mean.

If these kind of things are permitted, then we risk to become soccermen, more concerned about cheating than playing.

What I don't understand is the fact that the coaching staff hasn't been sanctionned. I don't think Williams has done it by himself. He recieved an order, and they should be heavily punished for that. Heavier than Williams.

However, a such big sanction is fair, just to make an example. Ok, nobody has been injured, and Burger got less for trying to split Fitzgerald eyes. However, rugby has always been a violent sport, during the amator time, hard fights and eye-gougings were common (but it doesn't excuse Burger). But i doubt such things were.

Fair sanction, but some guilties escaped.

By Mpc33, at July 21, 2009 11:36 pm
How was the blood faked with no one seeing, or was it a genuine blood injury, but made out to be much worse?! Any one know? I think it is very unfair, when you think that Burger got away with a very light ban for such a blatant eye gouging, and also Harrison getting just 8 months, for THREE sperate drug related charges, when you see Sailor got 2 years, Stevens 2 years! Not a great example of the rules here!!! There needs to be a clear and consistent punishment for infringements, and based on their severity and the players prevous conduct... jus a lil rant, I shall stop there! xoD

By Anonymous, at July 21, 2009 11:54 pm
For once, the much maligned sky spots comentators got it spot on.

Classic quote: "who punched Tom Williams in the mouth? Tom Williams?"

Brilliant!

Oh, and Matt: Ireland is not in the UK. Part of it is, Northern Ireland. (In rugby terms however, I can see how there is confusion, as The B and I Lions panel harks back to the pre Irish Independence era. Likewise with the Irish rugby team's panel)

By mise, at July 22, 2009 12:34 am
Mise you took the words right out of my mouth. What I think about the whole thing though, is that while I understand why people are concerned that eye-gouging gets little more than a slap on the wrists whereas this gets 12 months, I think that niggling people and getting cheap shots in is somethings players always do, in the heat of the moment, although I condone it. This though is a premeditated, calculated decision to take the law into their own hands and bring the reputation of rugby as a whole into disrepute. An analogy that comes to mind, is that because it's not in the heat of the moment, it's sort of like murdering someone in cold blood, as opposed to manslaughter.

By Kearney for tests, at July 22, 2009 1:20 am
'Although I don't condone it' I meant to say.

By Kearney for tests, at July 22, 2009 1:22 am
wtf? what's with the blinking of his eye and that sneaky look? hate me, but that looked kinda fishy!

By opfazonk, at July 22, 2009 1:25 am
Eoghan I agree, I remember Richard's post match interview really sticking with me, where he tried to turn it back on Sky's interviewer. I had really respected him as a player and coach up until that.

The difference with Leicster in the HC semi was that ( i can't think of his name, french scrum half, ah Dupree) the player was a regulation sub, Leicster had taken him off but knew they'd need him again.
For example, it isn't unusual for subbed props to come back on if an injury occurs, likewise with the SHs as outside backs.

Also, for those suggesting an English cover up to protect Harlequins and Richards, it was an ERC commitee, not RFU or IRB, the same ones who gave Quinlain 12 weeks (I'm a fan of his but it should have been at least double). As some have said, the lenght is due to bringing the game into disrepute, which, unless gouging leads to an injury, is much more serious in context.

Finally, at the time, I couldn't understand the reason to bring Evans back on, as he only had 1 leg, as Danny Care is a very good ball striker and has a couple of drop goals to his name already.

If they were fined £215,000, why weren't they dropped from the HC for a season aswell or instead, that would bring it home more to their own fans, showing how they were cheated aswell and try to discourage others from doing likewise.

By Huh!! the 3rd, at July 22, 2009 1:51 am
seems like the board are being pretty clear that they don't appreciate it! The good thing is, i don't think anyone will be trying that again for a while. Maybe all punishments should be harsher because the more lengthy a ban is, the less likely a player is to try something. Burger would never have tried gouging if it meant that he would be out for a year or two.

By Anonymous, at July 22, 2009 2:16 am
Guys, the punishment here versus the punishment for on the field foul play is like apples and oranges.

Acts such as this one reach to the very core of the sport. It's one step away from match-fixing / gambling.

Acts such as Burger whilst foul play, at least they are "what you see is what you get". The fan can understand that these events are seen, and caught. The reputation of the game itself is not under attack.

However, events like this actually do assail the game itself.

It is a slippery slope to being like a Marseilles of Association Football.

By cheyanqui, at July 22, 2009 2:59 am
god aren't there some nice girls in the uk? everytime i go to london or watch rugby games in the uk it's just fatties fatties fatties. you really should start a diet you fatarses

By jo, at July 22, 2009 3:08 am
This is one of the msot digusting things I've ver seen in rugby.
Pre-meditated, organised cheating obviously co-ordinated by the coaching and medical staff.
I've never seen anything like it, and it has the potential to harm the game beyond repair.
This kind of disgraceful, corrupt behaviour has no place in rugby, and is more beffitting a Serie A team in the mid 90s.
Blatant cheating, not by an individual in the heat of the moment, but pre-meditated cheating from the coaching staff. Despicable, and I've never seen this before in a rugby game.
It also speaks to a lack of self-belief and proffesionalism on behalf of the Harlequins. Imagine believeing that it was nescisarey to organise such blatant cheating, because you didn't think you could play above the other team.
It's the anti-thesis of fair play and playing the game in the right spirit.

By Anonymous, at July 22, 2009 3:34 am
well deserved!!!

By Anonymous, at July 22, 2009 3:41 am
he was bleeding out of his mouth..

but if he was faking, then he deserved the ban

By Cheis, at July 22, 2009 5:14 am
poor williams... dean richards should been ban also so as the team doctor.. the mastermind is the one who should be punish..

By Anonymous, at July 22, 2009 5:45 am
completly agreed with the desicion..

By Anonymous, at July 22, 2009 6:13 am
The scary thing is that Evans' drop goal could so easily have gone over, and the outcome of the tournament might have been different.. only for this punishment etc to happen now anyway. Thank god it didnt go over..

'Cheating' to a similar extent has always existed though - forwards going down to waste time.. clutching their leg or whatever. So they've basically just pushed the line here, but really blatantly.

I feel for Williams in some ways - the medical guy must have just arrived on the field and said 'oi, you, you're off. play along with this..' Who was he to question his coach, former international Dean Richards.. tough break. A year out for following orders in the heat of the battle.. sad.. but deserved I guess.

By Shaft, at July 22, 2009 8:09 am
Jo, nice one! LOL 'fatties fatties fatties'!!!! Reminds me of that Morrisey song, "You're the one for me Fatty" maybe a more appropriate song for Engerland than 'Swing Low' LOL

By ConnachtFan, at July 22, 2009 10:20 am
From today's Irish Times:

"former Ireland prop, Paul Wallace, who was working as an analyst for Sky television, was adamant Harlequins had bent the rules. “I saw Tom Williams kneel down and move his hand from his sock to his mouth before he came off,” he said. “To my mind, this is a clear case as there did not appear to be contact between Williams and anyone else. I am not qualified to know about things such as vegetable dye, but it didn’t look like the colour of blood you get from a mouth injury. There was a little trickle, then it gushed out after he took a sip of water.” There ya go....

By ConnachtFan, at July 22, 2009 10:37 am
And now the Quins are moaning about the IRB decision... That club and its staff are a fukin shame to rugby...Don't ever talk to me about english fairplay, they're cheaters and pussies that's what they are. The way they're complaining about the sanction is just disgusting, are they seriously denying this obvious and shameful faking??

By Anonymous, at July 22, 2009 1:08 pm
I meant ERC, not IRB. I was the anon before.

By Rodolphe, at July 22, 2009 1:14 pm
To ban Tom Williams for a year is clearly over te top. I think the Quins should have been banned from the HC for a year.

I think it was a team move, I watched the game again and as soon as Chris Malone got injured, they immediately strapped up Nick Evans. Why when he was already out of the game? That was surely a planned move, especially with Tom Williams coming of the bench. Watching the situation around the blood injury, I couldn´t see any incident this player was involved, e.g. ruck, where you can get such a kind of injury.

By Jochen, at July 22, 2009 2:36 pm
Bloody harsh. Burger should have been banned for a few years then if this is anything to go by.

By Anonymous, at July 22, 2009 2:46 pm
IMHO, just let the damn thing go...

Yes, players who blatantly attempt to hurt other players ( Burger) should be harshly punished.

But the thing is, things like this happen, and if the ref doesnt catch it, let it go.

I'm thinking about the incident where the flanker hit the ball out of stringers hands at the 5 meter scrum several years back. That was VERY obvious. what did officials do after the match? NOTHING.

I dont see whats wrong by playing the rules to your advantage... and dont you think that the 'blood pill' theory is a lil bit far-fetched...?

At the very least, punish the management, not the player... Tom's a cool guy...

By hmph, at July 22, 2009 3:33 pm
i dunno is it right that everyone's saying it was pre meditated and that the management was involved.i'm sure the ERC panel knows a lot more than we do and chose not to punish the management.

as far as i know these days the management marks everyone as a tactical substitution rather than an injury in case a blood bin occurs,so that's not cheating it's just being clever

and a blood pill seems extremely farfetched.i'd say williams just decided himself to take one for the team and bit his lip,and then poured water on it and spat it out to make it look worse.

i know it's against the spirit of the game,but at the end of the day he was bleeding so they were entitled to make a substitution,and it was a half crippled fly half they were bringing on anyway.so maybe i'd feel differently had the kick gone over,but it didn't so think they should just let it go..

By mark, at July 22, 2009 4:04 pm
i think quins got off lucky as cheating cannot be condoned. there is no room for it in rugby and what a scandal it would have been if evans had slotted the drop goal.
it calls upon the integrity of the sport and while i feel the management should be disciplined, williams knew what he was doing, it wasnt like he was backed into a corner, he seemed quite proud of the fact he was cheating with the winking and in my opinion deserves everything he gets.

By Paul Gormley, at July 22, 2009 4:28 pm
Why wink? Thats obviously going to put suspiscion on you! From that we can deduce he knew exactly what was happening, thus he deserves punishment. A 12 month ban is however, ridiculous. Surely an appeal is in the pipeline?

By A Wise Man Once, at July 22, 2009 5:09 pm
I can't believe there was a blood pill. I reckon he bit his lip deliberately.

If it was a big game i'd probably do it to myself to get someone we needed back on (Obviously i'm always the one that is needed so that'd never be the case). I wouldn't however wink at my coach as i jogged off. I'm sure some of you lot would too?

By Anonymous, at July 22, 2009 6:12 pm
"how punched tom williams in the mouth, tom williams?" ... well kinda! lol tpyical prem clubs, cant keep pace in the ken.

By Anonymous, at July 22, 2009 8:43 pm
Its a pretty embarrassing time to be a quins fan. They deserved something but this is hilariously disproportionate compared to the bans for eye gouging.

But if it puts people off pulling ridiculus stunts like these then the fine is worth it.

By anon. no6, at July 22, 2009 8:58 pm
@ Matt

Ireland is absolutely not in the uk.

RG

By RG, at July 22, 2009 10:44 pm
Dangerous tackling and cheap shots are bad and should stop. Certainly players whould be punished.
But this is something far worse. It's organised cheating from the top down. Horrible and potentially very damaging to the game.
Maybe it's the influence of soccer, where cheating is such a key part of the game?
That's not the case in rugby, and I hope to christ it never is.

By Anonymous, at July 23, 2009 1:29 am
I dont understand what the actual wrong doing was? If you have a blood injury, your entitled to leave the feild, and if you've been substituted you can return in the case of a blood injury? is this not what happened? even if it wasn't a bad enough injury for him to go off, he can still leave if he wants? if you watch the clip you hear the ref stating the rules and agreeing with what quins did. thought the refs descision was final? You Don't see any, tries or red cards being awarded or taken away after matches so why interfere with a substitution that was within the rules. if they dont like the rules that exist, then change them, dont fine and ban to stop others doing it.

By Jack, at July 23, 2009 2:26 am
The ban does seem a little harsh, but this is an affront to the spirit of the game (as others have already said). That and they are clearly doing this to discourage others from doing the same (which I agree with, don't want to see this happen again). Yes, maybe other acts (aforementioned eye gouging and drug violations) should carry heavier penalties but that doesn't mean he should get a lighter one.

I do think everyone else involved got off much too easy. Though I don't know enough to comment on the fine.

By kshonbor, at July 23, 2009 2:38 am
IRB showing how completely out of touch wth the game and real world they really are. how's that worse than an eye gouge. Wankers

By Anonymous, at July 23, 2009 3:15 am
Firstly, I agree that eye gouging is despicable and should be punished.
But it's a wilful act of dangerous play by an individual in the heat of the game.
This is much worse, because it is basically organised ccheating. It's corruption, not far removed from fixing a game.
If this creeps into the game, I'll stop watching.
Disgusting, and the coach and medical staff should have been banned, not the player. The club should be kicked out of the HC too.

By Lennox, at July 23, 2009 3:43 am
Dam right, Quins bloody cheated. if the last attempt at drop goal had have made it the hard work, blood sweat and tears that Leinster put into the seasons competition would have been wrongly torn away from them.

As for Damian Hopley comment, YOU CANNOT COMPARE WHAT THEY DID AND GOUGING!!!!!although i would never condone gouging and think it's a horrible part of the game, it is in the heat of the moment where as Quins actions were per meditated

Discusting!!!!

CHEATS!!!!!!!!

"Rugby gives you values: they aren’t written but they are for life’

-Felipe Contepomi

Quins clearly dragged the game we all love into disrepute (this isn't football)

What about bans for Deans and medical staff!!!!

By Daithai, at July 23, 2009 11:47 am
Fair enough, Williams does deserve a ban for his part in this. And he is right not to grass up the mangerial staff in the hearings. However, it is not worse than gouging or drugs in my opinion. Gouging is just as premeditated as this is. In the heat of a game i've hit or raked before, but to actually going for the eye, you have to think about. Williams deserves a ban but definately not as long as that. 3 to 6 months.

By Quinsfan, at July 23, 2009 6:30 pm
i got a feeling that many clubs have thought of this scenario and keep a pack or blood pill in the kit just in case it should ever arise. Truly despicable, considering the nature of the blood sub is to prevent unfair play from ruining the game (e.g., intentional attempt to injure opposition player). This should send a message to all those other clubs considering trying the same bs

By name/ur;, at July 23, 2009 8:44 pm
Daithai,

Let me put it to you this way. If you could choose between a team potentially losing out on the european cup for one year due to cheating or a player potentially getting blinded and having to retire, what would you choose?

They are both dispicable but they need to be put into context. Ofcourse you can compare them they're both punishable offences in rugby.

By Andy, at July 24, 2009 3:56 pm
If you look closley, he winks at evans and grins

By Jonno, at July 26, 2009 3:14 pm
The Quins team should be banned from the Heineken Cup for a year and fined. Its an absolute disgrace that they did this. That will send a clear message. If I was a Quins fan i'd be ashamed.

By monissar, at July 26, 2009 9:11 pm
Monissar, i think you're right. Thats exactly what the punishment should be. And the player with a 4 week suspension, or something less than the punishment for career ending foul play.

By Andy, at July 29, 2009 12:15 pm
Hipkiss played 108 minutes of a HC semi-final with absolutely no problem but then with 2 mins to go and a "kick-off" beckoning he suddenly had to leave the field for a blood injury to a cut that he suffered the week before. Amazingly he was replaced by a previously substituted player who was a better place-kicker.

A significant number of club and international matches go to uncontested scrums these days when the weaker scrum suddenly suffers injuries.
From BBC 606 poster andysw12

"Players often leave the field for "blood injuries" despite the fact that they are limping or holding their arms...

It goes on everywhere. Are people really saying that this is a surprise to them?

For those indignant fans who honestly believe Quins are the exception... grow up."

By Anonymous, at August 14, 2009 1:13 am
In a different, but possibly similar event, is there anything to be said for the suspicious activity in the 76th min of the 1st test in the B&I lions series? The lions were looking very menacing and it wouldn't have been the biggest shock if they had have scored that last try and won the match. The influential defensive leader and captain John Smit was substituted off the pitch in the 69th minute as springbok coach Peter De Velliers thought the match had been wrapped up and wanted to save the energy and endeavors of his captain for the 2nd text the following week. Though with the match hanging in the balance and the world cup winning captain off the pitch, Smit was suspiciously allowed back onto the pitch for the apparently injured Deon Carstens, thought he didnt appear to have any injury whatsoever. Could it be that Carstens was instructed to fake an injury to allow Smit back on? Perhaps an event of indescribable magnitude occurred because if smit wasn't allowed back on maybe the springboks would have lost the first test as they had smit for those crucial scrums and lineouts in the dying minutes of the test. And therefore maybe they could have lost the second test and the series subsequently.

Anyone care to comment on this?
Agree or disagree?

I maintain that something along the same lines as the harlequins incident has occured here although without the use of blood. And that Smit was allowed on because Catstens faked an injury and permitted the South African skipper to lead his team to defend the 5 point lead and win the match. If Smit wasn't allowed back on the pitch, i bet my life savings the lions would have won.

By Unknown, at August 25, 2009 7:55 pm
It's a good thing your life savings wont be a huge loss then Conor.

That type of thing happens in rugby all the time. If it is true, so be it. I guarantee that in at least one of the 10 tour matches the Lions had, they 'faked' a similar type of injury at some stage. I mean, when I was just 14 we had a call for someone to hit the deck and pretend to be injured, just so we could slow the game down or catch our breath or whatever.

It happens in some form at every level of the game.

I wouldnt clutch at straws with ifs and buts.

But if you want one big IF.. If SA hadnt wrapped up the series 2-0, they wouldnt have played a totally different side for that last match, and the result would have been very different. Hows that one.

By Dave, at September 01, 2009 6:56 pm
If these kind of things are permitted, then we risk to become soccermen, more concerned about cheating than playing.

I agree with the Frenchman :)

By Keith R., at September 05, 2009 6:57 am
if you look at 0:38.... Williams gave a little wink

By Tiny, at September 06, 2009 6:19 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous, at December 14, 2009 12:05 am