its leamy that should be picked if he does get banned­ but lets hope he dosen't

The TV evidence does not lie,he knew what he was doing­ so he should take his punishment
and learn a hard­ lesson.Regarding his replacement,Ryan Jones has been­ there and done it before for the Lions and I'm sure­ if he went as a replacement he'd get in the test­
side,and he would be great assest to the Lions in­ South Africa.

Fair enough , in my opinion it doesnt look accidental­ but come Weds and if the panel deem him not guilty then­ so be it . Orange or Jack or whatever your name is if­ your reading this I`d be interested in your view on­ this

*Shrug* The bans for eye gouging are heavy for a­ reason. I never thought he should be dropped from the­ squad if for some reason he isn't banned. But I do­ think he should be given a fairly long ban. Hartley got­ 6 months for it. Best got 4 and a half...They're­ high for a reason and the entry range is (supposedly 12­ weeks). I promise you, if it was any other player in­ this position (Croft included), my opinions would be­ the same.

I'm not asking anyone to bend the rules. Quinlan­ deserves his day in front of the citing panel.
Since­ the first article was printed about this the majority­ of you were insisting he be booted of the Lions panel­ straight away, If I can remeber correctly I think it­ was Bigrich who wrote 'none of this innocent until­ proven guilty stuff'.
In my first post after the­ match I said that Quinaln could be i n trouble but the­ sanctions you guys were talking about were crazy!! They­ were clearly geared towards Croft going instead of­ Quinaln. The citing panel will decided what if any­ sanctions should be taken and after that McGeechan can­ -if he needs to- replace the guy.

If it's not accidental then surely it's­ deliberate? How can you stick your fingers in­ someone's eyes with 'no malicious intent'?­ I very much doubt Quinlan was trying to remove a piece­ of dust or put a contact lens back in. And in response­ to Back's article, Cullen did have a scratch around­ his eye. I do feel sorry for him but you can't bend­ the rules because you feel sorry for the person or­ because you like them or because they're a big­ name.

I'm sorry but quite clearly there was intent. You­ can clearly see Quinlan's fingers go into the eye­ socket area. Where did he think Cullen's eyes were,­ in the back of his head? Neil Best's offence was­ considered by the citing commission to not be­ deliberate and he picked up an 18 week ban. I can see­ no way Quinlan will be playing rugby again before­ November...at the earliest!

Not often I disagree with Bigrich but on this occasion­ I have to , there was no clear evidence of Corry , in­ fact it was that unclear that everyone was blaming­ Julian White until Corry got cited even the opposition­ after the game to which they had to come out &­ apologise to White & as you can see Azam has not­ got away with it he has got exactly what he deserves ,­ so Quinlan can fear the worst .

Clearly no malicious intent is what I said, not­ 'clearly accidental'. There's a big­ difference between the 2.
Bigrich, I didn't see any­ comments from you on Backys article? I wonder­ why...
Let me quote him;
"The big talking point­ has obviously been the citing. I sincerely hope that­ common sense prevails and Alan does not get a ban that­ stops him touring with the Lions.
Alan will certainly­ be wishing that he did not do what he did. The incident­ looks much worse in slow motion than in real time but I­ suspect he was just dragging his hands across Leo­ Cullen face to give him a 'playful­ mauling'.
I've been gouged before and I can­ tell you that it is no fun and much worse than what­ Alan did on Saturday."

You say there is clear footage of Corry trying to hurt­ someone, yet the disciplinary committee deemed the­ contact to be accidental. And he was still banned.­ Looking bad for Quinlan. How do you know it was­ 'clearly' accidental? Cullen did not do the­ whole 'I'm a big tough forward who's just­ been playfully mauled'. He got up and he was­ clearly angry that Quinlan had just stuck his fingers­ in his eyes. Come on! It looks just as bad in real­ time. At some point, everyone has no previous and that­ should not be a mitigating factor.

And I agree that­ this is not about who should replace him (incidentally,­ you sound as like you're defending Quinlan just so­ Croft can't get on the tour as much as the other­ people on here sound like bitter Croft supporters). As­ I said, even if Quinlan is banned (as he should be)­ Croft still might not be selected. Bit of a pointless­ exercise don't you think? I'm not someone who­ wishes injury or misfortune on other players, no matter­ how much I dislike them. I'm gutted for Shanklin­ and O'Leary and I really do feel sorry for Quinlan.­ But there is no excuse for gouging and it should be­ given a meaningful punishment.

This post should never be about who is replacing­ Quinlan, for replaced he surely will be, but about his­ actions, which have no place on a rugby field. How­ anyone can have the gall or the audacity to try and­ defend Quinlan's action is beyond belief.
As for­ Azam, I was of the understanding that there was a 12­ week minimum tariff for gouging, but now he and Corry­ have 'got away with it'. It is high time a­ disciplinary committee put down a marker, as they did­ with Dylan Hartley, and put a minimum ban of 16 weeks­ on these cowards before someone is blinded.

Azam has been banned.Writing is on the wall for­ Quinlan.Ryan Jones should now take his place. Will­ front up to the springboks at 6 or 8.Remember the­ impact he made against the All Blacks in a Lions shirt?­ More of the same.

Not bitter?? you pretty much proved my point with that­ rant!
Any of the second rows travelling are better to­ compete at the lineout for a start!
Croft is a great­ jumper and fantastic runner but he needs to fill out a­ bit. A 6 in SA will not be there because he's tall­ or very fast! Anyone remeber the selectors talking­ about 'beasts' after they named the squad?
As­ for Corry, have a look on you tube. He was trying to­ hurt the other player when he was on the ground!­ He's just lucky there wasn't a close up and­ clear view of what he did!
There cleary wasn't any­ malicious intent in what Quinlan did and there's a­ slow motion close uo to prove it!
Case closed!

Tom Croft should have been selected ahead of him­ anyway. Who better to challenge at the lineout for one­ thing? Anyway, I'm not saying Quinlan should be­ banned so Croft can be selected. The citing committee­ set a precedent when they banned Corry for accidentally­ making contact with the eyes/eye area. From what I­ understand, it was also essentially a case of one­ person's word against another and the other player­ wasn't injured afterwards. For consistancy's­ and fairness's sake, Quinlan should be banned.­ There is no excuse for gouging. It doesn't matter­ that he's never done it before and he's got a­ good disciplinary record or whatever. So did Martin­ Corry. The evidence is pretty clear and it looks no­ better in real time either. I feel sorry for him­ because he'll probably not get another chance to be­ a Lion but players can't be allowed to get away­ with it.

I'm not being bitter. I am fully aware­ that even if Quinlan is ruled out of the tour through a­ ban, Croft may still not be selected (although it would­ be bewildering if he wasn't, since he's been­ consistently good all season and recently got a Man of­ the Match award against a team with so many Lions in­ it).

I think if Quinlan can't go because of this then­ Jones or Leamy should go anyway. Croft is too­ inexperienced to face down the boks at 6. they'd­ laugh at him!

you sound like a lot of bitter Tom Croft fans. Getting­ called up to the Lions because of somthing like this is­ not the same as being selected in the first draft.
If­ the citing comission finds him guilty then fair enough,­ but put the knifes away will you?

Sighting panel?

they shud just read post 10 out at the citing­ panel...
genius

That puts the lid on it. His wife, Iris, said he should­ play for Lens. He shouldn't have lashed out, he­ made a spectacle of himself. Still, he played a blinder­ and showed great vision- but he didn't have to­ blinkin' do that! We shouldn't poke fun at him,­ it's quite serious really. Perhaps he can gouge out­ a career in Rugby League. Could this post get any­ cornea? ( wink wink ).

What hope for Quinlan , Bob Hope and no hope . And­ Bob's dead .

I am sure its a one off but what a­ shocker .