O'Connell, Corbisiero in Lions tour injury doubts: reports

Bit too much of that Skippy juice there Hal, Oz boys will fail again this weekend.

Ohtani, What Gatland gained was an excuse for losing. He made out he wanted a yellow and a penalty in a close run match. Edwards said Carter could have got a red. (What rubbish). Personal interest is always behind what Gatland does and says. He complains constantly after matches his teams have lost. You're right I think. I don't think Gatland actually filed a request to the citing commissioner but he and Edwards kicked up such a public stink that the commissioner had another look at it and cited Carter for a handbags at dawn tackle which was slightly high. Ohtani, it's a tough old world out there. Self interest is a very motivating force for many people. Could you imagine the noise if the Lions had lost last Saturday.

o'connel has officially been ruled out for the remainder of the series.

What did Gatland gain from Carter being suspended? Carter missed the Italy test, which he probably wouldn't have played in anyway. What Gatland wanted was the penalty or possibly even yellow card, which Joubert didn't give at the time. In any case, I don't recall Wales referring the incident to match commissioner. Regardless of their post-match blow up, it was seen by everyone in the stadium and created an uproar at the time. Horwill's deft piece of ballet went unnoticed until the citing.

Yes, but what's interesting about the procedure is that some teams/coaches make a play on this procedure to get the best possible outcome for themselves, ala Gatland with Carter. You may have noticed that the ABs coaches leave it to the citing commissioner to identify incidents, i.e. the citing commissioner has a job to do and he has a time frame to do it. The ABs coaches don't in practice refer incidents. It leaves a slightly sour taste when one team reports another (to the headmaster). My opinion only. But I also believe this would be one reason why Gatland would never be appointed as ABs head coach, one of his big ambitions.

It doesn't look good ill admit but you have to give horwill the benefit of the doubt. If you suspend him you re suspending him only on what has happened to wyn jones not on whether its deliberate or not. If we are going to start suspending everyone who's boot touches another players face than we re getting soft

Good to see a Queenslander, Tom Court, get a call up for the Lions. Its a shame we could not keep him at the time.

It doesn't matter what Gatland's motivations were, there is a procedure in place for teams to refer incidents to the citing commissioner and if the citing commissioner thinks there's a case to be had then it can be brought up before the judiciary. Horwill then has the right to a defence, and if we're going to question the motivations of Lions management in referring the incident to the CC then you have to also question the defence and whether their claims of it being accidental or unintentional are truthful.

Sheesh Hal that is some confident prediction there mate.

The lions are running scared. Any half-decent side (even one comprised of tier 2 players as the lions is) would have been out of sight by half time. This is the cream of NH rugby then? Been left out in the sun too long. I notice the pasty northerners are quiet of the grub g north deliberate and highly dangerous push of Folau into Barnes. That north is a grub. He knew exactly what he was doing. Wallabies by at least 20 in the next 2 games.

No, just seems like you were insinuating that it was the Lions who were the ones who made the decision to put him on 'trial' (for want of a better word). If it wasn't a citable offence (which it was and should have received a ban for) then the commisioner would have ignored it.

Pot, strictly speaking you are right. But he was cited after Gatland filed a request to the citing commissioner. Ohtani, the problem with life is that there are so many people out there that will do any thing to get an advantage. Gatland may have put in his request to get Horwill out anyway, irrespective of the need to even things up if they lose O'Connell. After all he did the same to Dan Carter a few years ago, on a so-called high tackle. But you can be sure that he would do what he could to even things up if he was to lose O'Connell. Anyway I don't mind being cited.

Fail to see the distinction between the Lions bringing something to the attention of the Citing Comissioner and "referring" it to the Citing Comissioner Unless you're a boring pedant arguing semantics.

The three if you should be cited for making embarrassments of yourselves.

The Lions can't refer an incident. They can bring something up with the citing commisioner but it is his decision to then 'cite' him. P.S. You do know that match officials don't cite players, it is up to an individual who sits in the stands and reviews the game?

Calm down, dear. You won the game.

Yes I have mate. And unless he's got x-ray vision capable of seeing through 3 bodies, there is no way he could have seen AWJ's head from the position he was in. If you just focus on the foot it looks ugly, and that was my initial impression as well. But if you look at the whole picture it's just unlucky. Its also completely different from the Thompson case last year. In that instance he was entering the ruck and you could see he had a clear view of the guy on the ground.

You could almost say it was AWJ fault. Good grief.

Well Andy, you seem to see the Horwill stamp as a fine thing, something to make all Australian sportsmen proud. Yes? Of course perhaps if the same is done to Horwill and you'll be less sanguine about it.

Yes there was contact with the head... but i watched the incident several times and can't see any evidence of intent. The Lion's players head was on the wrong side of the ruck and the action happened just once.