KSA Shark ©

Perpignan in hot water for ignoring ban

Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :Admin on 24 Dec 2008 at 07:37
Tagged with : , , , , ,

Dan Carter’s Perpignan club are under investigation by the IRB after playing banned hooker Marius Tincu in last weekend’s French Top 14 championship win over Castres.

RugbyHeaven NZ reports that Tincu is meant to be in the middle of an 18-week ban after the 30-year-old Romanian was found guilty of eye-gouging during the Heineken Cup match against the Ospreys on October 18.

He is barred from competing at any level of the game until March 9, 2009.

But Perpignan played him against Castres and now the IRB are demanding an explanation.

“The IRB has asked the Federation Francaise de Rugby (FFR) to submit a complete record of the events, decisions and procedures that resulted in the apparent breach of sanction and Tincu taking to the field against Castres Olympique,” read an IRB statement.

“On receipt of the report the IRB will decide on the appropriate course of action.”

Perpignan were so annoyed with Tincu’s ban that they reportedly considered pulling out of the Heineken Cup at one stage.

“USAP believe this decision is quite simply scandalous, even grotesque, and is based on no real fact since no image or injury to the Welsh player could establish that Marius Tincu could be blamed for this reprehensible act,” Perpignan said in a statement at the time.

“It is a shameful decision worthy of a banana-boat republic where people get punished only on someone’s say-so, without any material proof.”

Perpignan moved to second in the French championship with the win over Castres and are desperate for some silverware now that they have Carter in their midst


  • No matter how bad the decision in their opinion, the IRB certainly can’t allow bans to be ignored.

    That would also be ‘a shameful decision worthy of a banana-boat republic’ where you sommer ignore a ban if you don’t like it.

  • Comment 1, posted at 24.12.08 10:30:32 by McLovin Reply
  • @McLovin (Comment 1) : Agree 100%. They also cld not have withdrawn from the Heineken Cup, coz sponsorships and player contracts would have destroyed the club. A mere inaudible scream in a banana republic where the (one) eye(d) goucher is king 😉

  • Comment 2, posted at 24.12.08 11:02:54 by JustPlainSHARK Reply
  • Gouger, not goucher

  • Comment 3, posted at 24.12.08 11:05:23 by JustPlainSHARK Reply
  • @JustPlainSHARK (Comment 2) : :mrgreen:

  • Comment 4, posted at 24.12.08 11:27:24 by McLovin Reply

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.