Cian Healy - cited

by little_badger Mon 11 Feb - 16:05

First topic message reminder :

In other news the Pope is a Catholic (for now at least).

Espnscrum has the hearing set for Wednesday. Predictions on a post card. He may well live to regret a few moments of madness.

by MrsP Thu 14 Feb - 20:44

I don't think the ban is too long.

I do think it starts too late though!

Whistle

by Glas a du Thu 14 Feb - 20:47

That's to allow time for an appeal. Another week off the ban Cian Healy - cited - Page 11 1054138444

by MrsP Thu 14 Feb - 20:53

So they gave him a 3 week ban which doesn't start till next week but he can't play before it starts so he can appeal?

You are starting to make the same kind of sense as the panel there Glas.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 14 Feb - 20:55

MrsP wrote:

So they gave him a 3 week ban which doesn't start till next week but he can't play before it starts so he can appeal?

You are starting to make the same kind of sense as the panel there Glas.

You see, Glas, you get the subtext there, reading between the lines - it's all Dan Cole's fault for dropping the maul and daring to raise his knee. Empress of words, she'll have you believing anything in no time clap

by Glas a du Thu 14 Feb - 20:58

Yeah well LEINSTER are playing this week, but if he gets a week's reduction he'll be playing for IRELAND. See?

by MrsP Thu 14 Feb - 21:00

A week's reduction from the 3 weeks or the 4 weeks?

by gregortree Thu 14 Feb - 21:08

[quote="LondonTiger"]

maestegmafia wrote:
Unfortunately the majority of the English fans, pundits and media seem to think Cole's actions were premeditated and of vicious intent.

quite so, he should not have ankled Healy's poor old studs, that is for sure.

by doctor_grey Thu 14 Feb - 21:11

This whole question of three weeks or four weeks, or three weeks which is actually four weeks, but on paper is only three weeks, but in reality is four weeks, but is only three weeks because three weeks doesn't start until one week is quite vexatious.

I are be confused.

Going away now for a quiet beer to ponder the imponderables of life, such as three v. four.
I thought I knew thar stuff back in school. Now I am wondering if I operated the other day on a guys third metatarsal or his fourth? Oh well. Sh1t happens. Didn't like the bloke anyway.

by neilthom7 Thu 14 Feb - 21:14

doctor_grey wrote:This whole question of three weeks or four weeks, or three weeks which is actually four weeks, but on paper is only three weeks, but in reality is four weeks, but is only three weeks because three weeks doesn't start until one week is quite vexatious.

I are be confused.

Going away now for a quiet beer to ponder the imponderables of life, such as three v. four.
I thought I knew thar stuff back in school. Now I am wondering if I operated the other day on a guys third metatarsal or his fourth? Oh well. Sh1t happens. Didn't like the bloke anyway.

Hang on Doc you haven't explored the possibility it could be his 2nd metatarsil either

by neilthom7 Thu 14 Feb - 21:15

Bet your Maths Teachers never taught you an equation for this folks lol

by gregortree Thu 14 Feb - 21:22

MrsP wrote:
gregortree wrote:Ireland prop Cian Healy will miss two Six Nations games after being banned until 10 March for stamping on Dan Cole in Sunday's defeat by England. The loose-head was found guilty of "stamping or trampling on an opponent". Healy escaped without a yellow or red card from referee Jerome Garces during the match, but the front-rower was cited by citing
commissioner Alberto Recaldini of Italy.
I guess Alberto didn't bother check with the well informed 606 opinions first.
What are you talking about?
Who are these posters who disagreed with the citing?
Same as when you said,
"Re: Cian Healy - cited
by gregortree Yesterday at 9:26 pm
Quite nausea ting to see so many one eyed 'fans' jumping in to justify a plain act of illegal thuggery. The citing commissioners must have got this all wrong. They are supposed to have cited Cole for hitting Healy's boot with his ankle."
Who are these people who are seeking to justify Healy's actions?
It looks like you are the victim of your own assumptions there gregortree.

Mrs P,
View and Maes were making 'justifications' for the Healy stamp, conducted in a red mist when Healy appeared not to notice his SH already had the ball when his stamp went in. No lasting damage done luckily.
But fair enough on my citing comment, it was only View appeared to think it unnecessary to cite, so apologies, I exaggerated 'numbers' as Jiffy might say.

by MrsP Thu 14 Feb - 21:25

gregor,

You seem to have the same lax approach to "numbahs" as the disciplinary panel!

Very Happy

by gregortree Thu 14 Feb - 21:25

Mrs P

by MrsP Thu 14 Feb - 21:34

Ah stop your gurnin gregor.

Just make sure you do better next time.

Or I just might stamp on your ankle!

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 14 Feb - 21:41

MrsP wrote:Ah stop your gurnin gregor.

Just make sure you do better next time.

Or I just might stamp on your ankle!

Typical Oirish attitude to a simple bit of ball release prevention Whistle

by **LondonTiger** Thu 14 Feb - 21:44

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
MrsP wrote:Ah stop your gurnin gregor.

Just make sure you do better next time.

Or I just might stamp on your ankle!
Typical Oirish attitude to a simple bit of ball release prevention

Dunno about the Dublin working girls, but I have heard that soho hookers charge extra for a bit of stamping when releasing odd shaped balls.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu 14 Feb - 22:26

gregortree wrote:
MrsP wrote:
gregortree wrote:Ireland prop Cian Healy will miss two Six Nations games after being banned until 10 March for stamping on Dan Cole in Sunday's defeat by England. The loose-head was found guilty of "stamping or trampling on an opponent". Healy escaped without a yellow or red card from referee Jerome Garces during the match, but the front-rower was cited by citing
commissioner Alberto Recaldini of Italy.
I guess Alberto didn't bother check with the well informed 606 opinions first.
What are you talking about?
Who are these posters who disagreed with the citing?
Same as when you said,
"Re: Cian Healy - cited
by gregortree Yesterday at 9:26 pm
Quite nausea ting to see so many one eyed 'fans' jumping in to justify a plain act of illegal thuggery. The citing commissioners must have got this all wrong. They are supposed to have cited Cole for hitting Healy's boot with his ankle."
Who are these people who are seeking to justify Healy's actions?
It looks like you are the victim of your own assumptions there gregortree.

Mrs P,
View and Maes were making 'justifications' for the Healy stamp, conducted in a red mist when Healy appeared not to notice his SH already had the ball when his stamp went in. No lasting damage done luckily.
But fair enough on my citing comment, it was only View appeared to think it unnecessary to cite, so apologies, I exaggerated 'numbers' as Jiffy might say.

TJ too. But you cant really count View, hes just trying to be controversial

by Gibson Fri 15 Feb - 0:51

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:I find it incredible that anyone can come to the conclusion that Healy did not aim to injure Cole.
Because Cole managed to continue playing despite appearing in pain after the incident does not mean that Healy did not intend to injure him.

Healy clearly knew what he was doing as he was looking down to where his foot was stamping and he did it at pace so it was wreckless at the very least & he could clearly have caused more damage than was apparently caused.

The incident was a maul not a ruck and his actions were indefensible. He should miss all the games in the 6Ns as bare minimum for potentially ending a fellow professionals career.
Keith Wood comments were embarrassing & I think he even realised that after he had said them.

How much does The Sun actually cost these days? With respect, its obviously still far too cheap.

by maestegmafia Fri 15 Feb - 6:31

Gibson wrote:
BigTrevsbigmac wrote:I find it incredible that anyone can come to the conclusion that Healy did not aim to injure Cole.
Because Cole managed to continue playing despite appearing in pain after the incident does not mean that Healy did not intend to injure him.

Healy clearly knew what he was doing as he was looking down to where his foot was stamping and he did it at pace so it was wreckless at the very least & he could clearly have caused more damage than was apparently caused.

The incident was a maul not a ruck and his actions were indefensible. He should miss all the games in the 6Ns as bare minimum for potentially ending a fellow professionals career.
Keith Wood comments were embarrassing & I think he even realised that after he had said them.

How much does The Sun actually cost these days? With respect, its obviously still far too cheap.

To true...!

"Haskell’s sin-binning for kicking the ball away from a ruck was totally out of place in a game that saw Ireland prop Cian Healy escape punishment for two acts of thuggery."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/rugby_union/4788215/Ireland-6-12-England-Match-report-and-pictures.html

I struggle to believe that anyone actually believes that Healy was aiming to injure Cole...!

by AlastairW Fri 15 Feb - 8:28

I struggle to believe that anyone actually believes he wasn't.

Yet another incident, that at the very least, shows the joke that is citing commision. Zero consistency in any of their judgements across the board.

by PJHolybloke Fri 15 Feb - 8:37

Injure him or hurt him?

I think Healy wanted Cole to taste a bit of pain, but I would be very surprised if he actually intended to put him out of the game as I'm pretty certain he would have succeeded.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 15 Feb - 8:44

PJHolybloke wrote:Injure him or hurt him?

I think Healy wanted Cole to taste a bit of pain, but I would be very surprised if he actually intended to put him out of the game as I'm pretty certain he would have succeeded.

I agree with this view 100%.

I do not see this as an attempt to injure a player - but as he runs in and raises his boot to stamp, it looks extremely unlikely that Healy is trying to ruck the ball but is intending to make sure the prone player will think twice about trying to pull down a maul again. Only Healy knows his intent - and he may just have poor aim. If he was aiming for the ball - Connor Murray will be a relieved man.

by Glas a du Fri 15 Feb - 8:52

Sorry boys, the distinction is meaningless. If you intend to hurt someone you are lumped with the injury caused even if a lot more serious than you actually intended to inflict. Also if you want to hurt someone but don't manage to injure them that does not excuse you.

by Jimpy Fri 15 Feb - 8:54

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
gregortree wrote:
MrsP wrote:
gregortree wrote:Ireland prop Cian Healy will miss two Six Nations games after being banned until 10 March for stamping on Dan Cole in Sunday's defeat by England. The loose-head was found guilty of "stamping or trampling on an opponent". Healy escaped without a yellow or red card from referee Jerome Garces during the match, but the front-rower was cited by citing
commissioner Alberto Recaldini of Italy.
I guess Alberto didn't bother check with the well informed 606 opinions first.
What are you talking about?
Who are these posters who disagreed with the citing?
Same as when you said,
"Re: Cian Healy - cited
by gregortree Yesterday at 9:26 pm
Quite nausea ting to see so many one eyed 'fans' jumping in to justify a plain act of illegal thuggery. The citing commissioners must have got this all wrong. They are supposed to have cited Cole for hitting Healy's boot with his ankle."
Who are these people who are seeking to justify Healy's actions?
It looks like you are the victim of your own assumptions there gregortree.

Mrs P,
View and Maes were making 'justifications' for the Healy stamp, conducted in a red mist when Healy appeared not to notice his SH already had the ball when his stamp went in. No lasting damage done luckily.
But fair enough on my citing comment, it was only View appeared to think it unnecessary to cite, so apologies, I exaggerated 'numbers' as Jiffy might say.

TJ too. But you cant really count View, hes just subhuman

There, fixed that for you.

by rapidsnowman Fri 15 Feb - 9:04

Bias – everyone guilty!

The previous 11 pages have again highlighted that every one of us whether we care to admit it or not are biased towards our own and against everyone else’s!

Of course those of us who are Irish are going to look for mitigating factors ( he was merely responding to the illegal position of another player ) whilst the Non-Irish are going to say it was an act of wanton thuggery (he was trying to disable Cole for life). The truth certainly lies somewhere between the two.

Bias is a funny thing, it is in-built and practically impossible to turn off. That’s why when our kid is in a fight at school we are always sure the other kid started it.

Those who have played rugby (or any competitive sport) know that sometimes in the thick of the game you do things that you would not normally do, once during a schools game my own coach told me if he had been the ref he would have sent me off for trying to fly hack a ball when the opposing player quite clearly had it in his hands – do I usually kick people? No.

Healy did something wrong and has been punished. None of us know what was going on in his head, so I don’t see the point in speculating.

When someone regularly acts in this way then speculating on their motives is probably more accurate.

If it had the other way round I would be tut tutting at the English thug and the English posters would be saying the cheating Irish hound shouldn’t have had his foot there in the first place.

by **Notch** Fri 15 Feb - 9:08

So, er, back to the topic in hand. I'm going to try and explain what I think is going on with the confusing situation regarding when Cians ban starts. Ireland were considering an appeal on these grounds.

Healy was banned for three weeks, starting next week. My understanding is that Cian Healys ban comes into effect after this weekend, because the panel rightly surmised that he would remain in the national training camp with the rest of the first XV that played England. He wouldn't have been playing any rugby this weekend, so on the fourth weekend since the hearing he'll still be out.

However, once it became clear he would therefore be unavailable for Scotland and France David Kilcoyne of Munster was called in to replace him, at which point Leinster said in that case they would happily recall him for their game against Treviso if he was available and not needed by Ireland Laugh

The Leinster team is announced at midday today. Will be interesting to see if Cian Healy is picked! For all you who will be spitting venom if he is, remember if they move his ban forward so he can't play this weekend he will be available for France.

It's a real screw-up!

by **LondonTiger** Fri 15 Feb - 9:09

Glas a du wrote:Sorry boys, the distinction is meaningless. If you intend to hurt someone you are lumped with the injury caused even if a lot more serious than you actually intended to inflict. Also if you want to hurt someone but don't manage to injure them that does not excuse you.

I see what you are saying, but I think there is a significant difference as to the intent. The following views have kind of been expressed:

1) Nothing wrong with it, Cole got what he deserved. (A tiny minority)
2) It was clumsy with no intent to stamp. (Small minority)
3) It was a moment of madness (Majority)
4) it was a pre-mediated and thuggish act (vocal minority)

I am in the option 3 group. Healy just lost it briefly and deliberately stamped. Why he did it, only he knows, but possibly at a sub-conscious level he wants Cole to feel some pain, but it was not a conscious "damn you I will hurt you".

For option 4 to be valid it requires Healy to have consciously wanted to injure the player. That is a serious allegation that has been thrown around too much.

That is where I see the difference.

by geoff998rugby Fri 15 Feb - 9:09

Hang around has an Irish poster said a ban was not justified?

The 2 that have implied it wasn't are not Irish

by mystiroakey Fri 15 Feb - 9:12

"If it had the other way round I would be tut tutting at the English thug and the English posters would be saying the cheating Irish hound shouldn’t have had his foot there in the first place."

I certainly wouldnt ..

I think most are pretty unbiased when it comes to this behaviour..

however we clearly deep down dont want our own to be banned for to long etc

by **LondonTiger** Fri 15 Feb - 9:14

Notch wrote:Writing about when the ban starts said:

It's a real screw-up!

It is. Partly created by the panel (from France, Wales and Italy I think) making a pigs ear of it and partly by this ridiculous notion that you get time off for prior good behaviour. Minimum bans should be the minimu and time should be extended foor repeat offenders.

I am torn as to whether Leinster should take advantage of the opportunity.

by MrsP Fri 15 Feb - 9:18

Glas a du wrote:Sorry boys, the distinction is meaningless. If you intend to hurt someone you are lumped with the injury caused even if a lot more serious than you actually intended to inflict. Also if you want to hurt someone but don't manage to injure them that does not excuse you.

You could certainly make the point the IF there had been an injury the player would be just as injured whatever the intention of the aggressor.

However, I would think that most folk, and our legal system, take a different view, no?

Manslaughter v murder at the extreme?

I certainly would have a totally different view of a player who set out to injure another rather than someone who ended up injuring someone. Clark once again comes to mind.

by Mickado Fri 15 Feb - 9:18

LondonTiger wrote:
Notch wrote:Writing about when the ban starts said:

It's a real screw-up!

It is. Partly created by the panel (from France, Wales and Italy I think) making a pigs ear of it and partly by this ridiculous notion that you get time off for prior good behaviour. Minimum bans should be the minimu and time should be extended foor repeat offenders.

I am torn as to whether Leinster should take advantage of the opportunity.

As am I, part of me wants us to expose the stupidity of the decision to post date the ban, part of me thinks we should respect the "spirit" of the ban, part of me thinks we don't need him this week anyway.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 15 Feb - 9:29

rapidsnowman wrote:

If it had the other way round I would be tut tutting at the English thug and the English posters would be saying the cheating Irish hound shouldn’t have had his foot there in the first place.

or have been trying to drag the grounded player by the mouth long after the ruck had ended....

by **Notch** Fri 15 Feb - 9:29

I don't think Cian Healy will be picked, as the IRFU may appeal the decision to post-date the ban on the basis that he had another game this weekend that he could play in.

Post-dating of the ban because he would have been rested for the game he can no longer play in, meaning he no longer needs to be rested. But the IRFU know if they let him play against Treviso, then he definitely won't be playing against France. If the IRFU prevent him playing in the Treviso game it shows good faith and will look favourable in the appeal. Meaning he may only miss one test match, after all this commotion!

by **Biltong** Fri 15 Feb - 9:29

Jimpy wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
gregortree wrote:
MrsP wrote:
gregortree wrote:Ireland prop Cian Healy will miss two Six Nations games after being banned until 10 March for stamping on Dan Cole in Sunday's defeat by England. The loose-head was found guilty of "stamping or trampling on an opponent". Healy escaped without a yellow or red card from referee Jerome Garces during the match, but the front-rower was cited by citing
commissioner Alberto Recaldini of Italy.
I guess Alberto didn't bother check with the well informed 606 opinions first.
What are you talking about?
Who are these posters who disagreed with the citing?
Same as when you said,
"Re: Cian Healy - cited
by gregortree Yesterday at 9:26 pm
Quite nausea ting to see so many one eyed 'fans' jumping in to justify a plain act of illegal thuggery. The citing commissioners must have got this all wrong. They are supposed to have cited Cole for hitting Healy's boot with his ankle."
Who are these people who are seeking to justify Healy's actions?
It looks like you are the victim of your own assumptions there gregortree.

Mrs P,
View and Maes were making 'justifications' for the Healy stamp, conducted in a red mist when Healy appeared not to notice his SH already had the ball when his stamp went in. No lasting damage done luckily.
But fair enough on my citing comment, it was only View appeared to think it unnecessary to cite, so apologies, I exaggerated 'numbers' as Jiffy might say.

TJ too. But you cant really count View, hes just subhuman

There, fixed that for you.

Jimpy, if you are going to be attacking or insulting a poster, then do it under your own name, don't go and edit other people's posts under the guise of humor, sarcasm or correcting their opinions.

As you well know attacking posters are not permitted, attack the opinion.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 15 Feb - 9:39

Notch wrote:I don't think Cian Healy will be picked, as the IRFU may appeal the decision to post-date the ban on the basis that he had another game this weekend that he could play in.

Post-dating of the ban because he would have been rested for the game he can no longer play in, meaning he no longer needs to be rested. But the IRFU know if they let him play against Treviso, then he definitely won't be playing against France. If the IRFU prevent him playing in the Treviso game it shows good faith and will look favourable in the appeal. Meaning he may only miss one test match, after all this commotion!

I think the appeal by IRFU is damned if they do, damned if they don't really.

If they stop Healy playing against Treviso, the 6Ns panel go see we said he would not be made available. This view would be re-inforced by Ross and Best not being released to provinces.

If he plays, well it just highlights that the ban starts this weekend.

What should have been so simple has become a farce.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 15 Feb - 9:40

Notch wrote:I don't think Cian Healy will be picked, as the IRFU may appeal the decision to post-date the ban on the basis that he had another game this weekend that he could play in.

Post-dating of the ban because he would have been rested for the game he can no longer play in, meaning he no longer needs to be rested. But the IRFU know if they let him play against Treviso, then he definitely won't be playing against France. If the IRFU prevent him playing in the Treviso game it shows good faith and will look favourable in the appeal. Meaning he may only miss one test match, after all this commotion!

Theres no right answer here is there. The panel were trying to respond to previous criticism that bans were saved in fallow weekends, in doing so theyve just created a new problem for the system.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Fri 15 Feb - 9:53

It's only farcical in that IRFU and their Leinster Branch are playing silly boogers. The spirit of the disciplinary proceeding is clear for all to see - IRFU, itself a governing body and responsible for discipline within its domestic (and Rabo) game, appears to have chosen to challenge that spirit.

You would have thought that a governing body would take a more responsible approach.

by Jimpy Fri 15 Feb - 9:54

Biltong wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
gregortree wrote:
MrsP wrote:
gregortree wrote:Ireland prop Cian Healy will miss two Six Nations games after being banned until 10 March for stamping on Dan Cole in Sunday's defeat by England. The loose-head was found guilty of "stamping or trampling on an opponent". Healy escaped without a yellow or red card from referee Jerome Garces during the match, but the front-rower was cited by citing
commissioner Alberto Recaldini of Italy.
I guess Alberto didn't bother check with the well informed 606 opinions first.
What are you talking about?
Who are these posters who disagreed with the citing?
Same as when you said,
"Re: Cian Healy - cited
by gregortree Yesterday at 9:26 pm
Quite nausea ting to see so many one eyed 'fans' jumping in to justify a plain act of illegal thuggery. The citing commissioners must have got this all wrong. They are supposed to have cited Cole for hitting Healy's boot with his ankle."
Who are these people who are seeking to justify Healy's actions?
It looks like you are the victim of your own assumptions there gregortree.

Mrs P,
View and Maes were making 'justifications' for the Healy stamp, conducted in a red mist when Healy appeared not to notice his SH already had the ball when his stamp went in. No lasting damage done luckily.
But fair enough on my citing comment, it was only View appeared to think it unnecessary to cite, so apologies, I exaggerated 'numbers' as Jiffy might say.

TJ too. But you cant really count View, hes just subhuman

There, fixed that for you.
Jimpy, if you are going to be attacking or insulting a poster, then do it under your own name, don't go and edit other people's posts under the guise of humor, sarcasm or correcting their opinions.

As you well know attacking posters are not permitted, attack the opinion.

Attacking other posters isn't permitted? You could have fooled me, judging by the content of this thread... Erm

by **Notch** Fri 15 Feb - 9:55

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:It's only farcical in that IRFU and their Leinster Branch are playing silly boogers. The spirit of the disciplinary proceeding is clear for all to see - IRFU, itself a governing body and responsible for discipline within its domestic (and Rabo) game, appears to have chosen to challenge that spirit.

You would have thought that a governing body would take a more responsible approach.

Quite the opposite. There has been no indication that Healy will play this weekend. IRFU are begging the question. They are set to appeal and they have grounds but I hope the spirit of the decision will be respected. I do feel that in this case, the failing is on behalf of the Panel and unless Healy is selected against Treviso the IRFU won't have challenged the spirit of the ruling.

I think Healy could have been given longer than three weeks anyway, four or five wouldn't have been unfair, but this loophole is further evidence that the disciplinary process can be very inconsistent.

by GunsGerms Fri 15 Feb - 10:01

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:It's only farcical in that IRFU and their Leinster Branch are playing silly boogers. The spirit of the disciplinary proceeding is clear for all to see - IRFU, itself a governing body and responsible for discipline within its domestic (and Rabo) game, appears to have chosen to challenge that spirit.

You would have thought that a governing body would take a more responsible approach.

Must unions appeal bans on occasion. Id rather they didn't. I like the idea of taking the ban on the chin, mind you I think the length is fair enough was expecting two weeks because that's what Thompson got but he got three so whatever. Kilcoyne his replacement has been making waves for a while now and am interested to see how he goes.

by **Notch** Fri 15 Feb - 10:02

GunsGerms wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:It's only farcical in that IRFU and their Leinster Branch are playing silly boogers. The spirit of the disciplinary proceeding is clear for all to see - IRFU, itself a governing body and responsible for discipline within its domestic (and Rabo) game, appears to have chosen to challenge that spirit.

You would have thought that a governing body would take a more responsible approach.

Must unions appeal bans on occasion. Id rather they didn't. I like the idea of taking the ban on the chin, mind you I think the length is fair enough was expecting two weeks because that's what Thompson got but he got three so whatever. Kilcoyne his replacement has been making waves for a while now and am interested to see how he goes.

To be clear, I don't think the IRFU are intending to appeal the decision of the length. If there is an appeal it'll be on the basis of the post-dating.

by GunsGerms Fri 15 Feb - 10:03

Thanks Notch, didn't know that. Nice one.

by GunsGerms Fri 15 Feb - 10:06

Notch wrote:

I think Healy could have been given longer than three weeks anyway, four or five wouldn't have been unfair, but this loophole is further evidence that the disciplinary process can be very inconsistent.

Personally I do think 4 or 5 would have been unfair. Not because the actions strictly speaking don't deserve it but based on precedent, based on what he was reacting to and based on good record 3 weeks is consistent with other bans so for me anything more would have been too much.

by A World Cup and 3 Finals Fri 15 Feb - 10:08

On the subject of bias, snow is correct, we are all guilty. Although, whereas most posters have not stated that Healy should not have been cited and subsequently banned, many have tried to excuse his actions with one eyed commentaries on the events. Had Cole stamped on Healy's ankle in the same manner, I certainly would not be looking for excuses, I mean "Cole shouldn't have been there" - come on!!!!!
This incident is as cut and dried as any I have seen, what he did was deplorable, end of. Do I think Healy is deplorable because of this? No, as someone said "he saw the red mist", it's happened to us all, it's how he conducts himself from now on that will decide how he should be judged.

by Mickado Fri 15 Feb - 10:13

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:On the subject of bias, snow is correct, we are all guilty. Although, whereas most posters have not stated that Healy should not have been cited and subsequently banned, many have tried to excuse his actions with one eyed commentaries on the events. Had Cole stamped on Healy's ankle in the same manner, I certainly would not be looking for excuses, I mean "Cole shouldn't have been there" - come on!!!!!
This incident is as cut and dried as any I have seen, what he did was deplorable, end of. Do I think Healy is deplorable because of this? No, as someone said "he saw the red mist", it's happened to us all, it's how he conducts himself from now on that will decide how he should be judged.

I agree. I'm not going to defend his actions. I think the majority of posters see what happened for what it (most probably) was, a stupid thing to do in the heat of the moment, deserving of a ban, but not premeditated.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Fri 15 Feb - 10:16

Notch wrote:
Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:It's only farcical in that IRFU and their Leinster Branch are playing silly boogers. The spirit of the disciplinary proceeding is clear for all to see - IRFU, itself a governing body and responsible for discipline within its domestic (and Rabo) game, appears to have chosen to challenge that spirit.

You would have thought that a governing body would take a more responsible approach.

Quite the opposite. There has been no indication that Healy will play this weekend. IRFU are begging the question. They are set to appeal and they have grounds but I hope the spirit of the decision will be respected. I do feel that in this case, the failing is on behalf of the Panel and unless Healy is selected against Treviso the IRFU won't have challenged the spirit of the ruling.

I think Healy could have been given longer than three weeks anyway, four or five wouldn't have been unfair, but this loophole is further evidence that the disciplinary process can be very inconsistent.

There has been indication in the press from Gibbes that Healy is available for selection and under consideration.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/rugby/2013/0214/1224330029752.html

“Cian is certainly available. Joe Schmidt and Declan Kidney have talked about the involvement of test players this weekend,” Gibbes said this morning. “Cian’s available and personally I’d be delighted to involve him, he’s a really big asset. He will definitely be considered.

It may just be press speculation and muck-raking, although the direct quote from Gibbes lends credence. It's only on the basis of press reports that I conclude silly boogers are being played. A lack of published response from IRFU to the reported Gibbes opinion which appears to be at odds with Kidney reinforces my view.

by dummy_half Fri 15 Feb - 13:24

Surely if Healy is made available for Leinster, the post-dating of his ban becomes invalid (as it was, probably wrongly, included because he was considered to have no game this weekend), and he must be suspended for this weekend and the following 2, making him available for the France game.

The disciplinary panel haven't half made a rod for their own backs on this one (even if in my opinion they got the length of ban about right - mid level offence, roughly halved for previous record).

by **Biltong** Fri 15 Feb - 13:35

I suspect this thread will still be running by the time Healy makes his next match for Ireland. Whistle

by MrsP Fri 15 Feb - 13:59

Well it will if people keep posting on it to ask why people keep posting on it!

Very Happy

by Sponsored content