Cian Healy - cited

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.

Could be really cynical and say that if the first act was - 'premeditated' the acting crazy at the following rucks was to come across as it all being a rush of blood to the head.

Alternately the 'follow up' acts may also have been a result of retaliatory actions/comments unseen from English players

Asbo,

It looks to me like Cole was holding his leg up in the air precisely because the ball was in Best's hands. He was holding his leg up so preventing Best from getting it to Murray. I presume that was why Healy moved his leg down out of the way.

The way he did it was stupid, illegal and potentially injurous but it looks to me like he was trying to get the ball out quickly.

Have a another wee look at the video and let me know what you think. Try to forget you have seen it before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teqizuet-ck

And,

Norfolklass,

Very poor form.

Biltong wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Very cynical view there Biltong...!

I don't think thats quite how lads are not taught to play rugby in Ireland.

Healy and O'Mahony entered the ruck aiming to stop Cole, who was on the wrong side of the ruck, from obstructing quick ball.

Healy stamps on Coles lower leg, but didn't jump on it, at 112kgs Healy could have broken Coles leg. He didn't, because that was unlikely his aim. Quick ball being the key aim it meant that dragging Cole out of the way was not an option.

He is not a cynical, violent player and has no reputation as such.

The incident is worthy of review by the citing commissioner. But this is not like Andrew Hore's flailing knock out arm, or Schaulk Burgers optometry lessons on Fitzgerald.

I am sure Healy will admit guilt and take a week or too to reflect his actions and I hope very much that the cynicism you imply was not apparent.

Not that cynical mate. Cole was getting the upper hand, and a little cramp on the ankle or calf would have done very nicely. I think Healy is a very good prop, probably one of the top 3 looseheads in world rugby, some suggested the rake was not downwards, I beg to differ, his intent was not to maim Cole, but certainly to cause discomfort.

I doubt he'll get a lengthy ban though, it is not near the face, which is the prmiary area of protection for the IRB.

I would agree with you if it were a different player and only him attacking a trapped man but Healy was with POm both trying to ruck Cole clear.

I do think they could have been more careful but I would not for a second think of Healy as the type of lad to want to cause another player an injury.

As I said in other countries you play the game differently.

How many times? - it was not a ruck, it was a maul

I had read about the incident but haven't had a chance to look at it until now. I'm f*kin raging about it to be honest, stupid stuff. Cole very lucky not to have broken his ankle. Healy deserves a ban for a month or two. I think it's out of character for him, he's not generally a dirty player at all, which might work for getting his ban reduced but it should surely come in upper mid range or even at the top end of the scale.

Disappointing stuff, he's better than that.

damage_13 wrote:A: it was a stamp

B: on a joint

C: his intention was clear with his other infractions throughout the match (elbow to Robshaw, punches thrown just etc), this wasn't just a one off incident throughout the match.

Fully agree, he must be given a a lengthy ban.

George get real please. Idff Healy deserves a long ban for this then it will be out of line with other recent bannings - such as the one for the stamp on Strockoshs head by Thomson.

If Healy had intended to damage him he would have done. It was a foul, it was worthy of a penalty, probably a yellow possibly a red, maybe a week or two ban.

If Healy deserves a long ban for this then Hartley and Ashton should be banned for life :-)

Healy runs from behind Murray, who already has the ball in his hands (taking it from Best's hands, clear of where Coles leg is), and stamps hard down on Cole's leg, pushing it into the ground. He has a second go as well, but COle gets his leg out of the way so it's only a rake.

For me it has to be a mid level offence - not near the head or groin (so not high entry point) but definitely done with some intent so dangerous rather than reckless.

yes, I suppose in theory it could have caused a career threatening injury, but then so can every time you go into a tackle (ask Thom Evans for one). The cynic in me though does think Healy knew who he was stamping on and thought that attempting to cause a bit of hurt on Cole could help later in the game*.

* Cole was treated for an ankle injury on the field later in the first half, and presumably rather more over the half time interval. He did look a bit out of sorts in the 2nd half (not helped by the fact that the pitch kept falling apart under the props feet - not good enough for international rugby), so it's possible that Healy's actions did have the desired effect of restricting Cole a bit.

Biltong wrote:Cole was Healy's scrum opponent, Cole was looking strong in the scrums, it was an opportunity for Healy do lessen the effect of Cole in the scrum.

The stomp was downward and Healy had intent, whether Cole is in an offside position or not, it is an illegal action by Healy.

If you want to make a statement to the referee, then drag Cole out by the shoelaces like a rag doll.

+1,000,000

maestegmafia wrote:Very cynical view there Biltong...!

I don't think thats quite how lads are not taught to play rugby in Ireland.

Healy and O'Mahony entered the ruck aiming to stop Cole, who was on the wrong side of the ruck, from obstructing quick ball.

Healy stamps on Coles lower leg, but didn't jump on it, at 112kgs Healy could have broken Coles leg. He didn't, because that was unlikely his aim. Quick ball being the key aim it meant that dragging Cole out of the way was not an option.

He is not a cynical, violent player and has no reputation as such.

The incident is worthy of review by the citing commissioner. But this is not like Andrew Hore's flailing knock out arm, or Schaulk Burgers optometry lessons on Fitzgerald.

I am sure Healy will admit guilt and take a week or too to reflect his actions and I hope very much that the cynicism you imply was not apparent.

He has now

Tend to agree with a lot of the posters who view the outrage over Healy's idiocy as overblown, verging on the synthetic.

Let's make no bones about it, it was foul play, which, if seen by referee or assistant, would have resulted in a red card if the law were strictly applied. However, in the great scheme of things, it was one of a number of similar incidents that have been committed throughout international history by players from all countries. Players have received their punishments and we've got on with the job.

The lack of consistency from citing commissions in the length of sentence that they've handed down for similar offences means that we can't be sure how severe Healy's punishment will be. The fact that it was an intentional stamp, as opposed to an old-fashioned rucking, probably means that it won't be a one week number. I suspect he'll miss two internationals, meaning up to a four week ban, which would seem about right.

After that, let's forget it. These things happen, it's not great that they do, but not many rugby forwards are spotless in the disciplinary stakes. Martin Johnson was lucky not to have had a whole lot more holidays than he actually received in his playing days, for example. So was Wade Dooley, and both are remembered fondly as great locks and manly enforcers by their partisans. Both could easily be termed dirty players if you really wanted to make a song and dance about it. Healy isn't at that level - he lost his temper, he'll pay the price, but that's it.

Captain,
I agree some of the reaction is overblown. Healy committed an act which was wreckless, unprofessional, and foul. Let's give him his 3 or 4 or 5 week ban and move on. However, I am completely sure if the situation was reversed and Cole ran up and stomped on Healy's leg, there would have been a similar reaction from the other side of the ledger

Additionally, I bet some of the reaction is because many of us do not want to see any of this in Rugby and Healy's case is the most recent. For me, as I said above, i would like to see stricter punishments for these kinds of personal injury infractions across the board. Can't change the baselines in mid-season, but starting in the next one.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:How many times? - it was not a ruck, it was a maul

And it wasn't a spear tackle on BOD it was a clearout....

Of course there would have been a similar reaction, doctor, and rightly so. The problem is largely with the muttonheads on the citing board here. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to say: "Right, stamping - first offence 6 weeks (let's say). Second offence 18 weeks. Third offence - a year off. After that, you don't play international rugby again."

Everyone knows where they are and there's none of this nonsense about which part of the body you landed on or intended to land on, which you can't really prove anyway.

Excessive tarrifs for non icidents just leads to things not being cited or the citing boards finding reasons to throw them out (eg Ferris and Flood tip tackles).
The system has flexibility built in for common sense and taking account of all factors involved. The process is transparent. Its the bone headed thinking of internerds thats the problem, not the system (which IMO is actually too prescriptive , the entry level for the non incident Hartley bite was an absolute joke compared to say the Hore "hook back")

Look this wasnt an especially bad stamp in the grand scheme of things. The guy has a good disciplinary record but lost it on the day big time for whatever reason,. He will cop a short ban, and next time hes involved in anything will cop a longer one accordingly.
Theres simply not enough evidence to prove he deliberately targeted Cole in a calculated attack, rather than it being a spur of the moment anger driven action. We have seen in the past incidents that almost certainly were targeted "roughing up" (eg Earls getting his eyes raked on the Lions), Id suggest though that Healys grumpiness and loss of control throughout the game show he was driven by the red mist rather than a pre meditated decision to injure Cole.

It wasnt good, it deserves a ban. But remembering what guys like Grewcock used to get away with (or get caught for sometimes) the fact that this is creating such a hoo hah shows how much things have moved on in the game and that the citing system is helping to clean it up.

England are in no position to call Heally a dirty thug when they have Callum Clarke in the squad. He does need to sit down for a couple weeks and chill the F out though.

Im sure it will be a 2 match ban max. Dont recall him ever being cited before. Yes it was wreckless and a bit dumb but I have seen a lot worse go unpunished. Just glad Cole isnt injured because he is a great great player and the Lions are going to need him. Lions could also do with Healy too so really hope he doesnt get too long a ban.

The process is not transparent if people get different sentences for the same offence. It's rather amusing to be called an internerd by someone with nearly 9000 posts on this forum alone.

captain carrantuohil wrote:The process is not transparent if people get different sentences for the same offence. It's rather amusing to be called an internerd by someone with nearly 9000 posts on this forum alone.

OK armchair critics then?

Can you provide examples, using the published findings, where absolutely identical cases have been given significantly different punishments?
Does this commonly happen?

The method of the citing process is published. The findings are published along with the evidence presented. Those involved in decision making are named. There is a right of appeal. The majority frothinngs on here regarding the system and different cases are based on prejudice and impressions of "facts" rather than solid evidence.

Which part of the process is not transparent? (Ok Id argue theres some issues with how things come to be cited in the first place, most notably in high profile games being far more subject to attention than non televised ones...but that doesnt relate to the hearing and and sentencing process being dscssed here)

PSW,

I mostly agree with you but the most appalling error by a citing committee that I can think of is the fact that Callum Clark was given the maximum reduction on his ban based on 2 inaccurate pieces of information supplied to the panel by his QC and yet nothing was done.

That brought the process into disrepute for me.

Healy was out of order. He'd lost his control on several occasions during the game, and was a liability to both is own side in terms of penalties and his opponents in terms of possible unacceptable injuries.

A few weeks to calm down and get back to proper rugby will do him good I hope.

It happens. I don't have to like it - but you have to accept that a rush of blood is going to happen sometimes - he now needs to grow up and use his aggression constructively.

The real issue is how the bloody hell did the ref and assistant ref miss it?
If he had been carded this thread would be about whether or not it should the card have been a red or yellow. I'd say a yellow and then cited anyway...

So what do we think, a couple of weeks off? Enough to miss the next game certainly, but I wouldnt be surprised if he was back playing by the end of the 6N? Good previous record etc.

As an aside I don't really understand how a previous record should come into play in these situations, being a church-going family man doesn't mean you didn't flying headbutt someone.

4 or 5 weeks - purely a guess.
Unless it turns out there was a lasting injury in which guess hanged, drawn and quartered.

Adam Thompson got - what - one week for standing on Strokosch's head, which still seems, at this distance, a bit on the lenient side. Now, I obviously stand to be proved wrong here, but I'm prepared to bet that whatever Healy cops will be in excess of that. I shall be surprised if the citing commission draws a parallel between the two cases, but they are comparable, from where I'm sitting (in my armchair, obviously).

Bathman,

Previous record only comes into consideration for "sentencing" not when deciding guilt or innocence. Surely it is fair that someone who ahs no history of citable foul play should have a lesser ban than someone who is a repeat offender?

I have little faith in citing commission judgements as they are so inconsistent. Having said that, this was a stupid act that needs discouraging and the sanction should refect that. Healy, along with others seemed really wound up for this game and it all got very unpleasant, the aggression failing to be channelled the right way. It was one of those days that happens from time to time. Going over the top with calls for extreme punishments does nobody any good. I am sure he realises how stupid he's been and missing a couple of tournament games is probably enough.

captain carrantuohil

You're right... Thompsons was a little dig rather than a aggressive stab and Strokosch was preventing ball release.... Murray already had the ball in his hands in the Healy case so Cole was not involved bar being in the ruck.

If it had not been his head I doubt it would have been a ban.

Oh come off it. Head is worse than leg, both where offside preventing fair release. Its a very similar incident leading to a similar outcome I would expect

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:How many times? - it was not a ruck, it was a maul

It wasn't a maul, it had been illegally pulled down but the useless referee hadn't decided whether to penalise England for that, the offside, the preventing release by cole or the militias of other things they were trying to get away with.

Not saying Ireland weren't trying it on either, Garces was very poor refereeing the break down all game and the players were trying anything they could to take advantage of his inability to ref the game.

TJ

Murray had the ball in his hands. There was no prevention and Cole was not offside. Its a ruck. and he was not infringing.

Strokosch was preventing release but not offside either.

Thompson's was a light dig and came from a standing start.

Healy ran up to the ruck and used full force to stamp on his ankle.

Slightly different and you will probably see so in the ban Healy gets compared to the 1 week thompson got.

maestegmafia wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:How many times? - it was not a ruck, it was a maul

It wasn't a mail it had been illegally pulled down but the useless referee hadn't decided whether to penalise England for that, the offside, the preventing release by cole or the militias of other things they were trying to get away with.

Not saying Ireland weren't trying it on either, Garces was very poor refereeing the break down all game and the players were trying anything they could to take advantage of his inability to ref the game.

I thought for it to be a ruck the ball has to be on the floor

ok its a maul... but the same rules applies to being offside and not offside.. Its irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant - Cole was clearly offside and clearly deliberately slowing down the ball. If you don't want to see that fine - your choice but its clear and obvious

heally did not use full force or there would have been serious injury

I really do t want to continue debating this as it's all pretty irrelevant now, but if Healy used his full force would it not have been even more bloody obvious to the admittedly short sighted and out of his depth referee? I doubt even Garces could bottle out of a red card if Healy had physically jumped up and down on it...

Cole was, in my opinion, trying to prevent Murray from getting the ball away. He sticks his leg between the ball and Murray.

Although I think that explains Healy's actions it does not excuse them.

Is it a mitigating factor that the opponent was killing/slowing the ball? Surely, unless an act of blatant physical retaliation, stamping is stamping, and a similar penalty applies to most cases, with the head getting a stiffer sentence than the rest of the body, but the principle being undoubted? What am I missing here?

How was he interfering and slowing the ball down?

If you look at the actual video... which I have just done so you will see that yes there is a case for the maul being pulled down but that was past and both his arms and legs were out of contact with the ball... not even close.

Best had his hands below his legs on the ball and Murray also had his hands on the ball and was looking for options.

There was no justification to use the boot... else Murray would have done so.

Mrs P specifically says that an act can be understood due to the "killing the ball" reason, not that it is mitigated

fa0019 wrote:How was he interfering and slowing the ball down?

If you look at the actual video... which I have just done so you will see that yes there is a case for the maul being pulled down but that was past and both his arms and legs were out of contact with the ball... not even close.

Best had his hands below his legs on the ball and Murray also had his hands on the ball and was looking for options.

There was no justification to use the boot... else Murray would have done so.

Because of where and how he had placed his body and legs. clearly slowing the ball down deliberatly.

yet they weren't killing the ball. Maul brought down or not thats not killing the ball and preventing release.

Murray could have got that ball out quicker if he wanted to but he was looking for options.

The only 2 people who had their hands on the ball were Murray and Best.

captain,

For me what Cole was doing explains why Healy stamped his leg out of the way instead of what some want to see which is Healy running around a maul right in front of the referee just for the chance to inflict injury on Cole.

It doesn't change what Healy did at all but I think it's just silly to suggest, as some are, that he saw this as a chance to injure his opposite number.

MrsP wrote:Bathman,

Previous record only comes into consideration for "sentencing" not when deciding guilt or innocence. Surely it is fair that someone who ahs no history of citable foul play should have a lesser ban than someone who is a repeat offender?

I suppose so, what I mean is that I think a repeat offender should have his ban extended, rather than a new offender having his ban cut in half because of a good reference?
i.e If its a 6 week ban then he should serve 6 weeks. For repeat offenders add another couple of weeks as they clearly aren't getting the message.

Yeah, the whole "entry point" thing is a bit of a mess right enough.

TJ

You can't slow the ball down if you're not touching it.... If Cole had tried to move out the way he would have infringed Murray getting the ball and it would have been a penalty.

None of his limbs were near the ball nor any other Englishman.

Players in rucks and mauls someitmes are on the wrong side but if they can't move away or will interfere if they try to then its not a penalty and not slowing the ball down. The ref didn't think so.

The only infringement there by Cole would have been pulling the maul down... but that was 1 position past and not what Healy would have been thinking of (at least I assume so).

fa0019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teqizuet-ck

Look where Cole's right foot is at 5 seconds into this clip. It is almost on the ground next to his left foot.

Then he clearly lifts his right leg preventing Murray, who has his hands on the ball, from getting the ball out. Murray's arms are trapped between Best's leg and the right leg of Cole which he has placed there to prevent the ball getting out. Healy even points at the offence!

As I say. It does NOT excuse what Healy did but I think it explains why he was trying to move Cole's leg.

Agree, Mrs P, it explains his desire to do what he did (although Healy looked to have lost his wool a bit in any case). I'm not sure that Cole's technical offence should be looked on as a reason to mitigate sentence for foul play, however. That's to say, if the sentence is 4 weeks, keep it at that, rather than subtracting a week or two because Cole was preventing quick release.

I'm not sure how much the panel would see the slowing down of the ball as mitigation and I frankly don't care.

I'm not suggesting his ban should be less because of it just that it seems clear to me that he was trying to stop Cole from slowing down the ball rather than just taking an opportunity to inflict damage as some on here have suggested.

From the back angle it does seem his leg was a little high. I can backtrack on that Mrs P.

As I said. No excuse for stamping on a joint but at least an explaination of what he was trying to do.

You have no idea how nice it is to post with someone who is willing to have his opinion changed by reasoned argument rather than continuing to see what they want to see! Something all of us can be guilty of from time to time.

Thanks fa0019!

fa0019 wrote:From the back angle it does seem his leg was a little high. I can backtrack on that Mrs P.

Ehhhhmmmm. That doesn't happen very often round here. What do we do now?

the video I watched on rugby dump today had no real footage fromt he back only the side. From the side it doesn't look like its could be infringing.

In terms of whether or not Cole was illegally preventing is still debatable but you can see from the back where Healy was it could have seemed that way.