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.

maestegmafia wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Pretty Harsh on Healy considering the incident...! It is hard to deny that the English media baying for Healy's blood had no influence.

Some articles on Sundays game in England were atrocious when discussing incident.

Good player, one of the best in the world, with no history of misdemeanours caught in a situation that the oppositions media portrayed far from reality.

The difference between this and Hore's incident was that this was not off the ball, didn't look as though it was intended to injure and did not in any way injury.

Healy was just trying to stop Cole from behaving illegally.

Maes, you're plain wrong on this one. Healy's was a stupid, vicious stamp during a period where he seemed to lose it for a whole 10 minutes.

Hore had a mad rush to the head for a few seconds when Davies was obstructing him and stupidly punched when a push in the back would've been the smarter course. Hore's ban should've been longer, but Healy definitely deserves his

Couldn't disagree more Pete..!

The I consent has been replayed a thousand times and it is evident that Healy and POM were there to help Murray move the ball that Cole was ILLEGALLY in-hindering.

Hindrance doesnt justify a stamp in my opinion. By your logic Davies deserved to be hit because he was hindering Hore getting back to the ruck. So if you feel both were justified acts, then fair enough, we have a disagreement on responses to illegal play.

Personally, foul play as a response to illegal play is never justified.

John Cregan wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:Don't think so, JC. It would have been a sending off and automatic three match ban in soccer, but that's about it. Not much difference in the way the codes react to this kind of thing. You've seen people like Roy Keane get much the same for trying to maim Haaland, I seem to remember.

I take that point. FA then increased ban on Keane by another 3 or 4 i think after he admitted he meant it!!(because it wasn't obvious in the first place??).

What has football got to do with rugby. Totally different sports and thankfully so.

John Cregan wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Way too short but pretty much in line with with the other lenient sentences players have been getting.

He'll miss the France match too won't he?

It proves what i've always suspected. A certain level of violence is accepted by those who govern rugby. A violent attack like this in another sport would be 6 months minimum..............

Yes of course violence is accepted in rugby. If you stamped on someones leg in badminton or snooker yeah sure you might get a six month ban. Whats that got to do with anything? Really don't understand some of the comments on this thread.

Cole's actions certainly did NOT deserve or justify Healy stamping on him but that doesn't make Cole's action legal either.

Clearly the 2 illegal acts are in no way comparable in severity or out come but both were illegal.

And, wasn't Haskell carded for a fairly similar action later in the game?

For the sake of clarity, I am in no way suggesting that slowing the ball down in any way, shape or form justifies the stamp but I think it is important to point out that Healy was not just stamping on Cole for the sake of it. He was trying to free up the ball by removing the leg that Cole had put there to prevent the ball coming out.

There is a difference between explaining why Healy was trying to get Cole's leg out of the way and justifying the method used.

maestegmafia wrote:

Griff wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Pretty Harsh on Healy considering the incident...! It is hard to deny that the English media baying for Healy's blood had no influence.

Some articles on Sundays game in England were atrocious when discussing incident.

Good player, one of the best in the world, with no history of misdemeanours caught in a situation that the oppositions media portrayed far from reality.

The difference between this and Hore's incident was that this was not off the ball, didn't look as though it was intended to injure and did not in any way injury.

Healy was just trying to stop Cole from behaving illegally.

I think you must have seen the wrong incident or something. It was miles from the ball, so couldn't have been accidental. Not sure how you prove intention, but a stamp on a prone ankle is not done to massage the opponent's aching joints. It was a miracle that it did not cause injury.

I'm one of Healy's biggest fans so don't want to see him being caught or getting banned, it's just that this particular incident I feel was serious and pretty bad.

Here is the video of the incident again.

https://youtu.be/teqizuet-ck


The ball is definitely not cleared until Healy moves Coles leg so that Murray can get it out.

Firstly, his ankle was not near the ball so he had no business clearing out near the ankle. Secondly, stamping is not clearing out. Raking back wards is the only way it is allowed to be done. Unfortunately Healy got it wrong on both occasions.

Sounds about right to me. Stupid thing to do, called for it now punished for it, end of story. Time to move on.

Griff,

No one is suggesting that this was a violent rucking action.

Cole had raised his leg so to trap the ball in the maul.

He had placed his leg so that Murray's hands, which were on the ball, were trapped between that leg and Best's leg.

It was illegal and looked deliberate. Healy can be seen pointing at that action just before he runs around to push Cole's leg back down.

The problem was the method by which he acheived that which was definately illegal and potentially dangerous.

Hadn't noticed before that Peter O'Mahoney went in for some gratuitous footwork on Cole's arse after the ball had gone. That's more justifiable (if the ball hadn't already gone, of course).

MrsP wrote:Griff,

No one is suggesting that this was a violent rucking action.

Cole had raised his leg so to trap the ball in the maul.

He had placed his leg so that Murray's hands, which were on the ball, were trapped between that leg and Best's leg.

It was illegal and looked deliberate. Healy can be seen pointing at that action just before he runs around to push Cole's leg back down.

The problem was the method by which he acheived that which was definately illegal and potentially dangerous.

MrsP, I do so enjoy the way that you play with words!! But really, "push" - that's stretching things just a little, wouldn't you say?!

I would jiust like to poiint out a few things that seem to have got lost on here. The ban is to 10th of March which is 4 week ban effectively from the Incident it is not 2 weeks. It is also not 2 games as just because Heal probably would not have played in the Leinster games because of an IRFU resting polic does not mean they don't count. So it is a 3 game ban, probably reduced to such for good behavior. It is now done so lets move on.

I think that he was trying to lower Cole's leg to allow the ball to be played.

That doesn't change the fact that he did that by stamping on his leg.

As I said, up until that point Healy was the legal player in that scenario. What made him the villan was the method he choose to use to acheive his objective.

That was why I used the word "push". If that had been what he had done he would have been legal.

Not trying to deny that he stamped.

Griff wrote:

Firstly, his ankle was not near the ball so he had no business clearing out near the ankle. Secondly, stamping is not clearing out. Raking back wards is the only way it is allowed to be done. Unfortunately Healy got it wrong on both occasions.

Anyone who says Cole wasn't doing anything wrong watch the video again. Firstly he came round the wrong side of the maul and pulled it down. Then as Murray attempts to take out the ball he lifts up his leg to trap it between his leg and an Irish player. By stamping on Coles leg Healy freed the ball. Some people really only see what they want to see.

MrsP wrote:I think that he was trying to lower Cole's leg to allow the ball to be played.

That doesn't change the fact that he did that by stamping on his leg.

As I said, up until that point Healy was the legal player in that scenario. What made him the villain was the method he choose to use to achieve his objective.

That was why I used the word "push". If that had been what he had done he would have been legal.

Not trying to deny that he stamped.

Like I said, beautiful word play!!

Did we ever get to the bottom of whether this breakdown area was deemed a maul or a ruck?

Well, the ball was never on the ground so surely it was a maul.

One which Cole had just brought down illegally, but a maul just the same, no?

I choose my words very carefully in this instance not least to try to counter the hyperbole arising from some quarters.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

MrsP wrote:I think that he was trying to lower Cole's leg to allow the ball to be played.

That doesn't change the fact that he did that by stamping on his leg.

As I said, up until that point Healy was the legal player in that scenario. What made him the villain was the method he choose to use to achieve his objective.

That was why I used the word "push". If that had been what he had done he would have been legal.

Not trying to deny that he stamped.

Like I said, beautiful word play!!

Did we ever get to the bottom of whether this breakdown area was deemed a maul or a ruck?

It was a maul until Cole illegally brought it down.

So Cole was responsible for collapsing the maul? And he was obliged not to interfere with the release of the ball from the collapsed ruck?

Some of the stuff reminds me of the situation I get with my under 10 kids along the line of 'he did something wrong to me so I hit him'

Its a sentiment which is wrong for u10's - Cant help thinking my kids are still more mature than one or 2 of the posters...

All I can say is I would be annoyed too if an opposition player takes down a maul illegally and then illegally slows the ball down in the ruck and it goes unpunished.

Yes what Healy did was dumb and deserved to be sanctioned but some of the holier than thou comments here are ridiculous.

The ban is fair and consistent with similar bans recently.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:So Cole was responsible for collapsing the maul? And he was obliged not to interfere with the release of the ball from the collapsed ruck?

Correct.

If he had been on his feet he could have done what he liked I would have thought.

He didn't need to release a player or roll out of the way but that doesn't mean he can put himself in a position to prevent the ball from being played.

Surely once you are off your feet you are "out of play", no?

Bottom line is a 2 game ban for stamping on an opponents ankle.

Is that fair? Certainly won't be a deterrent will it?

GunsGerms wrote:All I can say is I would be annoyed too if an opposition player takes down a maul illegally and then illegally slows the ball down in the ruck and it goes unpunished.

Yes what Healy did was dumb and deserved to be sanctioned but some of the holier than thou comments here are ridiculous.

The ban is fair and consistent with similar bans recently.

How did it go unpunished? The ref was playing advantage to Ireland already, he then blew the whistle after which, Mahoney came in for a pop as well. NOt to mention when Healy went flying to a ruck and start swinging forearms at T Youngs head while he was defenceless in a ruck, if those 2 incidents don't show intent then i don't know what does.

So many people on here are defending Healys actions when they have zero defense, how many would be saying the same if it had been an english player on an Irish one? Or even worse if it had been Hartley?

Also like to add that irish players in general (and heaslip in particular in this match) have always happened to fall on the wrong side and not move out the way, no-one has resorted to stamping on them, so why should healy do it and then be excused for it as well?

A very lenient punishment considering he could have seriously injured Cole.

Who is defending Healy's actions?

Explaining the circumstances which lead to those actions, yes, but how many are defending his actions?

MrsP wrote:If he had been on his feet he could have done what he liked I would have thought.

He didn't need to release a player or roll out of the way but that doesn't mean he can put himself in a position to prevent the ball from being played.

Surely once you are off your feet you are "out of play", no?

Correct, provided you enter the ruck from the hindmost foot. You cannot however tackle the player holding the ball at the back of a maul bringing it down nor can you raise your leg in a ruck in an attempt to prevent the ball from being released. Cole was guilty of both infringements and in fairness he did it quite discretely but he could have been carded himself.

Healy was stupid and it annoys me that he lost his head but I understand how frustrating it can be when opponents get away with cheating. Im am very glad Cole wasn't injured because he is an awesome player. The ban is fair.

GunsGerms wrote:All I can say is I would be annoyed too if an opposition player takes down a maul illegally and then illegally slows the ball down in the ruck and it goes unpunished.

Yes what Healy did was dumb and deserved to be sanctioned but some of the holier than thou comments here are ridiculous.

The ban is fair and consistent with similar bans recently.

Or you could argue that the maul was over when Best slipped his binding at the back before it was collapsed. How annoying would that be if it went unpunished as it did, unlike the collapsing of the maul. How annoying must it be to have your ankle viciously stamped on and your arse raked and for that to go unpunished.

That's just me trying to be holier than your holier than thou.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Pretty Harsh on Healy considering the incident...! It is hard to deny that the English media baying for Healy's blood had no influence.

Some articles on Sundays game in England were atrocious when discussing incident.

Good player, one of the best in the world, with no history of misdemeanours caught in a situation that the oppositions media portrayed far from reality.

The difference between this and Hore's incident was that this was not off the ball, didn't look as though it was intended to injure and did not in any way injury.

Healy was just trying to stop Cole from behaving illegally.

Maes, you're plain wrong on this one. Healy's was a stupid, vicious stamp during a period where he seemed to lose it for a whole 10 minutes.

Hore had a mad rush to the head for a few seconds when Davies was obstructing him and stupidly punched when a push in the back would've been the smarter course. Hore's ban should've been longer, but Healy definitely deserves his

Couldn't disagree more Pete..!

The I consent has been replayed a thousand times and it is evident that Healy and POM were there to help Murray move the ball that Cole was ILLEGALLY in-hindering.

Hindrance doesnt justify a stamp in my opinion. By your logic Davies deserved to be hit because he was hindering Hore getting back to the ruck. So if you feel both were justified acts, then fair enough, we have a disagreement on responses to illegal play.

Personally, foul play as a response to illegal play is never justified.

Hi Pete

Sorry i was about to reply to you but had to go out for dinner with friends. Terrible presidence in life but these things happen.

Any how now well fed and so on I was about to reply but I have read Mrs P's comments below you previous post i have quoted in reply. Mrs Ps views sum up the way i saw the incident too. Similarly many others Irish and like myself impartial.

I do not think there is anything malicious in this incident, I think there has been associated hyperbole by the English media because they are convinced England will get a Grand Slam.

This incident, caught well on camera is not what it has been made out to be, vindictive and ugly. But is merely a situation gone wrong portrayed in a poor light.

GunsGerms wrote:

Griff wrote:

Firstly, his ankle was not near the ball so he had no business clearing out near the ankle. Secondly, stamping is not clearing out. Raking back wards is the only way it is allowed to be done. Unfortunately Healy got it wrong on both occasions.

Anyone who says Cole wasn't doing anything wrong watch the video again. Firstly he came round the wrong side of the maul and pulled it down. Then as Murray attempts to take out the ball he lifts up his leg to trap it between his leg and an Irish player. By stamping on Coles leg Healy freed the ball. Some people really only see what they want to see.

I didn't say Cole was not in the wrong. But we probably have upwards of 10 penalties a game for not rolling away. Stamping on legs is not the way these many penalties are dealt with. Legal rucking/raking is. Therefore it's the manner in which it was done. 'By stamping on his leg Healy freed the ball'. This line suggests that you think it is perfectly normal or legals to stamp to clear the ball. Honestly? Areyou arguing that he shouldn't have been punished? If you agree that he should have been punished then you must agree that he did something wrong.

Actually, it's funny how animated you're getting on the subject Guns. My experience of you is as a level headed poster with generally good things to say. I wonder if you'd be getting this involved if it was, say, Gethin Jenkins who had stamped on Cole. My gut instinct is that you wouldn't get involved or wouldn't be as interested and therefore this is more a national pride/defence sort of thing? It's admirable that you're defending your own players though.

belovedfrosties wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:All I can say is I would be annoyed too if an opposition player takes down a maul illegally and then illegally slows the ball down in the ruck and it goes unpunished.

Yes what Healy did was dumb and deserved to be sanctioned but some of the holier than thou comments here are ridiculous.

The ban is fair and consistent with similar bans recently.

How did it go unpunished? The ref was playing advantage to Ireland already, he then blew the whistle after which, Mahoney came in for a pop as well. NOt to mention when Healy went flying to a ruck and start swinging forearms at T Youngs head while he was defenceless in a ruck, if those 2 incidents don't show intent then i don't know what does.

So many people on here are defending Healys actions when they have zero defense, how many would be saying the same if it had been an english player on an Irish one? Or even worse if it had been Hartley?

Sorry I meant unpunished as in it could have been a yellow for Cole on two counts.

Haven't seen the punch. Do you have a link?

I have missed this Tom Youngs Cian Healy thing when did it happen I wan't to go back and see it. For the last time its 3 games as well not 2.

Maestegmafia "Healy was just trying to stop Cole from behaving illegally"

Sounds like a bit of a defense to me, viewtothegym also appeared to be under the impression that it was fine and actually positively encouraged this sort of behaviour.

I know you have not defended his actions Mrs P, as you have made perfectly clear, however some on here are explaining the circumstances and then using this to justify healys actions.

It does amuse me that a couple of English fans have a rather different take on this incident to those when an English player was the aggressor.

Like the Strockosh incident its a foul. Should have been yellow, could have been red and a short ban appears to be appropriate.

If Heally had really intended to cause serious injury he would have.

The red mist had descended and he took the opportunity of Cole preventing fair release to inflict some pain / cuts and bruises. Yes it was a stamp but it was not an attempted maiming

oh and the Youngs incident is about 1.30mins into this, swinging arms more than punches though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHqFjUZ5B58

If Ireland had won last Sunday, Healy's punishment of missing two internationals would have looked a pretty grievous one for Ireland's GS hopes. Partly because they didn't, I suspect, people don't seem to think that he has been sufficiently sanctioned. As I said on the day it happened, 4 weeks or so seemed about right for a first offender, and it still does now. It makes a Scotland win at Murrayfield or a French one in Dublin that bit more likely, and no-one will know that better than Healy himself.

Griff,

The only thing I am defending Healy from are those who claimed that he took this maul as his opportunity to run around until he was right in front of the ref and then stamp on the ankle of his opposite number in the hope of maiming him for life at the very least and all because the English scrum was going reasonably well.

I don't think I have seen one Irish fan condone what he did.

There is a difference however, at least in my view, between the motivation described above and what actually happened.

What he did was wrong. No if's buts or maybes but I don't think it is fair to portray that act of foul play as a deliberate attempt to break a leg or end a career as many would have us believe.

He was trying to free the ball but chose a highly illegal and potenially dangerous way to do that.

No defence of his actions, just an explanation of the circumstances.

MrsP, I was responding to GunsGerms and previously Maesteg Mafia. What you've just said is fair and valid.

belovedfrosties wrote: Maestegmafia "Healy was just trying to stop Cole from behaving illegally"

Sounds like a bit of a defense to me, viewtothegym also appeared to be under the impression that it was fine and actually positively encouraged this sort of behaviour.

I know you have not defended his actions Mrs P, as you have made perfectly clear, however some on here are explaining the circumstances and then using this to justify healys actions.

No View thinks violence in rugby is acceptable i do not. I think Healy was right to help prevent Cole from stopping the ball coming out, I think Healy was stupid to stamp on Coles ankle.

I in no way think that Healy was trying to injure Cole and i am getting rather annoyed at the amount of people that think he was, or insinuating that I think he was.

Healy is an excellent player with an excellent reputation for fair play.

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.

Name them gregortree!

maestegmafia wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote: Maestegmafia "Healy was just trying to stop Cole from behaving illegally"

Sounds like a bit of a defense to me, viewtothegym also appeared to be under the impression that it was fine and actually positively encouraged this sort of behaviour.

I know you have not defended his actions Mrs P, as you have made perfectly clear, however some on here are explaining the circumstances and then using this to justify healys actions.

No View thinks violence in rugby is acceptable i do not. I think Healy was right to help prevent Cole from stopping the ball coming out, I think Healy was stupid to stamp on Coles ankle.

I in no way think that Healy was trying to injure Cole and i am getting rather annoyed at the amount of people that think he was, or insinuating that I think he was.

Healy is an excellent player with an excellent reputation for fair play.

Fair play Maes, and thanks for clarifying, your earlier post that i responded to read as if you thought the stamp was an ok response .

Anyways, lovely sunny day here in Christchurch so I'm off out to enjoy it

This thread appears to be repeating arguments and counterarguments like Coldplay repeat their material!

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote: Maestegmafia "Healy was just trying to stop Cole from behaving illegally"

Sounds like a bit of a defense to me, viewtothegym also appeared to be under the impression that it was fine and actually positively encouraged this sort of behaviour.

I know you have not defended his actions Mrs P, as you have made perfectly clear, however some on here are explaining the circumstances and then using this to justify healys actions.

No View thinks violence in rugby is acceptable i do not. I think Healy was right to help prevent Cole from stopping the ball coming out, I think Healy was stupid to stamp on Coles ankle.

I in no way think that Healy was trying to injure Cole and i am getting rather annoyed at the amount of people that think he was, or insinuating that I think he was.

Healy is an excellent player with an excellent reputation for fair play.

Fair play Maes, and thanks for clarifying, your earlier post that i responded to read as if you thought the stamp was an ok response .

Anyways, lovely sunny day here in Christchurch so I'm off out to enjoy it

Lucky you, i was just with old friends from Wellington who are visiting us here in Italy.

Get out there and enjoy it, summer can't come fast enough in Europe.

ChequeredJersey wrote:This thread appears to be repeating arguments and counterarguments like Coldplay repeat their material!

Are Coldplay the new Status Quo?

Well, reasonably new. Nice pun there too

Griff wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Griff wrote:

Firstly, his ankle was not near the ball so he had no business clearing out near the ankle. Secondly, stamping is not clearing out. Raking back wards is the only way it is allowed to be done. Unfortunately Healy got it wrong on both occasions.

Anyone who says Cole wasn't doing anything wrong watch the video again. Firstly he came round the wrong side of the maul and pulled it down. Then as Murray attempts to take out the ball he lifts up his leg to trap it between his leg and an Irish player. By stamping on Coles leg Healy freed the ball. Some people really only see what they want to see.

I didn't say Cole was not in the wrong. But we probably have upwards of 10 penalties a game for not rolling away. Stamping on legs is not the way these many penalties are dealt with. Legal rucking/raking is. Therefore it's the manner in which it was done. 'By stamping on his leg Healy freed the ball'. This line suggests that you think it is perfectly normal or legals to stamp to clear the ball. Honestly? Areyou arguing that he shouldn't have been punished? If you agree that he should have been punished then you must agree that he did something wrong.

Actually, it's funny how animated you're getting on the subject Guns. My experience of you is as a level headed poster with generally good things to say. I wonder if you'd be getting this involved if it was, say, Gethin Jenkins who had stamped on Cole. My gut instinct is that you wouldn't get involved or wouldn't be as interested and therefore this is more a national pride/defence sort of thing? It's admirable that you're defending your own players though.

Raking wouldn't have moved Coles leg downwards to remove the ball. Also I'm pretty sure lots of posters have said Cole wasn't doing anything wrong. I have stamped players and been guilty of plenty of cheap shots when I played rugby and I don't mind admitting it. I have admitted it many times before. Not saying I'm proud of everything I did. Just annoys me when posters claim to be so "shocked" at stamping incidents when it is still quite common and often goes unpunished. For example it was claimed Tipuric put his boot to Sexton's face in the Ireland Wales match but wasn't investigated.

I am disappointed with Healy because what he did was dumb and deserves a ban so I'm not sure how it is a national pride thing but certainly some of the comments on this forum and others have been really dumb IMO.

I also really don't understand how there can be such outrage at the length of the ban when it is fairly consistent with similar bans.

For example on another thread it has been claimed that Healy should not be in contention for a Lions place now yet if that was the case then half the potential Lions tourists would have to be ruled out. Tuilagi, Warburton, Tipuric, Heaslip, Youngs and Ashton and many others who have been cited for dangerous play.

maestegmafia wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote: Maestegmafia "Healy was just trying to stop Cole from behaving illegally"

Sounds like a bit of a defense to me, viewtothegym also appeared to be under the impression that it was fine and actually positively encouraged this sort of behaviour.

I know you have not defended his actions Mrs P, as you have made perfectly clear, however some on here are explaining the circumstances and then using this to justify healys actions.

No View thinks violence in rugby is acceptable i do not. I think Healy was right to help prevent Cole from stopping the ball coming out, I think Healy was stupid to stamp on Coles ankle.

I in no way think that Healy was trying to injure Cole and i am getting rather annoyed at the amount of people that think he was, or insinuating that I think he was.

Healy is an excellent player with an excellent reputation for fair play.

There's something odd about your muddled POV. You partly blame the English media for the ban - is this actually what the problem is for you? You say there was nothing malicious in the act - but by definition there was; even if Healy had chosen to rake Cole he'd have done it hurt him. His 'excellent reputation for fair play' is officially no longer excellent – he’s just been banned for stamping.

No-one has said Cole wasn’t illegally slowing the ball down – he’d been pinged for it. The debate should be over the nature of Healy’s response and the length of the ban. He could have raked Cole but he didn’t – he stamped and has been guilty of foul play. Those are the facts. I think most people are arguing over whether it should have 2 games or all 3.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Well, reasonably new. Nice pun there too

Thought you'd enjoy that...!

Not a huge fan of coldplay, even though our friends son is their bass player. We have been to see them a few times and my wife thinks Chris Martin is an awfully nice boy...! I think he evan makes Paradise sound whinge-able.

After seeing them at the O2 last year, the first thing i did when I got home was put on Tommy by the Who.

I just haven't got the puff for one of these Argie bargies anymore.Cole was being a bit naughty,Healy didn't like it.Healy made a bad choice.Italy and Scotland will benefit.It is easy and trite for me to say but let's move on.

belovedfrosties wrote:oh and the Youngs incident is about 1.30mins into this, swinging arms more than punches though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHqFjUZ5B58

In that clip I can see a lot of aggression from Healy and yes swinging arms but cannot see any punches landed. If he connected with someone's face for example then fine red card but from that clip you cant see what he has connected with so not sure it is worth commenting on. He is joining a ruck where an England player is lying on the wrong side. I agree with Guscott for once, it probably looks worse than it really is.