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.

Do't worry it will only be next week if the appeal succeeds

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

Or if people keep posting, to point out the people who keep posting, to point out that people keep posting to ask why people keep posting it will last forever.


Muahahahahaha

The beeb are saying he will not be playing this weekend.

My thoughts were that Leinster had no intention of actually playing him but were hoping for clarification of the nonsense situation that had been created by the hearing.

It just looks to be like someone wanted to use the shiney new powers they had been given despite the inappropriate situation. Like when you teach a person how to "Castle" at chess and they just can't wait to try it out.

MrsP wrote:The beeb are saying he will not be playing this weekend.

My thoughts were that Leinster had no intention of actually playing him but were hoping for clarification of the nonsense situation that had been created by the hearing.

It just looks to be like someone wanted to use the shiney new powers they had been given despite the inappropriate situation. Like when you teach a person how to "Castle" at chess and they just can't wait to try it out.

Emmmmm...........................yep. Prawn to Cue Ball for 64 Not Out? I know that move.

Well, at least you wont be tempted to use the move at the wrong moment Secret!

Leinster team for Treviso, looseheads highlighted in bold;

LEINSTER:

15: Luke Fitzgerald
14: Dave Kearney
13: Eoin O'Malley
12: Andrew Goodman
11: Fergus McFadden
10: Ian Madigan
9: Eoin Reddan

1: Jack McGrath
2: Sean Cronin
3: Jamie Hagan
4: Ben Marshall
5: Devin Toner
6: Rhys Ruddock CAPTAIN
7: Dominic Ryan
8: Jordi Murphy

REPLACEMENTS:

16: Aaron Dundon
17: Jack O'Connell
18: Michael Bent
19: Leo Cullen
20: Shane Jennings
21: Isaac Boss
22: Noel Reid
23: Fionn Carr

The suggestion he would play was important, but as far as the appeal goes actually playing him would have been disastrous.

MrsP wrote:The beeb are saying he will not be playing this weekend.

My thoughts were that Leinster had no intention of actually playing him but were hoping for clarification of the nonsense situation that had been created by the hearing.

It just looks to be like someone wanted to use the shiney new powers they had been given despite the inappropriate situation. Like when you teach a person how to "Castle" at chess and they just can't wait to try it out.

I can't see what's inappropriate about the situation - the relevant clause was invoked as it should be. It was all fairly clear and straightforward and certainly not a nonsense until the press picked up on a quote from Gibbes which may have been due to lack of communication between IRFU and Leinster Branch, or his lack of understanding, or deliberate smoke and mirrors, or any other speculative option.

The only thing that is inappropriate about the situation is that Healy cops a 2 game ban instead of the three that he earned, and that is certainly less inappropriate than the solitary game that he would have missed without the deferment clause. I hope there's some agreement on that, at least.

I concurr

I understood the deferment was to cover the off season. This is not the off season.

If they wanted him to be banned till 10th of March then ban him for 4 weeks. I'd have no issue with that whatsoever.

They have just made themselves look silly (again) by saying he's banned for 3 weeks but it doesn't begin for a week and he can't play that week either.

Any beneficiaries of the ban are inevitably not England.

What's wrong with extending the TMO rule to stop a game and speaking to the ref with any recommendation?
So far as I'm aware no match pitch officials have been retrofitted with compound eyes so miss stuff.

A straight red would have been appropriate and then the victims would have received appropriate redress.

I understand that the deferment is to cover not only the off-season, but any fallow weekends or periods which would allow a player to avoid the full consequences of his/her actions. It is drafted to enable this to be done, but doesn't seem to cover a fallow weekend within the suspension period.

Given the IRB's record, it wouldn't be a surprise if they plugged the off-season loophole, but left the fallow weekend one completely open - however, in this instance, I give them, partially, the benefit of the doubt.

Having said all that, is it simpler to agree to disagree - different cat skinning ways?

MrsP wrote:I understood the deferment was to cover the off season. This is not the off season.

If they wanted him to be banned till 10th of March then ban him for 4 weeks. I'd have no issue with that whatsoever.

They have just made themselves look silly (again) by saying he's banned for 3 weeks but it doesn't begin for a week and he can't play that week either.

Not really. Healy was never going to play. It was done this way to stop IRFU from cheating the system by getting an extra game from him knowing he's got a few weeks rest after. If The IRFU could be trusted it wouldn't have been needed.

Same would be for any union.

greytiger wrote:Any beneficiaries of the ban are inevitably not England.

What's wrong with extending the TMO rule to stop a game and speaking to the ref with any recommendation?
So far as I'm aware no match pitch officials have been retrofitted with compound eyes so miss stuff.

A straight red would have been appropriate and then the victims would have received appropriate redress.

The incident was right in front of the referee.

Which says a great deal about the incident and the Ref.

The referee saw what Healy did in real time, not in slow motion and not with Press and Pundits lambasting Healy after watching a slow motion version that makes the incident look very different.

The referee, Garces, didn't award a penalty for it, didn't have a word with Healy about his use of the boot, didn't ask why the England players flared up and attacked Healy.

Would a TMO watching a Slow Motion replay be any fairer than a citing commissioner?

The only reason that anyone knew the stamping had happened when watching on TV was hen the BBC replayed, cut from a different angle and slowed it all down.

Could a TMO do anymore.

Someone (I can not remember who) said or wrote that the English players were actually incensed by the other player "rucking" after the stamp. I presume because they didn't see the stamp.

Thunor,

How could the IRFU have got an extra game out of him if the panel had just given him the 4 week ban they seem to have wanted to give him? I'm not looking for ways around the ban, just trying to suggest a less controversial and more logical way to acheive their apparent objective without them looking like eejits.

They made a horlicks of ROG's ban too IMHO. Why go to the bother of reducing the ban by another week beyond the usual when there was no rugby to be played anyway?

Just seems messy to me.

The referee saw what Healy did in real time

Did he? Really would an international referee condone a stamp or is it more likely that he was focused elsewhere and at best had only a peripheral view?

It arm's length eyes can focus on an area of about that of a euro/quid. the further away from that area the more peripheral / blurred the brain process becomes.

Its quite possible to look at something and not actually mentaly process that information in real time

MrsP wrote:Someone (I can not remember who) said or wrote that the English players were actually incensed by the other player "rucking" after the stamp. I presume because they didn't see the stamp.

Thunor,

How could the IRFU have got an extra game out of him if the panel had just given him the 4 week ban they seem to have wanted to give him? I'm not looking for ways around the ban, just trying to suggest a less controversial and more logical way to acheive their apparent objective without them looking like eejits.

They made a horlicks of ROG's ban too IMHO. Why go to the bother of reducing the ban by another week beyond the usual when there was no rugby to be played anyway?

I really don't see why some people are struggling with this. The panel finally decided on a three week ban. Healy would never play this weekend in normal circumstances. But if he's rested for 3 weeks then IRFU would have no reason not playing him. That would effectively shift one of his rest weekends from this weekend to one during the ban.

What should have happened is for the IRB to say "after reviewing IRFU practices of resting players Healy will be banned until after the 5th game of the 6 nations." They don't that unfortunately.

maestegmafia wrote:

greytiger wrote:Any beneficiaries of the ban are inevitably not England.

What's wrong with extending the TMO rule to stop a game and speaking to the ref with any recommendation?
So far as I'm aware no match pitch officials have been retrofitted with compound eyes so miss stuff.

A straight red would have been appropriate and then the victims would have received appropriate redress.

The incident was right in front of the referee.

Which says a great deal about the incident and the Ref.

The referee saw what Healy did in real time, not in slow motion and not with Press and Pundits lambasting Healy after watching a slow motion version that makes the incident look very different.

The referee, Garces, didn't award a penalty for it, didn't have a word with Healy about his use of the boot, didn't ask why the England players flared up and attacked Healy.

Would a TMO watching a Slow Motion replay be any fairer than a citing commissioner?

The only reason that anyone knew the stamping had happened when watching on TV was hen the BBC replayed, cut from a different angle and slowed it all down.

Could a TMO do anymore.

Weren't RTÉ host broadcasters? If the BBC production team highlighted the incident, then I'll retract my earlier praise of RTÉ in showing the action.

greytiger wrote:

The referee saw what Healy did in real time

Did he? Really would an international referee condone a stamp or is it more likely that he was focused elsewhere and at best had only a peripheral view?

It arm's length eyes can focus on an area of about that of a euro/quid. the further away from that area the more peripheral / blurred the brain process becomes.

Watch the video. The referee is right there.

Mrs P is right after the incident no one goes for Healy, the England players rush in on POM and the second rows and not Healy, he is walking around trying to split up fights.

greytiger wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

greytiger wrote:Any beneficiaries of the ban are inevitably not England.

What's wrong with extending the TMO rule to stop a game and speaking to the ref with any recommendation?
So far as I'm aware no match pitch officials have been retrofitted with compound eyes so miss stuff.

A straight red would have been appropriate and then the victims would have received appropriate redress.

The incident was right in front of the referee.

Which says a great deal about the incident and the Ref.

The referee saw what Healy did in real time, not in slow motion and not with Press and Pundits lambasting Healy after watching a slow motion version that makes the incident look very different.

The referee, Garces, didn't award a penalty for it, didn't have a word with Healy about his use of the boot, didn't ask why the England players flared up and attacked Healy.

Would a TMO watching a Slow Motion replay be any fairer than a citing commissioner?

The only reason that anyone knew the stamping had happened when watching on TV was hen the BBC replayed, cut from a different angle and slowed it all down.

Could a TMO do anymore.

Weren't RTÉ host broadcasters? If the BBC production team highlighted the incident, then I'll retract my earlier praise of RTÉ in showing the action.

RTE bought into BBC NI and BBC Alba in 2010 they buy BBC footage of the Six Nations, they do not film their own version separate to the BBC, BBC do not buy RTE film their own version of the game separate to BBC.

Chess, media studies, what next?

maestegmafia wrote:

greytiger wrote:

The referee saw what Healy did in real time

Did he? Really would an international referee condone a stamp or is it more likely that he was focused elsewhere and at best had only a peripheral view?

It arm's length eyes can focus on an area of about that of a euro/quid. the further away from that area the more peripheral / blurred the brain process becomes.

Watch the video. The referee is right there.

Mrs P is right after the incident no one goes for Healy, the England players rush in on POM and the second rows and not Healy, he is walking around trying to split up fights.

I'm taking my references from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXmUP02wXOk in which the ref does not feature. I've got the whole match on record so I'll have a deco there.

But there would be - maybe there would be - still something else grabbing the ref's attention at the time.

greytiger wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

greytiger wrote:

The referee saw what Healy did in real time

Did he? Really would an international referee condone a stamp or is it more likely that he was focused elsewhere and at best had only a peripheral view?

It arm's length eyes can focus on an area of about that of a euro/quid. the further away from that area the more peripheral / blurred the brain process becomes.

Watch the video. The referee is right there.

Mrs P is right after the incident no one goes for Healy, the England players rush in on POM and the second rows and not Healy, he is walking around trying to split up fights.

I'm taking my references from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXmUP02wXOk in which the ref does not feature. I've got the whole match on record so I'll have a deco there.

But there would be - maybe there would be - still something else grabbing the ref's attention at the time.

In the YouTube clip you just posted you can see the referees feet in pitch on the side of the ruck at the incident, when the fighting breaks out you can see him more clearly that side.

One of the replays from the opposite side of the pitch is shot of Healy commuting his crime, with the refs legs either side of the shot.

He had an excellent view.

Glas a du wrote:Chess, media studies, what next?

The medium is the message* Glas.

90-odd% of us weren't at the game. We have only the TV pictures to go on.
We accept them for try decisions and shenanigans as well as moments of joy and despair.

* Woody Allen / Annie Hall / marshall mcluhan scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE

maestegmafia wrote:

greytiger wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

greytiger wrote:

The referee saw what Healy did in real time

Did he? Really would an international referee condone a stamp or is it more likely that he was focused elsewhere and at best had only a peripheral view?

It arm's length eyes can focus on an area of about that of a euro/quid. the further away from that area the more peripheral / blurred the brain process becomes.

Watch the video. The referee is right there.

Mrs P is right after the incident no one goes for Healy, the England players rush in on POM and the second rows and not Healy, he is walking around trying to split up fights.

I'm taking my references from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXmUP02wXOk in which the ref does not feature. I've got the whole match on record so I'll have a deco there.

But there would be - maybe there would be - still something else grabbing the ref's attention at the time.

In the YouTube clip you just posted you can see the referees feet in pitch on the side of the ruck at the incident, when the fighting breaks out you can see him more clearly that side.

One of the replays from the opposite side of the pitch is shot of Healy commuting his crime, with the refs legs either side of the shot.

He had an excellent view.

Ah feck. His shoes were there so he was watching? Or maybe was looking at something else and missed the incident?

greytiger wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

greytiger wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

greytiger wrote:

The referee saw what Healy did in real time

Did he? Really would an international referee condone a stamp or is it more likely that he was focused elsewhere and at best had only a peripheral view?

It arm's length eyes can focus on an area of about that of a euro/quid. the further away from that area the more peripheral / blurred the brain process becomes.

Watch the video. The referee is right there.

Mrs P is right after the incident no one goes for Healy, the England players rush in on POM and the second rows and not Healy, he is walking around trying to split up fights.

I'm taking my references from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXmUP02wXOk in which the ref does not feature. I've got the whole match on record so I'll have a deco there.

But there would be - maybe there would be - still something else grabbing the ref's attention at the time.

In the YouTube clip you just posted you can see the referees feet in pitch on the side of the ruck at the incident, when the fighting breaks out you can see him more clearly that side.

One of the replays from the opposite side of the pitch is shot of Healy commuting his crime, with the refs legs either side of the shot.

He had an excellent view.

Ah feck. His shoes were there so he was watching? Or maybe was looking at something else and missed the incident?

You would have to presume that he was concentrating on the game, where the ball is and the majority of the players. He was penalising England for collapsing the maul in question, which would also prove that he was looking at the incident in detail.

Though as I have said a number of times on this thread he was an awful referee, who had little positive impact on the breakdown throughout the game.

"Referee needs glasses shocker?" It has been said before.

If refs were all seeing omnipotent beings there would be no need for any commissioners. They saw stuff in replay the ref plainly missed.

gregortree wrote:If refs were all seeing omnipotent beings there would be no need for any commissioners. They saw stuff in replay the ref plainly missed.

Did you see what Healy did before it was re-played in slow motion?

If a tree falls on a bear with nobody there to see it does it make a noise?

Glas a du wrote:If a tree falls on a bear with nobody there to see it does it make a noise?

The bear? I reckon so

Buy how does the Pope know?

Maes, no I did not see it real time either.
PS: I don't blame the ref here. They cannot catch everything, hence the commissioners.

gregortree wrote:Maes, no.

It looked very shocking when the replayed it, especially at halftime from several angles.

If a TMO were to watch and intervene, I am not sure that he would actually make too much difference. The Camera filming the game was in no position to capture what happened, the replays from other angles did.

As it happened live, the referee was the man who could see the incident the clearest.

Was the referee at the hearing to give judgement on why he did or didn't pass judgement on the incident? He is prime witness and adjudicator at the game.

All the ref has to do is glance along the line to look for offside in the backs and he misses the stamp. You see refs do this all the time.

maestegmafia wrote:

gregortree wrote:Maes, no.

It looked very shocking when the replayed it, especially at halftime from several angles.

If a TMO were to watch and intervene, I am not sure that he would actually make too much difference. The Camera filming the game was in no position to capture what happened, the replays from other angles did.

As it happened live, the referee was the man who could see the incident the clearest.

Was the referee at the hearing to give judgement on why he did or didn't pass judgement on the incident? He is prime witness and adjudicator at the game.

Maes, I have no idea. Like when I played, shut up and go with the ref. Nowadays there is the added process of citing. I never felt competent to second guess refs and later commissioners and I don't armchair them now.

maestegmafia wrote:

gregortree wrote:If refs were all seeing omnipotent beings there would be no need for any commissioners. They saw stuff in replay the ref plainly missed.

Did you see what Healy did before it was re-played in slow motion?

I saw it live and thought "ooh was that a stamp?" . However the live viewing is obstructed by the players - so touch judge on that side was also obstructed. Garces is moving into position as the stamp is made and may not have a clear view. Whether he does or not is speculation from us all.

Two simple yes or no questions for you Maesteg.

Do you believe Healy was guilty of stamping?
Do you believe missing 2 6N matches was fair?

LT, you don't understand, Cole is guilty of being English and ankling the oppos studs and deliberately playing to get the oppo banned.

Are you gurning again gregor???

Isn't gurning what Les Dawson did?

gregortree wrote:LT, you don't understand, Cole is guilty of being English and ankling the oppos studs and deliberately playing to get the oppo banned.

No that isn't true or fair in this particular instance.

Though as he has insinuated I am stupid and called me evil on another thread, I am not expecting an answer to my questions.

Nah!

That was playing the piano badly!

Jousting with Maes's strange ideas Mrs P .
But as a Townie I leave the gurning to rustics who know how it is done.
I feel it is a Cornish thing, or it sounds like it should be.

Gosh, this thread has more legs than Cole has.

LondonTiger wrote:
Two simple yes or no questions for you Maesteg.

Do you believe Healy was guilty of stamping?
Do you believe missing 2 6N matches was fair?

Yes to the first and no to the second.

gregortree wrote:Gosh, this thread has more legs than Cole had.

Fixed....

This might help explain why the ref didn't see the stamp.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21466529



The "imagery" was just too good a description to pass up!

Just substitute "Referees" for "Radiologists".

Or, of course he might have glnced away for a moment to check the off side line.

Superimposing an image of a gorilla on all potential citings at the time of it happening would be a marvel of camera technology.

LondonTiger wrote:

gregortree wrote:LT, you don't understand, Cole is guilty of being English and ankling the oppos studs and deliberately playing to get the oppo banned.

No that isn't true or fair in this particular instance.

Though as he has insinuated I am stupid and called me evil on another thread, I am not expecting an answer to my questions.

I wouldn't worry mate. I think nearly every England fan on here has had a run in with him at one point in time or another, easier to just ignore his stirring then try to argue.

greytiger wrote:

Glas a du wrote:Chess, media studies, what next?

The medium is the message* Glas.

90-odd% of us weren't at the game. We have only the TV pictures to go on.
We accept them for try decisions and shenanigans as well as moments of joy and despair.

* Woody Allen / Annie Hall / marshall mcluhan scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE

Excellent!

Gibson wrote:

greytiger wrote:

Glas a du wrote:Chess, media studies, what next?

The medium is the message* Glas.

90-odd% of us weren't at the game. We have only the TV pictures to go on.
We accept them for try decisions and shenanigans as well as moments of joy and despair.

* Woody Allen / Annie Hall / marshall mcluhan scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE

Excellent!

I seem to remember Marshall Mcluhan saying you have "no conception" of my work. My student flat spent an entire term saying "no conception" about everything.
Mrs P, white is black. If I was an Irish Oscar Pistorius I'd want you in my corner.