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.

Jesus someone should tell Healy the biscuits arent there to be eaten....

Glas a du wrote:Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread...

Are you implying that Healy is no angel?

He's only just realised that when someone said "the ginger snaps", they were offering him a biscuit.

Just hope he doesn't spy a ginger-bread-man on the floor - imagine the carnage.

Crumbs! Stupid thing shouldn't have been lying there.

doctor_grey wrote:That would be us..............

Doc, don't go and put your foot in it now.

Interesting that there hasnt been much comment on this tackle in the under 20s match:

http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/02/3009/seven-week-suspension-for-dangerous-tip-tackle-in-u20-six-nations

One of the worst tackles/clear outs I have seen in a while. Doubt anyone will be appealing the ban on that one.

This appealing business annoys me, a judgement has been made, deal with it.
Appeals should be stamped out, hopefully the panel will come down hard for wasting their time.

Common sense has prevailed on this one. If they wanted to give him a 4 week ban then that's what the should have given him.

GunsGerms wrote:Interesting that there hasnt been much comment on this tackle in the under 20s match:

http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/02/3009/seven-week-suspension-for-dangerous-tip-tackle-in-u20-six-nations

One of the worst tackles/clear outs I have seen in a while. Doubt anyone will be appealing the ban on that one.

GG or the Nic de Luca tip that has just been given a 13 week suspension!!

GunsGerms wrote:Interesting that there hasnt been much comment on this tackle in the under 20s match:

http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/02/3009/seven-week-suspension-for-dangerous-tip-tackle-in-u20-six-nations

One of the worst tackles/clear outs I have seen in a while. Doubt anyone will be appealing the ban on that one.

What are the odds if he were Irish, though?

The most shocking thing about this one is that Nick de Luca actually managed to tackle someone at all http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/02/3028/edinburghs-nick-de-luca-flips-tom-grabham-in-dangerous-tackle

Possibly even worse than the U20s one....has the ban been announced yet?

Bathman_in_London wrote:This appealing business annoys me, a judgement has been made, deal with it.
Appeals should be stamped out, hopefully the panel will come down hard for wasting their time.

I think you are missing the point of the appeal. Basically it is unprecedented for a ban to start a week after the incident. The reason it did in this case is because the panel decided that Healy wouldnt be made available to play v Leinster anyway so it wouldnt count as a missed match. This is not for them to decide though as they dont normally do this with other bans. So why should Healy's ban be any different than anyone elses? Thats the reason for the appeal. In general yes you should take the ban and move on though.

Bathman_in_London wrote:This appealing business annoys me, a judgement has been made, deal with it.
Appeals should be stamped out, hopefully the panel will come down hard for wasting their time.

Anyone who faces disciplinary action is entitled to appeal the decision granted. This is the same if someone is on trial in court or if they face disciplinary action in the workplace.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Interesting that there hasnt been much comment on this tackle in the under 20s match:

http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/02/3009/seven-week-suspension-for-dangerous-tip-tackle-in-u20-six-nations

One of the worst tackles/clear outs I have seen in a while. Doubt anyone will be appealing the ban on that one.

What are the odds if he were Irish, though?

Irish players dont tackle like that so its a moot point. Shades of Bradley Davies.

Ouch the NDL one is bad.

GunsGerms wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:This appealing business annoys me, a judgement has been made, deal with it.
Appeals should be stamped out, hopefully the panel will come down hard for wasting their time.

I think you are missing the point of the appeal. Basically it is unprecedented for a ban to start a week after the incident. The reason it did in this case is because the panel decided that Healy wouldnt be made available to play v Leinster anyway so it wouldnt count as a missed match. This is not for them to decide though as they dont normally do this with other bans. So why should Healy's ban be any different than anyone elses? Thats the reason for the appeal. In general yes you should take the ban and move on though.

There are members of yet undiscovered tribes deep in the Amazonian basin who knew Healy wouldn't be turning out for Leinster.

GunsGerms wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:This appealing business annoys me, a judgement has been made, deal with it.
Appeals should be stamped out, hopefully the panel will come down hard for wasting their time.

I think you are missing the point of the appeal. Basically it is unprecedented for a ban to start a week after the incident. The reason it did in this case is because the panel decided that Healy wouldnt be made available to play v Leinster anyway so it wouldnt count as a missed match. This is not for them to decide though as they dont normally do this with other bans. So why should Healy's ban be any different than anyone elses? Thats the reason for the appeal. In general yes you should take the ban and move on though.

I take it my way of working in a few more unfunny jokes was missed...

But anyway on the serious topic, the reasoning makes sense to me, but as its unprecedented I can see why its being queried. But in general appeals should be for new evidence I think rather than just having a go to see if you get a lenient panel second time around.

Since when were players banned on a match basis anyway? I thought it was always in terms of weeks?

JmD wrote:Since when were players banned on a match basis anyway? I thought it was always in terms of weeks?

hopefully we're going to be moving towards match bans instead of weeks. makes a lot more sense.

They are. But the regulations for 6 nations bans were changed this year to allow the start date to be differed to avoid rest weeks after it was pointed out that one week bans could be pointless and meet some of the criticism levelled at the "weeks" system. The same problem wouldve occured with a games ban, if he'd been given 3 games how do we decide which games he wouldve played in? What if Ireland claimed he'd turn out for the wolfhounds, his club, his province and the local church team? If you ban him for X internationals that means he could be playing for his province the week after eating a players face or something.
Theres no simple answer.

well they won the appeal.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_8527877,00.html

Well, with the appeal being successful, Healy was effectively banned for 1 match,

So he got away with eating the biscuits as well? Jesus

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:So he got away with eating the biscuits as well? Jesus

He was too full to eat the hearing biscuits.

The whole thing has been a farce, same with Andrew Hore

Can you imagine just how apoplectic with rage GG/AWOP would have gotten. He would have compared this with Adam Thomson and Andrew Hore and screamed how this proves there is an anti NZ bias to the whole disciplinary thing.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:This appealing business annoys me, a judgement has been made, deal with it.
Appeals should be stamped out, hopefully the panel will come down hard for wasting their time.

I think you are missing the point of the appeal. Basically it is unprecedented for a ban to start a week after the incident. The reason it did in this case is because the panel decided that Healy wouldnt be made available to play v Leinster anyway so it wouldnt count as a missed match. This is not for them to decide though as they dont normally do this with other bans. So why should Healy's ban be any different than anyone elses? Thats the reason for the appeal. In general yes you should take the ban and move on though.

There are members of yet undiscovered tribes deep in the Amazonian basin who knew Healy wouldn't be turning out for Leinster.

Actually it's entirely at the discretion of the IRFU. So yes- we know that if he was set-up to play for Ireland against Scotland he wouldn't play for Leinster and thats a certainty. But as soon as it became clear he'd be banned for that match, suddenly it makes sense for him to go and get gametime given he's about to have three weeks off. So he became available.

In making their judgement, the disciplinary panel changed the conditions they made their judgment on. He was available for Leinster as a result of the ban making him unavailable for the subsequent matches, when that ban was postdated as a result of them erroneously assuming he wouldn't be available.

They messed it up. All they needed to do was say four weeks and none of this ever happens. Certainly no-one could have had any fault with four weeks. Once they said three weeks, they were bound to it. Postdating or no postdating. The blame for this doesn't lie with Healy or the IRFU. It lies entirely with the disciplinary panel.

I'd also say appeals are important as a matter of process. This is a loophole in the disciplinary process and the outcome of this appeal is that loophole will most likely be closed.

nathan wrote:

JmD wrote:Since when were players banned on a match basis anyway? I thought it was always in terms of weeks?

hopefully we're going to be moving towards match bans instead of weeks. makes a lot more sense.

Agreed, but that raises the same issue. It has to be all matches they are eligible for regardless of whether or not they will be released as they could be released at the discretion of their national side- or we move towards competition-specific bans.

i.e. Five Pro12 matches, 3 test matches etc.

Notch wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:This appealing business annoys me, a judgement has been made, deal with it.
Appeals should be stamped out, hopefully the panel will come down hard for wasting their time.

I think you are missing the point of the appeal. Basically it is unprecedented for a ban to start a week after the incident. The reason it did in this case is because the panel decided that Healy wouldnt be made available to play v Leinster anyway so it wouldnt count as a missed match. This is not for them to decide though as they dont normally do this with other bans. So why should Healy's ban be any different than anyone elses? Thats the reason for the appeal. In general yes you should take the ban and move on though.

There are members of yet undiscovered tribes deep in the Amazonian basin who knew Healy wouldn't be turning out for Leinster.

Actually it's entirely at the discretion of the IRFU. So yes- we know that if he was set-up to play for Ireland against Scotland he wouldn't play for Leinster and thats a certainty. But as soon as it became clear he'd be banned for that match, suddenly it makes sense for him to go and get gametime given he's about to have three weeks off. So he became available.

In making their judgement, the disciplinary panel changed the conditions they made their judgment on. He was available for Leinster as a result of the ban making him unavailable for the subsequent matches, when that ban was postdated as a result of them erroneously assuming he wouldn't be available.

They messed it up. All they needed to do was say four weeks and none of this ever happens. Certainly no-one could have had any fault with four weeks. Once they said three weeks, they were bound to it. Postdating or no postdating. The blame for this doesn't lie with Healy or the IRFU. It lies entirely with the disciplinary panel.

I'd also say appeals are important as a matter of process. This is a loophole in the disciplinary process and the outcome of this appeal is that loophole will most likely be closed.

The panel didn't change those conditions, though - they applied the conditions of the relevant clause, saying that he is not permitted to play in the game that he was originally not available for.. Presumably, that clause was drafted to avoid coaches/management squirming out of a ban. I have no idea how the appeal panel have come to their conclusion, but I suspect weasel-words amongst legalistic <phrase deleted>s has something to do with it. By my non-legalistic reading of the clause it seems straightforward, I can't see any loopholes.

The end result is Healy cops a one game ban for a mid-range stamp - not his fault, he's lucky on so many levels. IRFU are culpable, though. Integrity should be an important part of the disciplinary process, and they have shown precious little of it.

If you think the IRFU have shown little integrity then I'm not sure you understand the reason behind the appeal.

If for example a French player on the same day committed the same offense as Healy in their match v Wales and got the same three week ban but the ban started the day after the match because it is assumed that all French players play for their clubs on the rest weekends. The net result would have been that French player would be back for the game v Ireland and Healy wouldn't have because it is assumed he wont have to play for Leinster. It makes no sense, why wouldn't you appeal it?

It cant be one rule for Irish players and another for everyone else.

I guess this is a step backwards.

The French player would have missed 3 games, Healy would have missed two, and now just one - does that make sense? One rule for Irish and another for everyone else - yep, that's what this judgement seems to affirm.

"The panel didn't change those conditions, though - they applied the conditions of the relevant clause, saying that he is not permitted to play in the game that he was originally not available for.. Presumably, that clause was drafted to avoid coaches/management squirming out of a ban. I have no idea how the appeal panel have come to their conclusion, but I suspect weasel-words amongst legalistic <phrase deleted>s has something to do with it. By my non-legalistic reading of the clause it seems straightforward, I can't see any loopholes.

The end result is Healy cops a one game ban for a mid-range stamp - not his fault, he's lucky on so many levels. IRFU are culpable, though. Integrity should be an important part of the disciplinary process, and they have shown precious little of it." - Dubbelyew L Overate

The IRFU were right to challenge. Not on the grounds that Healy was any less deserving of his due punishment, but on the grounds that the ruling wasn't permissible as it was in breach of their own regulations.
Of course, boot on the other foot, RFU would never have appealed

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:The French player would have missed 3 games, Healy would have missed two, and now just one - does that make sense? One rule for Irish and another for everyone else - yep, that's what this judgement seems to affirm.

No that clearly doesn't make any sense at all. So what your're saying is that Healy should have started in the Leinster match two weekends ago because his ban hadn't started yet. That would be farcical, you are either banned or you're not, yet the French guy could not play for his club because his ban had already started but he can play for France this week cause his ban started earlier. Effectively the French man gets to play in more International matches.

Your logic is all over the place.

No, the logic is fine - the sanction is against the player, not his club/province/nation. Is a one game ban the appropriate sanction?

Munchkin,
RFU do not have a history of frivolous appeals.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:No, the logic is fine - the sanction is against the player, not his club/province/nation. Is a one game ban the appropriate sanction?

Munchkin,
RFU do not have a history of frivolous appeals.

Yeah ban the player of course but the ban has to be the same for all players and not based on assumptions.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:No, the logic is fine - the sanction is against the player, not his club/province/nation. Is a one game ban the appropriate sanction?

Munchkin,
RFU do not have a history of frivolous appeals.

And IRFU does? Care to show?

How many players get a one game ban for a 3 week sanction - most other times in the season it would be 3 games or perhaps 2, whether he's Irish, Italian or Icelandic, Healy's copped it lucky, and his sanction is much more lenient than most. His ban is not the same as "all players", both the original and the appealed.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:How many players get a one game ban for a 3 week sanction - most other times in the season it would be 3 games or perhaps 2, whether he's Irish, Italian or Icelandic, Healy's copped it lucky, and his sanction is much more lenient than most. His ban is not the same as "all players", both the original and the appealed.

Adam Thompson got a one week ban increased to a two week ban for stamping on Strokosh's head in the AIs. How have you quantified that Healy's ban is much more lenient than most?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:How many players get a one game ban for a 3 week sanction - most other times in the season it would be 3 games or perhaps 2, whether he's Irish, Italian or Icelandic, Healy's copped it lucky, and his sanction is much more lenient than most. His ban is not the same as "all players", both the original and the appealed.

It sounds more like you disagree with the concept of banning for set-numbers of weeks than the actual ban. Which I can sympathise with. How harsh the punishment is in practice is dependent on when it actually happens and thats the disadvantage with this system. He was lucky to get three, even luckier that the panel screwed this up and luckier still it was in the middle of the 6N not the start or end.

Apart from that, you're talking nonsense. It's not one rule for one party or anything like it. The rule is you get banned for a certain length of time regardless of how many games are in that time. It[s not a one-game ban it's not a two-game ban, it's not a three-game ban. It's a ban for all the rugby to be played within three weeks. The reason for the successful appeal is that they broke their own rules in trying to move the ban to where it would cause him to miss another test. And then compounded their own error by asking he not be played for Leinster... By the way, I agree he should have missed France. Four weeks would have been perfectly fair.

You really can't see any loopholes with "Ok, your ban starts on this date. But hold on, you're not allowed to play before the ban starts either."? Seriously?

Truth is, the IRFU could turn around tomorrow and say "Our policy of not releasing the first XV to their provinces is rescinded". Or it can be changed for individual reasons- i.e. Jackson is being released to play for Ulster this weekend to take the kicks. So you just can't base a decision on the perceived availability of players due to an internal policy. The decision to make players available is the IRFUs, they can theoretically play in any Pro12 game in the 6N.

They can guess that he might not be available but they can't know, and they instantly got burned when they guessed wrong.

Cian Healy - a name, along with OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorius, that will live in infamy.

The trick is in reading and understanding the words - "most" is not the same as"all" is particularly relevant.

Is the jury still out on whether Thomson or Healy's actions were worse?

Notch, I understand your argument but I don't agree. Yoiu say that the sanction is for a period of time, but I consider that the sanction is really for the number of games. I think that the intent for a number of games is undeniable but that may be a point of dispute.

The lack of loopholes - well, today's decision proves me wrong, but i refer again to legalistic weasel-words, and if I have to compare weasel-words against my own understanding, I'll be backing me.

The final result though, is that Healy copped a one game ban for a mid-range stamping offence. Is that fair, equtable and correct?

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Cian Healy - a name, along with OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorius, that will live in infamy.

Holy sh1t, I didn't realise Dan Cole was dead. That's awful, very good player would have made a good front row partner with Healy on the Lions tour.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Notch, I understand your argument but I don't agree. Yoiu say that the sanction is for a period of time, but I consider that the sanction is really for the number of games. I think that the intent for a number of games is undeniable but that may be a point of dispute.

The lack of loopholes - well, today's decision proves me wrong, but i refer again to legalistic weasel-words, and if I have to compare weasel-words against my own understanding, I'll be backing me.

The final result though, is that Healy copped a one game ban for a mid-range stamping offence. Is that fair, equtable and correct?

What 'weasel words' were these, DLO? Can you quote them?

Munchkin, if you haven't been exposed to the weasel-words of the legalistic """""s, count yourself lucky - it is a soul-destroying experience.

Notch wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:How many players get a one game ban for a 3 week sanction - most other times in the season it would be 3 games or perhaps 2, whether he's Irish, Italian or Icelandic, Healy's copped it lucky, and his sanction is much more lenient than most. His ban is not the same as "all players", both the original and the appealed.

It sounds more like you disagree with the concept of banning for set-numbers of weeks than the actual ban. Which I can sympathise with. How harsh the punishment is in practice is dependent on when it actually happens and thats the disadvantage with this system. He was lucky to get three, even luckier that the panel screwed this up and luckier still it was in the middle of the 6N not the start or end.

Apart from that, you're talking nonsense. It's not one rule for one party or anything like it. The rule is you get banned for a certain length of time regardless of how many games are in that time. It[s not a one-game ban it's not a two-game ban, it's not a three-game ban. It's a ban for all the rugby to be played within three weeks. The reason for the successful appeal is that they broke their own rules in trying to move the ban to where it would cause him to miss another test. And then compounded their own error by asking he not be played for Leinster... By the way, I agree he should have missed France. Four weeks would have been perfectly fair.

You really can't see any loopholes with "Ok, your ban starts on this date. But hold on, you're not allowed to play before the ban starts either."? Seriously?

Truth is, the IRFU could turn around tomorrow and say "Our policy of not releasing the first XV to their provinces is rescinded". Or it can be changed for individual reasons- i.e. Jackson is being released to play for Ulster this weekend to take the kicks. So you just can't base a decision on the perceived availability of players due to an internal policy. The decision to make players available is the IRFUs, they can theoretically play in any Pro12 game in the 6N.

They can guess that he might not be available but they can't know, and they instantly got burned when they guessed wrong.

Which is exactly the same logic that can be applied to "games ban". What if Healys club were to claim he was going to turn out for them? His Province? Hthe Barbarians? The Lions? How do we know what games he was going to play.
So OK we just make it for the competition he was banned in, so he can continue to play for his Province during the period hes banned from internationals? No no its for the next 3 6 nations games hes banned form all rugby ...err what if he got banned on the last game of the 6 nations, he cant play again till the end of the next one?
What if he signs up for a contarct in Japan over the summer to work off his games ban?

Theres as many flaws and loopholes in a games system as there is a weeks one.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Munchkin, if you haven't been exposed to the weasel-words of the legalistic """""s, count yourself lucky - it is a soul-destroying experience.

It wasn't about manipulating the system in order to have length of ban reduced, DLO. No 'weasel words' required. The committee blundered because they had no right according to the regulations, and no power, to impose that ban.
Any ban should not be counted in weeks, but in games. The committee should have simply imposed a 3 or 4 game ban beginning from time of offense. It isn't rocket science yet the citing commissions border on the farcical.

Munchkin wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Munchkin, if you haven't been exposed to the weasel-words of the legalistic """""s, count yourself lucky - it is a soul-destroying experience.

It wasn't about manipulating the system in order to have length of ban reduced, DLO. No 'weasel words' required. The committee blundered because they had no right according to the regulations, and no power, to impose that ban.
Any ban should not be counted in weeks, but in games. The committee should have simply imposed a 3 or 4 game ban beginning from time of offense. It isn't rocket science yet the citing commissions border on the farcical.

Except the advice you are giving them is to use a power they dont have