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.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

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

They have powers, but only within the confines of relevant regulations. Otherwise any ruling will be, and should be, legally challenged by appeal.

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.

Yes. Because we are the weavers of dreams... The openers of Pubs. so ye can learn to enjoy yerselves. The shaggers of yer wives an daughters to make this World a better place to live in ...

There has always been one rule for the Irish. We shook that one off, now we are reaping the Karma.

Ffawereeaw.

Where this panel really Ballsed up was when they said that Healy couldn't line out for Leinster the Saturday before the ban started. By doing that they were essentially banning him four weeks for what they termed a 3 week ban. The idiots should just have said the ban was 4 weeks and there wouldn't have been this opportunity

Standulstermen wrote:Where this panel really Ballsed up was when they said that Healy couldn't line out for Leinster the Saturday before the ban started. By doing that they were essentially banning him four weeks for what they termed a 3 week ban. The idiots should just have said the ban was 4 weeks and there wouldn't have been this opportunity

Ah but because they can reduce it for good behaviour*** they would have had to ban him for 8 weeks reduced to 4. That would then have been worth an appeal in its own right for an over draconian sentence.


*** I really wish they would just set a genuine minimum (reduce the current tariffs if needed) and increase sentence for severity and past bad behaviour.

LT

As I understand it any reduction in ban is discretionary. Good behaviour, pleading guilty etc.

Excellent decision. Hopefully this will open the door for the introduction of deliberate malicious stamping back into the game. This will then lead to allowing props to headbutt each other and for flankers and second rows to help out struggling props by punching their opposite numbers at scrum time and for hookers to kick second rows in the face. Proper concussive puncing when there is a flair up and the long lost but dearly missed 99.

It is discretionary - but it also becomes common practice. Heck pretty sure that Calum Clark got some time off.

If they just said - we assume you are a good, polite boy with clean nails etc - then set the minimum to 1 week, mid range to 3 and high end to 6 - and increrase as seen fit it woul dbe much more transparent.

Mind you expecting common sense from the officialdom is optimistic.

dragonbreath wrote:Excellent decision. Hopefully this will open the door for the introduction of deliberate malicious stamping back into the game. This will then lead to allowing props to headbutt each other and for flankers and second rows to help out struggling props by punching their opposite numbers at scrum time and for hookers to kick second rows in the face. Proper concussive puncing when there is a flair up and the long lost but dearly missed 99.

You missed the old practice of wearing shin pads at the back of the socks to protect calves from the sneaky stamp that used to happen.

Which reminds me, back before I "un-retired" I used to ref (20 years ago now!!) and first season got a lot of college and women's matches. For the women as well as the stud check you needed to check their nails as they could be quite vicious - and jewellery.

In one game a scrum collapsed and there was an enormous scream so I got them all up carefully and one prop (opposite side from me) was left on the ground sobbing. As she sat up I could see a circle of blood spreading on her chest. Turned out the flanker on the other team used to date her and knew she had a nipple ring. Had being the operative word!!!!

I was told afterwards that no, I was not allowed to extend the jewellery check to nipple rings.

Munchkin wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

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

They have powers, but only within the confines of relevant regulations. Otherwise any ruling will be, and should be, legally challenged by appeal.

17.19.10 Decisions on sanctions and suspensions imposed on Players under IRB Regulation 17
shall:
(a) be applied universally by Unions, Associations, Rugby Bodies and their
constituent bodies such that the Player may not play the Game (or any form
thereof) or be involved in any on-field Match day activities anywhere during the
period of suspension;
(b) not allow Players to avoid the full consequences of their actions by, for example,
playing in Matches prior to the commencement of their suspension, or playing in
Matches during a break in the suspension and/or serving their suspension during a
period of inconsequential pre-season and/or so-called friendly Matches;
(c) apply and be served when the Player is scheduled to play;
(d) be imposed until a stated date which should be fixed after taking into consideration
all playing consequences of such suspension; and
(e) be effective immediately (subject to 17.19.11(b)).

17.19.11 When imposing suspensions on Players under Regulation 17 Disciplinary Committees or
Judicial Officers shall comply with the requirements set out in Regulation 17.19.10 above.
In doing so Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers:
(a) must not suspend the effect of any sanction imposed;
(b) may defer the commencement of a suspension provided that the Player is not
scheduled to play (and will not be permitted to play) prior to the commencement
of the suspension;


They do (newly) have the power to delay the commencement of bans, the argument made by Healys team was that because they are "total rugby bans" they cant assume he wasnt going to play in a game ...that he didnt play in.

LondonTiger wrote:Which reminds me, back before I "un-retired" I used to ref (20 years ago now!!) and first season got a lot of college and women's matches. For the women as well as the stud check you needed to check their nails as they could be quite vicious - and jewellery.

In one game a scrum collapsed and there was an enormous scream so I got them all up carefully and one prop (opposite side from me) was left on the ground sobbing. As she sat up I could see a circle of blood spreading on her chest. Turned out the flanker on the other team used to date her and knew she had a nipple ring. Had being the operative word!!!!

I was told afterwards that no, I was not allowed to extend the jewellery check to nipple rings.

That's is a horrible story. Why am I turned on right now?

LondonTiger wrote:It is discretionary - but it also becomes common practice. Heck pretty sure that Calum Clark got some time off.

If they just said - we assume you are a good, polite boy with clean nails etc - then set the minimum to 1 week, mid range to 3 and high end to 6 - and increrase as seen fit it woul dbe much more transparent.

Mind you expecting common sense from the officialdom is optimistic.

Its not discretionary or common practise, its a defined clealry part of the regulations they have to follow:
17.19.5 Thereafter, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall identify any relevant offfield mitigating factors and determine if there are grounds for reducing the period of
suspension and subject to Regulations 17.19.6 and 17.19.7 the extent, if at all, by which
the period of suspension should be reduced. Mitigating factors include the following:
(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of culpability/wrong-doing by the
offending Player;
(b) the Player’s disciplinary record and/or good character;
(c) the youth and inexperience of the Player;
(d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing;
(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his conduct to the victim Player
including the timing of such remorse; and
(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial
Officer considers relevant and appropriate.


17.19.6 Subject to Regulations 17.19.7 and 17.19.8, for acts of Foul Play the Disciplinary
Committee or Judicial Officer cannot apply a greater reduction than 50% of the relevant
entry point suspension. In assessing the percentage reduction applicable for mitigating
factors, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall start at 0% reduction and
apply the amount, if any, to be allowed as mitigation up to the maximum 50% reduction

PSW

I would argue that your post shows that any reduction is at the discretion of the Disciplinary Comittee or Judicial Officer but that they have to look at the outlined mitigation factors.

So they have to look at whether they will apply a reduction - it is their discretion to apply a reduction of between 0% and 50%.

Sure as with applying the ban in the first place. just the tone of your prior post suggested that this was somehow something commissioners were deciding to do of their own accord and picked and chose when to apply it.
The regulations apply (in theory at least) equally in all cases, and the reports have to list and justify the reasons for giving or not giving reductions according to these criteria.

A lot of people give the impression they think this is all done on whim. It isnt. Theres a defined and transparent process.

There was no reduction in this case correct? The ban was just backdated to the correct date, yes?

Not sure what sort of message this farce is sending out to young kids playing the game. Exploiting loopholes to exploit the ethics of the game!

The original ban of 5(?) weeks cut to 3 for good behaviour was not changed.
The decision to delay the start was overturned.

With standard procedures, Healy would not have been made available for Leinster for either "off" weekend, so while technically he missed 3 matches, he really only missed 1 match that he would have actually played in. However the comittee cannot take an abitrary view as to what games a player would actually be available for halfway through a season.

So in the end the letter of the law has been followed, whether justice has been done depends upon your own viewpoint.

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Not sure what sort of message this farce is sending out to young kids playing the game. Exploiting loopholes to exploit the ethics of the game!

The message is that equal treatment is ok to pursue.

What kind of message does this tackle send out in the Ireland v England under 20s match:

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

RFU clearly have their own issues to deal with.

GunsGerms wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Not sure what sort of message this farce is sending out to young kids playing the game. Exploiting loopholes to exploit the ethics of the game!

The message is that equal treatment is ok to pursue.

What kind of message does this tackle send out in the Ireland v England under 20s match:

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

RFU clearly have their own issues to deal with.

Are you saying 7 weeks ban was too short?

I'm just glad England won.

GunsGerms wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Not sure what sort of message this farce is sending out to young kids playing the game. Exploiting loopholes to exploit the ethics of the game!

The message is that equal treatment is ok to pursue.

What kind of message does this tackle send out in the Ireland v England under 20s match:

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

RFU clearly have their own issues to deal with.

Is he trying to appeal his ban, or use a loophole to get it reduced???? If so I'd say the same thing, I'm not getting all nationalistic about this, I just don't want to see thuggery gradually accepted in the game.

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Not sure what sort of message this farce is sending out to young kids playing the game. Exploiting loopholes to exploit the ethics of the game!

The message is that equal treatment is ok to pursue.

What kind of message does this tackle send out in the Ireland v England under 20s match:

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

RFU clearly have their own issues to deal with.

Are you saying 7 weeks ban was too short?

No

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Not sure what sort of message this farce is sending out to young kids playing the game. Exploiting loopholes to exploit the ethics of the game!

The message is that equal treatment is ok to pursue.

What kind of message does this tackle send out in the Ireland v England under 20s match:

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

RFU clearly have their own issues to deal with.

Is he trying to appeal his ban, or use a loophole to get it reduced???? If so I'd say the same thing, I'm not getting all nationalistic about this, I just don't want to see thuggery gradually accepted in the game.

Ill spell it out for you so you understand it. Nobody had their ban reduced on appeal. No legal loop holes were used. If you fear thuggery then look no further than your own under 20s team and indeed in your own international team.

Tuilagi - cited numerous occasions
Ashton- cited numerous occasions
Hartley - one of the worst discipline records in international rugby
Care - arrested on numerous occasions

Healy by contrast has one citing. Wow.

GunsGerms wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Not sure what sort of message this farce is sending out to young kids playing the game. Exploiting loopholes to exploit the ethics of the game!

The message is that equal treatment is ok to pursue.

What kind of message does this tackle send out in the Ireland v England under 20s match:

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

RFU clearly have their own issues to deal with.

Is he trying to appeal his ban, or use a loophole to get it reduced???? If so I'd say the same thing, I'm not getting all nationalistic about this, I just don't want to see thuggery gradually accepted in the game.

Ill spell it out for you so you understand it. Nobody had their ban reduced on appeal. No legal loop holes were used. If you fear thuggery then look no further than your own under 20s team and indeed in your own international team.

Tuilagi - cited numerous occasions
Ashton- cited numerous occasions
Hartley - one of the worst discipline records in international rugby
Care - arrested on numerous occasions

Healy by contrast has one citing. Wow.

Not sure this sort of forum is the best place to work through your issues and I am certainly not qualified to do so. So as I stated previously and failed to follow through, I shall ignore your post until a time that I see your anger problems have been dealt with.

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:
Not sure this sort of forum is the best place to work through your issues and I am certainly not qualified to do so. So as I stated previously and failed to follow through, I shall ignore your post until a time that I see your anger problems have been dealt with.

I'm not sure you are qualified to offer anything at all to be honest. Anyone know if its possible to block certain posters?

GunsGerms wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Not sure what sort of message this farce is sending out to young kids playing the game. Exploiting loopholes to exploit the ethics of the game!

The message is that equal treatment is ok to pursue.

What kind of message does this tackle send out in the Ireland v England under 20s match:

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

RFU clearly have their own issues to deal with.

I think it sends the message that if you act like a thug you can expect to punished big time. It probably cost England the game, as he was red carded and as a result they played with 14 for an hour and still only lost by 1 point. It could also cost them the championship as well (depending on results in the next couple of rounds) as they have won both their other games. As it stands they are behind Wales, but would be top of the table if they'd won that match. And on top of all that he faces a couple of months on the sidelines. Seems to me like the officials on the day and afterwards took it seriously and dealth with it appropriately - and that both he and the squad will suffer for it.

Big wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Not sure what sort of message this farce is sending out to young kids playing the game. Exploiting loopholes to exploit the ethics of the game!

The message is that equal treatment is ok to pursue.

What kind of message does this tackle send out in the Ireland v England under 20s match:

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

RFU clearly have their own issues to deal with.

I think it sends the message that if you act like a thug you can expect to punished big time. It probably cost England the game, as he was red carded and as a result they played with 14 for an hour and still only lost by 1 point. It could also cost them the championship as well (depending on results in the next couple of rounds) as they have won both their other games. As it stands they are behind Wales, but would be top of the table if they'd won that match. And on top of all that he faces a couple of months on the sidelines. Seems to me like the officials on the day and afterwards took it seriously and dealth with it appropriately - and that both he and the squad will suffer for it.

Quite right too. Foul play and thuggery should be duly punished for the health of the game. It would appear that consistency is the next challenge for the games governing bodies to address.

I'm not at all sure what folks are getting exercised about? There is nothing wrong with the appeal, it is entirely legitimate. The farce is the length of the original ban and the failure of the 6Ns to appeal that it should have been longer. Healy is well within his rights imo, altho his self-congratulatory tweet was undoubtedly in v poor taste

Once again this merely highlights the need for the IRB to take a proper look at the whole disciplinary process

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:I'm not at all sure what folks are getting exercised about? There is nothing wrong with the appeal, it is entirely legitimate. The farce is the length of the original ban and the failure of the 6Ns to appeal that it should have been longer. Healy is well within his rights imo, altho his self-congratulatory tweet was undoubtedly in v poor taste

Once again this merely highlights the need for the IRB to take a proper look at the whole disciplinary process

They have. The ability to defer bans is one of recent updates to it

They also wanted to take direct control of the application for all matches, something the major Unions blocked. So instead we have people succesfuly appealing the intended application of the rules and the French just straight up ignoring them.

GunsGerms wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Which reminds me, back before I "un-retired" I used to ref (20 years ago now!!) and first season got a lot of college and women's matches. For the women as well as the stud check you needed to check their nails as they could be quite vicious - and jewellery.

In one game a scrum collapsed and there was an enormous scream so I got them all up carefully and one prop (opposite side from me) was left on the ground sobbing. As she sat up I could see a circle of blood spreading on her chest. Turned out the flanker on the other team used to date her and knew she had a nipple ring. Had being the operative word!!!!

I was told afterwards that no, I was not allowed to extend the jewellery check to nipple rings.

That's is a horrible story. Why am I turned on right now?

I don't agree with all this reduction of bans stuff for good past behaviour or saying sorry after the event etc. There should be a minimum length imposed for any ban and thats it. If they transgress again after then the length of ban can be increased.

I don't understand why they can't move to something more sensible with some simple ORing

3 weeks OR 3 games, whichever is longer.

cakeordeath wrote:I don't understand why they can't move to something more sensible with some simple ORing

3 weeks OR 3 games, whichever is longer.

No doubt lots will not agree with me but I think that bans should be for matches and I think the ban should only be at the same level within which the act was comitted. In other words if you are cited during an International match you are only banned at International level and may play for your club.

I think not being able to play for your International side is punishment enough and playing with your club team has no effect on the outcome of the tournament in which you were found guilty of comitting foul play.

Equally, not sure I understand why Parisse cannot play in the rest of the 6N for something he did outside the tournament. Doesnt make much sense to me. Feel free to disagree.

Guns,

I think it makes perfect sense. Competition bans are the way to go IMO.

All international test games where caps are awarded are covered as International.

All Amlin/Heineken Cup is treated as European.

League/Cup games are treated as Domestic.

For serious foul play a global ban can be given.

Let the punishment fit the crime. i.e. Healy gets a three game ban - can't play against Scotland, France and Italy. Could play for Leinster though. Parisse would be banned for 6 French league games for abusing a French referee in the French league but could play internationally.

Easy to manage and very transparent.

red_stag wrote:Guns,

I think it makes perfect sense. Competition bans are the way to go IMO.

All international test games where caps are awarded are covered as International.

All Amlin/Heineken Cup is treated as European.

League/Cup games are treated as Domestic.

For serious foul play a global ban can be given.

Let the punishment fit the crime. i.e. Healy gets a three game ban - can't play against Scotland, France and Italy. Could play for Leinster though. Parisse would be banned for 6 French league games for abusing a French referee in the French league but could play internationally.

Easy to manage and very transparent.

Thats about the gist of it. However, the global ban idea, isnt a bad idea but could be quite hard to manage. As the difference between getting one and not getting one is huge.

Err its exactly because they tried to use the new rules to fudge what amounts to a games ban that appeal was made.
The root problem of the issue is, how do you enforce a games ban when you dont know what games a player will or wont play? They latest changes are an attempt to do allow some flexibility where the weeks ban is a bit absurd. The complete facepalm is that they have been unable to enforce it thanks to some slick legal work.

On a competition ban how would you deal with the chap from the U20s who got a 7 week ban? Ban hime form the next 7 U20 matches? What about the guy who gets cited for say gouging Richie Mccaw in the world cup final *cough* ...wait 4 years to enforce the ban?
Is it appropriate that a player who is cited and banned is allowed to play in a different competition the next day.. potentially even against the injured party? I personaly don think so

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Err its exactly because they tried to use the new rules to fudge what amounts to a games ban that appeal was made.
The root problem of the issue is, how do you enforce a games ban when you dont know what games a player will or wont play? They latest changes are an attempt to do allow some flexibility where the weeks ban is a bit absurd. The complete facepalm is that they have been unable to enforce it thanks to some slick legal work.

On a competition ban how would you deal with the chap from the U20s who got a 7 week ban? Ban hime form the next 7 U20 matches? What about the guy who gets cited for say gouging Richie Mccaw in the world cup final *cough* ...wait 4 years to enforce the ban?
Is it appropriate that a player who is cited and banned is allowed to play in a different competition the next day.. potentially even against the injured party? I personaly don think so

Sorry Peter, when I said competion, re International matches I meant any international match.

LondonTiger wrote:Which reminds me, back before I "un-retired" I used to ref (20 years ago now!!) and first season got a lot of college and women's matches. For the women as well as the stud check you needed to check their nails as they could be quite vicious - and jewellery.

In one game a scrum collapsed and there was an enormous scream so I got them all up carefully and one prop (opposite side from me) was left on the ground sobbing. As she sat up I could see a circle of blood spreading on her chest. Turned out the flanker on the other team used to date her and knew she had a nipple ring. Had being the operative word!!!!

I was told afterwards that no, I was not allowed to extend the jewellery check to nipple rings.

Wow.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Err its exactly because they tried to use the new rules to fudge what amounts to a games ban that appeal was made.
The root problem of the issue is, how do you enforce a games ban when you dont know what games a player will or wont play? They latest changes are an attempt to do allow some flexibility where the weeks ban is a bit absurd. The complete facepalm is that they have been unable to enforce it thanks to some slick legal work.

It's not slick legal work, its stupid application. If they postdate the ban over a period when no games are happening fair enough but they postdated it for a weekend when a team Healy is employed by had a fixture. Thats just stupid.

I would go number of weeks (rather than games) If the ban was imposed at the end of the season (and so the ban would go into the summer rest period) then the number of weeks when they could not play was carried forward to the start of the season (not including pre-season games)
I expect there would be issues, or ways around it, as well

BristolDave wrote:I would go number of weeks (rather than games) If the ban was imposed at the end of the season (and so the ban would go into the summer rest period) then the number of weeks when they could not play was carried forward to the start of the season (not including pre-season games)
I expect there would be issues, or ways around it, as well

Indeed. Say a well-known Europe based South African or Argentinean player gets a longish ban for a major gouging offence- say a year- at the end of the season. He has a year left on his contract and this will rule him out of the entire next season. The ban is postdated to the start of next season. He agrees a mutual release from his contract with his European club to go and sign for a team in the Currie Cup to play over the Summer. He is then selected to play in the opening rounds of the Rugby Championship before his ban kicks in halfway through that tournament.

The thing is, this is part of it. Always a way round it and when you factor in the SH we have rugby all year round. You can't post-date bans unless you are willing for the player to play in the meantime. Where they slipped up wasn't in the postdating, it was in not allowing Healy to play versus Treviso. They instantly insured that the appeal would be successful when it became clear he could be picked without their intervention. It's been a humiliating mess for the panel.

If we're going to go for length of time- and I think it's wise to do this for consistency considering the higher end offences can be punished for years not weeks- it has to be length of time from the ban ensuing. There is professional rugby played somewhere in the world all year round. Postdating involves assumptions- not always as blatant as this case, but always there. Short-term loan moves are always possible.

Same with competition bans- I don't like it, because of the implications for longer offences. For a stamp it might be 5 test matches. For gouging it might be 40 test matches. 40 test matches is essentially your test career for a number of years but it means you're free to play club rugby right away. I don't think thats right. Whats more, should a player gouge someone in the Pro12 there would be nothing to stop them from playing Heineken Cup or Test rugby. I dislike that.

The problem rugby has is making the 90% of cases that involve shorter bans consistent with the rare cases that require long bans. Can't be one rule for lower end offences and one rule for higher end offences. And I think weeks and months from the date of the offence is the fairest way to do that.

Guns
I missed that one.
Didn't know Care had been arrested by the IRB or citing commission or police for a rugby offence ?

Obvious answers are to make the ban numbers of matches rather than weeks and to make the bans relevant to the player and the level of competition, thus Helay could be banned for the next three Ireland games but free to return to his province and play, Parisse would be free to play for Italy but banned from the Top 14, etc.
Equally a ban earned at any international game carries with you, so an eight game ban at U-20 on someone aged 19 years and 11 months would be enforced at B or international level if they progressed, and a ban earned while playing club rugby in South Africa would still apply if the player moved north at the end of their season.
Also the current system of previous conduct/did you have a nice suit on, etc. being taken into consideration should either be scrapped in favour of set terms for set offences or at least only applied to your first offence. One thing that I found rather interesting in the various biographies of players was that England take a QC on tour specifically for dealing with citings and disciplinary panels.

gregortree wrote:Guns
I missed that one.
Didn't know Care had been arrested by the IRB or citing commission or police for a rugby offence ?

I think that someone that has been arrested on numerous occasions would fit the profile of a thug. If you are going to respond to my comments please do so in the context of what I was responding to. Healy was branded a thug. All Im saying is when you have plenty of players in your own team with bigger dicipline issues it seems hypocritical to start hurling mud.

The problem with banning people only from the competition they offended in is they can just go and play in another competition.

Do it by tier so banned from just internationals you could get a situation like last season where Hartley is banned for biting Ferris - but only from internationals and two weeks later (if Saints had made the 1/4 finals of course) they meet again in a club match.

Attoub/Dupuy/Clark who all received long bans for foul play theoretcially would still be available for internationals.

any way the real issue is a lack of consistency in disciplinary comittees. IRB should set up and be responsible for running disciplinary hearings at the elite level.

LondonTiger wrote:The problem with banning people only from the competition they offended in is they can just go and play in another competition.

Do it by tier so banned from just internationals you could get a situation like last season where Hartley is banned for biting Ferris - but only from internationals and two weeks later (if Saints had made the 1/4 finals of course) they meet again in a club match.

Attoub/Dupuy/Clark who all received long bans for foul play theoretcially would still be available for internationals.

any way the real issue is a lack of consistency in disciplinary comittees. IRB should set up and be responsible for running disciplinary hearings at the elite level.

I dont see an issue in the two players meeting again in a different competition.

I just feel that if you are banned for foul play (and except for things like Ashton's 3 yellow cards in the season ban that is what they are done for) it should be from all forms of rugby - till the ban is served.

GunsGerms wrote:

gregortree wrote:Guns
I missed that one.
Didn't know Care had been arrested by the IRB or citing commission or police for a rugby offence ?

I think that someone that has been arrested on numerous occasions would fit the profile of a thug. If you are going to respond to my comments please do so in the context of what I was responding to. Healy was branded a thug. All Im saying is when you have plenty of players in your own team with bigger dicipline issues it seems hypocritical to start hurling mud.

I don't think Care was ever arrested officialy, but he was in trouble with the law.

It doesn't make him a thug though, you're just trying to wildly tar everyone with that brush to muddy the water.

Here are a few definitions of Thug:


thug
noun
1.
a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.
Origin:
1800–10; < Hindi thag literally, rogue, cheat

Related forms
thug·ger·y [thuhg-uh-ree] Show IPA , noun
thug·gish, adjective


1. thug

As Tupac defined it, a thug is someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life. A thug is NOT a gangster. Look up gangster and gangsta. Not even CLOSE, my friend.
"That boy ain't a gangsta, fo'sho'. Look at how he walks, he's a thug. life. That's the saddest face I've seen in all my life as a teen."

2. Thug

A vicious, violent piece of sh*t scumbag who deserves a good kicking. Lately has come to mean a self-pitying piece of sh*t scumbag who deserves a good kicking.

The reason you should never give someone like this an even break is because they wouldn't cut you any slack either. A thug is not, as wanksta rappers would make out, an innocent suviving in a tough world; a thug is a merciless, violent criminal who beats and kills for fun. It is not a state of being for anyone to aspire to.


I think Healy fits most of those examples

This is the best thread ever.

I looked away for a day and we're on about torn nipples, how Tupac would have defined Cian Healy and whether gouging Argentinans should get to go on gardening leave.

Top work, everyone . If ever a thread deserved to get to 900 posts, it's this one.

yappysnap wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

gregortree wrote:Guns
I missed that one.
Didn't know Care had been arrested by the IRB or citing commission or police for a rugby offence ?

I think that someone that has been arrested on numerous occasions would fit the profile of a thug. If you are going to respond to my comments please do so in the context of what I was responding to. Healy was branded a thug. All Im saying is when you have plenty of players in your own team with bigger dicipline issues it seems hypocritical to start hurling mud.

I don't think Care was ever arrested officialy, but he was in trouble with the law.

It doesn't make him a thug though, you're just trying to wildly tar everyone with that brush to muddy the water.

Not trying to tar anyone just relaying the facts. Care was recently arrested four times in the space of three months.

Danny Care has been questioned over alleged sexual assault. He was released on bail and subsequently acquitted.

He has been arrested for being drunk and disorderly. Cautioned by police.

Care has also been banned from driving for 16 months and fined £3,100 after being arrested for drink driving in the early hours of New Year's Day.

Think I would rather be guilty of one stamp in a rugby match than have that rap sheet. I think Care's behaviour has been much more reprehensable than anything Healy has done.

Outside of rugby Healy paints oil paintings and DJs. Thats about as thuggish and contraversial his behavious gets,.