POC gets off for kicking Kearney's head

Just announced that POC isn't going to get any sanction for the kick into Dave Kearney's head at the weekend.

Nobody believes that POC intended to kick Kearney but his action was clumsy bordering on the reckless and he should have been cited. Somehow if this wasn't a match between two Irish teams (Leinster were never going to cite POC)and was a HC match against a French or English team - and the citing officer wasn't Irish - he would have been cited. Still might have got off with a warning but somehow I think Paulie and Munster are very lucky that he's going to be there for the Clermont game.

Quiet the opposite if this wasnt a match between Munster and Leinster absolutely no issue would have been made of this.

Its been blown up beyond all proportion.

Even the title of the article suggests disappointment that he was not cited. I was talking to some balanced Leinster supporters this morning all, said it was clumsy but move on.

Bang on BlueMuff - some of the hysteria coming from Leinster fans is astonishing. I was half hoping he would be cited to clear it up. For the record, this is what the Citing Officials said:

The verdict achieved on examining the video footage was that O'Connell's shin came into contact with Kearney's head, but that his foot made contact with the ball, meaning the incident was not an insidious act of foul play.

BlueMuff wrote:Quiet the opposite if this wasnt a match between Munster and Leinster absolutely no issue would have been made of this.

Its been blown up beyond all proportion.

Even the title of the article suggests disappointment that he was not cited. I was talking to some balanced Leinster supporters this morning all, said it was clumsy but move on.

Nonesence, I don't think any fan of any team would be happy seeing one of their boys booted in the back of the head whilst on the deck, be it in a derby or in a match that nobody cared about. The truth is that if a player from your side is forced to leave the pitch on a stretcher due to the actions of an opposition player (accidental or not) you do tend to feel agrieved.

I think O'Connell was clumsy with the kick, however I do think that maybe a citing may have been in order. After all if you accidently take out someone in the air, or catch somone high etc, you still expect to be cited. Especially if you consider that spitting at someone is a 14 week ban, then kicking a man in the head whilst on the deck, even accidentally, should carry some for of punishment.

Wasn't the citing official from the IRFU? It smells of a whitewash. Obviously POC didn't mean to kick Kearney on the head, but intent is irrelevant to being cited but is relevant in terms of the punishment tariff. It was dangerous and clumsy and he should have been cited. Good news for him, his Lions chances and for Munster that he wasn't.

Obviously a fix to allow POC to tour with the Lions.

Down with this sort of thing.

Well if sexton only got 2 weeks for this deliberate kick to the head then the citing official got it right

https://youtu.be/9U227_GpgO0

Sexton is a well known psychopath. There's no excuse for POC getting up to these sorts of things.

oh no here we go again.

Paul OConnell got lucky just admit it its not that hard. Very wreckless and dangerous

Suppose Kearney should be cited for headbutting paulies foot.

I think he's very fortunate, it wasn't intentional but he probably should have copped a ban for recklessness. I remember a certain Neil Best getting a massive ban from Jeff Blackett despite Blackett accepting that Best had made accidental contact with the eye area.

dublin_dave wrote:
Suppose Kearney should be cited for headbutting paulies foot.

I didn't want to bring it up in case people thought I was biased!!!

Sin é wrote:Bang on BlueMuff - some of the hysteria coming from Leinster fans is astonishing. I was half hoping he would be cited to clear it up. For the record, this is what the Citing Officials said:

The verdict achieved on examining the video footage was that O'Connell's shin came into contact with Kearney's head, but that his foot made contact with the ball, meaning the incident was not an insidious act of foul play.

Seeing as you're such a statto you will have examples of this "hysteria" Any one I've heard of is far from hysterical.

Most of us are trying to balance our respect for Paulie against the fact that a player was "shinned" in the head causing him to be ruled out of playing for a few weeks. No one wants to see him miss the Clermont game, but you can't get off scot free for what was a reckless boot with no consideration for the player's safety.

Bod got 3 weeks for something far less dangerous causing him to miss out on a game we had v Ulster which would have seen us top the league, were it not for the gaping holes in our midfield defence.

How they decide to cite (my comments in bold).

17.14.2: Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall undertake an
assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct, which constitutes
the offending and categorise the offence as being at the lower end, mid
range or top end of the scale of seriousness in order to identify the
appropriate entry point for consideration of a particular incident(s) where
such incident(s) is expressly covered in Appendix 1. Such assessment of
the seriousness of the Player’s conduct shall be determined by reference to
the following features of offending:
(a) The offending was intentional, that is, committed intentionally or
deliberately; NO
(b) The offending was reckless, that is the Player knew (or should have
known) there was a risk of committing an act of Illegal and/or Foul
Play; NO
(c) The gravity of the Player’s actions in relation to the offence:
(i) Nature of actions, manner in which offence committed
including part of body used i.e. fist, elbow, knee or boot; NO. Shin not boot made contact
(ii) The existence of provocation and whether the Player acted in
retaliation and/or self-defence; NO
(d) The effect of the offending Player’s actions on the victim (i.e. extent
of injury, removal of Player from game);
(e) The effect of offending Player’s actions on the game;
(f) The vulnerability of victim Player including part of victim’s body
involved/affected, position of Player, ability to defend himself;
(g) The level of participation in the offending and level of premeditation;
(h) Whether the conduct of the offending Player was completed or
amounted to an attempt;
(i) Any other feature of the Player’s conduct which constitutes the
offending. NO

Sin é wrote:
(b) The offending was reckless, that is the Player knew (or should have
known) there was a risk of committing an act of Illegal and/or Foul
Play; NO

So now you are accusing Paulie of being stupid?

just confirms once again that Munster get preferential treatment from the IRFU.

Imagine if Cullen had of kicked Hurley, they'd have thrown the book at him.

I saw the incident, he clearly looked like he was going for the ball, if he thought that he saw an opportunity to GET the player as well only he will know, I would like to think that he genuinely was going for the ball because that is what it looked like to me.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:Bang on BlueMuff - some of the hysteria coming from Leinster fans is astonishing. I was half hoping he would be cited to clear it up. For the record, this is what the Citing Officials said:

The verdict achieved on examining the video footage was that O'Connell's shin came into contact with Kearney's head, but that his foot made contact with the ball, meaning the incident was not an insidious act of foul play.

Seeing as you're such a statto you will have examples of this "hysteria" Any one I've heard of is far from hysterical.

Most of us are trying to balance our respect for Paulie against the fact that a player was "shinned" in the head causing him to be ruled out of playing for a few weeks. No one wants to see him miss the Clermont game, but you can't get off scot free for what was a reckless boot with no consideration for the player's safety.

Bod got 3 weeks for something far less dangerous causing him to miss out on a game we had v Ulster which would have seen us top the league, were it not for the gaping holes in our midfield defence.

Well, one Leinster fan who posts a lot on that Whiff of Cordite (a favourite around these parts) blog posted:
Curates_Egg: "O'Connell had no place going in full force with the boot with a head between him and the ball. Shocking viewing and reflects very badly on him: dangerous and reckless is mild. He deserves a decent ban. Very sad, as last week he had pushed himself into Lions captaincy contention. Rabo citing notoriously political though."

He also said that POC should never be allowed captain Ireland again on other social media!

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Nonesence, I don't think any fan of any team would be happy seeing one of their boys booted in the back of the head whilst on the deck, be it in a derby or in a match that nobody cared about. The truth is that if a player from your side is forced to leave the pitch on a stretcher due to the actions of an opposition player (accidental or not) you do tend to feel agrieved.

For me the main thing is that it could have just as easily been a Munster player on the ground who got the boot. In that case, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

A player goes to kick the ball, unfortunately by complete accident another players head gets kicked by mistake. No action should be taken. This kind of thing could happen at any time on a rugby pitch.

rodders wrote:just confirms once again that Munster get preferential treatment from the IRFU.

Imagine if Cullen had of kicked Hurley, they'd have thrown the book at him.

We've been ignoring him using Kilcoyne's back as a jogging machine the other night

Kilcoyne was prone with his face in the ground and with his feet closest to ruck and Leo joined the ruck using Killer's back as a sort of red carpet!

Sin é wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:Bang on BlueMuff - some of the hysteria coming from Leinster fans is astonishing. I was half hoping he would be cited to clear it up. For the record, this is what the Citing Officials said:

The verdict achieved on examining the video footage was that O'Connell's shin came into contact with Kearney's head, but that his foot made contact with the ball, meaning the incident was not an insidious act of foul play.

Seeing as you're such a statto you will have examples of this "hysteria" Any one I've heard of is far from hysterical.

Most of us are trying to balance our respect for Paulie against the fact that a player was "shinned" in the head causing him to be ruled out of playing for a few weeks. No one wants to see him miss the Clermont game, but you can't get off scot free for what was a reckless boot with no consideration for the player's safety.

Bod got 3 weeks for something far less dangerous causing him to miss out on a game we had v Ulster which would have seen us top the league, were it not for the gaping holes in our midfield defence.

Well, one Leinster fan who posts a lot on that Whiff of Cordite (a favourite around these parts) blog posted:
Curates_Egg: "O'Connell had no place going in full force with the boot with a head between him and the ball. Shocking viewing and reflects very badly on him: dangerous and reckless is mild. He deserves a decent ban. Very sad, as last week he had pushed himself into Lions captaincy contention. Rabo citing notoriously political though."

He also said that POC should never be allowed captain Ireland again on other social media!

Jaysus! Get that man some valium and give him a few slaps round the head he is obviously hysterical!

And that's the worst one you could find?

LordDowlais wrote:I saw the incident, he clearly looked like he was going for the ball, if he thought that he saw an opportunity to GET the player as well only he will know, I would like to think that he genuinely was going for the ball because that is what it looked like to me.

According to the Citing Commissioner his foot got the ball and his shin hit Kearney's head. If it was intentional he would have got his head with his boot.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:Bang on BlueMuff - some of the hysteria coming from Leinster fans is astonishing. I was half hoping he would be cited to clear it up. For the record, this is what the Citing Officials said:

The verdict achieved on examining the video footage was that O'Connell's shin came into contact with Kearney's head, but that his foot made contact with the ball, meaning the incident was not an insidious act of foul play.

Seeing as you're such a statto you will have examples of this "hysteria" Any one I've heard of is far from hysterical.

Most of us are trying to balance our respect for Paulie against the fact that a player was "shinned" in the head causing him to be ruled out of playing for a few weeks. No one wants to see him miss the Clermont game, but you can't get off scot free for what was a reckless boot with no consideration for the player's safety.

Bod got 3 weeks for something far less dangerous causing him to miss out on a game we had v Ulster which would have seen us top the league, were it not for the gaping holes in our midfield defence.

Well, one Leinster fan who posts a lot on that Whiff of Cordite (a favourite around these parts) blog posted:
Curates_Egg: "O'Connell had no place going in full force with the boot with a head between him and the ball. Shocking viewing and reflects very badly on him: dangerous and reckless is mild. He deserves a decent ban. Very sad, as last week he had pushed himself into Lions captaincy contention. Rabo citing notoriously political though."

He also said that POC should never be allowed captain Ireland again on other social media!

Jaysus! Get that man some valium and give him a few slaps round the head he is obviously hysterical!

And that's the worst one you could find?

Check out thread on Leinsterfans & boards.ie

Got his tweet wrong about captaining Ireland - he reckons Rob won't be able to play with POC again!

Curates Egg ‏@curates_egg 14 Apr
don't see how Rob Kearney could play with POC as captain after this, for example. Over to citer now. Sad though

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:
(b) The offending was reckless, that is the Player knew (or should have
known) there was a risk of committing an act of Illegal and/or Foul
Play; NO

So now you are accusing Paulie of being stupid?

He 100% should have known, to say otherwise is grossly idiotic.
If that is one of the criteria for getting cited then he should have been although I am glad he was not

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/video-paul-oconnell-dave-kearney-kick-868990-Apr2013/

Shin? I amn't sure? Definitely lower than shin but not the toe of the foot either. Also he was a fair bit away from the ball, he hardly touched it really

Don't look at boards. Scanned Leinsterfans with my hysteria detector. Not a lot there.

Found this though which probably sums it up

Leinsterfans wrote:
Nobody has a vendetta against POC, he is probably the most-liked Munsterman among Leinster fans and I don't think anyone thinks that POC intended to kick Kearney in the head, but it was clearly a reckless and dangerous act. Kearney's head didn't come out of nowhere and POC had a clear view. A dangerous collision was highly foreseeable imo.

At a time when rugby is being viewed by the medical profession of dangerously trivialising head injuries, people have a right to be up in arms over this decision. Munster fans' gleeful sniggering towards Leinster fans' reaction is pitiful and ignorant.

Probably best if we leave it now as the incident is over.

Personally I am happy for Paulie and Munster, but think it reflects badly on the league. You can tell they looked through the Laws and tried to find a way round them rather than tried to apply them

Look at it this way - if Bakkies Botha, Jamie Cudmore, Brad Thorn, Nathan Hines had done this to any Irish player, we'd all by screaming blue murder about it.

As I said in the OP, nobody believes POC's action was deliberate, but it was reckless at the very least and should have been cited. Wagons being circled in the IRFU to make sure that POC can play against Clermont, Joe Schmidt can get the Ireland job without p1ssing off Munster, so the IRFU citing officer dutifully acts like the three monkeys - see no evil etc.

And just to refresh the memory, here's the clip

http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/04/3135/paul-oconnell-knocks-out-dave-kearney-with-clumsy-kick-to-the-head

If Leo did that, there would be uproar on the munstefans forum.

Leinster fans have been fairly well behaved for the most part.

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:
(b) The offending was reckless, that is the Player knew (or should have
known) there was a risk of committing an act of Illegal and/or Foul
Play; NO

So now you are accusing Paulie of being stupid?

He 100% should have known, to say otherwise is grossly idiotic.
If that is one of the criteria for getting cited then he should have been although I am glad he was not

What he should have done was just take the ball - he didn't need to hack it away. POC doesn't have the benefit of hindsight - its instinctive stuff here that happens in less than a second.

If it was his boot which made contact with his head, it might have been deemed reckless. His shin hit his head.

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:http://thescore.thejournal.ie/video-paul-oconnell-dave-kearney-kick-868990-Apr2013/

Shin? I amn't sure? Definitely lower than shin but not the toe of the foot either. Also he was a fair bit away from the ball, he hardly touched it really

The citing officer would have the benefit of a lot better technology (and probably several different angles) to see it and make the decision he did.

He stated that his foot kicked the ball and his shin hit Kearney's head.

By the way, the Leinster players (Boss) who would have been watching closely there tried to do a quick throw-in from the ball going out of play.

POC has a history of this sort of stuff, he did the same thing to O'Driscoll in an England v Ireland game in 09.

He obviously hates Leinster.

Sin é wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:http://thescore.thejournal.ie/video-paul-oconnell-dave-kearney-kick-868990-Apr2013/

Shin? I amn't sure? Definitely lower than shin but not the toe of the foot either. Also he was a fair bit away from the ball, he hardly touched it really

The citing officer would have the benefit of a lot better technology (and probably several different angles) to see it and make the decision he did.

He stated that his foot kicked the ball and his shin hit Kearney's head.

By the way, the Leinster players (Boss) who would have been watching closely there tried to do a quick throw-in from the ball going out of play.

What has that got to do with anything? Can we have some of your legendary mind reading insight please?

Saul Goodman wrote:

Sin é wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:http://thescore.thejournal.ie/video-paul-oconnell-dave-kearney-kick-868990-Apr2013/

Shin? I amn't sure? Definitely lower than shin but not the toe of the foot either. Also he was a fair bit away from the ball, he hardly touched it really

The citing officer would have the benefit of a lot better technology (and probably several different angles) to see it and make the decision he did.

He stated that his foot kicked the ball and his shin hit Kearney's head.

By the way, the Leinster players (Boss) who would have been watching closely there tried to do a quick throw-in from the ball going out of play.

What has that got to do with anything? Can we have some of your legendary mind reading insight please?

UNBELIEVABLE FIRST POST

good point that the citing officer would have much better tech than most of us though

Saul Goodman wrote:[
What has that got to do with anything? Can we have some of your legendary mind reading insight please?

That the players didn't see any 'recklessness' to get upset about and were not appealing for a penalty or cards for the POC incident. When play was stopped they started appealing for a penalty for Kearney being taken out in the air.

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:

Saul Goodman wrote:

Sin é wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:http://thescore.thejournal.ie/video-paul-oconnell-dave-kearney-kick-868990-Apr2013/

Shin? I amn't sure? Definitely lower than shin but not the toe of the foot either. Also he was a fair bit away from the ball, he hardly touched it really

The citing officer would have the benefit of a lot better technology (and probably several different angles) to see it and make the decision he did.

He stated that his foot kicked the ball and his shin hit Kearney's head.

By the way, the Leinster players (Boss) who would have been watching closely there tried to do a quick throw-in from the ball going out of play.

What has that got to do with anything? Can we have some of your legendary mind reading insight please?

UNBELIEVABLE FIRST POST

I wonder how he knows I'm legendary in these parts? Boyne, is that you?

Sin é wrote:

Saul Goodman wrote:[
What has that got to do with anything? Can we have some of your legendary mind reading insight please?

That the players didn't see any 'recklessness' to get upset about and were not appealing for a penalty or cards for the POC incident. When play was stopped they started appealing for a penalty for Kearney being taken out in the air.

Give it a rest. You are getting hysterical now. Nice cup of tea and breath deeply.

Not your old pal Boyne, was an occasional poster on the old 606 and use to post here under Feagh Mac Hugh ("curse and swear lord Kildare Feagh will do .....") but forgot my old password.

Anyway you really cant make assumptions on what players are thinking, how do you know Boss even saw the indecent/noted the gravity of it, and either way it adds little or no weight to your argument.

Boss is a decent no. 9 a neurologist he is not.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:Bang on BlueMuff - some of the hysteria coming from Leinster fans is astonishing. I was half hoping he would be cited to clear it up. For the record, this is what the Citing Officials said:

The verdict achieved on examining the video footage was that O'Connell's shin came into contact with Kearney's head, but that his foot made contact with the ball, meaning the incident was not an insidious act of foul play.

Seeing as you're such a statto you will have examples of this "hysteria" Any one I've heard of is far from hysterical.

Most of us are trying to balance our respect for Paulie against the fact that a player was "shinned" in the head causing him to be ruled out of playing for a few weeks. No one wants to see him miss the Clermont game, but you can't get off scot free for what was a reckless boot with no consideration for the player's safety.

Bod got 3 weeks for something far less dangerous causing him to miss out on a game we had v Ulster which would have seen us top the league, were it not for the gaping holes in our midfield defence.

Can't believe you are using the BOD incident and comparing it to this. It was not a like for like incident. BOD deliberately stamped on an opponents chest. He was looking at the player when he did it, he knew exactly what he was doing and it was a straight red. He received a 5 week ban reduced to 3 weeks.

Paulie kicked a ball that was entitled to be kicked in open play. He made contact with the ball. Unfortunately he also made contact with DK's head. This was a clear accident and could be seen by Paulie for his concern in going to see how DK was. The citing commissioner has reviewed this and deemed no offence occurred. Does anyone here play or have played rugby. This was a split second this, he kicked a ball that was on the deck. He was fully entitled to try and play the ball.

If all your hysteria here on banning POC for accidental contact with DK head. What ban should be have served as in 09 Sexton booted mafi in the face. This was a deliberate kick and he got 2 weeks.

Clonlad wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:Bang on BlueMuff - some of the hysteria coming from Leinster fans is astonishing. I was half hoping he would be cited to clear it up. For the record, this is what the Citing Officials said:

The verdict achieved on examining the video footage was that O'Connell's shin came into contact with Kearney's head, but that his foot made contact with the ball, meaning the incident was not an insidious act of foul play.

Seeing as you're such a statto you will have examples of this "hysteria" Any one I've heard of is far from hysterical.

Most of us are trying to balance our respect for Paulie against the fact that a player was "shinned" in the head causing him to be ruled out of playing for a few weeks. No one wants to see him miss the Clermont game, but you can't get off scot free for what was a reckless boot with no consideration for the player's safety.

Bod got 3 weeks for something far less dangerous causing him to miss out on a game we had v Ulster which would have seen us top the league, were it not for the gaping holes in our midfield defence.

Can't believe you are using the BOD incident and comparing it to this. It was not a like for like incident. BOD deliberately stamped on an opponents chest. He was looking at the player when he did it, he knew exactly what he was doing and it was a straight red. He received a 5 week ban reduced to 3 weeks.

Paulie kicked a ball that was entitled to be kicked in open play. He made contact with the ball. Unfortunately he also made contact with DK's head. This was a clear accident and could be seen by Paulie for his concern in going to see how DK was. The citing commissioner has reviewed this and deemed no offence occurred. Does anyone here play or have played rugby. This was a split second this, he kicked a ball that was on the deck. He was fully entitled to try and play the ball.

If all your hysteria here on banning POC for accidental contact with DK head. What ban should be have served as in 09 Sexton booted mafi in the face. This was a deliberate kick and he got 2 weeks.

That is the most hysterical line I have read on here today. I don't think anyone is looking for POC's head on a platter. He was lucky enough to get away with it, accept it and move on.

Clonlad wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Sin é wrote:Bang on BlueMuff - some of the hysteria coming from Leinster fans is astonishing. I was half hoping he would be cited to clear it up. For the record, this is what the Citing Officials said:

The verdict achieved on examining the video footage was that O'Connell's shin came into contact with Kearney's head, but that his foot made contact with the ball, meaning the incident was not an insidious act of foul play.

Seeing as you're such a statto you will have examples of this "hysteria" Any one I've heard of is far from hysterical.

Most of us are trying to balance our respect for Paulie against the fact that a player was "shinned" in the head causing him to be ruled out of playing for a few weeks. No one wants to see him miss the Clermont game, but you can't get off scot free for what was a reckless boot with no consideration for the player's safety.

Bod got 3 weeks for something far less dangerous causing him to miss out on a game we had v Ulster which would have seen us top the league, were it not for the gaping holes in our midfield defence.

Can't believe you are using the BOD incident and comparing it to this. It was not a like for like incident. BOD deliberately stamped on an opponents chest. He was looking at the player when he did it, he knew exactly what he was doing and it was a straight red. He received a 5 week ban reduced to 3 weeks.

Paulie kicked a ball that was entitled to be kicked in open play. He made contact with the ball. Unfortunately he also made contact with DK's head. This was a clear accident and could be seen by Paulie for his concern in going to see how DK was. The citing commissioner has reviewed this and deemed no offence occurred. Does anyone here play or have played rugby. This was a split second this, he kicked a ball that was on the deck. He was fully entitled to try and play the ball.

If all your hysteria here on banning POC for accidental contact with DK head. What ban should be have served as in 09 Sexton booted mafi in the face. This was a deliberate kick and he got 2 weeks.

Youse lads have the strangest definition of hysteria I have ever seen.
You probably call ordering a pint "having an epileptic fit" or something.

Bod barely "rested" his foot on that guy and if you have ever played rugby you have probably done a lot worse. I know I have.

From a technical pov it was perhaps worse, from an impact pov they were not in the same universe.

Anyway I wanted to leave this a few posts ago. So just let it die and stop being "Hysterical" yer like a bleeden aul wan.

Saul Goodman wrote:Not your old pal Boyne, was an occasional poster on the old 606 and use to post here under Feagh Mac Hugh ("curse and swear lord Kildare Feagh will do .....") but forgot my old password.

Anyway you really cant make assumptions on what players are thinking, how do you know Boss even saw the indecent/noted the gravity of it, and either way it adds little or no weight to your argument.

Boss is a decent no. 9 a neurologist he is not.

Welcome back. I'm glad my post prompted you to rejoin I hope the owners/mods realise I'm a bit of the local scenery here that gets people to join!

Boss was one of the players (along with BOD) closest to Kearney when it happened - about 2/3 feet away.

O'Connell was always going to get off. He got off went himself and Hayes decided to do a jig on Healy's face, Hayes copped the ban and O'Connell wasnt even mentioned. Was always going to be the case here too.

In any case in this situation Id like to think it was just a case of real clumsiness from POC.

GunsGerms wrote:O'Connell was always going to get off. He got off went himself and Hayes decided to do a jig on Healy's face, Hayes copped the ban and O'Connell wasnt even mentioned. Was always going to be the case here too.

In any case in this situation Id like to think it was just a case of real clumsiness from POC.

Get off what? There was no faul play.

You cant take all the credit, had a Bodeans for lunch (pulled pork and burnt ends with a few bevvies) so didn't feel like working this avo.

You are a merely distraction, a dalliance sweetheart.

Sin é wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:O'Connell was always going to get off. He got off went himself and Hayes decided to do a jig on Healy's face, Hayes copped the ban and O'Connell wasnt even mentioned. Was always going to be the case here too.

In any case in this situation Id like to think it was just a case of real clumsiness from POC.

Get off what? There was no faul play.

Whats faul play. Is that something only Paul O'Connell can do?

saul goodman. one of the most under rated tv characters ever.

paulie was lucky thats all im saying. i do not want him executed, kidnapped, banned for life etc.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:If Leo did that, there would be uproar on the munstefans forum.

Leinster fans have been fairly well behaved for the most part.

Actually, Leo had a hand in DOC's injury - he shoved Varley into DOC's back where DOC hurt his knee. Leo won a penalty for Leinster for obstruction.

Who would be cited in la-la land - Leo or Varley for injuring DOC and probably finishing his season for him?

I've not read the whole of this thread, but I will tell you right now POC is a very very lucky boy. What he did was reckless and dangerous in the extreme. He has not gone to kick a loose ball, he has gone to kick a ball that a prone player is trying to get back onto his own teams side and is being held next to his head. To go with the foot is reckless in the extreme, and had this been somebody like Dylan Hartley or any Pacific Islander there would be outcry and serious gnashing and wailing that he should be in the receiving end of a long ban.

Just saw the youtube video, if I was the citing officer I would have found him guilty of recklessness at least.

From theangle O'Connel is coming, Kearney's head is blocking the path to the ball.

Definitely reckless.

dublin_dave wrote:

paulie was lucky thats all im saying. i do not want him executed, kidnapped, banned for life etc.

I do........................................................................ kidnapped, executed and then banned for life (in that order) seems about the least that should have been done.