POC gets off for kicking Kearney's head

First topic message reminder :

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.

Biltong wrote: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.

If you were the citing officer you would have seen several angles and much better detail than a youtube video on a computer.

He was able to say that POC kicked the ball (that in fairness is obvious, because DK's injuries would have been a lot worse if Kearney's head moved as far and at the speed the ball moved).

It was POC shin that hit Kearney's head.
If you read the list of how they cite that I provided above, you will see how easy it was to come to that conclusion.

While Dave Kearney was the luckiest person in that he had no serious injury, the second luckiest was Leo Cullen who was downright dirty all night (from the very obvious dancing on Kilcoyne to his constant pulling and tugging jerseys and generally annoying carryon). All great though if you are a Leinster fan.

Good so now we have established that Kearney was the lucky one here! Did POC sent a letter to apologise?

whocares wrote:Good so now we have established that Kearney was the lucky one here! Did POC sent a letter to apologise?

If you saw the incident, you would know that POC was the first one over to apologise and check that he was ok.

You can see it from multiple angles here

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

from the second angle it looks awful.

nathan wrote:You can see it from multiple angles here

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

from the second angle it looks awful.

It may look bad, but its clear that he got the ball with his boot (Kearney's head is slighted raised from the ground as he is placing the ball), look how the ball bobbed out. Its also pretty clear that it was his shin that got Kearney's head.

You can't kick with your shin.

Sin é wrote:

nathan wrote:You can see it from multiple angles here

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

from the second angle it looks awful.

It may look bad, but its clear that he got the ball with his boot (Kearney's head is slighted raised from the ground as he is placing the ball), look how the ball bobbed out. Its also pretty clear that it was his shin that got Kearney's head.

You can't kick with your shin.

Tell that to Dave Kearney!

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Sin é wrote:

nathan wrote:You can see it from multiple angles here

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

from the second angle it looks awful.

It may look bad, but its clear that he got the ball with his boot (Kearney's head is slighted raised from the ground as he is placing the ball), look how the ball bobbed out. Its also pretty clear that it was his shin that got Kearney's head.

You can't kick with your shin.

Tell that to Dave Kearney!

Actually I tell a lie. There is a sport called shin-kicking (martial art).

You don't kick with your hands, you punch or box. With your foot, you kick.

Dave Kearney got a bang on the head from POC shin bone (and not a kick from his foot).

Sin

Irrespective of whether it was his foot or shin that made contact with the head, it is still dangerous play. How you fail to see that is beyond me to be honest. He has aimed a kick at a ball that is close to a prone players head and has made contact with that players head with his shin rendering the player unconscious. Reckless and dangerous and frankly he should have got a ban for it.

Has anyone heard how Kearney is?

Ozzy3213 wrote:Sin
Irrespective of whether it was his foot or shin that made contact with the head, it is still dangerous play. How you fail to see that is beyond me to be honest. He has aimed a kick at a ball that is close to a prone players head and has made contact with that players head with his shin rendering the player unconscious. Reckless and dangerous and frankly he should have got a ban for it.

I think it makes a huge difference whether it was his foot or shin which made contact with his head. By making contact with the ball it shows he was going for the ball so it was accidental.

The touch judge was about 2 feet away and he didn't see anything wrong with it. Lots of things happen - players regularly have to get themselves patched up because of accidents happening from what some would think, reckless behaviour.

There was an incident about 2 years ago when POC caught BOD with a knee to BOD's head (both on the same team). If you were to progress along the route you are suggesting, POC should have been cited for dangerous play because his knee hit BOD's head. The players would spend their time in front of citing committees.

The sanction for kicking an opponent is a penalty - not even a Card.

Now, if people are not happy to go along with these laws, they should petition the IRB about them.

MrsP wrote:Has anyone heard how Kearney is?

He tweeted on Sunday:

Dave Kearney ‏@kearney_dave 14 Apr
Thanks 2 everybody for their kind msgs of concern!Feeling a lot better today.Grt 2 get the win down in Thomond.serious support as per usual!

Thanks Sin. Good to hear he's doing okay.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Sin

Irrespective of whether it was his foot or shin that made contact with the head, it is still dangerous play. How you fail to see that is beyond me to be honest. He has aimed a kick at a ball that is close to a prone players head and has made contact with that players head with his shin rendering the player unconscious. Reckless and dangerous and frankly he should have got a ban for it.

I think there's a very real case for those who disagree. It was dangerous, but many things on a rugby pitch are. It was clumsy but he made contact with the ball- thats the key point. And its that point which exonerates him from all wrongdoing. It's unfortunate he also got the head, but lets be honest- if it was a Lions test and POC was in the exact same situation over again, we'd all be backing him 100% to flyhack the loose ball and disrupt the oppositions possession. It was the right thing to do in terms of the game and when he did it he had no intent of causing harm- he only saw the ball, thats all he's thinking of. So next time he goes onto a pitch if he's in the same situation- lets hope he does the same thing, because you need your players fully committed.

I can't see any merit whatsoever in punishing someone for playing rugby. He saw the ball and went to kick it. It was the right decision. Everything else is just Kearneys bad luck. I really hope he's okay, no-one likes to see injuries especially head injuries. But accidents happen on a rugby pitch. It is always going to be, on same level, a dangerous game and we can't remove risk from it without killing the essence of it.

I can think of two similar examples- Paddy Wallace getting concussed because he gets hit by Tom Courts knee as he joins a ruck in 2009, and Luke Marshall getting concussed this year because of a clash of heads with Paddy Jackson in midfield. Obviously no outcry over either of these accidents, probably because they were between teammates. But like this incident, they were pure accidents. I honestly think if O'Connell accidentally kicked a teammate in the head we wouldn't even talking about this. The only reason this non-incident has gotten the coverage it has is because it's a Munster player and a Leinster player involved. Sometimes a player accidentally causes an injury to another player. We have enough genuine disciplinary issues to sort out in the game without wasting everyones time on unfortunate accidents. Best wishes to Dave Kearney and let's move on to the next 'outrage'

Totally agree with Notch. He's looking at the ball. He's kicking at the ball. And you can even see his concern for DK straight after he shins his head. It was a complete accident. Why cite a player for a complete accident?

I'm a Leinster fan. And I was very concerned for Kearney when he was lying unconscious on the ground. But O'Connell didn't do anything malicious. He wasn't even trying to commit a foul play that went wrong. He was trying to hack the ball away in order to help his team win the rugby game.

Like Notch said, I've seen players get some nasty whacks in the head from their own team mates flailing limbs. It happens sometimes in rugby and it's just bad luck. I think the citing commisioner made the correct decision really.

As for the conspiracy theories about POC getting off because there's a big European game coming up? Dunno. Are there suspicions that that happens a lot?

I think the disappointing thing here is that it was decided that there was no case to answer. Should he have been cited? 100% yes. Should be have been banned? Well he would have to give his version of events to the citing commissioner and a decision could be reached when all the facts are available.

The fact that his shin hit DK and not the toe of his boot makes NO DIFFERENCE.

Maybe I'm just being HYSTERICAL! Or "clamouring" for blood though

I agree with Mickado here, the fact is taking a swing with your boot at a stationary player where you can see the danger in doing the kick so close to his head is reckless, no matter whether you want to excuse it or not.

It isn't a case of Kearney still moving and the swing at the time it was aimed was away from his head.

When a player lies stationary like that and you excuse the act because his shin hit the prone players head is nonsence.

Biltong wrote:I agree with Mickado here, the fact is taking a swing with your boot at a stationary player where you can see the danger in doing the kick so close to his head is reckless, no matter whether you want to excuse it or not.

It isn't a case of Kearney still moving and the swing at the time it was aimed was away from his head.

When a player lies stationary like that and you excuse the act because his shin hit the prone players head is nonsence.

+1

Complete accident, not even questioning his intentions.
However, when he went for the ball what were the chances he wasn't going to hit Kearney? Very, very slim. To kick the ball he had to kick Kearney.

That is my issue. Also there was a clear line of sight, he was not impeeded visually.

Finally, the ball hardly moved it bobbled in to to Touch, Kearney took the brunt of the force.

Again I refer to the man united Barcelona incident where a player got red carded for an unintentional but highly dangerous challenge. He was not cited afterwards.
That is what I think should have happened to Paul.

There is a huge difference between viscous, hard tackling that is safe and this. We want to see those big hits to keep the integrity of our game, but, this was not one of those. Accidental or otherwise.

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:

Biltong wrote:I agree with Mickado here, the fact is taking a swing with your boot at a stationary player where you can see the danger in doing the kick so close to his head is reckless, no matter whether you want to excuse it or not.

It isn't a case of Kearney still moving and the swing at the time it was aimed was away from his head.

When a player lies stationary like that and you excuse the act because his shin hit the prone players head is nonsence.

+1

Complete accident, not even questioning his intentions.
However, when he went for the ball what were the chances he wasn't going to hit Kearney? Very, very slim. To kick the ball he had to kick Kearney.

That is my issue. Also there was a clear line of sight, he was not impeeded visually.

Finally, the ball hardly moved it bobbled in to to Touch, Kearney took the brunt of the force.

Again I refer to the man united Barcelona incident where a player got red carded for an unintentional but highly dangerous challenge. He was not cited afterwards.
That is what I think should have happened to Paul.

There is a huge difference between viscous, hard tackling that is safe and this. We want to see those big hits to keep the integrity of our game, but, this was not one of those. Accidental or otherwise.

Agree and well put.

When I saw it the first time from the video clip provided earlier it reminded me of someone using the cue ball to strike one ball to enable the motion in another.

As you say the intention was not there to injure Kearney, but bloody reckless. I would have given him a ban.

It certainly does nothing for the reputation and integrity of the league that this didn’t even come in front of a citing commissioner. Whether or not the citing commissioner made a decision not to cite because Munster have a HC semifinal coming up is not the point, the point is that it could be perceived that way and it should have been nipped in the bud.

i think we all give sin (conor George) a shin in the head and see if he thinks its a kick or whether he is just ok with it

Mickado wrote:It certainly does nothing for the reputation and integrity of the league that this didn’t even come in front of a citing commissioner. Whether or not the citing commissioner made a decision not to cite because Munster have a HC semifinal coming up is not the point, the point is that it could be perceived that way and it should have been nipped in the bud.

Agreed. I don't think I'd have given him a ban, and if I did it would have been a very short one, but I think he deserved a card of some colour and what's more I think Paul would have accepted and understood it without question.
Yes it was a mistake, no it is not acceptable (or at least should not be acceptable).

"Careless, but not intentional and not an insidious act of foul play and therefore not a red card offence".

This is logical and I doubt many people would disagree. Therefore no citing required and no damage done to the league. These are the fact and the rules and I think we should all move on.

There are semi finals to be won....

Feckless Rogue wrote:Totally agree with Notch. He's looking at the ball. He's kicking at the ball. And you can even see his concern for DK straight after he shins his head. It was a complete accident. Why cite a player for a complete accident?

I'm a Leinster fan. And I was very concerned for Kearney when he was lying unconscious on the ground. But O'Connell didn't do anything malicious. He wasn't even trying to commit a foul play that went wrong. He was trying to hack the ball away in order to help his team win the rugby game.

Like Notch said, I've seen players get some nasty whacks in the head from their own team mates flailing limbs. It happens sometimes in rugby and it's just bad luck. I think the citing commisioner made the correct decision really.

As for the conspiracy theories about POC getting off because there's a big European game coming up? Dunno. Are there suspicions that that happens a lot?

As Mickado says - cite and let him give his version of events, you may assume right but your (and others) assumptions do not negate the need for due process.

"We're gonna give him a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging."

Just saw it and I'm sorry but anyone defending POC's actions as accidental are just deluded POC fans...

He has no obstruction of view, he sees the ball and Kearneys head in the same area and decides to kick out at both, it's not a kick out at his head, it isn't intended to injure, but it is intended to go through the head to get to the ball and thats bad enough IMHO!!!!

thebluesmancometh wrote:Just saw it and I'm sorry but anyone defending POC's actions as accidental are just deluded POC fans...

He has no obstruction of view, he sees the ball and Kearneys head in the same area and decides to kick out at both, it's not a kick out at his head, it isn't intended to injure, but it is intended to go through the head to get to the ball and thats bad enough IMHO!!!!

That's the key distinction for me. He knew that to kick the ball that he would be kicking Kearney and went for it.
That is not on and if that was a rule/law/widely acceptable I wouldn't want my kids playing rugby.

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:i think we all give sin (conor George) a shin in the head and see if he thinks its a kick or whether he is just ok with it

Sin É can spell and is over the age of 7. I think that means he is not mr George. I'd say he'd take that as a fairly big insult.

He does go to unreasonable lengths to defend Rog though....... Maybe he is George's big bro.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Just saw it and I'm sorry but anyone defending POC's actions as accidental are just deluded POC fans...

He has no obstruction of view, he sees the ball and Kearneys head in the same area and decides to kick out at both, it's not a kick out at his head, it isn't intended to injure, but it is intended to go through the head to get to the ball and thats bad enough IMHO!!!!

You are contradicting yourself or you think POC is really stupid. You claim he didn't intend to injure, but he decided that he wanted to kick the ball through Kearney's head (and could do that without injuring Kearney) ?

---

For those of you who think he should be cited but not punished or a short suspension, is it not time wasting as you have already decided he doesn't need to be suspended. Is that not worse suggesting that according to the Citing Officers, its ok to kick someone in the head?

As well as that, POC had to get himself bandaged up during the match - should the citing commissioner not be looking out for and punishing whoever gave POC a head injury.

Sin é wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:Just saw it and I'm sorry but anyone defending POC's actions as accidental are just deluded POC fans...

He has no obstruction of view, he sees the ball and Kearneys head in the same area and decides to kick out at both, it's not a kick out at his head, it isn't intended to injure, but it is intended to go through the head to get to the ball and thats bad enough IMHO!!!!

You are contradicting yourself or you think POC is really stupid. You claim he didn't intend to injure, but he decided that he wanted to kick the ball through Kearney's head (and could do that without injuring Kearney) ?

---

For those of you who think he should be cited but not punished or a short suspension, is it not time wasting as you have already decided he doesn't need to be suspended. Is that not worse suggesting that according to the Citing Officers, its ok to kick someone in the head?

As well as that, POC had to get himself bandaged up during the match - should the citing commissioner not be looking out for and punishing whoever gave POC a head injury.

That is a nonsensical comment, players do get injured dring matches, accidental head clashes during tackles, if you find any evidence that he recieved a boot, err sorry shin to the head, then yes, but it should have been cited already then, shouldn't it?

Biltong wrote:

Sin é wrote:
As well as that, POC had to get himself bandaged up during the match - should the citing commissioner not be looking out for and punishing whoever gave POC a head injury.

That is a nonsensical comment, players do get injured dring matches, accidental head clashes during tackles, if you find any evidence that he recieved a boot, err sorry shin to the head, then yes, but it should have been cited already then, shouldn't it?

Lots of accidental stuff happen in matches - head clashes, knee in the head, elbow in the ribs, studs on someones's legs !

You are going to have to go through the process of a citing to decide they are accidental though the thinking seems to be (bearing in mind that most people think that POC's actions were accidental but reckless and don't deserve much of a sanction).

Sin é wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Sin é wrote:
As well as that, POC had to get himself bandaged up during the match - should the citing commissioner not be looking out for and punishing whoever gave POC a head injury.

That is a nonsensical comment, players do get injured dring matches, accidental head clashes during tackles, if you find any evidence that he recieved a boot, err sorry shin to the head, then yes, but it should have been cited already then, shouldn't it?

Lots of accidental stuff happen in matches - head clashes, knee in the head, elbow in the ribs, studs on someones's legs !

You are going to have to go through the process of a citing to decide they are accidental though the thinking seems to be (bearing in mind that most people think that POC's actions were accidental but reckless and don't deserve much of a sanction).

Yes, but then O'Connel's kick was not accidental, was it, it was reckless.

reckless, but he knew what he was doing, he had a clear sight of head and ball, the ball was behind the head and he decided to kick out and got exactly what he was aiming for IMHO

agreed, I could call it something other than reckless, but would then have the ire of 100 posters on my back for being judgemental.

hahaha

Well it was more than reckless, because reckless implies he didn't mean to hurt or do anything that can hurt another player, but he clearly makes the decision to kick through kearneys head which is more than reckless IMHO

Well, at least we agree on that.

Just for you non Irish people out there.

"Sin é" is an Irish phrase which means "That is" or "That's it" It is used a lot as a filler word in Irish like people say "Y'know" in English.

But you may also not know that it is pronounced "Shin A"

Just in the context of shins and boots and......... No? OK... Just me then.

thebluesmancometh wrote:hahaha

Well it was more than reckless, because reckless implies he didn't mean to hurt or do anything that can hurt another player, but he clearly makes the decision to kick through kearneys head which is more than reckless IMHO

Well, he missed then, because he didn't kick through Kearney's head.

Biltong wrote: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.

I'd agree. Suspicions decision by the citing officer not to nominate him.

Sin é wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:hahaha

Well it was more than reckless, because reckless implies he didn't mean to hurt or do anything that can hurt another player, but he clearly makes the decision to kick through kearneys head which is more than reckless IMHO

Well, he missed then, because he didn't kick through Kearney's head.

Perhaps the reason why O'Connell is not Ireland's goalkicker.

Biltong wrote:agreed, I could call it something other than reckless, but would then have the ire of 100 posters on my back for being judgemental.

How much of the incident did you see (for example, did you see the reaction of the Leinster players, touch judge (close by), POC's reaction to the situation) to form your judgement?

Did you see that D Kearney's head banged on the ground when he took a ball in the air before trying to present it.

I saw what was presented on this thread, and to be honest, nothing to do with before or after has bearing on the moment when POC decides he is going to play flyhalf, and as you said in your previous post, he missed. which proves why he shouldn't kick then.

Biltong wrote:I saw what was presented on this thread, and to be honest, nothing to do with before or after has bearing on the moment when POC decides he is going to play flyhalf, and as you said in your previous post, he missed. which proves why he shouldn't kick then.

It has bearing though as none of the players around him reacted to what happened. As I've mentioned before, Isaac Boss tried to take a quick throw in as the ball had gone out. POC was the only one who initially went to check Kearney. BOD was having a chat with the touch judge / Nigel Owens about Leinster deserving a penalty because Kearney was taken out in the air (and they didn't get it). None (and that includes Dave's brother Rob, seemed to be concerned with Paul's actions.

The Citing Commissioner would be looking at all of those things when deciding whether to cite him or not.

Sin é wrote:

Biltong wrote:I saw what was presented on this thread, and to be honest, nothing to do with before or after has bearing on the moment when POC decides he is going to play flyhalf, and as you said in your previous post, he missed. which proves why he shouldn't kick then.

It has bearing though as none of the players around him reacted to what happened. As I've mentioned before, Isaac Boss tried to take a quick throw in as the ball had gone out. POC was the only one who initially went to check Kearney. BOD was having a chat with the touch judge / Nigel Owens about Leinster deserving a penalty because Kearney was taken out in the air (and they didn't get it). None (and that includes Dave's brother Rob, seemed to be concerned with Paul's actions.

The Citing Commissioner would be looking at all of those things when deciding whether to cite him or not.

fair point. in the two seconds after the incident the players didnt react to the incident. therefore POC should not have been cited. from now on if players dont act like soccer players after every incident like this there is to be not citing. all agreed

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Biltong wrote:I saw what was presented on this thread, and to be honest, nothing to do with before or after has bearing on the moment when POC decides he is going to play flyhalf, and as you said in your previous post, he missed. which proves why he shouldn't kick then.

It has bearing though as none of the players around him reacted to what happened. As I've mentioned before, Isaac Boss tried to take a quick throw in as the ball had gone out. POC was the only one who initially went to check Kearney. BOD was having a chat with the touch judge / Nigel Owens about Leinster deserving a penalty because Kearney was taken out in the air (and they didn't get it). None (and that includes Dave's brother Rob, seemed to be concerned with Paul's actions.

The Citing Commissioner would be looking at all of those things when deciding whether to cite him or not.

fair point. in the two seconds after the incident the players didnt react to the incident. therefore POC should not have been cited. from now on if players dont act like soccer players after every incident like this there is to be not citing. all agreed

I'm not talking about a soccer player type reaction (I presume you mean aggressive). Well after the incident (1-2 minutes) the Leinster players were looking for a penalty for Felix Jones taking Kearney out (which Owens didn't give).

As well as everything else, the Touch Judge had a very good view of what happened as he was about 4 feet away.

Sin é wrote:

Biltong wrote:I saw what was presented on this thread, and to be honest, nothing to do with before or after has bearing on the moment when POC decides he is going to play flyhalf, and as you said in your previous post, he missed. which proves why he shouldn't kick then.

It has bearing though as none of the players around him reacted to what happened. As I've mentioned before, Isaac Boss tried to take a quick throw in as the ball had gone out. POC was the only one who initially went to check Kearney. BOD was having a chat with the touch judge / Nigel Owens about Leinster deserving a penalty because Kearney was taken out in the air (and they didn't get it). None (and that includes Dave's brother Rob, seemed to be concerned with Paul's actions.

The Citing Commissioner would be looking at all of those things when deciding whether to cite him or not.

Maybe they didn't see it? I didn't see it on first view. I knew that Kearney had been taken out in the air so I assumed that's why he was flat out on the ground.

You think the Leinste players knew he was booted in the head but didn't do anything (like go and check on him) because they knew it was an accident? If you were playing rugby with your brother and you saw him kicked unconscious, would you only attend to him if you thought it was malicious?

Mickado wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Biltong wrote:I saw what was presented on this thread, and to be honest, nothing to do with before or after has bearing on the moment when POC decides he is going to play flyhalf, and as you said in your previous post, he missed. which proves why he shouldn't kick then.

It has bearing though as none of the players around him reacted to what happened. As I've mentioned before, Isaac Boss tried to take a quick throw in as the ball had gone out. POC was the only one who initially went to check Kearney. BOD was having a chat with the touch judge / Nigel Owens about Leinster deserving a penalty because Kearney was taken out in the air (and they didn't get it). None (and that includes Dave's brother Rob, seemed to be concerned with Paul's actions.

The Citing Commissioner would be looking at all of those things when deciding whether to cite him or not.

Maybe they didn't see it? I didn't see it on first view. I knew that Kearney had been taken out in the air so I assumed that's why he was flat out on the ground.

You think the Leinste players knew he was booted in the head but didn't do anything (like go and check on him) because they knew it was an accident? If you were playing rugby with your brother and you saw him kicked unconscious, would you only attend to him if you thought it was malicious?

According to the siting commissioner he was NOT BOOTED in the head (and probably why the Leinster players didn't react to it because it didn't happen.

Sin é wrote:

Mickado wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Biltong wrote:I saw what was presented on this thread, and to be honest, nothing to do with before or after has bearing on the moment when POC decides he is going to play flyhalf, and as you said in your previous post, he missed. which proves why he shouldn't kick then.

It has bearing though as none of the players around him reacted to what happened. As I've mentioned before, Isaac Boss tried to take a quick throw in as the ball had gone out. POC was the only one who initially went to check Kearney. BOD was having a chat with the touch judge / Nigel Owens about Leinster deserving a penalty because Kearney was taken out in the air (and they didn't get it). None (and that includes Dave's brother Rob, seemed to be concerned with Paul's actions.

The Citing Commissioner would be looking at all of those things when deciding whether to cite him or not.

Maybe they didn't see it? I didn't see it on first view. I knew that Kearney had been taken out in the air so I assumed that's why he was flat out on the ground.

You think the Leinste players knew he was booted in the head but didn't do anything (like go and check on him) because they knew it was an accident? If you were playing rugby with your brother and you saw him kicked unconscious, would you only attend to him if you thought it was malicious?

According to the siting commissioner he was NOT BOOTED in the head (and probably why the Leinster players didn't react to it.

in the split second the leinster players saw the incident i'm sure they knew straight away POC shined DK and didnt boot him

So I suppose better a shin to the head than a boot?

What, is it ,ike rather being hit with a toothpick than the piece of meat at the end of it?

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Mickado wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Biltong wrote:I saw what was presented on this thread, and to be honest, nothing to do with before or after has bearing on the moment when POC decides he is going to play flyhalf, and as you said in your previous post, he missed. which proves why he shouldn't kick then.

It has bearing though as none of the players around him reacted to what happened. As I've mentioned before, Isaac Boss tried to take a quick throw in as the ball had gone out. POC was the only one who initially went to check Kearney. BOD was having a chat with the touch judge / Nigel Owens about Leinster deserving a penalty because Kearney was taken out in the air (and they didn't get it). None (and that includes Dave's brother Rob, seemed to be concerned with Paul's actions.

The Citing Commissioner would be looking at all of those things when deciding whether to cite him or not.

Maybe they didn't see it? I didn't see it on first view. I knew that Kearney had been taken out in the air so I assumed that's why he was flat out on the ground.

You think the Leinste players knew he was booted in the head but didn't do anything (like go and check on him) because they knew it was an accident? If you were playing rugby with your brother and you saw him kicked unconscious, would you only attend to him if you thought it was malicious?

According to the siting commissioner he was NOT BOOTED in the head (and probably why the Leinster players didn't react to it.

in the split second the leinster players saw the incident i'm sure they knew straight away POC shined DK and didnt boot him

Yes, I'd say they saw the ball being booted (just like the Touch Judge must have). If it did happen, the TJ would be telling Nigel Owens to award a penalty for POC kicking a player. (A penalty is the sanction for kicking an opposition player).

so what are you saying now. because the TJ didnt see it poc didnt kick him in the head, Sorry sorry i know you have clarified already. Shin him in the head.

It all comes down to the brass tax.

Is it acceptable for a player to kick at a ball that is mere inches from a player's face?

And in this case a player that isn't even moving?


The answer is an emphatic NO. It is dangerous and reckless to contemplate, and should be eradicated from the game. It is even more dangerous than rucking, it is more dangerous than a high tackle.

Therefor actions such as this should be harshly penalised in order to discourage players from taking a swing at a ball lying on the ground near a player's head.