Healy Cited

Cian Healy has been cited, do people think he'll get a couple of weeks off?

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/healy-cited-for-knee-strike/

Vid here: http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/champions-cup/vine-cian-healy-cited-for-knee-to-the-head-of-guilhem-guirado-in-toulon-defeat-34290781.html

Good God, it's not difficult to get right.

I mean it's right there in front of you, and you even got it right in the main text, but then completely make a mess of it with the headline.

Unbelievable.

Pot Hale wrote:Good God, it's not difficult to get right.

I mean it's right there in front of you, and you even got it right in the main text, but then completely make a mess of it with the headline.

Unbelievable.

??? You'll have to explain that one to me?

nathan wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Good God, it's not difficult to get right.

I mean it's right there in front of you, and you even got it right in the main text, but then completely make a mess of it with the headline.

Unbelievable.

??? You'll have to explain that one to me?

You got the spelling of his surname wrong, nathan.  Disgraceful.

Lol, some of you Irish are a bit too precious!

All changed, hope it now makes your world complete.

Well, he doesn't actually strike with the knee, even though it does look that way from one angle. He sort of brushes him back, but it's above the knee that makes contact. The initial contact doesn't do the damage. It's the back of Guirado's head landing on the knee area of the other Leinster player that he reacts to. Although it really doesn't look like much of a contact..... big girls blouse

Whatever the outcome, Healey didn't need to do it. It was a soft penalty, and one that might cost him a week or two suspension.

nathan wrote:Lol, some of you Irish are a bit too precious!

All changed, hope it now makes your world complete.

I can't believe someone guessed it and you changed it. Fantastic. See what a little attention to detail can bring?

My evening has had a slight little lift for about ten seconds.

And.....

back to normal.

So do you think you should incorporate this article into the one above it on Owens failing to give a red card to an Irish player - again?

Similar theme, same actors, same debate really.

Munchkin wrote:Well, he doesn't actually strike with the knee, even though it does look that way from one angle. He sort of brushes him back, but it's above the knee that makes contact. The initial contact doesn't do the damage. It's the back of Guirado's head landing on the knee area of the other Leinster player that he reacts to. Although it really doesn't look like much of a contact..... big girls blouse

Whatever the outcome, Healey didn't need to do it. It was a soft penalty, and one that might cost him a week or two suspension.

I think that pretty much sums it up perfectly for me.

Munchkin wrote:Well, he doesn't actually strike with the knee, even though it does look that way from one angle. He sort of brushes him back, but it's above the knee that makes contact. The initial contact doesn't do the damage. It's the back of Guirado's head landing on the knee area of the other Leinster player that he reacts to. Although it really doesn't look like much of a contact..... big girls blouse

Whatever the outcome, Healey didn't need to do it. It was a soft penalty, and one that might cost him a week or two suspension.

there might be one or two who might think that would do Leinster no harm.....

nathan wrote:Lol, some of you Irish are a bit too precious!

All changed, hope it now makes your world complete.

What do you mean 'some'?

We are all precious


....oh...that sort of precious

Pot Hale wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Well, he doesn't actually strike with the knee, even though it does look that way from one angle. He sort of brushes him back, but it's above the knee that makes contact. The initial contact doesn't do the damage. It's the back of Guirado's head landing on the knee area of the other Leinster player that he reacts to. Although it really doesn't look like much of a contact..... big girls blouse

Whatever the outcome, Healey didn't need to do it. It was a soft penalty, and one that might cost him a week or two suspension.

there might be one or two who might think that would do Leinster no harm.....

True. There were a few not happy to see him start against Toulon, and I think they're right. He's not at his best, and giving away stupid penalty's doesn't help.

Where's the gollum emote when you need it

Pot Hale wrote:

nathan wrote:Lol, some of you Irish are a bit too precious!

All changed, hope it now makes your world complete.

I can't believe someone guessed it and you changed it.  Fantastic.  See what a little attention to detail can bring?

My evening has had a slight little lift for about ten seconds.

And.....

back to normal.

So do you think you should incorporate this article into the one above it on Owens failing to give a red card to an Irish player - again?

Similar theme, same actors, same debate really.

You are a million miles of the mark there mate. It looks like you have a few issues, I'd suggest leaving the forum for a while to chill out. I had created this thread before reading chunkys. 

Mistakes happen as poite showed in their Munster, tigers game and chunkys parents showed.

nathan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Well, he doesn't actually strike with the knee, even though it does look that way from one angle. He sort of brushes him back, but it's above the knee that makes contact. The initial contact doesn't do the damage. It's the back of Guirado's head landing on the knee area of the other Leinster player that he reacts to. Although it really doesn't look like much of a contact..... big girls blouse

Whatever the outcome, Healey didn't need to do it. It was a soft penalty, and one that might cost him a week or two suspension.

I think that pretty much sums it up perfectly for me.

Yep, only himself to blame really. Not what Leinster need right now.

LondonTiger wrote:Where's the gollum emote when you need it

nathan wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

nathan wrote:Lol, some of you Irish are a bit too precious!

All changed, hope it now makes your world complete.

I can't believe someone guessed it and you changed it.  Fantastic.  See what a little attention to detail can bring?

My evening has had a slight little lift for about ten seconds.

And.....

back to normal.

So do you think you should incorporate this article into the one above it on Owens failing to give a red card to an Irish player - again?

Similar theme, same actors, same debate really.

You are a million miles of the mark there mate. It looks like you have a few issues, I'd suggest leaving the forum for a while to chill out. I had created this thread before reading chunkys. 

Mistakes happen as poite showed in their Munster, tigers game and chunkys parents showed.

It's 'off the mark", not 'of the mark"!!
Other than that, I would agree with your assessment of the refereeing as it exactly matches mine. Good call.

Please stop with the spelling and grammar corrections, if your smart enough you'll be able to understand what I mean.

I'm sure folks on here have noticed I have a few issues with grammar/spelling

nathan wrote:Please stop with the spelling and grammar corrections, if your smart enough you'll be able to understand what I mean.

I'm sure folks on here have noticed I have a few issues with grammar/spelling

I hadn't noticed you had any issues at all.

Just pulling your leg, mate. you can spell anyway you want.

Birlliant, chers maet 

Another citing for that thug Healy...

Just thought I should add that Nathan isn't associated with Chunky or that crowd.

Also, it is becoming very difficult to defend Cian Healy and his actions nowadays. He has had numerous incidents over the years. You would have thought that he would have matured by now and learnt to control his aggression. Apparently not...

Why would you want to defend a player who has transgressed?

Doesn't matter what nationality he or she is.

Some people get their little kicks out of calling players thugs cos they know it'll get up the nose of other posters/fans.

Others say it cos it's what they truly believe.

Doesn't really matter either way.

Rory_Gallagher wrote: He has had numerous incidents over the years. You would have thought that he would have matured by now and learnt to control his aggression. Apparently not...

Needs to sort it out. Should get no reductions if its determined to be a red card offence, which I believe it should be. Doesn't matter how many biscuits he eats.

Notch wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote: He has had numerous incidents over the years. You would have thought that he would have matured by now and learnt to control his aggression. Apparently not...

Needs to sort it out. Should get no reductions if its determined to be a red card offence, which I believe it should be. Doesn't matter how many biscuits he eats.

Absolutely. Unless of course he brings some glazed doughnuts along with the custard creams

It was a stupid act, one that deserves a ban for him to consider his on field aggression and how to convert it back into some kind of form.

P.S. Nathan, don't worry about the spelling etc, for some it's their strong point and they spend their time showing that off

2 weeks. Are Leinster realyl going to appeal??

I haven't read anywhere that Leinster are appealing.

They probably have good grounds for appeal though. The charge was for striking with the knee. He didn't strike with the knee, and so they changed the charge... Cullen made a point that the player shouldn't have been positioned where he was, and probably deserved a penalty against him.

Healey still shouldn't have acted in the way he did though. Really only himself to blame.

Shambles. The striking charge being dropped is presumably to get the sentence down to an acceptable level for Healy's lawyer.

If he wasn't found guilty of that then he should have been cleared. Dangerous charging? what a crock.

Chunky Norwich wrote:Shambles. The striking charge being dropped is presumably to get the sentence down to an acceptable level for Healy's lawyer.

If he wasn't found guilty of that then he should have been cleared. Dangerous charging? what a crock.

No, the charge was dropped because he didn't strike with the knee, as is obvious. Is everything a conspiracy with you?

I agree with you on the 'dangerous charging' charge. It is ridiculous, and they should have cleared Healey of any charge, if they weren't going to charge him with the original offence.

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:Shambles. The striking charge being dropped is presumably to get the sentence down to an acceptable level for Healy's lawyer.

If he wasn't found guilty of that then he should have been cleared. Dangerous charging? what a crock.

No, the charge was dropped because he didn't strike with the knee, as is obvious. Is everything a conspiracy with you?

I agree with you on the 'dangerous charging' charge. It is ridiculous, and they should have cleared Healey of any charge, if they weren't going to charge him with the original offence.

It's not a conspiracy. It's a terrible broken system. I suspect Leinster will appeal and he'll get off. With no mention of his previous. That only seems to serve as downwards mitigtion funnile enough.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:Shambles. The striking charge being dropped is presumably to get the sentence down to an acceptable level for Healy's lawyer.

If he wasn't found guilty of that then he should have been cleared. Dangerous charging? what a crock.

No, the charge was dropped because he didn't strike with the knee, as is obvious. Is everything a conspiracy with you?

I agree with you on the 'dangerous charging' charge. It is ridiculous, and they should have cleared Healey of any charge, if they weren't going to charge him with the original offence.

It's not a conspiracy. It's a terrible broken system. I suspect Leinster will appeal and he'll get off. With no mention of his previous. That only seems to serve as downwards mitigtion funnile enough.

The 'previous' has already been taken into account. That's why his length of ban was not reduced...

In what way does this finding demonstrate that it's a broken system?

Healey did not strike with the knee, and so was not found guilty of striking with the knee.

Healey was found guilty of Dangerous Charging, whatever on earth that is, and does seem like something just made up. The fact that the original charge was dropped, and a new one made in it's place, does look amateur, and maybe something that should be appealed.

You've answered your own question. A different charge is rather silly. We've seen how aggressively and shamelessly irish sports lawyers act with the o'brien hearing. This has more than a whiff of settlement about it. And leinster now have a good case to appeal. Because it wasn't a charge at all. It was a knee to the head.

Yes, a different charge is silly, but the original charge was also silly because Healy did not strike with the knee. Charges are thrown out of court on technicalities.

Leinster Rugby have informed EPCR of their intention to appeal the decision of the independent Judicial Officer Roger Morris to suspend Leinster prop Cian Healy for two weeks under Laws 10.4 (f).

The basis for the appeal will centre on the fact that Cian Healy was called to the independent Disciplinary Hearing in Paris today for allegedly striking RC Toulon hooker Guilhem Guirado in contravention of Law 10.4 (a).

Having heard submissions from both sides and the player himself who denied the charge, the Judicial Officer retired to consider the matter. On returning he informed those present that the charge under Law 10.4 (a) was not proven.

However he went on to find that Cian Healy had contravened Law 10.4 (f) which charge had not been put to the player by either the Judicial Officer or EPCR at any stage before or during the Disciplinary Hearing.

Leinster believe that this is a failure to follow due process and is unfair to Cian Healy

Leinster Rugby have further requested that the chairman of the Disciplinary Panel lift Cian Healy's suspension pending the outcome of the appeal, which Leinster are confident will be successful.



Well that destroys your conspiracy...

Good to see Leinster aren't lying down for this.You can't just make up a new charge when he's innocent of the original one.

Munchkin wrote:

Leinster Rugby have informed EPCR of their intention to appeal the decision of the independent Judicial Officer Roger Morris to suspend Leinster prop Cian Healy for two weeks under Laws 10.4 (f).

The basis for the appeal will centre on the fact that Cian Healy was called to the independent Disciplinary Hearing in Paris today for allegedly striking RC Toulon hooker Guilhem Guirado in contravention of Law 10.4 (a).

Having heard submissions from both sides and the player himself who denied the charge, the Judicial Officer retired to consider the matter. On returning he informed those present that the charge under Law 10.4 (a) was not proven.

However he went on to find that Cian Healy had contravened Law 10.4 (f) which charge had not been put to the player by either the Judicial Officer or EPCR at any stage before or during the Disciplinary Hearing.

Leinster believe that this is a failure to follow due process and is unfair to Cian Healy

Leinster Rugby have further requested that the chairman of the Disciplinary Panel lift Cian Healy's suspension pending the outcome of the appeal, which Leinster are confident will be successful.



Well that destroys your conspiracy...

I told you they'd appeal, and they did. Because the rancid system is broken.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Leinster Rugby have informed EPCR of their intention to appeal the decision of the independent Judicial Officer Roger Morris to suspend Leinster prop Cian Healy for two weeks under Laws 10.4 (f).

The basis for the appeal will centre on the fact that Cian Healy was called to the independent Disciplinary Hearing in Paris today for allegedly striking RC Toulon hooker Guilhem Guirado in contravention of Law 10.4 (a).

Having heard submissions from both sides and the player himself who denied the charge, the Judicial Officer retired to consider the matter. On returning he informed those present that the charge under Law 10.4 (a) was not proven.

However he went on to find that Cian Healy had contravened Law 10.4 (f) which charge had not been put to the player by either the Judicial Officer or EPCR at any stage before or during the Disciplinary Hearing.

Leinster believe that this is a failure to follow due process and is unfair to Cian Healy

Leinster Rugby have further requested that the chairman of the Disciplinary Panel lift Cian Healy's suspension pending the outcome of the appeal, which Leinster are confident will be successful.



Well that destroys your conspiracy...

I told you they'd appeal, and they did. Because the rancid system is broken.

Lol you're nothing if not predictable.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Leinster Rugby have informed EPCR of their intention to appeal the decision of the independent Judicial Officer Roger Morris to suspend Leinster prop Cian Healy for two weeks under Laws 10.4 (f).

The basis for the appeal will centre on the fact that Cian Healy was called to the independent Disciplinary Hearing in Paris today for allegedly striking RC Toulon hooker Guilhem Guirado in contravention of Law 10.4 (a).

Having heard submissions from both sides and the player himself who denied the charge, the Judicial Officer retired to consider the matter. On returning he informed those present that the charge under Law 10.4 (a) was not proven.

However he went on to find that Cian Healy had contravened Law 10.4 (f) which charge had not been put to the player by either the Judicial Officer or EPCR at any stage before or during the Disciplinary Hearing.

Leinster believe that this is a failure to follow due process and is unfair to Cian Healy

Leinster Rugby have further requested that the chairman of the Disciplinary Panel lift Cian Healy's suspension pending the outcome of the appeal, which Leinster are confident will be successful.



Well that destroys your conspiracy...

I told you they'd appeal, and they did. Because the rancid system is broken.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Leinster Rugby have informed EPCR of their intention to appeal the decision of the independent Judicial Officer Roger Morris to suspend Leinster prop Cian Healy for two weeks under Laws 10.4 (f).

The basis for the appeal will centre on the fact that Cian Healy was called to the independent Disciplinary Hearing in Paris today for allegedly striking RC Toulon hooker Guilhem Guirado in contravention of Law 10.4 (a).

Having heard submissions from both sides and the player himself who denied the charge, the Judicial Officer retired to consider the matter. On returning he informed those present that the charge under Law 10.4 (a) was not proven.

However he went on to find that Cian Healy had contravened Law 10.4 (f) which charge had not been put to the player by either the Judicial Officer or EPCR at any stage before or during the Disciplinary Hearing.

Leinster believe that this is a failure to follow due process and is unfair to Cian Healy

Leinster Rugby have further requested that the chairman of the Disciplinary Panel lift Cian Healy's suspension pending the outcome of the appeal, which Leinster are confident will be successful.



Well that destroys your conspiracy...

I told you they'd appeal, and they did. Because the rancid system is broken.

This seems an odd situation, don't get me wrong I do think he is guilty of the original offence and is a pretty nasty individual. However there was found not to be evidence of striking, so if they are saying foul play surely they should state what foul play was committed.

To me if he isn't found guilty of the offence he is charged with then he is not guilty end of. As much as it pains me to say it as he was IMO guilty of a pretty nasty offence. Weird system.

Student-A1 wrote:

This seems an odd situation, don't get me wrong I do think he is guilty of the original offence and is a pretty nasty individual. However there was found not to be evidence of striking, so if they are saying foul play surely they should state what foul play was committed.

To me if he isn't found guilty of the offence he is charged with then he is not guilty end of. As much as it pains me to say it as he was IMO guilty of a pretty nasty offence. Weird system.

Pretty much spot on.

Student-A1 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Leinster Rugby have informed EPCR of their intention to appeal the decision of the independent Judicial Officer Roger Morris to suspend Leinster prop Cian Healy for two weeks under Laws 10.4 (f).

The basis for the appeal will centre on the fact that Cian Healy was called to the independent Disciplinary Hearing in Paris today for allegedly striking RC Toulon hooker Guilhem Guirado in contravention of Law 10.4 (a).

Having heard submissions from both sides and the player himself who denied the charge, the Judicial Officer retired to consider the matter. On returning he informed those present that the charge under Law 10.4 (a) was not proven.

However he went on to find that Cian Healy had contravened Law 10.4 (f) which charge had not been put to the player by either the Judicial Officer or EPCR at any stage before or during the Disciplinary Hearing.

Leinster believe that this is a failure to follow due process and is unfair to Cian Healy

Leinster Rugby have further requested that the chairman of the Disciplinary Panel lift Cian Healy's suspension pending the outcome of the appeal, which Leinster are confident will be successful.



Well that destroys your conspiracy...

I told you they'd appeal, and they did. Because the rancid system is broken.

This seems an odd situation, don't get me wrong I do think he is guilty of the original offence and is a pretty nasty individual. However there was found not to be evidence of striking, so if they are saying foul play surely they should state what foul play was committed.

To me if he isn't found guilty of the offence he is charged with then he is not guilty end of. As much as it pains me to say it as he was IMO guilty of a pretty nasty offence. Weird system.

He wasn't guilty,they had several camera angles to establish that.They didn't prove it so he's not guilty.

Student-A1 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Leinster Rugby have informed EPCR of their intention to appeal the decision of the independent Judicial Officer Roger Morris to suspend Leinster prop Cian Healy for two weeks under Laws 10.4 (f).

The basis for the appeal will centre on the fact that Cian Healy was called to the independent Disciplinary Hearing in Paris today for allegedly striking RC Toulon hooker Guilhem Guirado in contravention of Law 10.4 (a).

Having heard submissions from both sides and the player himself who denied the charge, the Judicial Officer retired to consider the matter. On returning he informed those present that the charge under Law 10.4 (a) was not proven.

However he went on to find that Cian Healy had contravened Law 10.4 (f) which charge had not been put to the player by either the Judicial Officer or EPCR at any stage before or during the Disciplinary Hearing.

Leinster believe that this is a failure to follow due process and is unfair to Cian Healy

Leinster Rugby have further requested that the chairman of the Disciplinary Panel lift Cian Healy's suspension pending the outcome of the appeal, which Leinster are confident will be successful.



Well that destroys your conspiracy...

I told you they'd appeal, and they did. Because the rancid system is broken.

This seems an odd situation, don't get me wrong I do think he is guilty of the original offence and is a pretty nasty individual. However there was found not to be evidence of striking, so if they are saying foul play surely they should state what foul play was committed.

To me if he isn't found guilty of the offence he is charged with then he is not guilty end of. As much as it pains me to say it as he was IMO guilty of a pretty nasty offence. Weird system.

The problem for the citing commission is that Healy was not guilty of the original offence. He did not strike his opponent with the knee.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Student-A1 wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Leinster Rugby have informed EPCR of their intention to appeal the decision of the independent Judicial Officer Roger Morris to suspend Leinster prop Cian Healy for two weeks under Laws 10.4 (f).

The basis for the appeal will centre on the fact that Cian Healy was called to the independent Disciplinary Hearing in Paris today for allegedly striking RC Toulon hooker Guilhem Guirado in contravention of Law 10.4 (a).

Having heard submissions from both sides and the player himself who denied the charge, the Judicial Officer retired to consider the matter. On returning he informed those present that the charge under Law 10.4 (a) was not proven.

However he went on to find that Cian Healy had contravened Law 10.4 (f) which charge had not been put to the player by either the Judicial Officer or EPCR at any stage before or during the Disciplinary Hearing.

Leinster believe that this is a failure to follow due process and is unfair to Cian Healy

Leinster Rugby have further requested that the chairman of the Disciplinary Panel lift Cian Healy's suspension pending the outcome of the appeal, which Leinster are confident will be successful.



Well that destroys your conspiracy...

I told you they'd appeal, and they did. Because the rancid system is broken.

This seems an odd situation, don't get me wrong I do think he is guilty of the original offence and is a pretty nasty individual. However there was found not to be evidence of striking, so if they are saying foul play surely they should state what foul play was committed.

To me if he isn't found guilty of the offence he is charged with then he is not guilty end of. As much as it pains me to say it as he was IMO guilty of a pretty nasty offence. Weird system.

He wasn't guilty,they had several camera angles to establish that.They didn't prove it so he's not guilty.

Thats what I said, I said he has been found not guilty so should be comletely clear not create a new offence. The other comment was my opinion which I stated meant nothing and that he should be clear.

Just as a matter of interest what did he strike him with as the other player looked to be hit by something?

It looked to me that Healy connected using his vastus lateralus  (above the knee), but it was more a push than strike. It wasn't that connection that Guirado reacted to. Guirado fell back and hit the back of his head against the side of the knee of another player.

If they start dishing out red cards for vastus lateralus strikes, it won't be long before players are cited for dangerous use of the gluteus maximus

Munchkin wrote:It looked to me that Healy connected using his vastus lateralus  (above the knee), but it was more a push than strike. It wasn't that connection that Guirado reacted to. Guirado fell back and hit the back of his head against the side of the knee of another player.

If they start dishing out red cards for vastus lateralus strikes, it won't be long before players are cited for dangerous use of the gluteus maximus

Russell Crowe played that part in Gladiator didn't he?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:It looked to me that Healy connected using his vastus lateralus  (above the knee), but it was more a push than strike. It wasn't that connection that Guirado reacted to. Guirado fell back and hit the back of his head against the side of the knee of another player.

If they start dishing out red cards for vastus lateralus strikes, it won't be long before players are cited for dangerous use of the gluteus maximus

Russell Crowe played that part in Gladiator didn't he?

I think that's the part he plays in real life

Munchkin wrote:It looked to me that Healy connected using his vastus lateralus  (above the knee), but it was more a push than strike. It wasn't that connection that Guirado reacted to. Guirado fell back and hit the back of his head against the side of the knee of another player.

If they start dishing out red cards for vastus lateralus strikes, it won't be long before players are cited for dangerous use of the gluteus maximus

Is that not similar to attempting to strike someone with a fist but hitting them with your forearm? I don't think that'd be allowed.

Munchkin wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:It looked to me that Healy connected using his vastus lateralus  (above the knee), but it was more a push than strike. It wasn't that connection that Guirado reacted to. Guirado fell back and hit the back of his head against the side of the knee of another player.

If they start dishing out red cards for vastus lateralus strikes, it won't be long before players are cited for dangerous use of the gluteus maximus

Russell Crowe played that part in Gladiator didn't he?

I think that's the part he plays in real life

Maybe he should give up the Rabbitohs for Sorearsesins?

Munchkin wrote:It looked to me that Healy connected using his vastus lateralus  (above the knee), but it was more a push than strike. It wasn't that connection that Guirado reacted to. Guirado fell back and hit the back of his head against the side of the knee of another player.

If they start dishing out red cards for vastus lateralus strikes, it won't be long before players are cited for dangerous use of the gluteus maximus

It looked like Healy was trying to push Guirado back into the ruck but didn't do a very good job of it but Toulon all game were slow getting away from the rucks trying to slow Leinster players getting there