Free to face France: Cian Healy
Ireland prop Cian Healy is available for next week's Six Nations clash with France after his ban was reduced to one game on appeal.
Healy was initially banned for three weeks for stamping on England's Dan Cole, with his suspension only starting the weekend after the incident occurred rather than the day of the citing, thus ruling him out of last Sunday's game against Scotland and the French fixture in Dublin on March 9.
However, on Wednesday the 25-year-old prop successfully appealed against the decision and the ban will now run from the date of the offence (February 12).
"The player had argued, among other things, that by extending the three week suspension over four weekends (to take account of the first "break weekend" in the RBS 6 Nations Championship) was not permissible under the relevant regulations," read an appeal committee statement.
"The Appeal Committee therefore concluded that Cian Healy's suspension should end at midnight on Sunday 3 March 2013, and not a midnight on Sunday 10 March 2013."
Comments
Coshie78 says...
Greyprop...
Correct those words do not appear, you do state that foul play falls into deliberate thuggery and player frustration... I would say the majority of the acts of thuggery are born out of player frustration, wouldn't you? Pretty cynical view of the modern rugby player otherwise.
TVaddict was saying that player frustration has nothing to do with it. I agree with him. I prefer his distinction, dangerous play can be deliberate with intent or by mistake. Those deemed as deliberate with intent should carry far worse sanction than those without... If a player is found guilty for multiple mistake/clumsy offenses the sanctions should mirror the other category...
Posted 09:31 06th March 2013
Greyprop says...
@ tvaddict,
Please read the post again and try to understand. The words, differentiate or acceptable don't appear. You obviously skim read and jumped to a conclusion.
Posted 13:00 02nd March 2013
TVaddict says...
@Greyprop
So you only differentiate between foul play as to whether there is something happening to frustrate the player or not? That's a very strange one indeed, never heard that before. So if someone tries to cheat me at a game of chess, and that 'frustrates' me, that would make it more acceptable for me to punch him? I think professional players should have better self control than that. If he was annoyed it would have been more respectable of him to pull Cole out of the ruck and give him a few punches, not that I'm condoning that either.
For me I separate foul play into the categories of those deliberately trying to cause damage/injury (i.e. deliberate stamp) and those who through recklessness cause damage/injury (i.e. clumsy tackle or mistimed tackle in the air). I suppose I make an allowance for players responding to an illegal and violent act on themselves. For instance if a player punches a player back after receiving a punch, the ban he receives should be reduced simply because it was caused by the natural desire to protect himself from further damage.
Posted 17:40 01st March 2013
Coshie78 says...
Greyprop...
My comment appears to have lead to a reasoned debate in this instance...
The reason I believe this incident is more serious than so many others is the potential for injury... I think we would be agreeing had he broken the ankle... I am not for one minute suggesting this is comparable but just to make my point attempted murder carries the same sentence as murder in a court of law...
I have witnessed an ankle being broken by this "thuggery" as you correctly put it and see no distinction between intent and player frustration...
Jibe about age and position was a joke, I myself am recently retired from the game, whilst not grey I look far more like a prop these days than the scrum half I was!!!
Posted 09:52 01st March 2013
Greyprop says...
@coshie78,
if that is one of the most cynical pieces of foul play you have ever seen, then I stand by my comment. Contrary to your assumptions I do not condone foul play nor did I intimate that in my post and yes I have seen much worse incidents at international level. Near hysterical reactions like your opening sentence don't lead to reasoned debate.
If you're interested , my view on the subject is that it was deliberate foul play and required the mandatory punishment. However as I see it foul play falls into two categories. On the one hand there is plain thuggery and then there is foul play born out of player frustration. Neither are pleasant and both should be condemned and receive the necessary sanction. The incidence of the latter, however could be reduced by better enforcement of the laws by the IRB and referees. The laws don't need any further tinkering, just effective enforcement.
Btw you really shouldn't jump to conclusions or draw ageist allusions from someone's moniker.
Posted 23:30 28th February 2013
crunchfit says...
@rugby_rockstar
Yes, it would have been overturned even if Ireland won. I get what you're implying, which is a silly point I think, and irrelevant. The basis of the success of Healy's appeal was to do with Healy's ability to play in Leinster's Pro12 fixture following the initial hearing.
Posted 18:41 28th February 2013
rugby_rockstar says...
I wonder if the ban would have been lifted if Ireland had won on Sunday?
I hope not. As it is though, I feel Ireland are basically out of the six nations race now and that should be a good life lesson for Cian who is a pretty good rugby player.
Posted 16:44 28th February 2013
jontheref says...
This is poor reporting from PR.
he has not had the ban reduced, it starts from the offence, instead of being delayed.
The ban is the same length.
Whether the ban was the right length, ( I don't think so, but that is my opinion), is for another thread.
Poor reporting, and I am surprised PR would want to sensationilse this!
Posted 14:32 28th February 2013
Coshie78 says...
Greyprop...
I watch plenty of Intl rugby and stand by my comments...
What is your point? It happens every game?? Not true... (no other citings of stamping in this tournament alone)... Have watched every game and not noticed it either...
People justifying it as part of the game are out of touch?? The laws and the referee's/citing panel's interpretation of the laws would agree...
That and everyone who has played at a competetive level in the last 10 years...
Your handle suggests that you are both old and front row...ENOUGH SAID
Posted 14:28 28th February 2013
Coombs01 says...
Greyprop, regarding the comment, 'Get over your,"English bashing", complex please'. I am more welsh than English so am happy with either winning, but I agree with you, to spark debate I wanted people to respond regarding stamping on Healy, would they find that acceptable? Yes it is illegal, no I do not think it should be part of the game. And well bitten sir, I thought I had caught a large one, but it turns out to be a tiddler, so I will throw you back!
You are nearly spot on with the comment 'The real culprits are the referees who refuse to uphold the laws re the ruck.' Some ownership has to be taken by the IRB, just like the softer rounded ball game, referees who do not work in accordance the laws of the game should not be allowed to be part of it.
Coshie - be nice to him!
Posted 14:15 28th February 2013
TVaddict says...
@ronanmeagher
I was kind of exaggerating the argument of some of the degenerates on here that a sneaky, career threatening, act of violence is acceptable because someone was technically infringing within a game. Our technology might of got better, but people sure haven't. Well, these people sure haven't.
When Healy appealed they should have just said, "Sorry, our original ban of three weeks starting on the Saturday didn't make sense. We apologies for the confusion. We've changed it to a four week ban starting on the original weekend." Done and done. Or better yet, "Due to a sudden rush of blood to the brain we've realised bans in terms of weeks and not games are stupid and as such we're banning Healy for the next three international games."
It's hard to take that these people get paid with supporters money to be consistently inconsistent.
Posted 14:12 28th February 2013
Heathy says...
Okay EddieC, I accept your apology with good grace. You have redeemed yourself. Just 3in4 to go.
Posted 13:42 28th February 2013
8man says...
The Ban was overturned because of a technical mistake which lead to Healy not being able to play for four weeks after receiving a three week ban. This was an act of incompetence as opposed to bias. Any claims of bias should be directed at the original ruling as opposed to the result of the appeal which was probably the only correct decision made in this whole farce.
Posted 13:23 28th February 2013
makemehappy says...
@paddy91317 - why quote the dullest thing keith wood ever said? He confirmed it happened. It either happened or didn't!
Posted 13:16 28th February 2013
lawynd says...
@mercatoneuno - feel free to come down to my club and we'll recreated the situation with me stamping on your leg, I weigh about the same as Healy.
Posted 12:13 28th February 2013
Greyprop says...
@ Coshie78,
You obviously don't watch many international rugby matches.
@ Coombs01,
Such angst against the illegal stamp. Such hypocrisy to advocate someone stamp on him(Healy) in his next match. You either condemn or condone it you can't do both. Get over your,"English bashing", complex please.
The real culprits are the referees who refuse to uphold the laws re the ruck. Would suggest you all read law 16, on the IRB site. You'll find it bears no resemblance to what happens on the field of play. There are even nice little pictures for the benefit of our welsh cousins.
Law 16.1b states;
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground.
(a)
All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
(b)
A player must not intentionally fall or kneel in a ruck. This is dangerous play.
Don't see much compliance with any of that.
Posted 11:54 28th February 2013
EddieC says...
Ok, ok everyone! I was only winding your people up for a bet in the office. Yes you are all correct on one level or another! Healy was wrong, he should have been banned for at least until the end of the six nations..(I do believe it was out of carachter)..not longer, as I do think you will need him on the B&IL tour. Tualagi and Ashton seem to have buried the hatched so why not these two? I have see a lot worse happen with far less repercussion or reaction. Gouging for me is still top of the list, second only to a stiff arm to the head, with stamping to follow. Apologies to all if I have ruined your morning.
Posted 11:54 28th February 2013
mercatoneuno says...
Get over it.. Those are the rules and he's won his appeal.. Too many trolls here with nothing to do but whine about Healy and this "career ending" stamp! Bull...
Posted 11:21 28th February 2013
ronanmeagher says...
@TVaddict - I think you have lost perspective slightly.
And in general, I think most people here are posting on the wrong article. This article explains that the appeal against the nature of the ban was successful - which means the ban should have started immediately, which in my opinion is correct.
Putting a start date of the ban a week into the future was stupid by the original disciplinary group, and was what allowed an appeal to be lodged in the 1st place.
People moaning about the length or severity of the suspension need to go here http://planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3820_8497872,00.html
I have no issues with the original ban, and like some on here thought it was lenient. He should have missed 2 games for the stamp. However, its not an offense that should be categorised with gouging, biting, etc. Its something that happens in every game, albeit not as obvious as this.
Posted 11:14 28th February 2013
Coombs01 says...
All of you out there who are saying that Healy was right and Dan Cole was lying on the wrong side and deserved to be rucked, I agree with you all. But, Healy did not ruck, he stamped, this is illegal in the game of rugby, therefore a ban (which should be based on games, not weeks was correct). The fact that he appealed and got away with it shows the huge flaws that are in the appeal process. The IRB must URGENTLY look into this and fix it.
This gives out the wrong message, rucking is fine, other forms of persuasion to move are not.
I only hope that Healy is on the wrong side in the next match, and someone stamps on him, then let us see how all of you Healy fans like that.
I think this is another form of England bashing as we are once again dominant rather than talking about the incident.
Quick question for you all, would anyone be upset if Healy was playing for the Lions in Oz and one of the Aussie forwards decided to do an Irish jig on him?
Posted 10:54 28th February 2013