England vs Ireland Stamp

[Davet]

There is also the issue of squad rotation policies in place at several clubs when players are specifically rested, even if fit and available.

If such a players rest rotation came during a ban period how would you cater for that - would clubs have to disclose their selection plans...? And what validation could there possibly be of them?

 

[Pedro]

The main cause of concern seems to be the almost automatic application of certain mitigating factors, Perhaps that is where we should look first for reform.

I agree entirely OB. The issue for me is around how compicated the system is made, which eventually seems to lead to both sides feeling hard done by.
In this instance, the committee seemed to work to get the ban to the level they wanted, first by mitigating by two weeks and then by ignoring the rest week to get to (essentially) four weeks from the incident or a two match ban. Take away the mitigation for "saying sorry" and allow the rest week to count and what do you get? Oh, four weeks and two matches, thats strange!

Why over complicate these things?

 

[Dixie]

Why over complicate these things?

Because had you gone down the route suggested, Healy could appeal successfully on the grounds that he had't been granted the discount that had been made available to others.

 

[OB..]

Why over complicate these things?

Because they are not that simple?

Currently the panel first evaluates the seriousness of the offence, regardless of specific circumstances. Then they take other factors into account.

Most people seem to agree with the first step, even though they do not always agree with its application. The discussion then revolves around what mitigating/aggravating features should be applied.

I can understand an argument that says a clean record buys you nothing, but a poor record increases the ban (which in this case would give 5 weeks). Is that always going to be equitable? The answer lies in looking at a wide range of cases (as panels do), not focussing on the present one (as we tend to do).

 

[Chogan]

The word over here is that they will appeal the time the ban starts and ends, not the length as that was expected.

It is a 4 match ban. Essentially a 2 match ban only because he's playing in Ireland. If he was in France it'd be 4.

 

[Davet]

An appeal would then risk getting a real 4 match ban....

Probably best for him to smile nicely and say thankyou.

 

[Chogan]

An appeal would then risk getting a real 4 match ban....

Probably best for him to smile nicely and say thankyou.

I hear you.
I don't remember a ban like this though. Are there any other examples like it? It seems normal practice is not to do it this way, but rather back-date it to the day of the offence.

Now he's going to play this weekend: http://www.independent.ie/sport/rug...reviso-this-weekend-despite-ban-29069808.html

 

[Davet]

The Committee allowed the maximum two weeks of mitigation, but, in imposing a suspension of three weeks, recognised that the player would not have played for his province this weekend is that the suspension will end at midnight on Sunday 10 March 2013.

If he does in fact play, then maybe the panel would review their mitigation? Though I don't know what mechanism, if any, there is to do that. But under those circumstances for Healey to appeal could be very self-defeating....:knuppel2:

 

[Account Deleted]

Leinster are set to pick Healy this weekend. He's no longer on a rest week as he is not resting for the international.

What a farce.

The whole system is a joke. The missed citings, the pointless bans, the laughable mitigation. Forget the shirt just ban the offenders!

 

[Chogan]

For the sake of all our sanity, I hope this is the straw that breaks the camel's back and we get a clear, reformed and transparent disciplinary structure.

 

[Account Deleted]

It seems Leinster may be acting illegally if they do play him.

Regulation 17.19.11
When imposing suspensions on Players under Regulation 17 Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall comply with the requirements set out in Regulation 17.19.10 above. In doing so Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers:...

(b)may defer the commencement of a suspension provided that the Player is not scheduled to play (and will not be permitted to play) prior to the commencement of the suspension...

 

[Chogan]

But there's the issue right there. They assumed (ass, u & me) he was not scheduled to play and in all probability he was not going too. However, if Leinster have a match it would be reasonable to assume the Healy who is a Leinster player just might.

As already stated, If he was playing in France he would not be playing this weekend full stop.

 

[OB..]

It seems Leinster may be acting illegally if they do play him.

Regulation 17.19.11
When imposing suspensions on Players under Regulation 17 Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall comply with the requirements set out in Regulation 17.19.10 above. In doing so Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers:...

(b)may defer the commencement of a suspension provided that the Player is not scheduled to play (and will not be permitted to play) prior to the commencement of the suspension...

At local level, we had a player banned for 3 weeks, but that meant he would miss playing in a memorial game for a team-mate who had been killed in a car accident. The Panel decided to leave that particular day and match out of his ban, ie a split ban.

 

[Davet]

Or is this a cunning plan....

He is due to return 10th March, because the start of the ban was deferred - since he wasn't expected to play this week.

Leinster decide to play him in that deferment period.

It is pointed out to them that he should not be available - they say oh well in that case why not strat the ban straight away, which would of course mean he is able to play 3rd March, since it would be unfair to actually increase his ban...

So he would be available against France on the 9th...

 

[crossref]

the whole system is crazy.
if bans are supposed to apply to all games (which they are) why is the panel a specific 6 Nations panel ?

there's a good article on Rugby Law blog about why do different panels play to different rules ...

http://rugbylaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/minimum-bans-webb-and-ogara.html

 

[Davet]

why is the panel a specific 6 Nations panel ?

It relates to the competition you were playing in when you offended.

If he had been playing in a Hampshire 1 game then the Hampshire CB panel would have made the decision - but it would apply to all rugby, so he would not be able to play for Ireland during a suspension period after being sent off against Fordingbridge....

 

[OB..]

the whole system is crazy.
if bans are supposed to apply to all games (which they are) why is the panel a specific 6 Nations panel ?

For administrative reasons. The requirements of impartiality and practicality call for different people to be involved.

there's a good article on Rugby Law blog about why do different panels play to different rules ...

http://rugbylaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/minimum-bans-webb-and-ogara.html

3 cheers for Lord Hewart CJ.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

So do we think the ban would have been longer if he had broken Dan Cole's leg or ankle?
The intent to injure was clearly there. Can't se any mitigating factors whatsoever.
£ week holiday, I wonder if he is getting paid during his rest?.
PS Half Irish so always Hedging my bets, The England U20 Ban should have been longer also in my opinion

 

[Dixie]

Or is this a cunning plan....

He is due to return 10th March, because the start of the ban was deferred - since he wasn't expected to play this week.

Leinster decide to play him in that deferment period.

It is pointed out to them that he should not be available - they say oh well in that case why not strat the ban straight away, which would of course mean he is able to play 3rd March, since it would be unfair to actually increase his ban...

So he would be available against France on the 9th...

Davet, are you on the selection panel for Leinster? The Times reports "Healy's name on Leinster team sheet causes fury"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...ly-to-turn-out-for-Leinster-this-weekend.html

 

[Thomond78]

Davet, are you on the selection panel for Leinster? The Times reports "Healy's name on Leinster team sheet causes fury"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...ly-to-turn-out-for-Leinster-this-weekend.html

Well, for starters, Dixie, that's the Torygraph, not the Times...

Leinster copped on. He's not playing. http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/matchcentre/11008.php