England vs Ireland Stamp

[Dixie]

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

I know. But while I could use my subscription details to link to The Times, no-one without a subscription could view it. So I went to a competitor with reasonable reliable reporting ..

 

[Chogan]

Six Nations Rugby Limited have moved to clarify the position surround Cian Healy’s suspension for stamping.
Healy was handed a five-week suspension, with two off for mitigation, after being found guilty of stamping on England’s Cole in the RBS 6 Nations defeat at the Aviva Stadium.
Normally suspensions date back to the day of the citing, but the independent Six Nations Disciplinary Committee invoked regulation 17.19.11 which allowed them to defer the start of the punishment until next Sunday because they “recognised that the player would not have played for his province this weekend”.
Leinster considered selecting the prop for the game against Benetton Treviso, leading to confusion about the length of his suspension but the position has now been clarified.
“There have been media reports in the last two days that suggest that the three-week playing suspension imposed on Irish international, Cian Healy, by an independent Disciplinary Committee following the Ireland v England match in the RBS 6 Nations Championship on Sunday, 10 February 2013 is somehow unprecedented and/or outside the scope of the relevant regulations,” a statement read.
“There have also been media reports that suggest that Leinster (Mr Healy’s provincial side) may have selected (or were able to select) Mr Healy to play in this weekend’s RaboDirect Pro12 match against Benetton Treviso. Therefore Six Nations Rugby Limited (the company that administers the disciplinary process for the RBS 6 Nations Championship) wishes to clarify the position.
“During the hearing of the citing complaint against Mr Healy, the chairman of the independent Disciplinary Committee, Roger Morris of Wales, made it clear to Mr Healy and those representing him at the hearing that Mr Healy was suspended from the date on which he had been informed of the citing complaint against him (11 February 2013) until midnight on the night of Sunday, 10 March 2013.
“The Disciplinary Committee has not yet produced its written decision but Mr Morris has today written to Six Nations Rugby Limited and those representing Mr Healy at the hearing to confirm the position.
“Mr Morris says, in relevant part: ‘I do not think anyone present at the hearing on Wednesday was in any doubt that Mr Healy is not free to play again until after midnight on 10 March’. Accordingly, Mr Healy is currently suspended and will remain suspended — subject to appeals — until 11 March 2013. He is therefore not eligible to play for Leinster in this weekend’s RaboDirect Pro12 match against Benetton Treviso. Mr Healy has a right of appeal against the decision of the independent Disciplinary Committee, as do Six Nations Rugby Limited and the IRB. However, in the event of an appeal Mr Healy will remain suspended pending any appeal hearing.”
As things stand Healy’s suspension will not expire until March 10, which means he will miss the upcoming matches against Scotland and France.

Source:http://www.setanta.com/ie/six-nations-clarify-healy-ban/

 

[crossref]

so his ban is from 11 Feb to 10 March -- I make that a 4 week ban!

 

[Dixie]

so his ban is from 11 Feb to 10 March -- I make that a 4 week ban!

Yes indeed. I suspect that if he were considering an appeal, his chances have just been improved dramatically. I applaud Davet's brilliant forethought - we may yet see his ban being for two RaboDirect games he was never likely to play in, plus one international.

 

[crossref]

what a mess..

 

[Chogan]

It's just got messier.

RTÉ Sport ‏@RTEsport
Cian Healy's suspension has been shortened by seven days and he is now available to play against France in the RBS 6 Nations.#rterugby

 

[Account Deleted]

A disgrace. Yet people will not see that the Disciplinary system is a joke.

 

[Simon Thomas]

A disgrace. Yet people will not see that the Disciplinary system is a joke.

A little of an over-reaction ATTR ?

The appeal was about the period and how it was defined and which matches/weeks 'count'. It is not the disciplinary system per se at fault but how the 6 Nations Panel defined the sanction period.

The RFU is leading the way in reviewing their whole Disciplinary process, governance and organisation currently. I am sure a lot of Best Practice will be identified and the necessary changes made.

 

[Dixie]

A little of an over-reaction ATTR ?

I don't think so. You want to ban an international player from three elite games, but the system is open to abuse. Within the next three weeks there are two "club" games you know he won't plan to play in anyway. If you ban him for three games, he'll count those two. If you ban him for three weeks, he's only banned from one game. The nsystem is a joke because it is child's play for anyone to abuse it. There was no way the system permitted Healy to be banned from the next three games he was likely to play in. That's a joke system. It's broken.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Dixie - not the response expected from a professional legal eagle :biggrin:

Yes there are faults, and this particular case has highlighted that changes are needed to how sanction periods are defined - which is one area RFU Disciplinary Review is looking at. And no doubt IRB, HRC, Amlin, 6Nations etc are all on the cc list.

 

[Chogan]

Dixie,
It would seem they wanted to ban him from 2 international matches (6N's own competition). Those provincial games or club games as you call them, would have Healy playing if he was with a team in France. You can't change it just because his employment/playing circumstances are more favourable than others.

If there was no mitigation for saying sorry at the initial hearing there wouldn't be such a hullabaloo over the whole thing.

It has to be weeks over games. It is too easy to load a player with multiple matches over a short time period.

 

[Account Deleted]

A little of an over-reaction ATTR ?

The appeal was about the period and how it was defined and which matches/weeks 'count'. It is not the disciplinary system per se at fault but how the 6 Nations Panel defined the sanction period.

The RFU is leading the way in reviewing their whole Disciplinary process, governance and organisation currently. I am sure a lot of Best Practice will be identified and the necessary changes made.

If it was isolated I would agree but it is not isolated. Further Bret Gosper is washing his hands of this case "not IRB jurisdiction" he claims. Yet the IRB got involved in the Adam Thomson case surely "not IRB jurisdiction" too. Maybe not. Funny that. Add recent cases such as Hoare, O'Gara etc and it is clear that the system has been corrupted (in a computer virus sense, of course).

 

[Simon Thomas]

If it was isolated I would agree but it is not isolated. Further Bret Gosper is washing his hands of this case "not IRB jurisdiction" he claims. Yet the IRB got involved in the Adam Thomson case surely "not IRB jurisdiction" too. Maybe not. Funny that.

The current Healy case was in a 6N ations match and so totally their juristiction, nothing to do with the IRB - so Gosper is right.

The Adam Thomson case (and Aussie Rob Simmons for tip tackle v France) were in the Autumn Internations which are IRB juristiction.

I see no corruption of any type.

 

[Account Deleted]

The AI game was heard by a 6N hearing. Also the IRB sets down the rules. for them not to have an interest in the fairness or otherwise of the hearings and any disregard for their regulations for them not to comment would be nonsense.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

The whole disgrace in this is that he only got 3 or is it 4 weeks for deliberately trying to break a defenceless players leg/ankle bringing shame on the disciplinary sytem and our game

 

[Chogan]

The whole disgrace in this is that he only got 3 or is it 4 weeks for deliberately trying to break a defenceless players leg/ankle bringing shame on the disciplinary sytem and our game

As I've said before. It is consistent with similar previous incidents that were deemed mid range.

As for bringing shame on the disciplinary system. :wtf: They did that all by themselves.

I believe the act should carrier a heavier ban but it doesn't at the moment.

 

[Account Deleted]

As I've said before. It is consistent with similar previous incidents that were deemed mid range.

As for bringing shame on the disciplinary system. :wtf: They did that all by themselves.

I believe the act should carrier a heavier ban but it doesn't at the moment.

If that was a "mid" range offence I'd hate to see a high end stamping. Once they defined it as mid range satire left the building.

 

[Toby Warren]

Healy's stamp was no way top end. I thought they got the mid range bit right. The mess around start and end dates and mitigation needs to be addressed.

 

[OB..]

Healy's stamp was no way top end. I thought they got the mid range bit right. The mess around start and end dates and mitigation needs to be addressed.

That is certainly my view.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Healy's stamp was no way top end. I thought they got the mid range bit right. The mess around start and end dates and mitigation needs to be addressed.

Exactly.

A mid-range offence and consistent with what I have seen elsewhere as low, mid and high.