Cian Healy cited

[molloyjh]

http://www.the42.ie/cian-healy-leinster ... 5-Apr2017/
Can anyone explain how the f**k that is a penalty let alone a red card offence! Was there another angle? Thats looks like a great clearout to me. The Connacht player doesn't bat an eyelid let alone protest! Bizarre decision!

I'd be 99.99% sure there were a few other camera angles, although we'll probably never get to see them. The Pro12 has proven to be very lenient in the past, particularly when Irish officials are ruling on Irish players in the run up to a big game. Unless there's some newfound bias against Leinster or Healy himself (there isn't) then I'd have to think this was probably deserved.

[Fan with smartphone]

I heard the 2 female members of the panel used a private email server but mainly they never played pro rugby like every male disciplinary panel member ever

You need people in there who can invent wheels

[the spoofer]

I heard the 2 female members of the panel used a private email server but mainly they never played pro rugby like every male disciplinary panel member ever

I'd like someone on the panel who'd some idea what it's like to have to clear out a ruck. Like, if I was facing a court martial for cowardice in the face of the enemy, I'd like someone on the jury who knew what it was like to be shot at.

[the spoofer]

I heard the 2 female members of the panel used a private email server but mainly they never played pro rugby like every male disciplinary panel member ever

I'd like someone on the panel who'd some idea what it's like to have to clear out a ruck. Like, if I was facing a court martial for cowardice in the face of the enemy, I'd like someone on the jury who knew what it was like to be shot at.

It doesn't look like a red to me either from the clips but how about you show some respect to the officials who support the game instead of questioning their ability based on their gender?

Point out to me one place where I question gender? Otherwise I expect an apology.

[RoboProp]

All the times Leinster players have extended goodwill i.e. positive testimony, to other provincial players who have been cited playing us doesn't get reciprocated?

Ah yes, there's my chip right where I left it on my shoulder

[backrower8]

Point out to me one place where I question gender? Otherwise I expect an apology.

Your point was as per mine.

I don't care what sex they are, were, will be in the future or whether they are gender fluid. Their experience of rugby as a relevant attribute for this role was and is my only point.

When we are told that two of the panel are women that is great if they have prior rugby playing experience however the probability of that is miniscule given the short history of women's rugby and the typically (late) middle-aged profile of the panels.

I also said that seeing as there were two women unlikely to have played the game that it made me think again of the rugby exerience of 'ALL' members of the panel - but that was typically ignored. The reaction to my post is part of a consistent pattern by some and also of the armchair nature of many of the territorial, Uber-posters on this public forum whose PC-obsession prevents them from seeing the wood from the trees.

I hope they appeal. If not I would have great faith in Dooley. He is the grade and I don't think Bent has played Loose-head in some time. At this level that matters. Also the game will be helter skelter in the last 30 which the great Rossy was never suited to and is even less so now at this stage of his career. I would see a last 30 mins combo of Dooley-Bent surviving in the scrums and contributing best to our style of play than the Bent-Rossy option.

[simonokeeffe]

I heard the 2 female members of the panel used a private email server but mainly they never played pro rugby like every male disciplinary panel member ever

I'd like someone on the panel who'd some idea what it's like to have to clear out a ruck. Like, if I was facing a court martial for cowardice in the face of the enemy, I'd like someone on the jury who knew what it was like to be shot at.

I thought thats why they couldnt have trials in Limerick?

If you make it an all judicial panel (part of that might be for more independence) it would be nearly impossible to routinely make it one with any pro rugby experience. And the pro/modern game is vastly different to the amateur era one

If there wasnt another angle though then obviously its a crazy ban

[the spoofer]

Point out to me one place where I question gender? Otherwise I expect an apology.

Your point was as per mine.

I don't care what sex they are, were, will be in the future or whether they are gender fluid. Their experience of rugby as a relevant attribute for this role was and is my only point.

When we are told that two of the panel are women that is great if they have prior rugby playing experience however the probability of that is miniscule given the short history of women's rugby and the typically (late) middle-aged profile of the panels.

I also said that seeing as there were two women unlikely to have played the game that it made me think again of the rugby exerience of 'ALL' members of the panel - but that was typically ignored. The reaction to my post is part of a consistent pattern by some and also of the armchair nature of many of the territorial, Uber-posters on this public forum whose PC-obsession prevents them from seeing the wood from the trees.

I hope they appeal. If not I would have great faith in Dooley. He is the grade and I don't think Bent has played Loose-head in some time. At this level that matters. Also the game will be helter skelter in the last 30 which the great Rossy was never suited to and is even less so now at this stage of his career. I would see a last 30 mins combo of Dooley-Bent surviving in the scrums and contributing best to our style of play than the Bent-Rossy option.

I'm not really interested in a ding dong but as a response.

I've never seen questions about the probity of disciplinary panels arise before but as soon as it was mentioned there were two women involved it became a hot topic.

You assume women don't have experience of rugby, I think that's pretty parochial and disrespectful and I'm calling you on it. My wife and mother in law are both deeply involved in rugby but you assume because they are women they have no prior rugby experience.

Or do you mean professional experience at Pro 12 level? Do we need that for every official who is involved in the game? Refs, ARs, TV assistants? That's an impossible bar to clear, and not one that has ever been mentioned before when the panel has been male.

Nigel Owens never played serious rugby, Garces never played serious rugby? Should we assume they wouldn't know a clear out if they saw one?


So yeah, if that's PC culture that's fine but it seems to me that your expectation of what constitutes a fit disciplinary panel is informed by the gender of those who sit on it.

You need to apologise for your incorrect post or else delete what you said about me.

[blockhead]

Cool......Catfight!

[RoboProp]

Cool......Catfight!

I feel we need the meme of Michael Jackson eating popcorn at the movies here

[The Doc]

I'm not really interested in a ding dong but as a response.

I've never seen questions about the probity of disciplinary panels arise before but as soon as it was mentioned there were two women involved it became a hot topic.

You assume women don't have experience of rugby, I think that's pretty parochial and disrespectful and I'm calling you on it. My wife and mother in law are both deeply involved in rugby but you assume because they are women they have no prior rugby experience.

Or do you mean professional experience at Pro 12 level? Do we need that for every official who is involved in the game? Refs, ARs, TV assistants? That's an impossible bar to clear, and not one that has ever been mentioned before when the panel has been male.

Nigel Owens never played serious rugby, Garces never played serious rugby? Should we assume they wouldn't know a clear out if they saw one?


So yeah, if that's PC culture that's fine but it seems to me that your expectation of what constitutes a fit disciplinary panel is informed by the gender of those who sit on it.

You need to apologise for your incorrect post or else delete what you said about me.

The panel is not required to have rugby experience - they are required to have (quasi) judicial experience. Usually it is judges or legal professionals and in fact rarely has anybody with direct rugby experience - especially at high level. The reason is that it is a quasi judicial forum to hear arguments from the specialists - not a skills or coaching forum.

So questioning the rugby background of any women on the panel is out of order because the panellists are not selected for their rugby experience and most men on it don't have that level experience either. We don't ask the judge at a murder trial how many people he has murdered

[the spoofer]

I'm not really interested in a ding dong but as a response.

I've never seen questions about the probity of disciplinary panels arise before but as soon as it was mentioned there were two women involved it became a hot topic.

You assume women don't have experience of rugby, I think that's pretty parochial and disrespectful and I'm calling you on it. My wife and mother in law are both deeply involved in rugby but you assume because they are women they have no prior rugby experience.

Or do you mean professional experience at Pro 12 level? Do we need that for every official who is involved in the game? Refs, ARs, TV assistants? That's an impossible bar to clear, and not one that has ever been mentioned before when the panel has been male.

Nigel Owens never played serious rugby, Garces never played serious rugby? Should we assume they wouldn't know a clear out if they saw one?


So yeah, if that's PC culture that's fine but it seems to me that your expectation of what constitutes a fit disciplinary panel is informed by the gender of those who sit on it.

You need to apologise for your incorrect post or else delete what you said about me.

The panel is not required to have rugby experience - they are required to have (quasi) judicial experience. Usually it is judges or legal professionals and in fact rarely has anybody with direct rugby experience - especially at high level. The reason is that it is a quasi judicial forum to hear arguments from the specialists - not a skills or coaching forum.

So questioning the rugby background of any women on the panel is out of order because the panellists are not selected for their rugby experience and most men on it don't have that level experience either. We don't ask the judge at a murder trial how many people he has murdered[/quote]

Does anyone read what other people post here? My point is that judging actions on a rugby field purely on a quasi judicial basis is, in my opinion, bullshit as they have not been in that position. The murder analogy is bullshit also. At no stage did I even mention the sex of the panel and to have that constantly ascribed to me is further bullshit. Now I used that word three times deliberately.

[the spoofer]

Scotland only got 2 Lions; but they have 3 /3 on Healys citing committee.......The disciplinary committee will comprise of Pamela Woodman (chair), Kathrine Mackie and Roddy MacLeod (all Scotland).

What are the quals for to be a citing disciplinary committee?

They seem to be mainly legal people which surprises me as I would have thought knowing what it's like on a rugby field would be a useful qualification when deciding on something so important.

This is my original post. How the f%~k can this be construed in any other way than it is worded is beyond me.

[fourthirtythree]

It's a bit like saying that a judge needs to be a computer scientist, a banker, an accountant, a drug dealer or whatever.

And hoping for an appeal isn't a winning strategy either, appeals almost always succeed on procedural grounds, that's why they have lawyers rather her than rugby players on the panels: to ensure procedural fairness.

I have seen questions posed here, and correctly so, about the probity of citings panels. Some infamous examples in Munster and Wales brought the league, the unions, and rugby as a whole into disrepute. That is why we have the current system.

My only real problem here is the lack of clarity about the offense and the evidence. We are taking it on trust but we have no reason to think the process is improper.

[curates_egg]

Just heard on the wireless that they won't appeal.
A shame for Healy but Dooley is a great replacement. I thought he had leapfrogged Healy last season but Church has been back on form this season.

[The Doc]

Does anyone read what other people post here? My point is that judging actions on a rugby field purely on a quasi judicial basis is, in my opinion, bullshit as they have not been in that position. The murder analogy is bullshit also. At no stage did I even mention the sex of the panel and to have that constantly ascribed to me is further bullshit. Now I used that word three times deliberately.

Write a strongly worded letter to the Pro12 and World Rugby - though bear in mind that historically people have also considered it bullshit to have judgements passed by people who have no idea of rules of evidence, natural justice and proper process. Which is why rugby moved away from having "rugby people" on these panels to having professionals.

[the spoofer]

It's a bit like saying that a judge needs to be a computer scientist, a banker, an accountant, a drug dealer or whatever.

And hoping for an appeal isn't a winning strategy either, appeals almost always succeed on procedural grounds, that's why they have lawyers rather her than rugby players on the panels: to ensure procedural fairness.

I have seen questions posed here, and correctly so, about the probity of citings panels. Some infamous examples in Munster and Wales brought the league, the unions, and rugby as a whole into disrepute. That is why we have the current system.

My only real problem here is the lack of clarity about the offense and the evidence. We are taking it on trust but we have no reason to think the process is improper.

Out of a three PERSON panel, I think it would be no harm to have one who has knowledge of playing rugby at a decent level. I have been part of committees investigating various matters and they have tended to have PEOPLE with different skills or experience on them.

[fourthirtythree]

One has to assume they took expert advice.

The lack of appeal doesn't surprise me. The current situation is an inevitable response to the lawyering up of those being cited and some of the silly short bans and successful appeals on procedural grounds. An appeals panel to this would be very reluctant to overturn a finding of fact from the original panel and would nearly always restrict itself to procedural fairness.

The alternative is you can take leinster players' heads off as long as you do it in Newport or Munster and the assaulting player is just fine to play next week. I know which I prefer. Not that it's ideal.

[Peg Leg]

On the assumption that the panel got it right, Cian Healy's disciplinary record will not do him any favours in these instances.he needs to be careful in future.

[artaneboy]

Does anyone read what other people post here? My point is that judging actions on a rugby field purely on a quasi judicial basis is, in my opinion, bullshit as they have not been in that position. The murder analogy is bullshit also. At no stage did I even mention the sex of the panel and to have that constantly ascribed to me is further bullshit. Now I used that word three times deliberately.

Write a strongly worded letter to the Pro12 and World Rugby - though bear in mind that historically people have also considered it bullshit to have judgements passed by people who have no idea of rules of evidence, natural justice and proper process. Which is why rugby moved away from having "rugby people" on these panels to having professionals.

Having people who are familiar with BOTH legal principles and rugby could surely be both possible and beneficial; or am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk