Cian Healy cited

[simonokeeffe]

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

an ex ref on the panel?

[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.

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

The population of ex pro rugby players who are now qualified barristers or judges is small.

Could have Brian Moore decide everything I guess but he's a little poorly right now.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[artaneboy]

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

an ex ref on the panel?

There you have it! The joshing on the Ron Burgundy theme- it was funny, has muddied the issue.

It's not a gender thing; t's not even a legal thing- try tackling someone on the street and you'd get jail, it's understanding what happened in the context of both the laws of the sport and the dynamics of the match. What's reckless, what's reasonable care, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ruckedtobits]

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

Strongly suspect this is Pro12 protecting themselves against legal risk of being sued down the line. It certainly dilutes the capacity to make judgements about "intent" and / or "pre-meditation". For anybody who hasn't played or trained at serious level of rugby, not necessarily professional, many many actions in an intense rugby match look as if their is " intention to inflict......". If anybody doubts this they should read a few recent biographies of recently retired players from here or overseas.

Now, and including Citing Officials, the Disciplinary Process has gone over the top and become too PC, but largely I believe to limit liability for injuries to Players down the line.

This is the same path as the NFL and Coaches and Players will become tecnically more proficent at inflicting pain on opponents who are infringing and not being penalised.

[fourthirtythree]

I can't get past the rampant capitalisation in that post: what's with the proper nouns?

[enby]

it should be obligatory for the Disciplinary Committee to publish online the video footage relied upon by it to issue a suspension of a player. It seems incredible that CH got a citing, let alone a ban, based on the clip that appears in this thread,

[Peg Leg]

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

an ex ref on the panel?

You would have to assume that the P12 do not want a judging panel with experience in anything other than disseminating facts from the evidence presented, the defence plea and the judging panel's interpretation of the laws applicable.
The result should be binary with severity of punishment the only subjective outcome.

Too often have we been at the hands of refs and TMO's who let teams away with a bit hear and there or have a different law interpretation for a day.

The laws are the laws. Proper enforcement is the only thing that will allow proper enforcement.

[kermischocolate]

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?

Very good point which explains a lot.

But as a general principal (not directed at anyone in particular), why do you need to have played rugby to a high level to decide if the laws of the game have been broken?

[backrower8]

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?

Very good point which explains a lot.

But as a general principal (not directed at anyone in particular), why do you need to have played rugby to a high level to decide if the laws of the game have been broken?

Because not all situations are black and white and people who are well sensitised to the environments they are adjudicating on will make most likely better decisons.

The referees may not have played but they are highly sensitised to the sport and in my opinion would make great disciplinary panelists when they finish refereeing. The central issue for me is having people on these panels who are very well versed in the sport so they can judge the grey areas. No doubt it is not easy to find people with the relevant experience willing to do such a thankless task.

But when we see professionals like Cian Healy busting a gut and then being busted for what all of us think was an inocuous looking incident and missing a Europen semi-final as a result it does make you wonder about the whole panel's qualifications and relevant experience. Frankly, two of them being women is indicative to me that AT LEAST two of the panel were probably not versed in clearing out rucks.

Cue the PC brigade.

Put it this way, if I was told those women were Fiona Coughlan and Fiona Steed I would have no problem whatsoever....then again come to think of it... I would probably have an issue with the likes of Rob Andrew or Jonathan Davies as they never cleared out a ruck either!

[All Blacks nil]

The clip shown is inconclusive (does not show the collisionfor a start) and Healy could not have been convicted on that video angle alone.
There are various angles available to disciplinary panelsd at the vast majority of pro games with each camera focussing on the play. I would be pretty confident that at least one of those angles shows Healy committing the foul play as charged.
If no other angle were available I would appeal on his behalf. The Leinster management (all of whom are vastly experienced in pro rugby) have seen all the evidence and have not appealed. By their acceptance of the verdict they seem to concur with the non rugby playing but experienced disciplinary board.
Are they wrong?
Enough said.

[Peg Leg]

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?

Very good point which explains a lot.

But as a general principal (not directed at anyone in particular), why do you need to have played rugby to a high level to decide if the laws of the game have been broken?

Because not all situations are black and white and people who are well sensitised to the environments they are adjudicating on will make most likely better decisons.

The referees may not have played but they are highly sensitised to the sport and in my opinion would make great disciplinary panelists when they finish refereeing. The central issue for me is having people on these panels who are very well versed in the sport so they can judge the grey areas. No doubt it is not easy to find people with the relevant experience willing to do such a thankless task.

But when we see professionals like Cian Healy busting a gut and then being busted for what all of us think was an inocuous looking incident and missing a Europen semi-final as a result it does make you wonder about the whole panel's qualifications and relevant experience. Frankly, two of them being women is indicative to me that AT LEAST two of the panel were probably not versed in clearing out rucks.

Cue the PC brigade.

Put it this way, if I was told those women were Fiona Coughlan and Fiona Steed I would have no problem whatsoever....then again come to think of it... I would probably have an issue with the likes of Rob Andrew or Jonathan Davies as they never cleared out a ruck either!

The grey area is the problem for me. There shouldn't be any

[kermischocolate]

Very good point which explains a lot.

But as a general principal (not directed at anyone in particular), why do you need to have played rugby to a high level to decide if the laws of the game have been broken?

Because not all situations are black and white and people who are well sensitised to the environments they are adjudicating on will make most likely better decisons.

The referees may not have played but they are highly sensitised to the sport and in my opinion would make great disciplinary panelists when they finish refereeing. The central issue for me is having people on these panels who are very well versed in the sport so they can judge the grey areas. No doubt it is not easy to find people with the relevant experience willing to do such a thankless task.

But when we see professionals like Cian Healy busting a gut and then being busted for what all of us think was an inocuous looking incident and missing a Europen semi-final as a result it does make you wonder about the whole panel's qualifications and relevant experience. Frankly, two of them being women is indicative to me that AT LEAST two of the panel were probably not versed in clearing out rucks.

Cue the PC brigade.

Put it this way, if I was told those women were Fiona Coughlan and Fiona Steed I would have no problem whatsoever....then again come to think of it... I would probably have an issue with the likes of Rob Andrew or Jonathan Davies as they never cleared out a ruck either!

The grey area is the problem for me. There shouldn't be any

Exactly. Apply the laws of the game- a player that has been cited has either done what (s)he's been cited for or not.

This is half the problem with refereeing in the first place- picking and choosing which laws to focus on, which to let slide to "manage the spectacle" etc etc. The referees job is hard enough- just apply the laws of the game then there would be some consistency.

I do think there should be referees on the disciplinary panel but lets face it the citing and disciplinary process is a total shambles- especially within the Pro12. Has anyone ever seen the detail of any hearing- what conclusions they have come to and why?

In this case the fact Leinster haven't appealed it speaks volumes.

[artaneboy]

Because not all situations are black and white and people who are well sensitised to the environments they are adjudicating on will make most likely better decisons.

The referees may not have played but they are highly sensitised to the sport and in my opinion would make great disciplinary panelists when they finish refereeing. The central issue for me is having people on these panels who are very well versed in the sport so they can judge the grey areas. No doubt it is not easy to find people with the relevant experience willing to do such a thankless task.

But when we see professionals like Cian Healy busting a gut and then being busted for what all of us think was an inocuous looking incident and missing a Europen semi-final as a result it does make you wonder about the whole panel's qualifications and relevant experience. Frankly, two of them being women is indicative to me that AT LEAST two of the panel were probably not versed in clearing out rucks.

Cue the PC brigade.

Put it this way, if I was told those women were Fiona Coughlan and Fiona Steed I would have no problem whatsoever....then again come to think of it... I would probably have an issue with the likes of Rob Andrew or Jonathan Davies as they never cleared out a ruck either!

The grey area is the problem for me. There shouldn't be any

Exactly. Apply the laws of the game- a player that has been cited has either done what (s)he's been cited for or not.

This is half the problem with refereeing in the first place- picking and choosing which laws to focus on, which to let slide to "manage the spectacle" etc etc. The referees job is hard enough- just apply the laws of the game then there would be some consistency.

I do think there should be referees on the disciplinary panel but lets face it the citing and disciplinary process is a total shambles- especially within the Pro12. Has anyone ever seen the detail of any hearing- what conclusions they have come to and why?

In this case the fact Leinster haven't appealed it speaks volumes.

Well Kermis- it may speak volumes, but it's not at all clear what it's saying! Are we:
A- refusing to participate in contempt at the process and decision,
B- convinced Cian is innocent but deciding not to endure the distraction of an appeal, or
C- realise that the evidence- the much speculated "unseen video footage" , clearly condemned him and it's not worth the candle.

The problem with jumping to option C is that there is no indication of there actually being these mysterious footage- and all the angles us mere mortals get to see are not pointing to any breach of the laws. Posters assume they must exist- because.. why?
If they exist, why in the interests of transparency aren't they made available so we can all judge.

BTW- there are huge grey areas in the laws and in the interpretations. That's the curse and glory of human involvement in the pitch... and the hearing room apparently.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[artaneboy]

[quote="kermischocolate"][quote="Peg Leg"][quote="backrower8"][quote="kermischocolate"]



Double post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kermischocolate]

Well Kermis- it may speak volumes, but it's not at all clear what it's saying! Are we:
A- refusing to participate in contempt at the process and decision,
B- convinced Cian is innocent but deciding not to endure the distraction of an appeal, or
C- realise that the evidence- the much speculated "unseen video footage" , clearly condemned him and it's not worth the candle.

The problem with jumping to option C is that there is no indication of there actually being these mysterious footage- and all the angles us mere mortals get to see are not pointing to any breach of the laws. Posters assume they must exist- because.. why?
If they exist, why in the interests of transparency aren't they made available so we can all judge.

BTW- there are huge grey areas in the laws and in the interpretations. That's the curse and glory of human involvement in the pitch... and the hearing room apparently.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None of those.
I meant speaks volumes in that if they thought they could appeal and win they would. The assumption is that whatever evidence was presented was pretty damming. It was not a comment on whether I think he is guilty or should be banned or not. The fact they haven't (to me) says they don't have anything to counter whatever evidence has been presented against him. None of us will ever know exactly why he has been banned because the Pro12 never publish details. There is no transparency nor consistency in the citing or disciplinary process which is what infuriates fans of every club.

[Dave Cahill]

I think what happened is that Leinster saw the video evidence and knew that it was extremely likely that on foot of it the player would be banned. That would mean he misses the semi-final. If he pleads guilty, he misses the semi final, if he pleads not guilty and gets banned he misses the semi-final. The only chance the player has of making the semi-final is if he pleads not guilty and Leinster win the case - its not much of a chance, but its the only chance he has - so thats what they did. There's no point in appealing because he still misses the semi-final.

I can't understand why TG4 only showed the one angle - there would have been about a dozen cameras at the game (and the citing process has access to the participating teams own footage as well).

[LeRouxIsPHat]

He could also be injured and they didn't want to risk anything. Took a bang on the arm/shoulder early on last week was minding himself for a while after it.

[ronk]

He pleads guilty and best case is he gets 1 week instead of 2. Two weeks is starting point for a ban which means it wasn't any major offence, so there was probably some chance of being cleared.

Maybe the real lesson is not having interpros a week before a semi. There's an asymmetry is terms of being able to cause trouble.