There has been a lot of holier-than-thou comment about the twitter-sphere since the Cian Healy stamp on Dan Cole.
That’s not to say that it wasn’t a reckless action totally deserving of a ban, of course. But almost two weeks after the incident, to continue to bang on about it doesn’t add anything to the issue as the IRFU look set to appeal.
So can we please once and for all separate the very distinct threads of this topic once and for all?
1) The incident itself - we’ve heard all the sanctimony and disgust from non-Irish fans, and even from non-Leinster fans. And as a Leinster and Ireland fan even I can’t defend his action. Even though I very much doubt he did it out of the blue, in other words there was probably some incident earlier that had him riled up, he is meant to be a professional and shouldn’t respond with such a potentially dangerous action like that one. So hopefully all of those who are simply reacting to the word “appeal” will realise that nobody is trying to excuse the player’s actions.
2) How the disciplinary committee dealt with the incident -
"DISCIPLINARY UPDATE - HEALY DECISION
For immediate release: Wednesday 13th February 2013
Cian Healy, Ireland loosehead prop forward, appeared today before an independent Six Nations Disciplinary Committee, comprising Roger Morris (Chairman, Wales), Achille Reali (Italy) and Julien Berenger (France) having been cited for stamping on the leg of an opponent in the RBS 6 Nations match between Ireland and England in Dublin on Sunday.
The Committee having viewed the footage of the incident and listened to the representations by and on behalf of the player, found that the stamp should be categorised as a mid range offence in terms of seriousness, which carries a sanction of five weeks. 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.
The player has the right of appeal.”
A referee who comments on the HoR facebook page stated before the ruling that if the stamp was on Cole’s joint, which certainly seems to be the case, then the ban should be a minimum of four weeks.
But looking at the wording above, it would appear that the committee has chosen to refer to the “leg” rather than the “joint”. To my untrained eye, that would appear to be “throwing us a bone”, for the want of a better phrase.
Still, further down the ruling, we get into the whole “three weeks but not four” nonsense. This reminds me of what the Irish legal system calls a “life sentence”. Just how difficult is it to call a sanction exactly what it is?
And how can you make a ruling that pre-empts the actions of the player’s club? I have said many’s a time how ridiculous and messy is the practice of Pro12 matches during Six Nations time, but still it’s a fact of the sport and I don’t see how legally you can presume whether or not someone is going to be picked for a particular team. Such information is privy only to the coaching staff involved.
Imagine if a judge said – “I’m going to jail you for three years, but since I know you have no plans to do anything at all for this year anyway, you can’t get out of jail for four years.” Utterly ridiculous.
3) How the IRFU dealt with the incident -
David Kelly in today’s Irish Independent seems to bring SOME clarity to the situation, and what jumps out the page at me in his article is this :
“the IRFU, who failed to provide specialist legal representation at the initial hearing”
Obvious question….WHY NOT??? If the player is so important to the team that we’re to appeal the decision to get him to play against France, he should absolutely have someone with legal savvy with him at the hearing.
Also with regard to the whole three-weeks-not-four thing, I feel they missed a trick by not getting Leinster to name an “extended squad” before the hearing that included Healy. I’ve seen other unions & clubs do it, in fact off the top of my head I think WE have done it in the past. Whether or not he was ever going to ACTUALLY play, I don’t see how a ruling can be made to reflect something that may or may not happen in the future.
But I have another question…where is the new IRFU Director of Communications? I would have thought he should be all over this, but once more it is an incident shrouded in something…is it secrecy? Is it the left hand not knowing what the right is doing? I certainly can’t tell, which either means I’m not looking in the right places or someone who should be pointing me to them isn’t doing so.
***
All told, on the basis of the evidence I have to hand as I write this anyway, it seems to me that an appeal could very well do to the Irish squad exactly what Cian did to Dan Cole’s leg.
Given it could lead to a longer sanction, however ambiguous the committee’s ruling, it has all the trademarks of a sleeping dog that should be let lie for three four weeks. JLP
