Jennings Cited.

gcgirl

yep just heard it now a little bit harsh if you ask me i thought it was the incident when he face palmed Kennedy? any one have any youtube footage of it? Jennings out till Jan !

crisco10

gcgirl wrote: »

yep just heard it now a little bit harsh if you ask me i thought it was the incident when he face palmed Kennedy? any one have any youtube footage of it? Jennings out till Jan !

As posted earlier in the thread:

How that is 4 weeks WORSE than Burger mystifies me...

Amazotheamazing

Told you, stitched up just like Quinlan.

gcgirl

No where near his eyes ?
Unbelievable ?
Kennedy had his legs around Jennings head and Jennings had him by the side of his scrum cap if i am not mistaking!

Risteard

There's still the possibility of other camera angles showing it more clearly. But as already stated when you compare it to Burger's it is a joke. There needs to be a universal disciplinary board by the IRB where each offence and punishment for that offence is laid out clearly.

puntosporting

Seems harsh after Burgers incident for sure!

peterako

crisco10 wrote: »

As posted earlier in the thread:

How that is 4 weeks WORSE than Burger mystifies me...

The answer is....it isn't even in the same 'ball-park'.

BUT....it would be better if we could have some consistency.

Burger's citing was structured/worded in such a way that he was bound to get off lightly. Making a mockery of the whole procedure.

I'd be happier if teh ERC level was applied throughout the Unions. A bit of discipline may then return.

Having said that.

Gutted by a 12 week ban...but (hopefully) he won't do it again!

bamboozle

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Told you, stitched up just like Quinlan.

how was quinlan stitched up??? he was guilty,
as a leinster fan i'd quite happily see Jennings or anyone guilty of gouging to receive minimum 6 months ban, something this drastic is required to rid it from the game.

andrewdcs

gcgirl wrote: »

No where near his eyes ?

It's not the right hand, its the left. This is the only public angle and doesn't show much but a clawed left hand go over the top of Kennedys face, prompting kennedys reaction.

Think IRB are trying to come down on dangerous eye/face scratching so in one way Jennings is unlucky with timing.
Burgers transgression was far far worse and his 8 weeks was a joke.
Now the ERC / IRB have to stay consistent, 12 weeks minimum for face play. Interesting to see the transcript.

Wobs

I thought there was nothing in it because I was only focusing on his right hand but check out his left hand later on. He definetly raked across the face!

bleg

Was thinking he'd get something like this. He deliberately went for the face. Inexcusable. Tough titties.

Stev_o

ERC where always going to come down hard on them they rarely give out mickey mouse sentences, obviously due to the number of high profile incidents regarding the eye area the IRB need to making statements that out your hands in that region is a complete no no.

MG

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Told you, stitched up just like Quinlan.

Well, as I said the Quinlan case set a very low standard of evidential requirement for offences around contact with the eye area. The standard is too low in my opinion, but if they set a precedent they must stick with it. At least they have been consistent.

It therefore appears to be more or less correct, subject to reading the full hearing transcript.

buck65

12 weeks! A bit harsh. 8 would have been enough. Still though it was a stupid thing to do. Might have cost him a run in the Irish jersey.

Snickers Man

Got to say it looks suspiciously like it was fully deserved. It's not for the slap after they get up; it's for what went on before hand.

What is his hand doing anywhere near Kennedy's head as they roll around on the ground? The ball has long gone and he seems to be (at the very least) gripping Kennedy's headgear. Like, why?

You can't have gouging. It's not manly, it's not "part of the game" and anyone caught doing it should be banned. Conversely, anybody who falsely accuses someone of the same should be banned as well.

Oh, and please don't accuse me of being a Munster supporter. Read the sig.

wixfjord

Bit of a harsh sentence I have to say. That youtube video is very inconclusive, so I presume theres other angles to it. If however Jennings did go anywhere near the eyes hes a very silly boy and deserves a ban. 12 weeks, in the light of recent ban lenghts is still a bit much. Leinsnters H Cup chances are slipping away. I presume this will mean a move for O Brien to 7.

As a Leinster fan, I'm not happy about this.

As a rugby fan though, I'm very satisfied. Hopefully this will show players that the minimum that they should expect to receive for any sort of gouging or other such behaviour. There is no reason whatsoever to ever have your hands near someone else's face in rugby, and especially not while at the bottom of a ruck, or during a maul.

Its unfortunate that Jennings is being used as a yardstick, but at the same time, he was guilty of the above, and should be held accountable for it.

WeeBushy

wixfjord wrote: »

Bit of a harsh sentence I have to say. That youtube video is very inconclusive, so I presume theres other angles to it. If however Jennings did go anywhere near the eyes hes a very silly boy and deserves a ban. 12 weeks, in the light of recent ban lenghts is still a bit much. Leinsnters H Cup chances are slipping away. I presume this will mean a move for O Brien to 7.

I think comparing it to other bans isn't the right way of looking at it. Burger's ban was way too short, rather than jennings' being too harsh. I'm of the opinion that it there is any contact whatsoever with the eye then a very swift and lengthly ban should be handed down. It's a part of the game that seriously needs to be stamped out (no pun intended).

O'Brien at 7 doesn't weaken the team imo. It does leave us light on the bench however.

EDIT: if Hayes' ban was reduced on appeal, I'm sure this one will be as well. Closer to 8 weeks I'd guess. Still out for the AIs, silly boy.

Tim Robbins

MG wrote: »

Well, as I said the Quinlan case set a very low standard of evidential requirement for offences around contact with the eye area. The standard is too low in my opinion, but if they set a precedent they must stick with it. At least they have been consistent.

It therefore appears to be more or less correct, subject to reading the full hearing transcript.

Quinlan should have got higher consider the Best precedent.
And that bloke Burger should have got atleast a year.

NaiveMelodies

Haha John Hayes stamps Cian Healy and stamps forcefully 3 or 4 times near the eye area and Jennings unconclusively makes contact with someone else eye...
The latter gets 7 weeks more.

Incosistencies in this game will ultimately lead to its downfall, what a complete farce.

Webbs

only1stevo wrote: »

Haha John Hayes stamps Cian Healy and stamps forcefully 3 or 4 times near the eye area and Jennings unconclusively makes contact with someone else eye...
The latter gets 7 weeks more.

Incosistencies in this game will ultimately lead to its downfall, what a complete farce.

Agree its a farce, but that is more to do with the Magners ridiculous citing procedure than anything else. The ERC have been consistent in 12 weeks for Quinlan and now 12 weeks for Jennings.

puntosporting

only1stevo wrote: »

Incosistencies in this game will ultimately lead to its downfall, what a complete farce.

Dont get too carried away !

RugbyFanatic

only1stevo wrote: »

Haha John Hayes stamps Cian Healy and stamps forcefully 3 or 4 times near the eye area and Jennings unconclusively makes contact with someone else eye...
The latter gets 7 weeks more.

Incosistencies in this game will ultimately lead to its downfall, what a complete farce.

I'm going to have to completely agree. If Jennings got 3 months for that then Hayes deserves a 6 month ban, Quinlan deserves a year ban and Burger deserves a hell of a lot longer!

RugbyFanatic

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Told you, stitched up just like Quinlan.

Um....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg28666NFGc

uberwolf

wow.

eh.

A few thoughts (that I'm sure you're all dying to hear)

Jennings himself. Having seen the video, it has to be the left hand. What that video does not show is any gouging with either hand, but it does suggest that another angle might. If it's a flat hand it's harsh - IMO gouging is trying to stick a finger in someones eye - in the same way that a punch to the side of the head isn't gouging, a palm across the face isn't a gouge. That video cannot have been the deciding angle.

Am I sorry that a gouger gets 12 weeks. No.

On a sliding scale. Burgers was far worse, and farcical. But water under the bridge.

Quinlans was worse IMO, based on the video we've seen. Quinlan engaged contact with Cullen exclusively to gouge, unlike Jennings who was engaged and escalated stupidly.

For all that you might say about gouging, it won't kill someone. As in literally kill someone. Hayes could have killed Healy. So it's a worse offence. And for such a serious issue, I don't believe being unsighted is a mitigant - in fact it's worse.

Sighted stamp to body < sighted stamp to groin < unsighted stamp to any part of the body < sighted head stamp

If you don't know where you're hitting someone, its reckless & malicious rather than just malicious.

If Jennings is guilty so be it, it's another video that convicted him. As for the ban, 12 weeks doesn't upset me for gouging. But, there has to be consistency of banning. Based on potential damage, rather than actual damage.

thebaz

doesn't look good, the only thing is, if it was a real gouge , surely Kennedy would have retaliated a lot worse, with a serious dig ??
Maybe he has a Leo Cullen personality , whose attitude was impeccable

phog

12 weeks seem hars but switching hands may have led them to believe in Jennings having some intention to do harm and worse for him, leading with his hand into his face when they get off the ground, all of this didn't help him.

I suppose Donal Spring will be be sprung for his appeal.

thehighground

I was right yesterday (unfortunately) when I posted he would get 12 weeks. This is very similar to Martin Corry's suspension last year.

Well worth reading the deliberations of the disciplinary committee here for all the transgressions.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/5019_4862.php

Scroll down and you can download Martin Corry's report.

Don't try and compare to The Bull - different competition, different disciplinary committee and different offence, not to mention that Healy was recklessly endangering himself by trying to pull down the maul.

lobber

Don't try and compare to The Bull - different competition, different disciplinary committee and different offence, not to mention that Healy was recklessly endangering himself by trying to pull down the maul.[/quote]

different competition, different disciplinary committee and different offence, your right up to that point. But your suggestion is that Healy is at fault for getting a malicious stamp in the face. But i'm sure your not really saying that, seriously!

thehighground

thehighground wrote: »

Don't try and compare to The Bull - different competition, different disciplinary committee and different offence, not to mention that Healy was recklessly endangering himself by trying to pull down the maul.

/ignored

Please see all other posts where I've managed to keep the Blue Goggles to a minimum. This is on of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen. Words cannot even describe how quickly this caused me sigh out loud at your Munster = Right attitude.

I wont be posting in this thread again, as I've already made my views clear.

Deleted User wrote:

As a Leinster fan, I'm not happy about this.

As a rugby fan though, I'm very satisfied. Hopefully this will show players that the minimum that they should expect to receive for any sort of gouging or other such behaviour. There is no reason whatsoever to ever have your hands near someone else's face in rugby, and especially not while at the bottom of a ruck, or during a maul.

Its unfortunate that Jennings is being used as a yardstick, but at the same time, he was guilty of the above, and should be held accountable for it.

thehighground

lobber wrote: »

Don't try and compare to The Bull - different competition, different disciplinary committee and different offence, not to mention that Healy was recklessly endangering himself by trying to pull down the maul.

different competition, different disciplinary committee and different offence, your right up to that point. But your suggestion is that Healy is at fault for getting a malicious stamp in the face. But i'm sure your not really saying that, seriously![/QUOTE]

I'm saying that Healy should also have been cited for trying to pull down the maul. If he wasn't trying to do that, he would not have got a stamp. Healy esccaped. Hopefully he won't try that stunt again.

funky penguin

Fair play to ERC, consistent citing (although with blue goggles on, I'd love to see another angle ).


I wonder will we now see Hines play a game or two in the back row? Could give Toner a bit of a chance! (And yes, this is me looking at the positives!)

RugbyFanatic

thehighground wrote: »

I'm saying that Healy should also have been cited for trying to pull down the maul. If he wasn't trying to do that, he would not have got a stamp. Healy esccaped. Hopefully he won't try that stunt again.

Oh. Dear. God.

uberwolf

Sorry in advance for straying off topic. On the issue of Healys actions in the Hayes maul.

Does he interfere once he goes to ground? To my blue eyes, he certainly goes to ground while trying to interfere, but ends up on the side of the maul. At which point he's not interfering, and the maul then gets shunted over him again, and he makes no effort to engage with it at all.

ironingbored

thehighground wrote: »

I'm saying that Healy should also have been cited for trying to pull down the maul. If he wasn't trying to do that, he would not have got a stamp. Healy esccaped. Hopefully he won't try that stunt again.

Citings now for illegally pulling down a maul? What tosh!

What next? Add four weeks to Jennings ban for all the times in that match that he had hands in the ruck?

4 week ban for accidental offside?

2 week ban for slicing a kick to touch or crossing?

1 week ban for having your socks rolled down? Another week for Jennings then!

1 week ban for exuberant touch downs?

And if Kennedy didn't want to get gouged or touched around the eye area he should have taken up chess.

From the video available 12 weeks seems harsh.

However, if there is another angle that shows contact with the eye area 12 weeks is fully justified.

Jennings now has plenty of time to rue this idiotic gesture.

thehighground

uberwolf wrote: »

Sorry in advance for straying off topic. On the issue of Healys actions in the Hayes maul.

Does he interfere once he goes to ground? To my blue eyes, he certainly goes to ground while trying to interfere, but ends up on the side of the maul. At which point he's not interfering, and the maul then gets shunted over him again, and he makes no effort to engage with it at all.

Healy's method of defending the maul was to pull it down (remember why some ELVs were brought in?) instead of pushing against it. What he was doing was extremely dangerous. He should have been sent off for that. What was he doing underneath the maul in the first place - if he was defending it legally he would have come off the side and we wouldn't be debating Hayes' suspension. Hopefully Healy learned that if you play with fire, there can be consequences for himself and others.

Healy can put off his Ireland debut if Hayes isn't playing. There is no way that Kidney would let out a front row of Healy and Buckley against Australia.

chupacabra

thehighground wrote: »

Healy's method of defending the maul was to pull it down (remember why some ELVs were brought in?) instead of pushing against it. What he was doing was extremely dangerous. He should have been sent off for that. What was he doing underneath the maul in the first place - if he was defending it legally he would have come off the side and we wouldn't be debating Hayes' suspension. Hopefully Healy learned that if you play with fire, there can be consequences for himself and others.

Healy can put off his Ireland debut if Hayes isn't playing. There is no way that Kidney would let out a front row of Healy and Buckley against Australia.

You're going overboard here. At the absolute worst, if Healy pulled down a maul 5 yards from his own line. Then thats a yellow card and a penalty try. But a citation for pulling the maul down? Are you kidding?

thebaz

thehighground wrote: »

Healy's method of defending the maul was to pull it down (remember why some ELVs were brought in?) instead of pushing against it. What he was doing was extremely dangerous.

dangerous ???? -


Danger to me would be a stamp or 2 on the face by a 20 stone senior

thehighground

chupacabra wrote: »

You're going overboard here. At the absolute worst, if Healy pulled down a maul 5 yards from his own line. Then thats a yellow card and a penalty try. But a citation for pulling the maul down? Are you kidding?

I think that was the 2nd time he did it in that game (I know I've seen him do it before and not get carded for it).

If he keeps getting away with it, how do you make him realise that he is endangering himself (and others)?

OldJay

thebaz wrote: »

dangerous ????

Yes. Highly but not a citing offence.

Profiler

chupacabra wrote: »

You're going overboard here. At the absolute worst, if Healy pulled down a maul 5 yards from his own line. Then thats a yellow card and a penalty try. But a citation for pulling the maul down? Are you kidding?

It would appear so!

He's got form, on the original Quinlan thread The Higher Ground saw the you tube clip and said he saw nothing wrong except for Cullen punching O'Connell... :rolleyes: best not to engage him in conversation on these things.

There is an old saying which goes "Never get into a battle of wits with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

dreamer_ire

thehighground wrote: »

I'm saying that Healy should also have been cited for trying to pull down the maul. If he wasn't trying to do that, he would not have got a stamp. Healy esccaped. Hopefully he won't try that stunt again.

Remember we pulled down a maul earlier and I think it may have been TOL, by the same reckoning TOL would have been cited for that? I'd have been livid with the citing folks if that had happened.

Anyone pulling down the maul can expect a bit of a shoeing and no one would have any complaints, a kick in the head is entirely different. Even with my red tinted glasses I cannot see how it was accidental.... and believe me I have huge time for Hayes. I've watched it several times over and while I understand that it was sheer frustration by both POC and Hayes it was totally out of line and the Bull's ban is in my opinion totally justified (though probably lenient).

Back on topic I think Jennings citing is fair. There is no reason to put your hands on another players face and the ERC are right to clamp down on it as harshly as they can. In fact I applaud them for it. Was it intentional.... was Quinlan's, Best's, Corry's? Maybe, maybe not but the fact remains each of those players put themselves in that position where they faced disciplinary action. No one made them do it, like Hayes, and they should rightly suffer the consequences of their actions.

thehighground

chupacabra wrote: »

You're going overboard here. At the absolute worst, if Healy pulled down a maul 5 yards from his own line. Then thats a yellow card and a penalty try. But a citation for pulling the maul down? Are you kidding?

Read the post I responded to (No. 138) Note this part:;)

What he was doing was extremely dangerous. He should have been sent off for that.

Care to reply as to what should be done with someone who has total disregard for his own health & safety and the health & safety of others?

Stev_o

Ehm http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055709770 >_> Some people not notice the other thread that deals with that incident.

[Jackass]

thehighground wrote: »

Read the post I responded to (No. 138) Note this part:;)

What he was doing was extremely dangerous. He should have been sent off for that.

Care to reply as to what should be done with someone who has total disregard for his own health & safety and the health & safety of others?

Irony.

Well.........if what you're saying is true, how did John Hayes get from his own 22 to his own 5 yard line in this video? Good thing there was no ticket inspectors on board and Leinster got an advantage for this..Healy was pulling down a maul 80 metres from his own line...

Regarding Jennings ban, shocked is all I can say, but can only presume there must be evidence that we can not see, there's no way he was given that ban based on the footgage we have, but he must have done something pretty bad.

ironingbored

thehighground wrote: »

If he keeps getting away with it, how do you make him realise that he is endangering himself (and others)?

We make him realize by kicking him in the head that's how!

We should also allow all players take the field with knuckledusters. I'd like to see someone put hands in the ruck off their feet then!

And if someone is annoying us let's gouge their eyes out. It's a tough sport.

Podge_irl

thehighground wrote: »

Read the post I responded to (No. 138) Note this part:;)

What he was doing was extremely dangerous. He should have been sent off for that.

Care to reply as to what should be done with someone who has total disregard for his own health & safety and the health & safety of others?

I don't even know where to start with this.

Pulling down a maul is not a red card offence. The punishment for it is a penalty, possibly a yellow card and a good shoeing. If someone does not have sufficient disregard for their own health & safety that they can't put up with a good shoeing, I would advise they don't play rugby.

Stamping on someone's head is a whole other world away. What Hayes did (and what Jennings did) is indefensible, your attempt to defend him, or provide mitigating circumstances, is baffling.


As regards Jennings, I think the video was pretty inconclusive, but there may have been other angles and nonetheless he was pretty stupid to put himself in that position. 12 weeks is the minimum I'd like to see for this kind of thing. I think Jennings' ban is totally fair. Its feckin Burger's ban that was the miscarriage of justice.

drkpower

Jaysus, there's an awful load of inter-prov. nonsense on this thread. It never fails to amaze me how supporting one team completely removes critical faculties from otherwise sensible adults!!

Anyway, from the footage Ive seen, while his finger wasnt that close to his eye, the positioning of his thumb relative to his hand (in a gouging motion) does appear reckless whereby, had his thumb been closer to the eye area, he could have gouged Kennedy. The Quinlan incident was different and in his case, the hand was closer to the eye area but his hand "raked" across the area rather than it being a gouging motion. It too was reckless.

I doubt that either of them were genuine attempts to gouge but they were both equally reckless and I would have thought that both warranted similar punishments. 12 weeks might seem harsh but if we want to get rid of gouging, a zero tolerance approach is needed.

The objectivity of those who are calling for a one week or no ban must surely be called into question.

danthefan

thehighground - you are aware Hayes tried to pull down the maul in the first half that resulted in Leinster getting a penalty under the posts aren't you? So by your very own logic Hayes shouldn't have been on the pitch to stamp on Healy in the first place.

And basically saying he deserved it/saying he should be sent off/cited is an absolute joke.

Edit - I see there's a youtube clip of Hayes above, didn't see that, sorry.


As for Jennings, crap :mad: Given the footage we have I think it's harsh enough, how Burger can get 8 weeks and Jennings 12 is beyond me. Leinster are in a bad way now, Keogh is next in line in the backrow, just cannot afford another injury.

thehighground

danthefan wrote: »

thehighground - you are aware Hayes tried to pull down the maul in the first half that resulted in Leinster getting a penalty under the posts aren't you? So by your very own logic Hayes shouldn't have been on the pitch to stamp on Healy in the first place.

And basically saying he deserved it/saying he should be sent off/cited is an absolute joke.

Edit - I see there's a youtube clip of Hayes above, didn't see that, sorry.

I'm well aware of that and Leinster got a penalty. As far as I can remember Healy pulled down the maul that should have been a penalty try for Munster. Then he tried it again (since it worked the first time . It was his second offense in the same match so he should have been binned.

My original point is that Healy wasn't the innocent bystander that you would all like to think he is. And if some of you took the opportunity to read any of the reports of the disciplinary committee you might actually understand how the whole thing works. Its not black & white as to how they come to their decisions.