Cian Healy cited for biting

Buer

He did not retract his accusation. He said it may have been accidental. He then went on to make a statement to the citing officer at the game afterwards.

davidpfitz

.ak wrote: »

We're not animals...

Well, technically, we are.

dregin

Dub13 wrote: »

A footballer does this and there is outrage. Barly got a mention on the news here.

Innocent until proven guilty.

rudiger2.0

There was the Wannenburg-Hartley incident in the Heineken cup in 2011, I think. Wannenburg is clearly seen to bite Hartley but Hartley was trying some fancy decapitation move so everybody didn't really care about the bite, including Poite.

Though maybe that was because it was Hartley

For Paws

According to the Sky commentary, Sheehan is particularly famed for 'sledging'.
His accusation reeks of this. Incidents where a player would be held down by a forearm across the throat are common. Placing your forearm into the open mouth of a player who does not wear a mouthguard looks suspiciously like pre-meditated.

One way or another, Healy's tour is over unless we lose the 1st Test and LH is a huge problem area, and Healy is fit again.

Very unfortunate for any player to miss out on Lion's Test debut in this way.
Won't be the only injury before the 1st Test either.

sydthebeat

Surely this is an easy call.

1. there would be 'confirmed' medical evidence of a bite
2. there would be conclusive video evidence and / or witness statements (doubtful)
3. there will be referees and assistant referees reports (doubtful)


see here for what damning evidence was used in Dylan Hartleys citing.

Grimebox

Noopti wrote: »

Looking at the evidence this is a joke of a citing.

* Scrumhalf claims he was bitten, points at his forearm
* TMO reviews video during the game and says no foul play
* Scrumhalf retracts the accusation at half time
* Healy gets cited anyway
* Video of the incident shows scrumhalfs fingers around the mouth area of a prone and immobilized Healy, Healy doesn't even move his head. Then scrumhalf shoves his forearm into Healy's face

Who knows, but in my mind you cannot find the player guilty based on the above - it is all a bit too murky. Unless there is some other piece of evidence out there.

Citing doesn't imply guilt, and by all accounts from what your saying they won't find him guilty.

For Paws

Grimebox wrote: »

Citing doesn't imply guilt, and by all accounts from what your saying they won't find him guilty.

Absolutely correct.

But what if Sheehan's intention was to damage the Lion's chances against Australia by having Healy banned for biting ?

I know it sounds extreme that anyone would be that premeditated.
It's not like a hooker & a centre spear-tackling the opposition's best player in the opening minutes of a Test.

Could a finding against Sheehan be made ?
Or is only for or against Healy that a finding can be made ?

JRant

Citing is the proper course of action here. Both sides will be given due process and that's all you can ask for in a situation like this.

If it was a case of fingers in the mouth then Sheenan has no one to blame but himself. In much the same way acidental contact with the eye area is a disciplinary matter, the differance being the eyes can't defend themselves unlike your mouth. Reminds me of the NFL player Jim Brown many years ago when he was brought before a disciplinary panel for biting a players fingers who jammed them in his mouth. When asked about it he said "well everything inside my mouth belongs to me", case closed.

Chucky the tree

Noopti wrote: »

Looking at the evidence this is a joke of a citing.

* Scrumhalf claims he was bitten, points at his forearm
* TMO reviews video during the game and says no foul play
* Scrumhalf retracts the accusation at half time
* Healy gets cited anyway
* Video of the incident shows scrumhalfs fingers around the mouth area of a prone and immobilized Healy, Healy doesn't even move his head. Then scrumhalf shoves his forearm into Healy's face

Who knows, but in my mind you cannot find the player guilty based on the above - it is all a bit too murky. Unless there is some other piece of evidence out there.

He never retracted the accusation.

Swan Curry

JRant wrote: »

Citing is the proper course of action here. Both sides will be given due process and that's all you can ask for in a situation like this.

If it was a case of fingers in the mouth then Sheenan has no one to blame but himself. In much the same way acidental contact with the eye area is a disciplinary matter, the differance being the eyes can't defend themselves unlike your mouth. Reminds me of the NFL player Jim Brown many years ago when he was brought before a disciplinary panel for biting a players fingers who jammed them in his mouth. When asked about it he said "well everything inside my mouth belongs to me", case closed.

If you read the report on Hartley biting Ferris,it shows that it's not as simple as finger in mouth = permission to bite.Due to the nature of rugby,you can end up in uncomfortable positions,such as your hand being near someone's mouth.That does not give them the right to react in whatever manner they see fit.

I do agree that Healy's probably innocent on this one though.

JRant

Swan Curry wrote: »

If you read the report on Hartley biting Ferris,it shows that it's not as simple as finger in mouth = permission to bite.Due to the nature of rugby,you can end up in uncomfortable positions,such as your hand being near someone's mouth.That does not give them the right to react in whatever manner they see fit.

I do agree that Healy's probably innocent on this one though.

I agree completely, thats why I'm glad due process is being given to the matter. The disciplinary panel will have footage, medical reports and statements from both sides. I'm sure it will be dealt with accordingly.

I suppose the point I was trying to make was if you jam your fingers into someones mouth there's no point in complaining if they get bitten. Completely different to purposefully going looking for a nibble on an opposing player.

BoardsMember

For Paws wrote: »

One way or another, Healy's tour is over unless we lose the 1st Test and TH is a huge problem area, and Healy is fit again.

Very unfortunate for any player to miss out on Lion's Test debut in this way.
Won't be the only injury before the 1st Test either.

Isn't Healy a loose head?

Fits Morris

.ak wrote: »

Just my 2c... I've been on the receiving end of a punch up before, I'm sure many of us have, but I'll gladly shake hands after a game... Probably have a pint too! But if somebody BIT me... It's just not on, it's something cowards do, lads that can't handle themselves or square up to another bloke, so they bite when the other person can't do anything? Absolute cowardly act, as bad as gouging IMO and could do as much damage depending where they bite and by how hard.

A punch to the head can kill, or at least break your jaw, or your nose, or your eye socket, maybe knock a few teeth in, or possibly leave you brain damaged.

I've yet to hear of somebody dying, or receiving serious injuries like the ones I listed, after being bitten.

You can't compare the Suarez incident to, say, Tuilagi punching Ashton in terms of seriousness. I certainly know which one I'd rather have been on the receiving end of if I had to pick. Hint - it's the one where the player received a longer suspension.

Eoin

Carnegie wrote: »

There has never been a serious injury in sport from biting apart from Tyson biting Holyfield. There have been thousands of serious injurys in sport as a result of punching.

I don't remember anyone ever drowning from being spat on either, but like .ak said, I'd have a lot less respect for someone who did that to me than had a swing at me. It's about as base a thing as you could do without flinging your own poo.

trouttrout

Chucky the tree wrote: »

He's done. He can ring Dylan Hartley and ask for advice on how to deal with it.

How the hell is he "done"? Nothing has been shown to suggest that this citing will find him guilty

If it is true Healy will go down in my estimation. I gave him the benefit of the doubt after the Cole incident but there's no place for biting in rugby, regardless of someone putting a forearm in your face

Buer

Punching the head off someone and biting someone are both cowardly and pathetic. For some reason digging someone in the head is seen as macho and acceptable by many. Neither are.

Chucky the tree

trouttrout wrote: »

How the hell is he "done"? Nothing has been shown to suggest that this citing will find him guilty

Sure we'll find out soon enough.

stephen_n

Dub13 wrote: »

Point take that my point may be early, I just seen this on the main page and noticed a distinct lack of the media wanting to run with this story.

Maybe you should put it in context of the amount of coverage that Football gets in general compared to Rugby, that might help clear it up for you. So strange for a Liverpool fan to have a chip on their shoulder :rolleyes:

trouttrout

Dub13 wrote: »

Point take that my point may be early, I just seen this on the main page and noticed a distinct lack of the media wanting to run with this story.

Despite it being featured in every Irish broadsheet?

Also the coverage between soccer and rugby in Ireland is in no way comparable considering the tabloid sports sections have little if any rugby and are packed to the hilt with soccer

Not sure what your point is, but its gone very wrong for you

For Paws

BoardsMember wrote: »

Isn't Healy a loose head?

Quite correct, my bad.

Buer

This is the best angle of the incident I've seen and easier to view as a gif. Not sure on the situation still but Sheahan undoubtedly mashes his forearm into Healy's face on the deck. Time will tell.

pickarooney

Seems to be an index finger sticking out just before Healy hits the deck. Can't see much else.

Donnielighto

looks like sheehans hand and then forearm came into contact with healys faces, id suspect it wasnt accidental either

Tox56

pickarooney wrote: »

Seems to be an index finger sticking out just before Healy hits the deck. Can't see much else.

That's what I saw, his finger is in Healy's mouth for whatever reason (he has a clear view of Healy's face so I suspect he knew what he was doing) and the forearm "mashing" looks like a reaction to the bite

Beery Eyed

Tox56 wrote: »

That's what I saw, his finger is in Healy's mouth for whatever reason (he has a clear view of Healy's face so I suspect he knew what he was doing) and the forearm "mashing" looks like a reaction to the bite

Except that the bite is alleged to have been on his forearm, wasn't it? Sheehan certainly seemed to be trying to show a mark on his forearm to the ref. Although the mark would obviously also be there if you jam your arm into someones mouth, as it looks like in the replay.

Sheehan has plenty of previous for being a mouthy fella anyway, and playing very close to the edge. He basically withdrew the accusation at half time by saying it was possibly an accident, so make of that what you will

Chucky the tree

Beery Eyed wrote: »

Except that the bite is alleged to have been on his forearm, wasn't it? Sheehan certainly seemed to be trying to show a mark on his forearm to the ref. Although the mark would obviously also be there if you jam your arm into someones mouth, as it looks like in the replay.

Sheehan has plenty of previous for being a mouthy fella anyway, and playing very close to the edge. He basically withdrew the accusation at half time by saying it was possibly an accident, so make of that what you will

Jamming your forearm in to someone's face wouldn't leave no marks on your forearm. That would only happen in the person decided to bite down on your fore arm. He also never withdrew his accusation. He said it could have been accidential or on purpose, he wasn't sure.

decisions

Jamming your arm into someone's half open mouth does leave a mark, but it looks like his hand was in Healys mouth before that.

Synode

Disgraceful accusation to make if not true. It looks like Sheehan was pushing his finger towards Healy's mouth. It doesn't even look in his mouth. Set up imo.

Buer

It looks like Sheahan was shovin his hand into Healy's face/mouth and then his forearm. Both Healy's hands were on the ball, he was falling the opposite direction so essentially it was near impossible for him to go for Sheahan or attempt to bite him. However, if Sheahan got his finger/arm into Healy's mouth and Healy bit him I still expect a ban to follow. You cannot bite someone even if their hand/finger/arm is pressed into your mouth. It's mitigation but still a ban.

Chucky the tree

decisions wrote: »

Jamming your arm into someone's half open mouth does leave a mark, but it looks like his hand was in Healys mouth before that.

It would leave a mark for a minute at most. You'd need to able a lot of pressure and doing that while jamming your forearm in a person mouth would be very very difficult.

Tox56

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Jamming your forearm in to someone's face wouldn't leave no marks on your forearm. That would only happen in the person decided to bite down on your fore arm. He also never withdrew his accusation. He said it could have been accidential or on purpose, he wasn't sure.

If you jam your forearm into my open mouth it will leave a mark I can assure you

Buer

Tox56 wrote: »

If you jam your forearm into my open mouth it will leave a mark I can assure you

*Mashes forearm into teeth*

Yup. Visible teeth marks that remain after a few minutes.

Secondly, ouch.

neilmulvey

Buer wrote: »

It looks like Sheahan was shovin his hand into Healy's face/mouth and then his forearm. Both Healy's hands were on the ball, he was falling the opposite direction so essentially it was near impossible for him to go for Sheahan or attempt to bite him. However, if Sheahan got his finger/arm into Healy's mouth and Healy bit him I still expect a ban to follow. You cannot bite someone even if their hand/finger/arm is pressed into your mouth. It's mitigation but still a ban.

There is such as think as gouging in an opponents mouth. I remember after the Ireland -Argies game about 8-9 years ago, the one Ireland won in Lansdowne with a ROG drop in the last minute, that Simon Easterby (i think) complained after the game about the Argies constantly gouging mouth/eyes and one of the Argies picked up a lengthy ban.

The gif image above exonerates Healy IMO. Cant see how it would be deemed deliberate and therefore a ban would be a wrong decision.

Interesting to see the Lions take a totally different approach to the Woodward led circus of 8 years ago.

Benny Cake

Nothing concrete in the gif tbh...

Eoin

If anything, it looks more like deliberate contact with Healy's face.

Chucky the tree

neilmulvey wrote: »

There is such as think as gouging in an opponents mouth. I remember after the Ireland -Argies game about 8-9 years ago, the one Ireland won in Lansdowne with a ROG drop in the last minute, that Simon Easterby (i think) complained after the game about the Argies constantly gouging mouth/eyes and one of the Argies picked up a lengthy ban.

The gif image above exonerates Healy IMO. Cant see how it would be deemed deliberate and therefore a ban would be a wrong decision.

Interesting to see the Lions take a totally different approach to the Woodward led circus of 8 years ago.

Since when? People are banned all the time for accidential gouging, biting is no different. He'll get a lesser sentence but he'll still be banned if they think he did bite and rightfully so.

sydthebeat

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Since when? People are banned all the time for accidential gouging, biting is no different. He'll get a lesser sentence but he'll still be banned if they think he did bite and rightfully so.

Accidental biting???

That's stretching it a bit...

Tox56

Buer wrote: »

*Mashes forearm into teeth*

Yup. Visible teeth marks that remain after a few minutes.

Secondly, ouch.

Glad I wasn't alone in trying this

Duggys Housemate

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Since when? People are banned all the time for accidential gouging, biting is no different. He'll get a lesser sentence but he'll still be banned if they think he did bite and rightfully so.

Of course biting an arm is not the same as eye gouging. One can blind, the other can ..... Leave bite marks on your arm.

With eye gouging you are supposed to realise that you are touching an eye. There is no such expectation if someone sticks their arm in your mouth. If that were the law people would try choke the opposition with fingers in mouth knowing the other party would be cited if they bit.

Chucky the tree

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Of course biting an arm is not the same as eye gouging. One can blind, the other can ..... Leave bite marks on your arm.

With eye gouging you are supposed to realise that you are touching an eye. There is no such expectation if someone sticks their arm in your mouth. If that were the law people would try choke the opposition with fingers in mouth knowing the other party would be cited if they bit.

huh? Why would you do something that would get yourself cited just to get some else cited?

Clearlier

All the video's I have seen show a clear yellow card offence for the Aussie (deliberate forearm smash to the head) and stop just before the point where Healy would have bitten his forearm if he did. If there is no better video than this then any conviction will be based on other evidence. Given that the ref and the assistant refs didn't see anything I'd be surprised if he is found guilty.

Kalyke

Eoin wrote: »

If anything, it looks more like deliberate contact with Healy's face.

Healy was "fish hooked". Sheehan himself could be in trouble too!

Duggys Housemate

Chucky the tree wrote: »

huh? Why would you do something that would get yourself cited just to get some else cited?

Don't be dim. I was responding to your claim that "accidental" , or any case of, biting should be an offence. I was opposing that idea. The guy trying to choke you may not have been visible, bite marks would be. In short I was merely saying that biting is a valid response to "I was being choked"

trouttrout

accidental biting? hahaha

Buer

Kalyke wrote: »

Healy was "fish hooked". Sheehan himself could be in trouble too!

Wasn't cited so can't be in any trouble.

Kalyke

Buer wrote: »

Wasn't cited so can't be in any trouble.

Is there a time limit on citing?

Chucky the tree

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Don't be dim. I was responding to your claim that "accidental" , or any case of, biting should be an offence. I was opposing that idea. The guy trying to choke you may not have been visible, bite marks would be. In short I was merely saying that biting is a valid response to "I was being choked"

But it's not. Same way gouging someone if you are being gouged isn't a valid response.

Buer

Kalyke wrote: »

Is there a time limit on citing?

48 hours generally but the nature of Lions tours means the reviews are done very quickly. I believe he reviewed the footage of the Healy incident and also the Murray non-stamp.

danthefan

Chucky the tree wrote: »

But it's not. Same way gouging someone if you are being gouged isn't a valid response.

Tbh if you're deliberately being choked, as in you're unable to breath, I think basically anything is a proportional response.

Not that that's what happened here or anything.