Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread VI: End of the MOC [Revenge of the STH]

molloyjh

Yep Healy can have absolutely no argument with the citing and would do well to just plead guilty and serve out his 3 weeks or whatever it is he gets. It was brainless stuff even if unintentional.

vienne86

I thought that epsiode with Healy using his knee was in no way accidental. The citing is deserved IMO.

Zzippy

Zzippy wrote: »

It was reckless the way he appeared to push/throw the player back into the ruck, but looks worse than it is. The knee, well, you see it all the time, players using their knees to hold players in rucks so it looks like they're not rolling away. I don't think he meant to knee him in the face, but he has a duty of care, so it's reckless more than intentional for me. French player definitely made a meal of it, but that of course won't be taken into account by the citing commissioner. 3 weeks would be harsh enough in my view

I think the minimum will be 2 if he pleads guilty but I think they would rather have him this weekend and will risk potentially 3 weeks by arguing a case.

It's not like McGrath is a step down at the moment, though Healy did look like he was starting to grasp a firm hold of some form against Toulon.

Is the hearing tomorrow?

Stheno

Deleted User wrote: »

Is the hearing tomorrow?

Thursday I think.

flouncer

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the minimum will be 2 if he pleads guilty but I think they would rather have him this weekend and will risk potentially 3 weeks by arguing a case.

It's not like McGrath is a step down at the moment, though Healy did look like he was starting to grasp a firm hold of some form against Toulon.

Is the hearing tomorrow?

Now I do post the one or two daft comments from time to time. But then venjur assures Healy will be released from prison in two weeks. And recent primetime program suggests they will reoffend within weeks:-). On a serious note there is no future for Healy. He is slow, careless and no longer required.

So i will bore you. As a 16 year old kid I played Gaelic against mick carley (my hero, he was 37 at the time) until the fecker kept clipping me at the heels to slow me down. So that was annoying. What Healy did was disgraceful and if you support that in rugby then it is no longer a game, its conor McGregor stuff. So go support Ufc instead.

.ak

Meh, I'm obviously in the minority but I don't think that's anyway near a yellow card, never mind a citing. The hooker purposefully rolled into the channel to stop opposing players joining the ruck, lo and behold an opposing player ran into him. No way did Healy mean to knee him in the head. Give him a bit of a shove, sure. But why in gods name is that a bannable offence? Fine, it should be cited and reviewed, but I find it tedious any and every accident collision with a limb and head is being cited.

Could he avoid it? Sure. But if the game goes that way in 5 years people are going to be afraid to join rucks incase an elbow or shoulder clips a head. I hate the cliche, but the game is going soft.

flouncer

Rumour has it that if my opinions continue to be this rational I could take up a post as moderator on this forum. Beware venjur, your on my list :-)

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Nope he was standing up after rolling away. Just totally incorrect there really.

And even if he WAS interfering with play, what Healy did will NEVER be an acceptable way to do anything about it.

What? C'mon, you're a flanker (dark arts n all), surely you know exactly what the hooker is up to there. If you find yourself in an offside position you always scramble back towards the line, you don't start standing up in the chAnnel people go through to join the gate. He absolute knew what he was doing?

Does it excuse what Healy did? Absolutely, because all Healy did was shove him to make it obvious for the ref, but unfortunately his knee clipped his head.

flouncer

.ak wrote: »

Meh, I'm obviously in the minority but I don't think that's anyway near a yellow card, never mind a citing. The hooker purposefully rolled into the channel to stop opposing players joining the ruck, lo and behold an opposing player ran into him. No way did Healy mean to knee him in the head. Give him a bit of a shove, sure. But why in gods name is that a bannable offence? Fine, it should be cited and reviewed, but I find it tedious any and every accident collision with a limb and head is being cited.

Could he avoid it? Sure. But if the game goes that way in 5 years people are going to be afraid to join rucks incase an elbow or shoulder clips a head. I hate the cliche, but the game is going soft.

While I do try and make light of things that opinion so sucks. Connacht can't field a team next weekend because we are are a bunch of softies. That is such an incredible argument, I was tempted to use expletives but what is the point with such a view

.ak

.ak wrote: »

What? C'mon, you're a flanker (dark arts n all), surely you know exactly what the hooker is up to there. If you find yourself in an offside position you always scramble back towards the line, you don't start standing up in the chAnnel people go through to join the gate. He absolute knew what he was doing?

Does it excuse what Healy did? Absolutely, because all Healy did was shove him to make it obvious for the ref, but unfortunately his knee clipped his head.

Any contact between a knee and a face is going to look bad. The fact that the TMO said that he wasn't even part of the ruck I think is what got Healy the yellow but hopefully there will be some sense and the citing commissioner will give it a pass. I certainly don't see anything intentional or overly reckless.

Stheno

Deleted User wrote: »

Any contact between a knee and a face is going to look bad. The fact that the TMO said that he wasn't even part of the ruck I think is what got Healy the yellow but hopefully there will be some sense and the citing commissioner will give it a pass. I certainly don't see anything intentional or overly reckless.

I think it's the lateness of it which might have caused the citing?

Hagz

I'd be very tempted to argue the case if I were Healy. The incident in full speed reveals just how little contact and malice was involved. And I would hope the judiciary take into account the behaviour of Guirado and the medics, although I doubt very much they will.

Hagz

Hagz wrote: »

I'd be very tempted to argue the case if I were Healy. The incident in full speed reveals just how little contact and malice was involved. And I would hope the judiciary take into account the behaviour of Guirado and the medics, although I doubt very much they will.

In fairness, Guirado looked in violent pain after the beating - apparently it could have caused his heart to stop. It was clearly with him for the rest of the game and ever since the incident he's had an irrational fear of escalators.

Knealy has a lot to answer for.

flouncer

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, Guirado looked in violent pain after the beating - apparently it could have caused his heart to stop. It was clearly with him for the rest of the game and ever since the incident he's had an irrational fear of escalators.

Knealy has a lot to answer for.

I appreciate the effort to misspell names. At least I started something constructive. Shano will be screwed for the next game. I do look forward to his (hmmmmm) commentary :-)

Journeyman_1

Phew, I thought I was the only one, nice to see I'm not totally crazy!

flouncer

Journeyman_1 wrote: »

Phew, I thought I was the only one, nice to see I'm not totally crazy!

Craziness is an association issue. Now if you associated with my post I wouldn't think your out of the woods just yet. Keep going to the 10am sessions. I may not be your deliverance :-)

Journeyman_1

flouncer wrote: »

Craziness is an association issue. Now if you associated with my post I wouldn't think your out of the woods just yet. Keep going to the 10am sessions. I may not be your deliverance :-)

That's ok, i wasnt referencing you flouncer

Swan Curry

If Delon Armitage had done what Healy did the forum would have had a collective ****fit. Healy clearly intended to knee him, he was 'not looking at him' in the way a scrumhalf doesn't look at an offside player when they throw the ball at him. We're all aware of Healy's past anyway, he's not exactly opposed to intentionally trying to injure an opponent.

Anyway, if he's banned it just means McGrath starts which is a pretty handy outcome.

Hagz

A claim of intention to injure is a pretty serious allegation. There's a great degree of subjectivity when determining someone's intentions, given the mental component involved, and the only circumstance in which you could confidently assume intention is when the actions display a clear element of consciousness.

There is no conclusive evidence of intention in the video evidence of the incident. Nor is there conclusive evidence of leading with the knee. In fact, if you want to be really objective, Cian Healy leads with his hands, braces himself and pushes Guirado to the ground. In the process of reaching Guirado his thigh makes minimal contact with Guirado's head.

Any allegation of intention can only be described as subjective, and having examined the video evidence I would argue that such an allegation could only be reached from pre-conceptions about the player held by the person making such an allegation.

flouncer

Hagz wrote: »

A claim of intention to injure is a pretty serious allegation. There's a great degree of subjectivity when determining someone's intentions, given the mental component involved, and the only circumstance in which you could confidently assume intention is when the actions display a clear element of consciousness.

There is no conclusive evidence of intention in the video evidence of the incident. Nor is there conclusive evidence of leading with the knee. In fact, if you want to be really objective, Cian Healy leads with his hands, braces himself and pushes Guirado to the ground. In the process of reaching Guirado his thigh makes minimal contact with Guirado's head.

Any allegation of intention can only be described as subjective, and having examined the video evidence I would argue that such an allegation could only be reached from pre-conceptions about the player held by the person making such an allegation.

I accept that hagz. I have to look back at the recording. First impressions were not pretty. Will look and rerun the taped game. You are correct that the accusation was strong. I do not repeal that accusation. I will look into it. As you know me I'm as happy to be right as I am wrong. I will let you know. If I am incorrect I will provide required apologies. I have no issue with that

KH25

Not so sure about the intent but can see him getting a ban. A break might be good for him anyway.

aimee1

Hagz wrote: »

A claim of intention to injure is a pretty serious allegation. There's a great degree of subjectivity when determining someone's intentions, given the mental component involved, and the only circumstance in which you could confidently assume intention is when the actions display a clear element of consciousness.

There is no conclusive evidence of intention in the video evidence of the incident. Nor is there conclusive evidence of leading with the knee. In fact, if you want to be really objective, Cian Healy leads with his hands, braces himself and pushes Guirado to the ground. In the process of reaching Guirado his thigh makes minimal contact with Guirado's head.

Any allegation of intention can only be described as subjective, and having examined the video evidence I would argue that such an allegation could only be reached from pre-conceptions about the player held by the person making such an allegation.

Looking at it again, Healy pushes Guirado initially and then there is contact with the knee but Guirado falls back hitting the back of his head onto the knee of VDF. It doesnt look good for Healy because of how he moved his knees but he could argue that he can only get to the ruck legally by going over Guirado

Still think he will cop a ban tho.

former total

Shades of the SOB -Pape incident here.
"Sure he hardly touched him, the French lad deserved it and anyway it was all an accident. And the dirty cheating French bastard and his doctor milking it for all its worth!"

Next logical step is someone to call for Guirado to be cited.

Lads, Healy saw an opening and knew exactly what he was doing. Guirado was in the process of rolling away. Healy is an absolute idiot and it could easily have been a red on the spot.

It wasn't a full force impact so I'd say 5 week ban, reduced to 3 for conduct at the hearing etc. No way in hell will he get away with it.

aimee1

KH25 wrote: »

Not so sure about the intent but can see him getting a ban. A break might be good for him anyway.

Dont see how. He has missed a lot of rugby in the last 18 months and actually had a decent game on sunday apart from the yc.

KH25

aimee1 wrote: »

Dont see how. He has missed a lot of rugby in the last 18 months and actually had a decent game on sunday apart from the yc.

I thought he was ok on Sunday. To be honest I think a lot of the internationals look tired, perhaps mentally more so than physically. I know Healy was given a week off not far back. Another might let him switch off a bit and reassess himself and come back into some good form.

molloyjh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqW-MvRVi1c

Just looking at it again and there are a couple of things that stand out on second viewing.

First, as we all know Guirado deliberately made sure he was on the wrong side and does get in the way of Healy joining the ruck. If you watch him he isn't really tackling Ferg, he's just flopping himself onto the wrong side. There he prevents VDF from being able to join the ruck effectively allowing Felon to win a turnover. He also quite clearly braces himself for the impact with Healy so I actually think it's fair to say he knew what he was doing the whole time.



As for Healys part in it all he gets his hands in first. You can see that clearly on the reverse angle:



And he actually doesn't connect with the knee, but the thigh. Semantics there maybe, but as others have pointed out the real impact came when he hit VDFs knee after Healy drove him back.

It seems to me that Healy saw what was happening and decided to teach Guirado a lesson. I don't think he intended to knee the guy or concuss him or anything like that, but he did intend on driving him back into the ruck, possibly to highlight him being offside.

Looking at it again I think Healy might have a case on Thursday for getting it thrown out. He technically didn't knee him, he just drove him back into the ruck. It would never have happened if Guirado wasn't offside in an effort to prevent a Leinster player joining the ruck properly.

CMOTDibbler

molloyjh wrote: »

As for Healys part in it all he gets his hands in first. You can see that clearly on the reverse angle:



And he actually doesn't connect with the knee, but the thigh. Semantics there maybe, but as others have pointed out the real impact came when he hit VDFs knee after Healy drove him back.

Well the one thing that's definite, the bang on JVdFs knee was the sorest bit for Guirado and not Cian Healy's strike. He clearly holds the back of his head after the impact.

Whether Healy gets off or not, it was reckless.

irishbucsfan

I just can't see any way this is getting thrown out. It's just another moment of brainfarty violence from Healy.

Eponymous

molloyjh wrote: »

It seems to me that Healy saw what was happening and decided to teach Guirado a lesson. I don't think he intended to knee the guy or concuss him or anything like that, but he did intend on driving him back into the ruck, possibly to highlight him being offside.

Looking at it again I think Healy might have a case on Thursday for getting it thrown out. He technically didn't knee him, he just drove him back into the ruck. It would never have happened if Guirado wasn't offside in an effort to prevent a Leinster player joining the ruck properly.

It's not up to Healy to police the ruck though. It was rash, it was stupid and a player with Healy's experience really should know better.

Clegg

In the immediate aftermath of the Leinster/Toulon game I praised VdF and thought he's now a sure fire starter for the next tie even if SoB were fit, but now I'm not so sure. I'm not revising my opinion of his performance as I think he had a cracking game for someone who was making his European debut against an all star back row no less. But a backrow of Ruddock/JVdF/Heaslip only has one great ball carrier. Heaslip and VdF aren't bad carriers but need quicker ball to be really effective unlike Ruddock who won't get blown back in the tackle on slower ball. Ultimately this isn't the fault of VdF as its down to the team as a whole to get quick ball. It's something that needs to be worked on as we've seen this season that Leinster can be effective when attacking quickly.