Springboks bounce back to beat Argentina

Sky Sport NZ's Super Rugby Player Awards

Jerry Collins' club perform Haka

The Wraparound from Rugby HQ - Week 27

Pass Around The World with Allianz

Jerry Collins appearance for club 2nd XV

World XV convincingly beat Japan

Ruck Clean Out to dominate breakdowns

Inside the Pride, in Africa, Part 3

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Cian Healy banned for three weeks for leg stamp on Dan Cole

Prop Cian Healy has been suspended for three weeks for a leg stamp on Dan Cole during Ireland's 12-6 defeat by England in the Six Nations at the weekend. He will miss Ireland's upcoming matches against Scotland and France.

In what was a typically fierce battle up front, Healy's aggression appeared to be channeled incorrectly as he stamped down on opposition prop Dan Cole's leg. Cole was penalised, but Healy wasn't spotted by the officials, despite it causing a bit of a melee.

He was also involved in a swinging arm incident not too long afterwards, on England captain Chris Robshaw, but that wasn't picked up by referee Jerome Garces either.

The 25-year-old Leinster man was cited after the match, and today appeared before an independant Six Nations disiplinary committee in London. More details to follow.

The below video shows the incidents, as well as a discussion with former England centre Jeremy Guscott, former Ireland hooker Keith Wood, and former Welsh wizard Jonathan Davies.

What do you think of the three week suspension? 

Posted by Rugbydump at 5:10 pm | View Comments (76)

Owen Farrell kicks England to victory over Ireland in Dublin

How To Scrum - With England tighthead prop Dan Cole

Adam Thomson's boot on Alasdair Strokosch's head

Leonardo Ghiraldini contact with Cian Healy's eyes

Cian Healy's hit on Quade Cooper in Auckland

Faan Rautenbach banned for three weeks for stamp

Dave Attwood facing a lengthy ban for stamp

Ryan Kankowski suspended following stamp vs Lions

Tomas O'Leary's controversial tackle on Cian Healy

Danny Grewcock suspended for seven weeks for stamping

John Hayes suspended for 6 weeks for stamp on Cian Healy

Posted in Big Hits & Dirty Play, Six Nations 2013

Viewing 76 comments

Ali Dean February 13, 2013 8:04 pm

Three weeks is just not enough.
I am completely with John here,
Disgusting play. Red card, many many weeks ban. (at least two months.)

· Reply · Report

Guest February 13, 2013 8:09 pm

Cian Healy is lucky its not 6 weeks. A cheap shot which could have caused serious injury to a player and despite what Keith Wood says totally unjustified - no where near the ball which was in the scrum half hands!
O'Gara kicking a player in the HC and getting off with it now this? Not doing much for the reputation of Irish rugby, the officials or the citing committee.

· Reply · Report

HowardTheDuck February 13, 2013 8:10 pm

Ok....well.....wow. Cian Healy is 25 years old and has been playing internationally for quite a while now. He definitely should know better.
Having said that, there are days you are just over-tensed and probably not concentrated the way you'd like to be. This was probably one of those days for Cian Healy (with this I am in no way condoning his behaviour and actions).

Keith made what i think is a great analysis of the situation; the difference between the two ways of using your foot in the ruck and what the staff should do with Healy at halftime.
As for the forearm, that's just stupid. That ruck was going nowhere, it was already lost. But then again he didn't go in to counter-ruck did he? That's probably what worsened his sentence in front of the commission.

In conclusion? I would have made him miss the whole 6 nations, just to make him understand that you can't pull this kind of crap, especially on an international level.

· · Reply · Report

Guest February 13, 2013 8:16 pm

Wow! Wow! Wow! A 2 game ban for that! Maybe soneones thinking we might need this guy for the Lions tour so let's not go too hard on him. This could quite easily have resulted in a double fracture of the leg.

In my opinion it should have been a straight red card with a long ban

· Reply · Report

brolly21 February 15, 2013 1:59 pm

no, no, at least a triple or quadruple fracture !

· Reply · Report

matty February 17, 2013 6:32 am

Exactly, think about the lions tour! Dan Cole will be one of our best front row on that tour, cian healy can consider himself lucky that he's even in consideration after that naive play. if he was my front row id tell him to stop loosing ball and start getting over it like Dan Cole does!

· Reply · Report

hedderball February 20, 2013 11:38 pm

All - I wonder whether Healy had taken up where both sets of Welsh and Irish forwards had left off the week before when there were numerous incidents of robust, old fashioned cleaning out. Personally, I think a fella lying on the wrong side deliberately slowing possession deserves almost anything they get (I wouldn't advocate a stamp on the head though) and certainly when I played loosie I knew what to expect if I did. Healy's not a dirty player but the suspension is fair as certainly in today's game the old fashioned rucking has gone.

· Reply · Report

mobhodannsdobheul February 13, 2013 8:17 pm

And another Test player gets an embarrassingly convenient ban. One week when he'd rest anyway; one week when Ireland play Scotland; another week when he'd rest anyway.

To put this into perspective, Delon Armitage got 8 weeks for a marginal tip tackle (yes he has a track record, but it's a collection of marginally late/ high hits or the odd bout of handbags).

Nothing so malicious as trying to break your opposite number's ankle.

· Reply · Report

JOS February 13, 2013 8:25 pm

and just to keep a balance, some punishment for Farrell for cynical obstruction at the start of the match

· Reply · Report

matt February 14, 2013 1:41 am

He was penalised, and less than 2 minutes later an irish player did an identical thing and also escaped with just a penalty

· Reply · Report

rugby08 February 14, 2013 1:53 pm

Are you for real JOS?

· · Reply · Report

stroudos February 15, 2013 12:10 am

@matt, presumably JOS is referring to the chargedown by Conor Murray after which Farrell did illegally scrag him as he tried to run through and take advantage - he was not penalised for that at all. Probably should have been, although it's obviously not in the citing category!

· Reply · Report

Mbell1012 February 13, 2013 8:39 pm

The stamp is undoubtly intentional and does deserve a yellow card and looking at it in slow motion it probably deserves the ban but if the England player wasn't on the wrong side and was making an effort to get out of the way then it wouldn't have happened. Also, in the Southern Hemisphere things like this happen in almost every match and it is just part of rugby. There is nothing in the second incident it's only an aggressive clearout which happens every weekend on every rugby pitch all over the world

· Reply · Report

browner February 20, 2013 2:58 am

but if the England player wasn't on the wrong side and was making an effort to get out of the way then it wouldn't have happened

Your credability dissappeared with that statement !

whatever next ......... " if he hadn't been pulling my short - I wouldn't have torn his eyeballs out"

get real

· Reply · Report

BoliMiKura February 13, 2013 8:47 pm

And yet Haskel got a yellow card for being a clumsy bastard while trying to roll away from a ruck...

· Reply · Report

Full Back February 13, 2013 9:06 pm

...for being clumsy?....slightly naiive I think, but we're all entitled to our opinions.

· · Reply · Report

matty February 17, 2013 6:40 am

either way, there is gamesmanship and maliciousness, and if that happened to one of my team and there was no red, i for one would feel aggrieved. healy, great prop but this will be laughed at and not respected by other players. every team needs an enforcer, but not in this cowardly way!

· Reply · Report

Girlyplayer1 February 13, 2013 9:37 pm

As a former player who can no longer continue due to an ankle stamp, breaking my femur, ankle and foot in 3 locations requiring surgery I think a ban is more than deserved! We all do things in the heat of the moment but that could have ended anothers career! Hang your head in shame!

· · Reply · Report

barizpan February 14, 2013 1:44 am

Impressive ankle stamp if they broke ur femur!

· · Reply · Report

BigWhit February 13, 2013 10:49 pm

I think the ban should probably have been a bit longer. It's inexcusable in my opinion to maliciously target a player while not in a legitimate game situation. It usually always leads to nasty injuries and blemishing the careers of otherwise fantastic players. But the English player was making no attempt whatsoever to roll away, and had his leg clearly raised to interfere with the scrum halfs pass. I'm not saying that stomping the players ankle is the way to handle it but something needed to be done.Keith indeed does a great job in analyzing and making the point that it could have been directed towards the players actual boot, but the slow motion makes it look more damning.

· · Reply · Report

matt February 14, 2013 1:46 am

Cole's ankle had nothing to do with the ball, Ireland had the ball ready, if Cole had tried to roll away he would have just caused more disruption to the Irish play, and that's if he could, as far as I can see he was in an awkward position with an Irish player sealing him in.
As far as something needing to be done about it, the referee did, he penalised Cole for not rolling away.
The fact that Healy came lunging in from a distance to step/stamp on another players ankle, particularly when the ankle was no where near the ball, is terrible.

· · Reply · Report

Tom February 13, 2013 11:23 pm

I know the actual incident was different but by description if he had broken his ankle, what would have been different between it and the Calum Clarke incident last year? From which Clarke received a 32 week ban? Both placers maliciously targeted a limb of a player trapped in a ruck. If the RFU followed disciplinary procedures properly and didn't take into account the result of the players actions during the deciding of the punishment, and only punished the actions, Healy should receive a similar ban.

· · Reply · Report

Stubby February 13, 2013 11:36 pm

but they dont need calum clarke for the tour.
i agree with you though

· · Reply · Report

Tom February 13, 2013 11:43 pm

Don't need Healy for the tour if he's gonna lose his head like he did at the weekend, Jones Cole Murray and Marler will do just fine

· · Reply · Report

Reality February 14, 2013 8:00 pm

Ah, come on! Let's not lose the run of ourselves. Clarke purposefully broke Hawkins's arm when he was trapped in the ruck after play had stopped. Healy stamped on the ankle of a guy who had purposefully put himself into that position in the ruck and was using his leg to interfere with the ball. He deserves a ban, because it's not acceptable even with the mitigating circumstances, and I'm glad he got one, but to compare it to Callum Clarke's crime is just outrageous.

· Reply · Report

asdfero February 13, 2013 11:43 pm

Love the commentators... "... And it's on amongst the forwards.."

· Reply · Report

PiratesRugby February 14, 2013 2:41 am

Cole had his leg up and was interfering with the irish halfback's access to the ball. He wasn't stopping it, just making it a little slower and a little more difficult. It all looks "unintentional" but obviously the English players were doing it all over the park in one way or another (a la Richie McCaw). Haskell got sent off for not rolling away. "Oh sorry, I was trying to get out the way" - bullshit. The Irish players must have been aware of what the English players were doing and Healy was just acting as an enforcer.
If you think that contact had any chance of breaking Cole's ankle, you've got rocks in your head. We all played in the day when getting rucked off the ball by a couple of forwards was a rite of passage. Its illegal now and Healy got three weeks for it which is probably right in the scheme of things now. Let's not blow things out of proportion.

· · Reply · Report

jeppy89 February 14, 2013 7:21 pm

I agree mostly, except when rucking was legal.....and still is used at grass roots, ive never been rucked nor ever rucked someone by stamping on a limb? Its the wrong motion on the very definite wrong part of the body.

Nothing but a cheap shot. granted frustration by cole killing the ball but the idea is the ref sorts that out, like he did. Healy didnt look like a great international more a thug, and not as effective a thug in that position could be either.

· Reply · Report

browner February 20, 2013 3:05 am

I'd have more respect for healy if he'd punched cole ......... The stamp was very dangerous & in no way bona-fide rucking ....but above all 100% cowardly cheap shot.

I saw a broken Tib & Fib last week [accidental] , & the player will be out for 4-6 months , which is what Healey should be
Intent doesn't require a breakage !

· Reply · Report

Juggernauter February 14, 2013 2:55 am

I think the funniest thing of all this is how they won't let Jonathan Davies talk! Haha classic

· · Reply · Report

thatisentertainment February 14, 2013 11:07 am

Some reasonable comments on here, but the funniest thing on this thread is that somebody just can't help himself and hints that in some weird and inexplicable way it all gets back to McCaw. Ya gotta laff!
This ankle stomp is a nasty piece of work and it's highly amusing to see how an incident, that in some other circumstances would result in dozens of UK commentators screaming and tearing at their hair in self-righteous indignation, in this case has them falling over themselves trying to find mitigating circumstances and prattling on about how it really ain't so bad. "It's the angle of the foot, an inch that way and it's perfectly legitimate" – comedy gold! – especially when the video shows he's talking absolute rubbish. "It's not a punch, only a forearm smash".. well that's ok then.
It looked like JD was trying to say something sensible but wasn't allowed. Thanks RD, entertaining stuff.

· · Reply · Report

Magnus February 14, 2013 11:24 am

There is a difference between a raking to move you out the way in the 'old days', and a directed stomp from an extremely powerful international prop. One of the above posts mentions his ankle was broken by a stomp and ended his playing days. Think you might have rocks in your head

· Reply · Report

matt February 14, 2013 5:25 pm

He might have been able to justify it if the stomp had been anywhere near the ball...

· Reply · Report

Richard February 14, 2013 1:41 pm

I find it a little harsh. Because he placed his foot on the ankle ok thats not the nicest place to put it, but when he did it a few inches further on the leg there was nothing about it. Dan Cole was deliberate slowing the ball.

· Reply · Report

browner March 01, 2013 1:31 pm

Richard .... I beg to disagree

It was a maul, it collapsed , so Cole is ENTITLED to prevent the ball from being available, to gain a turnover of possession.

A better understanding of the MAUL LAWs would help you.


· Reply · Report

rugby08 February 14, 2013 1:56 pm

If that had happened to Richie McCaw we wouldn't hear the end of it, from anybody not just the Kiwis.

But hey he's just an English prop...

· Reply · Report

rugby08 February 14, 2013 1:58 pm

Oh for god's sake Guscott grow some balls mun

· Reply · Report

matt the mauler February 14, 2013 2:57 pm

Silly thing to do. But raises a more important point. Players lying on the wrong side of the ball. They are deliberately slowing the game down, they make no attempt to roll away from the ball, watch Ireland and Wales they're very good at falling on the wrong side of a tackle and then not rolling away or just lying there with their hands up.

In the days when rucking (not stamping) were legal if you found yourself on the wrong side you did your utmost to get away because you knew what was coming. Take that fear out of the game you get people tempted to lie on the wrong side and the Nanny Staters coming on saying you can't put your boot on somebody, it might hurt them.

Now Healy did a stamp. Stupid thing and probably a Yellow Card offence today. But if rucking was legal, then Cole (and all future players) wouldn't be lying there to get that treatment.

· · Reply · Report

Stubby February 14, 2013 5:21 pm

If he had tried to roll away he would have caused the hooker to fall over. Ireland's hooker was straddling him, so how the hell do you want him to roll away? Yes his leg was interfering but stamping the ankle...

· Reply · Report

DrG February 22, 2013 1:23 pm

In the "old days" like a few years ago, you'd wriggle the hell out of the side or do something to get out the way... "roll away" does not mean roll like a sausage, it means "Get the f00k out the way"

· Reply · Report

macmurchu February 14, 2013 3:09 pm

Shouldn't have stamped like that but Cole was being a douchebag. Lying there on the wrong side and lifting his leg to piss Conor Murray off, he deserved to get cleaned out of it. Healy was in the wrong but matt the mauler is right, rucking should still be in and COle wouldn't have been there.

· Reply · Report

browner February 20, 2013 3:07 am

But it's not, the sports moved on from the brutality days, get used to it, or go watch cage fighting to get your kicks, muppett !

· Reply · Report

katman February 14, 2013 3:47 pm

I agree with Juggernauter above. Seeing Davies trying to get a word in with the big boys but being totally shut out was priceless.

· Reply · Report

Anonymouse February 14, 2013 4:02 pm

Didn't need to roll away, it was a maul. Penalty was for side entry/dragging the maul down

Law 17.6(g)

(c) At a collapsed maul there is no obligation in Law for players to roll away unless a ruck subsequently occurs.

(d) If this occurs Law 17 has not been applied because the ball has not been made available immediately and the referee should have stopped the game and awarded a scrum or a penalty sanction dependent on the actions of players before.

· Reply · Report

Reality February 15, 2013 10:06 pm

It's not a question of rolling away. The ball was clearly available, but it was being obstructed by Cole purposefully lifting his leg to interfere with it it. And I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to come in the side, drag a maul down, and then interfere with the scrumhalf.

· Reply · Report

browner March 01, 2013 1:37 pm

Available is irrelevant, Annonymouse is correct it was a collapsed maul.

95% of mauls are ended illegally, referees are being lenient on those laws worldwide, but Cole was ENTITLED to prevent the ball from coming out ........

Nevertheless no-one is entitled to such thuggery ....let the referee ref, retribution no no no .......whatever next ...... yes he was offside - so It's legitimate to smash his teeth out !!!! or he wasn't 5m at a line out so biting his ear off is his own fault ... get real Reality

· Reply · Report

ConorL February 14, 2013 6:44 pm

To all the people demanding a lengthier ban: You should have seen this coming. I predicted he would only get two weeks and miss the Scotland game, so I wasn't too far wrong! You have to take into account all the previously lenient bans for acts as bad or worse than this. For example, if Andrew Hore only got 5weeks for basically assaulting Bradley Davies and knocking him out cold then there is no way Healy was going to get anything longer than that.

The problem is not with THIS decision, but with the precedent that has been set by previous decisions.

· Reply · Report

ConorL February 14, 2013 7:22 pm

Oh, and just to add to the confusion/controversy/general farcical nature of rugby's disciplinary process... Healy has been selected to play for Leinster this weekend!!

His ban should have started the day after the England game, as is the norm in these situations, but apparently the powers that be took a quick peek at the schedule and guessed that Healy would be kept in Ireland camp and therefore not play this weekend, so they decided to defer his ban until AFTER Leinster's game to ensure that he misses the France game as well as the Scotland game.

They have essentially tried to sneakily ban him for 4 weeks, even though the ban is officially 3 weeks. Leinster have called their bluff and selected him for their match, which will lead to the IRFU appealing the whole thing, and confusion and chaos will reign!

What a farce!!

· Reply · Report

hooker February 14, 2013 7:58 pm

think even a ban is a joke england lay on the ball and killed the ball all game and finally got noticed when haskell went to the bin. cole lay on the ball and raised his knees to slow the ball completly. can tell you'd have to be english to think that was bad but cole deserved it for being a cheat

· Reply · Report

potentialm15 February 14, 2013 8:31 pm

Cole was probably attempting to keep the ball off the ground, considering it was a maul, not a ruck, as the guy up there says ^

In which case, there is no need to use the boot to ruck, or stamp, which you seem unable to tell apart!

· Reply · Report

Guesty February 14, 2013 9:27 pm

If Cole was trying to keep the ball off the ground it's a penalty anyway, for playing the ball when he's on the ground, surely?

· Reply · Report

browner February 20, 2013 3:25 am

No, because it's the dying actions of a maul that has become unplayable[ie not available immediately]

gotta know your laws matey !

· Reply · Report

Pivot February 14, 2013 10:57 pm

The problem is the ref did not adjudicate the breakdown during the game resulting in players lying on the ball and slowing the play down all day. Cole knew exactly what he was doing lying on the wrong side of the ruck and obstructing quick ball. Problem is the IRB keep awarding international games to sub standard referees who are unable to referee the scrums and the breakdown resulting in dire rugby games like we witnessed last weekend.
Bottom line is if the ref had controlled the breakdown players who be taking the law into their own hands.

· Reply · Report

brolly21 February 15, 2013 2:02 pm

quite right and the other problem is the Irish are the best refs and we never get 'em

· Reply · Report

HeavyHooker February 15, 2013 2:38 am

Open your eyes people, as Anonymouse points out, this was a result of a maul so Cole was not on the "wrong side", further, he had no place to roll to and if you put it in normal motion any ruck that may have formed was pretty much coincidental with the stomping. Ban was warranted, card should have been given.

· Reply · Report

HeavyHooker February 15, 2013 2:38 am

Open your eyes people, as Anonymouse points out, this was a result of a maul so Cole was not on the "wrong side", further, he had no place to roll to and if you put it in normal motion any ruck that may have formed was pretty much coincidental with the stomping. Ban was warranted, card should have been given.

· Reply · Report

AhJong0 February 15, 2013 4:41 am

I've never been a big fan of using illegal thuggery as a method for getting round rule breaking.

I do not like seeing players slow the ball down, as Dan Cole was doing, but I don't like to see actions on the pitch that are solely designed to injure.

As a point of comparison have a look at 1:20 in the match itself. Jaime Heaslip goes onto the wrong side of a ruck and completely cuts the ball off. His knee is wedging the ball away from Ben Youngs. Now if Tom Wood charges forward and stamps down on the Irish captain's knee, would everyone say that is acceptable?

I would call for Wood to be banned and be disappointed in him for such hot headed and vicious actions.

Rugby is a physical sport and that should not change. But tackling, physicality and enforcing do not have to involve underhanded attacks or strikes that an opponent cannot defend against (such as the Clarke incident mentioned earlier).

· · Reply · Report

matt the mauler February 15, 2013 6:41 pm

Yes I would.

If rucking was allowed Heaslip woul dhave been ran out of that position but he wouldn't have dared to lie there knowing Youngs would have been running up and down his back. Simple.

If a player is cheating they get what they deserve - with the obvious expception of eye gouging etc...

· Reply · Report

browner February 20, 2013 3:17 am

thoughts confined to history thankfully, whata thuggish view

· Reply · Report

07015678 February 15, 2013 10:12 am

Have to say, this really is a 6 week ban minimum. Not just for the stamping but his punching and general filth throughout this game. How the Irish are even considering an appeal is beyond me. The only reason it's only 3 week ban is because its 6 nations time.

Also, I love the way Jonathan Davies can't get a word in here. Little rat needs kicked off the BBC commentary and punditry panel for good. So bias, so annoying, so ugly.

· Reply · Report

Cluainoir February 15, 2013 12:07 pm

I think rugby08 that you are confused (probably concussion). Healy is actually Irish and not an "english prop" as you have suggested.

· Reply · Report

rugby08 February 15, 2013 12:51 pm


I first said
"If that had happened to Richie McCaw we wouldn't hear the end of it, from anybody not just the Kiwis."

Then i said "But hey he's just an English prop..."

I obviously meant that Dan Cole was the victim here and there hasn't been much said about him. While when McCaw got a little shooing rugby Quade was pictured as the worst rugby player in the world.

· Reply · Report

DrG February 15, 2013 2:53 pm

I would like to see Healy dragged through the streets of London, into the tower where he should be placed upon a rack and have his finger nails and toe nails ripped out, his fingers and toes crushed in thumb screws, stretched on a rack, burned with hot irons until he admits what his did was a despicable disgrace to the world of sport, then once he admits he shall be dragged out of the tower and hanged drawn and quartered!

I think that is a fair punishment for this, a most heinous crime...

Or a ban...either way..

In all seriousness though, it was stupid, and no doubt he meant to do it. As the Scottish pundit (Andy?) in THIS day and age it would be expected to receive a red, in the past, I guess there would be no punishment.. I think had this been on Coles calf, I'd have gone for yellow. But seeing as it was on his ankle; a joint, I can see why a red would/could/should be applied here.

As someone said above, their career was ended when their femur etc was broken by a nasty ankle stamp (?!?!?) yeh... go figure..

· Reply · Report

DrG February 15, 2013 2:57 pm

Hmm another point, somewhat related to this, there has been a huge amount more use of the boot in the 2 weeks of this competition than I have seen in perhaps the last 2 years of world rugby. What gives? I thought we were all lady boys that can't take a shoeing these days, because little Edwards mummy might see and be scared to let him play.

It is no coincidence that the ball and defending players are coming out of rucks a LOT quicker this competition!

· Reply · Report

browner February 20, 2013 3:14 am

DrG, your off the mark IMHO

The reason why the ball is emerging quicker is because referees are insisting on less tackler interference - simples

Let referees ref, and leg breaking attempts have no place in the game, kids copy international stars ................. you've only got to see the spitting, swearing, discenting 11yr olds on a football pitch to know that !

· Reply · Report

DrG February 22, 2013 1:33 pm

I don't watch football.

So are you telling me that in the past years since rucking has been "banned" that referee's have NOT been insisting on less tackler interference?

I'm trying to think of the years, 2006 maybe rucking was stopped? or a little later, maybe 08? So you're telling me they've allowed tackler interference for the last 5 years or more? I'm not talking about leg breaking attempts, this was a stamp, through and through, hence why I said my comment was somewhat related. I wanted to remain semi on topic, and rucking involves both boots and rucks, but this was definitely a stamp and it was deservedly punished.

But I have never seen a leg get broken from standard raking/rucking. In fact the only things I've ever seen and rake/ruck marks, which I have both given and received. They're those red scratched lines surrounded by a grey sort of colouring, no broken bones from them.

For the record though, "kids copy international stars"... In a rugby team I often feel like there are 14 guys out there to play the game and 1 player out there who is an international star, and thats generally the 10. Martin Johnson used the boot, I doubt there were many kids who watched him and say "I want to be as big and ugly as Martin Johnson"...

· Reply · Report

Yster7 February 15, 2013 3:20 pm

Agh God, what next?? Where is Nigel Owens when you need him, "this isn't soccer" comes to mind! Man up guys, Cole was clearly slowing the ball down by keeping his leg up, Healy just pushed it down... Simple!

· Reply · Report

ChillDoubt February 15, 2013 11:29 pm

Can't believe those excusing his actions as a result of Cole lying on the wrong side and thus somehow 'deserved it'.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the job of the referee to apply the laws of the game and any sanctions for players committing wrongdoing? Or is Healy now judge and jury for any onfield indiscretions against his side?
3 weeks is simply farcical for that. A full blooded stamp on an ankle deserved 6 weeks minimum. The repercussions for Cole could have been simply disastrous and I'm surprised that Ireland have got the affront to actually consider appealing.
But then, maybe I'm not so shocked after seeing what O'Gara got away with only a few weeks previous.
Healy's is the cheapest shot in the book i.e. stamping on a leg when a player is prone.
He ought to have missed the rest of the campaign and may damage any possible Lions call-up.

· · Reply · Report

McMurphy February 16, 2013 2:56 pm

I'd like to see these punishments meted out in games, rather than weeks. As the citing panel have demonstrate by their mess up in trying to make sure Healy misses 2 6 nations games, some games matter more than others. So if someone is cited in an international, the penalty should apply to the next x international matches. Otherwise, in a case like Andrew Hore, the penalty simply meant he missed 1 game, while if that same offence took place in the pool games of the RWC, he'd have had to miss the tournament. It's bizarre.

I think an x match international ban would mean one helluva lot to the players, and the games are so heavily televised they know they are unlikely to get away with it, and could contribute to getting rid of these nasty incidents at the top end.

So then, Hartley's gouging last year would have ruled him out of internationals until December (I think). Might be worth considering.

· Reply · Report

Charmenace February 17, 2013 3:47 pm

Just watched it again, and I absolutely love Davies gets ignored. He looks livid. Brilliant stuff.

· Reply · Report

AzzuriOlimpico February 19, 2013 8:16 am

I'm sorry to say it, but had that been the other way around, an England player would've gotten a longer ban. Healy is an anglophobic moron.

· Reply · Report

browner February 20, 2013 3:29 am

Healy squeels when he's wronged ...... yet he goes for the cheap shot also..... double standards Healey ...... absolutely no sympaphy with you...... nor would I for any english transgressor in the same circumstances ban 12 weeks min - thug

· Reply · Report

Reality February 24, 2013 3:42 pm

Nice to see you're staying objective on this. Cian Healy was annoyed about being eye-gouged in the past, so that makes him an even bigger thug. Right.

· Reply · Report

crisp111uk February 27, 2013 4:06 pm

Should have been a much longer ban, vicious play with intent to cause serious and lasting damage to Dan Cole. And followed later by punches and general thugish play that should have led to him being red carded and banned for a considerable lenght of time to deter him from offending yet again, as an often dirty player. Had it bee Dylan Hartley re offending there wouldhave been much greaer action taken.

· Reply · Report

Dalma February 27, 2013 9:29 pm

The ban has been reduced by one week, so Healy will be able to play against France. Oooh, such a surprise.

· Reply · Report

Commenting as Guest | Register or Login

All comments are moderated and will be removed immediately if offensive.