MOK Banned

RuggieBear

....For only 2 weeks!

bleg

deserved the ban, probably should have gotten longer.

Peadar06

From Scrum.com

Heineken Cup
O'Kelly handed two-week ban
Scrum.com
January 22, 2009

Leinster lock Malcolm O'Kelly has been handed a two-week ban following his stamp on Wasps prop Phil Vickery in last week's Heineken Cup tie at Twickenham.

O'Kelly was yellow-carded for the offence during the game, but was subsequently cited by match commissioner Aurwel Morgan. A citing committee chaired by Rod McKenzie (Scotland) and also comprising Jean-Etienne Bernard (France) and Robert Williams (Wales) decided that O'Kelly's action had not been malicious.

"After considering the evidence, the independent Disciplinary Committee determined that intentional foul play had not been established but that Malcom O'Kelly's actions had been dangerous and that offence was at the low-end of the level of seriousness for stamping," a statement read.

O'Kelly will be free to play again on Wednesday 4 February, 2009.

Crash

I doubt anyone could say it wasn't deserved - surprised it was such a short one though. That leaves him back in for the internationals then.

Podge_irl

MOK is not a dirty player so that was probably taken into consideration. He was bound to get a ban and I'm surprised its so short, but its not a miscarraige of justice or anything.

sock puppet

So does this mean a near full strength pack for Leinster during the 6 nations? Heaslip will be gone and maybe Jennings or Healy?

sm.org

Podge_irl wrote: »

MOK is not a dirty player so that was probably taken into consideration. He was bound to get a ban and I'm surprised its so short, but its not a miscarraige of justice or anything.

It totally is, he deliberately stood on a players head. The yellow card was a farce and this is worse.

Podge_irl

I highly doubt a player who has gone 14 years of playing top flight rugby without ever appearing before a citing commission suddenly decided "to hell with it" and went around deliberately stamping on someone's head. I don't think it was intentional, the citing board didn't thing it was intentional and even Vickery didn't think it was intentional - good enough for me.

Harpy

that is a joke of a ban.. 2 weeks???seriously like.

phog

That's not a ban that's a rest.

While most people will certainly agree that MOK is not a dirty player I think most of them will think this is a joke. Most of us at work felt he'd get 4 weeks after an appeal.

Peter B

I think it is the correct ban. Only because after Flannery appealed his 6 week ban he got reduced to 2 weeks for an offense I thought was the same as Mals. I don't think either was on purpose but you do have to think about where you put your feet when playing rugby! Preferably not on someones head.

juvenal

Surprised that it's only two weeks, thought at least four would've been warranted.

Interesting point re Flannery's ban v Clermont, and it's subsequent appeal. I didn't agree with that, and I don't agree with this. Two weeks is at the most only two (possibly three) matches, which is a bit of a rest rather than a punishment!

Peter B

juvenal wrote: »

Interesting point re Flannery's ban v Clermont, and it's subsequent appeal. I didn't agree with that, and I don't agree with this. Two weeks is at the most only two (possibly three) matches, which is a bit of a rest rather than a punishment!

Yea fair point. Maybe both were too lenient. I would put both about equal in severity though.

RuggieBear

tbh i thought flannery got off way too easy last year and i think Mal is lucky as hell. IMO a clear message has to go out to warn players that even careless/unintentional feet near a players head is unacceptable. Same principle with the spear tackling... it's a dangerous enough game as it is so players should avoid even the possibility of inflicting a serious head wound.

should have been 8 weeks minimum.

juvenal

RuggieBear wrote: »

tbh i thought flannery got off way too easy last year and i think Mal is lucky as hell. IMO a clear message has to go out to warn players that even careless/unintentional feet near a players head is unacceptable. Same principle with the spear tackling... it's a dangerous enough game as it is so players should avoid even the possibility of inflicting a serious head wound.

should have been 8 weeks minimum.

Agreed, perhaps not quite 8, but certainly 4+.

I was in the pub, and initially I thought it was Rocky who caught him. I was stunned when he called Mal over, and I thought it was a case of mistaken identity, until I saw the replay.

I thought someone with his experience would've known better than go something as thick and dangerous as that.

The Ritz

A sanction was a foregone conclusion, at least with two weeks he's available for selection for the six nations.

Part of the impact of this for the Edinburgh - Leinster fixture ? With Leo Cullen and CJ VDL both out injured, Cheika can't be too pleased.

As I'm a Munster supporter it's no surprise that I'm not fussed about Leinster, but don't like to see an understrength side for such an important game, purely from a sporting point of view.

Ritz.

mickyt

Is there a link anywhere of the actual stamp? I was at the match and think it was my turn for the beer run, so didn't see it....

puntosporting

Fair play to him he put up a good case and got away with 2 weeks!

anonymous_joe

I was in the far corner, so didn't see it, but caught a replay. Fairly bad.

mickyt

Yeh I was in l36, so maybe I did see it, but just didn't catch it live. I can't remember, either way, if anyone has a link, much appreciated

anonymous_joe

Were you wearing a top hat?

mickyt

That would be negative my good man

anonymous_joe

Heh, there was a rake of people near us in L36 wearing 'em. Added a certain level of class to proceedings.

Climate Expert

I wouldn't have classed it as a stamp. It was more a horizontal raking motion. I think he intentionally tried to get him around the shoulder area but missed so I think the ban is fair enough.

Noopti

The Ritz wrote: »

A sanction was a foregone conclusion, at least with two weeks he's available for selection for the six nations.

Part of the impact of this for the Edinburgh - Leinster fixture ? With Leo Cullen and CJ VDL both out injured, Cheika can't be too pleased.

As I'm a Munster supporter it's no surprise that I'm not fussed about Leinster, but don't like to see an understrength side for such an important game, purely from a sporting point of view.

Ritz.

To be honest I am happy to see Healy and Toner starting. I think CJ has been below par to be honest and Healy can really develop further into a fantastic dynamic prop if given more game time.

Webbs

Climate Expert wrote: »

I wouldn't have classed it as a stamp. It was more a horizontal raking motion. I think he intentionally tried to get him around the shoulder area but missed so I think the ban is fair enough.

Youhave to be a Leinster fan, it was as clear a stamp on a head as you will see, I think 2 weeks is a farce considering Tom James got the same for a 'headbut' the same day. While obviously not condoning the latter it shows the citing procedure to be a joke that the 2 offences were considered worthy of the same ban. As you can probably guess I think that stamping in the head are is pretty much the worst most cowardly offence you can commit.

Snickers Man

Oh Phew!! It's only Malcolm O'Kelly getting a deserved extension to his punishment.

I thought from the title the Mods had been overreacting again to somebody using the "L-word".

Ladyboy

twinytwo

sm.org wrote: »

It totally is, he deliberately stood on a players head. The yellow card was a farce and this is worse.

In all fariness how many times have players gotten away with far worse and not even been given a warning. No need to be getting ur panties in a twist