Hayes ban reduced

chupacabra

Sorry for bringing this back up mods, the last thread being deleted an all, but its an important current topic.

John Hayes' ban has been reduced by 1 week. A decision which i am appalled by. He shouldn't have even appealed against the ban in the first place, he should have just accepted his punishment and moved on. This is pretty disgraceful imo given the seriousness of the incident which should be considered to be on the highest of the highest severity possible to have his ban reduced to what is now 5 weeks for an offense that would have given any other player a MINIMUM of a 2 month ban. It will be incredibly interesting to see what Jennings might get for his supposed infringement.

Risteard

The reason he appealed I think is that it was deemed reckless rather than deliberate, but was still entered at the higher end of the scale.

The 6 weeks was just IMO, but in the world of professional sport, a player will always appeal a ban if they think they can get less off of it.

It doesn't matter anyway because he still can't play any games until the Australia one.

chupacabra

Risteard wrote: »

The reason he appealed I think is that it was deemed reckless rather than deliberate, but was still entered at the higher end of the scale.

The 6 weeks was just IMO, but in the world of professional sport, a player will always appeal a ban if they think they can get less off of it.

It doesn't matter anyway because he still can't play any games until the Australia one.

I don't care, its principal. Ive been on the receiving end of a pair of studs to the head like that before and i can tell you that its as serious as a gouge if not more serious due to the nature of head injuries you can sustain. The judicial system in rugby these days is totally lop sided.

Risteard

chupacabra wrote: »

I don't care, its principal. Ive been on the receiving end of a pair of studs to the head like that before and i can tell you that its as serious as a gouge if not more serious due to the nature of head injuries you can sustain. The judicial system in rugby these days is totally lop sided.

Agree with that. I mean Quinlan got a deserved 12 weeks for his gouge on Cullen yet Burger got 8 for what I thought was even more serious offence. Like you said, it will be interesting to see what Jennings gets, if he gets a ban.

Fortunately I've never been on the receiving end of a boot to the head.

Goodluck2me

It's totally reasonable if it wasn't intentional IMO.

frankie2shoes

Risteard wrote: »

The reason he appealed I think is that it was deemed reckless rather than deliberate, but was still entered at the higher end of the scale.

The 6 weeks was just IMO, but in the world of professional sport, a player will always appeal a ban if they think they can get less off of it.

It doesn't matter anyway because he still can't play any games until the Australia one.

All the more reason not to reduce his ban. Leaving it at six weeks would have sent a clear message that this conduct is unacceptable, while still allowing allowing Hayes to play in the AI's. Reducing his ban doesn't allow him to play any extra rugby but makes a mockery of the disciplinary process imo.

thehighground

chupacabra wrote: »

Sorry for bringing this back up mods, the last thread being deleted an all, but its an important current topic.

John Hayes' ban has been reduced by 1 week. A decision which i am appalled by. He shouldn't have even appealed against the ban in the first place, he should have just accepted his punishment and moved on. This is pretty disgraceful imo given the seriousness of the incident which should be considered to be on the highest of the highest severity possible to have his ban reduced to what is now 5 weeks for an offense that would have given any other player a MINIMUM of a 2 month ban. It will be incredibly interesting to see what Jennings might get for his supposed infringement.

It seems obvious to me that the IRFU realised they shot themselves in the foot and might have 'encouraged' Hayes to appeal. He is needed for the AIs and he can now get an AIL game which will help somewhat for match fitness. The IRFU will still look ok because he is still missing Magners/H Cup games.

Jennings is facing an ERC committee and not an IRFU one.

chupacabra

Goodluck2me wrote: »

It's totally reasonable if it wasn't intentional IMO.

How anyone can say that it wasn't intentional is beyond me. I know it was totally out of character and i know his record is unblemished, but it was clearly intentional, your leg just doesn't kick down on someone like that by accident. Whether the IRFU panel said so or not, i can see things with my own eyes.

Crash

Doesn't matter, its essentially a basic flaw in the magners citing setup. By allowing the home nation rugby union to cite, they leave it open to abuse and manipulation. As theHighGround stated, it suits the IRFU better for him to get off a week early, so he does. Similarly Rhys Thomas should never have gotten away with a minimal ban against Shaggy, and Jennings should never have been able to appeal jurisdiction last year.

Citing in the magners is a joke, they need to sort it out.

walshb

Yet again the Rugby authorities show that they really aren't all that serious about stamping
out thuggery in the game. I like John, always have and admire his talent, but what he did
was indefensible and very dangerous. He could have ruined a young mans career, and worse still, caused serious injury. It was more than likely pressure from the club that made him appeal. The act wasn't anything but reckless and deliberate. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he did it. No excuses can defend it.

BTW, 6 weeks for what he did is a pissy sentence and if the authorities want to "stamp" this behaviour out, they need to get tough, which they aren't.

danthefan

walshb wrote: »

Yet again the Rugby authorities show that they really aren't all that serious about stamping
out thuggery in the game. I like John, always have and admire his talent, but what he did
was indefensible and very dangerous. He could have ruined a young mans career, and worse still, caused serious injury. It was more than likely pressure from the club that made him appeal. The act wasn't anything but reckless and deliberate. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he did it. No excuses can defend it.

BTW, 6 weeks for what he did is a pissy sentence and if the authorities want to "stamp" this behaviour out, they need to get tough, which they aren't.

I would agree, I believe he knew what he was doing and he should have taken his ban, been thankful it was only 6 weeks, and moved on.

OldJay

thehighground wrote: »

It seems obvious to me that the IRFU realised they shot themselves in the foot and might have 'encouraged' Hayes to appeal

Nope. That is definitely not the case.

subfreq

Risteard wrote: »

The 6 weeks was just IMO, but in the world of professional sport, a player will always appeal a ban if they think they can get less off of it.

Or, a club will always appeal if their season is faltering and they desperately need the player back.

PhatPiggins

Justind wrote: »

Nope. That is definitely not the case.

By giving him a minor penalty and finding him not quilty of deliberately striking the head, of course they did.

twinytwo

if hayes played for leinster would this thread even be here?

OldJay

PhatPiggins wrote: »

By giving him a minor penalty and finding him not quilty of deliberately striking the head, of course they did.

1) He didn't receive a "minor penalty"
2) He wasn't found to be innocent of deliberately striking the head
3) "Of course they did" = conjecture

Otacon

twinytwo wrote: »

if hayes played for leinster would this thread even be here?

I think the Jennings thread proved it would be.

TBH it makes no difference. He still won't be back for any of the Munster games and is still unlikely to start the first AI test.

I will be looking at Ross for the next few weeks to see if he can impress enough to get the gig.

zenmonk

Read the Jennings thread - it is all defence on Jennings behalf. Too right the reaction here is over the top - of course this forum is heavily Leinster populated and biased because of that- not a criticism of mods more the posters.
One week reduction - big deal - he will serve his time for the stamp -get over it. The hypocrisy of alot of posters here is evident already in the Jennings thread.
You'd swear butter wouldn't melt in the Leinster players mouths! How long is Hines going to last before being banned for sly digs? Jennings will be banned for gouging. It's rugby. You can't keep blaming the authorities for the actions of the players.

Hippo

zenmonk wrote: »

Read the Jennings thread - it is all defence on Jennings behalf. Too right the reaction here is over the top - of course this forum is heavily Leinster populated and biased because of that- not a criticism of mods more the posters.
One week reduction - big deal - he will serve his time for the stamp -get over it. The hypocrisy of alot of posters here is evident already in the Jennings thread.
You'd swear butter wouldn't melt in the Leinster players mouths! How long is Hines going to last before being banned for sly digs? Jennings will be banned for gouging. It's rugby. You can't keep blaming the authorities for the actions of the players.

I can't believe how quickly these threads descend into this kind of complete bo££ocks. Hayes clearly stamped on Healy's head. Deliberate or not, it was at least very reckless. Take your light sentence and get on with it.

From the coverage I've seen, there is no actual proof that Jennings gouged Kennedy, other than Kennedy's reaction. Maybe there's other camera angles that prove the case against him, and if so, fair enough, he deserves a long punishment, I've no problem with that as a Leinster supporter. There is no place for gouging in the game. If you're determined to start talking about 'sly digs', then spare me please. There's no professional rugby team innocent on that score.

OldJay

Hippo wrote: »

Maybe there's other camera angles that prove the case against him

There are a minimum of six camera angles for the judiciary to review in a hearing of ML level and upwards.

Hippo

And has anyone here actually seen any of these yet?

Chucky the tree

Hippo wrote: »

I can't believe how quickly these threads descend into this kind of complete bo££ocks. Hayes clearly stamped on Healy's head. Deliberate or not, it was at least very reckless. Take your light sentence and get on with it.

Light sentence? Very debatable. If you can show me a previous incident of a player in a ML game getting cited for stamping and being given longer then 6 weeks I wouldn't mind having a read of it. The OP really shouldn't be mentioning the Jennings case as it completely unrelated. Jennings should have his punishment(if there is one) compared with Quinnlan and Corey mainly. Also, wtf at people suggesting he should take his punishment and not appeal? :rolleyes:

zenmonk

It is not a light sentence. It was a token reduction, Munster still are without Hayes till November.

OldJay

Hippo wrote: »

And has anyone here actually seen any of these yet?

Yes. I have.
Edit: of the John Hayes incident. Not that of Shane Jennings

Webbs

Justind wrote: »

1) He didn't receive a "minor penalty"
2) He wasn't found to be innocent of deliberately striking the head
3) "Of course they did" = conjecture

Dont you think though and this is using the Hayes incident as an example that a player who strikes down and away with his boot (not a rucking motion) in a situation where he cant see where he places his boot should have a longer ban than is currently given?
An excuse of 'well I couldnt see him' just doesnt cut it with me, if your a rugby player of 16stone plus, you know that a kick/stamp can do serious damage and if you cant see where you are putting your foot then you have to take responsibility for any consequences. If you strike the head then that is a head stamp regardless of whether you can see it or not and should be dealt with a lengthy ban (again this is a general issue not just the Hayes incident)

RugbyFanatic

zenmonk wrote: »

Read the Jennings thread - it is all defence on Jennings behalf. Too right the reaction here is over the top - of course this forum is heavily Leinster populated and biased because of that- not a criticism of mods more the posters.
One week reduction - big deal - he will serve his time for the stamp -get over it. The hypocrisy of alot of posters here is evident already in the Jennings thread.
You'd swear butter wouldn't melt in the Leinster players mouths! How long is Hines going to last before being banned for sly digs? Jennings will be banned for gouging. It's rugby. You can't keep blaming the authorities for the actions of the players.

You see heres the difference,

In the Jennings inciddent not one angle shows Jenning's gouging.

In the Hayes inciddent you can clearly see Hayes recklessly stamping on Healy's head.


Not one person in the Jenning's thread said Jenning's doesn't deserve a ban if it can be seen he is gouging they are however saying that from the footage it is not clear if Jennings was gouging or not and thus unless they are other angles which show that to be the case he does not deserve a ban.

Also If you care to watch the Hines inciddent again you will clearly see he is actually reacting to an initial blow by Leamy when Hines is trying to ruck

Hippo

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Light sentence? Very debatable. If you can show me a previous incident of a player in a ML game getting cited for stamping and being given longer then 6 weeks I wouldn't mind having a read of it. The OP really shouldn't be mentioning the Jennings case as it completely unrelated. Jennings should have his punishment(if there is one) compared with Quinnlan and Corey mainly. Also, wtf at people suggesting he should take his punishment and not appeal? :rolleyes:

Fine. My point was that I considered it a light punishment for doing something so dangerous. I'm not debating the ins and outs of the ML/IRFU/Any other union you care to mention judicial system, which seems to be a law unto itself, viz. Sexton's ridiculously light punishment last season after kicking out at Mafi.

CptMackey

chupacabra wrote: »

Sorry for bringing this back up mods, the last thread being deleted an all, but its an important current topic.

John Hayes' ban has been reduced by 1 week. A decision which i am appalled by. He shouldn't have even appealed against the ban in the first place, he should have just accepted his punishment and moved on. This is pretty disgraceful imo given the seriousness of the incident which should be considered to be on the highest of the highest severity possible to have his ban reduced to what is now 5 weeks for an offense that would have given any other player a MINIMUM of a 2 month ban. It will be incredibly interesting to see what Jennings might get for his supposed infringement.

I think that he deserved to get it reduced, I have looked at it a few times and i dont think that he knew where his feet were in relation to your man's head.
Not to justify stamping but yer man should not be trying to bring down a maul anyway and i doubt he will end up in that position again

Crash

CptMackey wrote:

Not to justify stamping but yer man should not be trying to bring down a maul anyway and i doubt he will end up in that position again

By that logic, does it mean that Hayes, who did the exact same thing on the try line in the first half, and DIDN'T get stamped on, will end up in that position again?

walshb

CptMackey wrote: »

I think that he deserved to get it reduced, I have looked at it a few times and i dont think that he knew where his feet were in relation to your man's head.
Not to justify stamping but yer man should not be trying to bring down a maul anyway and i doubt he will end up in that position again

Well, isn't this the reason why Rugby is in the state it is regarding thuggery and acts of violence on the pitch. Folks willing to defend the actions and make out that it was an accident and he didn't mean to do it ect, gimme a break. Hayes did what he did, knew what he was doing and went and did it. He's a very experienced pro and to try and fobb it off by saying, "i dont think that he knew where his feet were in relation to your man's head.". This is ludicrous.


If he didn't know where his feet were in realtion to the head, why the **** did he do what he did? Was it a case of, "I'll lash out here and if I maim or seriously injure someone, so be it. I can always throw in the red herring that I didn't know where I was kicking and it was purely accidental, sure won't the mugs fall for it, they always do.":rolleyes:

CptMackey

walshb wrote: »

Well, isn't this the reason why Rugby is in the state it is regarding thuggery and acts of violence on the pitch. Folks willing to defend the actions and make out that it was an accident and he didn't mean to do it ect, gimme a break. Hayes did what he did, knew what he was doing and went and did it. He's a very experienced pro and to try and fobb it off by saying, "i dont think that he knew where his feet were in relation to your man's head.". This is ludicrous.


If he didn't know where his feet were in realtion to the head, why the **** did he do what he did? Was it a case of, "I'll lash out here and if I maim or seriously injure someone, so be it. I can always throw in the red herring that I didn't know where I was kicking and it was purely accidental, sure won't the mugs fall for it, they always do.":rolleyes:

So is he not supposed to try and stand while being held around the head by leo cullen? :rolleyes:

phog

Crash wrote: »

By that logic, does it mean that Hayes, who did the exact same thing on the try line in the first half, and DIDN'T get stamped on, will end up in that position again?

Not jusitifing Hayes stamping but your comment above is irrelevant as when Hayes was pulling down the maul the ref correctly warded Leinster a penalty, maybe just maybe if McDowell penalised Healy for doing the same then there might been no stamping to be discussed.

toomevara

Alot of pretty pathetic inter-pro nonsense, yet again, (sigh) folks. No more please.

Davei141

CptMackey wrote: »

So is he not supposed to try and stand while being held around the head by leo cullen? :rolleyes:

What the hell? He didn't try to find his feet and accidentally stand on Healys head, he kicked out at him. Did you even see the incident?

Crash

phog wrote: »

Not jusitifing Hayes stamping but your comment above is irrelevant as when Hayes was pulling down the maul the ref correctly warded Leinster a penalty, maybe just maybe if McDowell penalised Healy for doing the same then there might been no stamping to be discussed.

Thought it was O'Leary who gave away that penalty, no? was under the impression Hayes and the maul prior to that had gone un-whistled - could be wrong now, looking for the video of that piece of play.

edit: just found it, sorry, you were right. Advantage was given at that stage.

walshb

CptMackey wrote: »

So is he not supposed to try and stand while being held around the head by leo cullen? :rolleyes:

You really believe it was a case of John simply trying to stand, or, find his footing.
Are you really that gullible?

I am a fan of John's, always have been. He has been one of Ireland's best ever players
from the past ten years. I would go so far as to say he is second only to BOD over the past
ten years.

The eyes don't lie and the video doesn't lie, no matter how much you view it.

buck65

walshb wrote: »

I am a fan of John's, always have been. He has been one of Ireland's best ever players
from the past ten years. I would go so far as to say he is second only to BOD over the past
ten years.

That's a bit generous!! A good lifter, decent enough in the scrum (took him a few years to get even that good) A good worker in the breakdown and in the loose. A decent tighthead with absolutely no competition in club or country. Will be a big loss to Ireland as we have no-one coming through.

walshb

buck65 wrote: »

That's a bit generous!! A good lifter, decent enough in the scrum (took him a few years to get even that good) A good worker in the breakdown and in the loose. A decent tighthead with absolutely no competition in club or country. Will be a big loss to Ireland as we have no-one coming through.

Yes, and unfortunately, a lot seem to forget just how much of the donkeys work
the Bull did and does as a player. He does the work that doesn't show to the casual
observer. His consistency has been fantastic and when he is on the pitch, it's a major confidence boost, same with BOD. To say he hasd no competition is a cop out. He was simply keeping the competition OUT.
Irreplaceable!

The Bulls position normally will not get much attention, a bit like a goalkeeper or defender, or even a safety in pro American Football

The great Ronnie Lott for example never got near as much praise and adulation as say, Jerry
Rice or Joe Montana, but Lott was so so instrumental in the 49er defence and won them many games.

OldJay

Bloody hell, you lot would argue over the colour of a shadow.

walshb

Justind wrote: »

Bloody hell, you lot would argue over the colour of a shadow.

Does a shadow have colour?

toomevara

Back to the rugby please folks.

Otacon

TBH without game-time, I don't think Kidney's going to start him in the AIs anyway. Ross or Mushy will be picked in his stead.

danthefan

Otacon wrote: »

TBH without game-time, I don't think Kidney's going to start him in the AIs anyway. Ross or Mushy will be picked in his stead.

He will start. If Hayes is available and DK starts Buckley against Aus or SA then I want a new coach.

Otacon

I said earlier in this thread, I will be looking closely at Ross over the next few weeks as I see him being the likely replacement with Hayes on the bench.

Otacon

What has that got to do with John Hayes and his reduced banning?

Blured

thehighground wrote: »

(i) : Causing a scrum, ruck or maul to collapse - Lower End 2 weeks; Mid R ange 4 weeks; Top End 8+ weeks; Max Sanction: 52 weeks.

Just wondering - has anyone ever been cited for collapsing a maul? Did a quick google and couldnt find anything

danthefan

Blured wrote: »

Just wondering - has anyone ever been cited for collapsing a maul? Did a quick google and couldnt find anything

I very much doubt it, it's probably a law in the same vein as lineout lifting being illegal. They legalised collapsing the maul for a season even.

thehighground

danthefan wrote: »

I very much doubt it, it's probably a law in the same vein as lineout lifting being illegal. They legalised collapsing the maul for a season even.

Generally spotted by the ref and punished immediately is probably why no one gets cited. Poor reffing in this particular game.

It says a lot that it was decided to make it illegal again to collapse the maul (one of the few ELV that was not adopted)

danthefan

thehighground wrote: »

Generally spotted by the ref and punished immediately is probably why no one gets cited. Poor reffing in this particular game.

It says a lot that it was decided to make it illegal again to collapse the maul (one of the few ELV that was not adopted)

Or it's not remotely worth a citing. Being dealt with by the ref has no bearing on anything, unless he issues a red card which actually forces a citing.

And they decided to make it illegal again because it was ruining the game by effectively removing the maul. Nobody got injured last season due to a collapsing maul.

thehighground

danthefan wrote: »

Or it's not remotely worth a citing. Being dealt with by the ref has no bearing on anything, unless he issues a red card which actually forces a citing.

And they decided to make it illegal again because it was ruining the game by effectively removing the maul. Nobody got injured last season due to a collapsing maul.

Maybe its not worth a citing - who knows. Normal punishment for first offence in a game would be a penalty, 2nd offence would be a yellow card. If they haven't learned at this stage they need to be banned. Most players cop on and it doesn't get to that stage.

danthefan

thehighground wrote: »

Maybe its not worth a citing - who knows.

Everybody but you.

thehighground wrote: »

Normal punishment for first offence in a game would be a penalty, 2nd offence would be a yellow card. If they haven't learned at this stage they need to be banned. Most players cop on and it doesn't get to that stage.

Or have their face stamped on?