Judiciary Happenings

canefan

@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:

@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:

Maybe they'll get thrown out of the tournament? Oh wait....

mooshld

There is one thing I can't quite grasp about the new high tackle framework.

If you have bad technique and accidentally strike a player in the head with your arm or shoulder you are going to have a very bad day. That I get.

But if you have bad technique and cause a head clash with a player. It's deemed an accident and play on. This happened in the Japan Scotland game.

Now I know that nobody is charging round the field headfirst trying to maim people. But if all this is about protecting players heads, then surely the type of tackles that cause headclashes should be looked at as well.

voodoo

I absolutely hate the current framework.

I think it's pretty absurd that you can get a red card for a MISTAKE, for incidental contact with an attacker who had ducked, slipped, or otherwise initiated contact with his head.

But I think its MASSIVELY absurd that We them say "ok, you got a red card and probably cost your team a game, but we are still going to hit you with a 6 week suspension, and no matter what the mitigating circumstances, that will never be less than 3 games".

I understand having a starting point for a suspension, but I see no reason for a committee to not have the power to say "ok, thats stil a red under current rules, but there was no intent / there was an attacker who initiated contact/ the contact was unavoidable etc, and hence no suspension is required (or 1 or 2 games, whatever)

Bones

@voodoo so if a player gets a red card, they shouldn't be further sanctioned?

voodoo

@Bones said in Judiciary Happenings:

@voodoo so if a player gets a red card, they shouldn't be further sanctioned?

Possibly - but the sanction should be based on the actual incident. I dont aee why a red card, especially in the current climate where we have made it a lot easier to get one, should be a a minimum of 3 games regardless of the incident itself. 3 games and potentially up to 79 minutes of missed time is a heck of a lot of punishment for a borderline red

Bones

@voodoo said in Judiciary Happenings:

@Bones said in Judiciary Happenings:

@voodoo so if a player gets a red card, they shouldn't be further sanctioned?

Possibly - but the sanction should be based on the actual incident. I dont aee why a red card, especially in the current climate where we have made it a lot easier to get one, should be a a minimum of 3 games regardless of the incident itself. 3 games and potentially up to 79 minutes of missed time is a heck of a lot of punishment for a borderline red

That then may cause the player to look at their technique...

voodoo

I don't want to kick off the debate on what should constitute a red card again. I'm just saying that red cards can be different, and now that we have lowered the bar to get one, I'm not sure 3 games on the sidelines is right as an automatic.

mariner4life

@Bones said in Judiciary Happenings:

@voodoo so if a player gets a red card, they shouldn't be further sanctioned?

Yes, that's absolutely what he said. And everyone here agrees too.

Bones

@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:

@Bones said in Judiciary Happenings:

@voodoo so if a player gets a red card, they shouldn't be further sanctioned?

Yes, that's absolutely what he said. And everyone here agrees too.

He's already replied, but thanks.

Nevorian

@Bones said in Judiciary Happenings:

@voodoo so if a player gets a red card, they shouldn't be further sanctioned?

depends on the incident - obvious foul play (think the Italians tip tackle) at least three weeks versus a clumsy tackle - off for the remainder of the game or the following game if it occurs late in the game.

Bones

@Nevorian said in Judiciary Happenings:

@Bones said in Judiciary Happenings:

@voodoo so if a player gets a red card, they shouldn't be further sanctioned?

depends on the incident - obvious foul play (think the Italians tip tackle) at least three weeks versus a clumsy tackle - off for the remainder of the game or the following game if it occurs late in the game.

The sanctions are already different for the different "types" of foul play. They also have a different scale within those sanctions for Top/Mid/Low range.

Stargazer

Tonga hooker Paula Ngauamo suspended for seven weeks

The disciplinary hearing in relation to the citing of Tonga hooker Paula Ngauamo for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.12 (kicking) in their Rugby World Cup 2019 Pool C match against USA took place in Tokyo on 15 October.

The independent Judicial Committee was chaired by Alan Hudson (Canada) joined by former international player Stefan Terblanche (South Africa) and former referee Valeriu Toma (Romania).

The player admitted that he had kicked his opponent in the face and accepted this was at least mid-range offending as he had made contact with his opponent’s head.

The committee agreed and applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point, which was introduced in 2017 to protect player welfare, deter high contact and prevent head injuries. This resulted in a starting point of an eight-week suspension.

Taking into account the mitigating factors that are considered in relation to sanction, including the player’s early admission and disciplinary record, the committee reduced the eight-week entry point by one week, resulting in a sanction of seven weeks.

Ngauamo is returning to Tonga today prior to resuming club duty with Agen in the Top 14. The player will be suspended for his next seven weeks of club rugby on his return to France.

.

Only 1 week deduction for the player’s early admission and disciplinary record. Not 50%, I wonder why? (the full decision hasn't been published, yet).

Bovidae

@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:

Only 1 week deduction for the player’s early admission and disciplinary record. Not 50%, I wonder why? (the full decision hasn't been published, yet).

You can only assume he has previous form.

NTA

@Stargazer @Bovidae and he kicked a bloke in the face. How that is due any mitigation is beyond me

NTA

@mooshld said in Judiciary Happenings:

There is one thing I can't quite grasp

Well you bloody better otherwise its a shoulder charge.

Stargazer

@NTA said in Judiciary Happenings:

@Stargazer @Bovidae and he kicked a bloke in the face. How that is due any mitigation is beyond me

I've tried finding a clip of it; maybe it was completely accidental? I'm not going to form an opinion without knowing the facts. Still waiting for the full decision to become available.

I think if it had been deliberate, they would have started at a top-end entry-point of 12 weeks (or higher), not a mid-range entry point of 6 weeks.

Machpants

@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:

Tonga hooker Paula Ngauamo suspended for seven weeks

The disciplinary hearing in relation to the citing of Tonga hooker Paula Ngauamo for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.12 (kicking) in their Rugby World Cup 2019 Pool C match against USA took place in Tokyo on 15 October.

The independent Judicial Committee was chaired by Alan Hudson (Canada) joined by former international player Stefan Terblanche (South Africa) and former referee Valeriu Toma (Romania).

The player admitted that he had kicked his opponent in the face and accepted this was at least mid-range offending as he had made contact with his opponent’s head.

The committee agreed and applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point, which was introduced in 2017 to protect player welfare, deter high contact and prevent head injuries. This resulted in a starting point of an eight-week suspension.

Taking into account the mitigating factors that are considered in relation to sanction, including the player’s early admission and disciplinary record, the committee reduced the eight-week entry point by one week, resulting in a sanction of seven weeks.

Ngauamo is returning to Tonga today prior to resuming club duty with Agen in the Top 14. The player will be suspended for his next seven weeks of club rugby on his return to France.

.

Only 1 week deduction for the player’s early admission and disciplinary record. Not 50%, I wonder why? (the full decision hasn't been published, yet).

Previous form and he didn;t turn up to the court session, or whatever it's called. Dipshit

Redirect Notice