PDA

View Full Version : Calum Clark "incident" with Rob Hawkins - Arm Break



TRF_Olyy
18-03-12, 11:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d_5Vlsyekio
Missed it in the game, but seen a lot of people going on about it on twitter and just seen the video.

Absolutely disgusting.
You can hear Hawkins scream afterwards.


If this was intentional, and it's hard to say it's not for me, then he should get a MASSIVE ban, and never be anywhere near an England squad again.
It's one of the worst things I've seen on a rugby pitch.

TRF_SelimNiai
18-03-12, 11:59 PM
When I first heard of it I assumed it was just Tigers fans stirring as per usual but bloody hellfire that is horrible. They should throw the book at him and make sure its a really big one that will hurt

JW.
19-03-12, 12:01 AM
Looks disgusting, and looks like he knows what he's doing. Horrible.

Shouldn't be near a Rugby pitch let stand an England squad tbh.

lucky number 7
19-03-12, 12:09 AM
Don't know about this one...was expecting an armbar or something of the sort...really unsure if this was intentional

TRF_Olyy
19-03-12, 12:13 AM
Don't know about this one...was expecting an armbar or something of the sort...really unsure if this was intentional
It does seem to divide opinion as to whether he knew what he was doing, or whether he was just pulling his arm off the ball to stop a turnover.

For my eyes:
Hawkins goes off his feet - advantage.
Whistle goes.
*delay*
Clark punches Hawkins.
Clark grabs his arm away and then leans back with it bending it way too far, then releases.

That it was clearly after the whistle makes it worse than it might be, I think.

TRF_Hulkster
19-03-12, 12:23 AM
I watched it live and thought nothing more of it. But seeing it again and again then obviously something has gone on there. The tough thing to prove is whether he inteded to do it or not.

snoopy snoopy dog dog
19-03-12, 02:53 PM
A scumbag act from a scumbag player is my initial thought on the issue. Maybe he didn't mean it but the guy has previous form when it comes to idiotic acts on the field.

Peat
19-03-12, 03:38 PM
I really don't see how that could be unintentional. The whistle's gone, nobody's moving, and you don't clear people out of rucks by bending their arms around other people.

big ginger 8
19-03-12, 03:42 PM
Disgusting.

gingergenius
19-03-12, 04:06 PM
Not out of character for Clark anyway.

Yet another reason (besides him not being good enough) why he shouldn't be in the EPS.

Saintjay
19-03-12, 04:31 PM
Anyone know if this has gone to the citing commisioner? Interested to know how it would work if no officials have reported it.

I think Hawkins was still at the ground at the end of the match so with luck it is not as bad as it sounds/looks. Not defending Clark in anyway if he ment it he deserves the book being thrown at him. Proving intent will be hard as you either need damming evidence which I don't think you can say from the video. I think you would struggle to prove intent, or you need an admission of guilt and Clark is not going to say he ment it in a million years.

Criminal court wise you need a guilty act/guilty mind and I think you would have a good arguement that his actions were reckless as to damage/injury being caused. Just my opion anyway.

the plastic paddy
20-03-12, 08:21 AM
Any truth to rumours that Tigers might be referring the incident to the Police? Would set a precedent if they did but Clark would only have himself to blame; as shocking an incident as I have seen on a rugby field. If he i cited he will probably get a fortnight!?! Citing procedure are a joke the world over.

TRF_Olyy
20-03-12, 08:35 AM
I doubt very very much they'll get the police involved, that was just some Tigers fans going mad on their fan forum over it.

Peat
21-03-12, 12:56 PM
Leicester are about the last club on earth that would involve the police, but I do believe there's a genuine case for it if they were to do so, and wouldn't be the first person to be caught so (wasn't it Greening who Rougerie sued?)

Saintjay
21-03-12, 02:38 PM
Cockerill has come out and said his bit in the press and is not a happy man. On the Tigers forums a few are up in arms and messaging the RFU etc. I think they have till Thursday to cite Clark.

TRF_Olyy
21-03-12, 02:59 PM
I thought the citing window was 48 hours after the match ends?

If he gets away with it then it'd be ridiculous.



Edit: Just seen on the BBC they've got until Thursday, my mistake :)

Taylo2
21-03-12, 03:09 PM
It's the first time i've seen that in slow motion, watching the game I didn't really see the break, but I can't see how thats an accident. As someone said earlier, you don't clear out a ruck like that, the whistle had gone...why would you do it other than to cause harm.

It's a rugby matter and should be dealt with within the game, but imagine if it had happened in a bar fight or something, or even at grass roots level....the police would certainly be interested.

Anyway, I wish Hawkins a speedy recovery, he's played well when required this term.

Saintjay
21-03-12, 05:27 PM
Clark has been cited and is to be seen in front of Judge Jeff Blackett on Monday. Clark is accused of an act contrary to good sportsmanship.

Taylo2
21-03-12, 06:01 PM
Clark has been cited and is to be seen in front of Judge Jeff Blackett on Monday. Clark is accused of an act contrary to good sportsmanship.

That's good news. Like I said, I'd rather it dealt with within rugby, not a as a police matter, the game doesn't need such negative exposure. Clark was stupid in his actions, got to wonder what exactly was going through his mind when he did it.

dullonien
21-03-12, 08:19 PM
That's good news. Like I said, I'd rather it dealt with within rugby, not a as a police matter, the game doesn't need such negative exposure. Clark was stupid in his actions, got to wonder what exactly was going through his mind when he did it.

I don't agree that it should be kept within rugby. This is a pretty serious act of foul play, something which could hold a prison sentence off the field. I would personally like to see things like this, along with deliberate gouging etc. referred to the police as well. Being banned from playing rugby just isn't enough sometimes.

Teh Mite
21-03-12, 08:20 PM
Eh? Wut?

Saintjay
21-03-12, 09:00 PM
I don't agree that it should be kept within rugby. This is a pretty serious act of foul play, something which could hold a prison sentence off the field. I would personally like to see things like this, along with deliberate gouging etc. referred to the police as well. Being banned from playing rugby just isn't enough sometimes.

The problem with that is at what point do you say that matter should be dealt with by the police? The simple act of punching a person carries a prison sentence as common assault. The act of swearing in front of others members of the public carries a prison sentence under section 5 of the public order act. Raising your fist and putting a person in fear of violence is an offence also. If your going to sart chasing one person you should also start chasing the others.

Should Tuialagi go to prison the his assault on Ashton? In my view it was a pretty nasty assault with the intent of causing injury or at least he was reckless as to injury being caused. How many times do we see rugby players throwing punches, the intent is to cause harm. It is only luck that stops them causing injury or a fracture. So if your going to go down that road then what?

As for the Police being involved in this, you can't prosecute an assault without a victim statement and a victim who is willing to attend court and support a prosecution. The CPS will not run a victimless prosecution as a rule, however the Police may still run an investigation and let the CPS make the final call. That's before you even get onto the intent arguement.

I think you will open up a whole big can of worms. My view let the IRB/RFU deal with it as they see fit. It throws up so many issues for instance what if the he is found not guilty by the RFU, should he still be put before 12 men good and true.

Teh Mite
21-03-12, 09:02 PM
Pre-note: I haven't seen the incident in question, so trolls STFU.

When did rugby turn into a world of fans baying "Oh the police should get involved". Really? REALLY?

TRF_SelimNiai
21-03-12, 09:06 PM
Pre-note: I haven't seen the incident in question, so trolls STFU.

When did rugby turn into a world of fans baying "Oh the police should get involved". Really? REALLY?

Totally agree, unless its something like a stabbing or a shooting its something the rugby authorities should sort out.

monkeypigeon
21-03-12, 09:40 PM
Totally agree, unless its something like a stabbing or a shooting its something the rugby authorities should sort out.

Well you if you attempt yank a bone out of it's socket I don't see how that's inferior to a mere flesh wound...

http://fudgethedice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/fleshwound.jpg

I suppose the question is did the act go beyond what a player can reasonably be deemed to consent to when he walked onto the sports field. A punch in the face (yes), a kick in the shins (yes), a head lock (yes), a stab wound (no), a hug (probably), a mild bite on the finger (maybe), arm purposely wrenched out of socket (no), a potentially blinding finger in the eye (no).

Saintjay
21-03-12, 10:18 PM
Well you if you attempt yank a bone out of it's socket I don't see how that's inferior to a mere flesh wound...

http://fudgethedice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/fleshwound.jpg

I suppose the question is did the act go beyond what a player can reasonably be deemed to consent to when he walked onto the sports field. A punch in the face (yes), a kick in the shins (yes), a head lock (yes), a stab wound (no), a hug (probably), a mild bite on the finger (maybe), arm purposely wrenched out of socket (no), a potentially blinding finger in the eye (no).

Here is the problem. Punching someone on the pitch can't be consented by a player. It is not in the rules it's not boxing. A player throws a punch and it's a good one. The impact fractures the other players jaw and it requires detailed hospital treatment. Would you or I consent to that no we would not. So what sort of punches do you reasonably consent too?.

munstermuffin
21-03-12, 10:23 PM
Lads it is even ridiculous to suggest getting police etc involved.
I've seen alot worst in rugby games.
However this was a total scumbag act and well I think a lengthy (6 months +) ban is required.

monkeypigeon
21-03-12, 10:37 PM
Here is the problem. Punching someone on the pitch can't be consented by a player. It is not in the rules it's not boxing. A player throws a punch and it's a good one. The impact fractures the other players jaw and it requires detailed hospital treatment. Would you or I consent to that no we would not. So what sort of punches do you reasonably consent too?.

See that's what people think everytime they read that argument. Players don't consent only to what's within the rules only, or else a late tackle would be an actionable tort. It's when someone goes beyond what can be reasonably expected on a rugby pitch. I'd say what Clark did is bordering on that.


I'm just arguing this point for the sake of it. Of course I think these things should be kept internal short of full on violent attack. But the point is to ask where the line is drawn?

Teh Mite
21-03-12, 10:42 PM
But the point is to ask where the line is drawn?

It's that same blurry line that's separating bias and overblown morality.

monkeypigeon
21-03-12, 10:47 PM
It's that same blurry line that's separating bias and overblown morality.

I doubt a court would consider the line between bias and overblown morality when deciding whether to accept a civil or criminal action for violent conduct on a sport.

They'd probably actually think something along the lines of what I was talking about.

Teh Mite
21-03-12, 10:52 PM
I doubt a court would consider the line between bias and overblown morality when deciding whether to accept a civil or criminal action for violent conduct on a sport.

They'd probably actually think something along the lines of what I was talking about.

It's take more then anything which could happen on a rugby pitch to ever get to court.

Particularly in the UK. Innocent motorists aren't allowed to drive on a rugby pitch.

monkeypigeon
21-03-12, 11:02 PM
It's take more then anything which could happen on a rugby pitch to ever get to court.

Particularly in the UK. Innocent motorists aren't allowed to drive on a rugby pitch.

Well that's not true. This is an issue in Ice Hockey too. Fella got got a jail sentence for this incident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yvt0B4RXWc Clark's arm wrench is similar, off the ball and out of the blue and the player on the ground isn't really in a position to react before he's injured.

Again I'll say I don't think this type of thing should go to court, and the punch in the jaw in the story below seems an over the top reaction. But it is an issue.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Keynsham-RFC-rugby-player-jailed-assault-pitch/story-15409864-detail/story.html

(http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Keynsham-RFC-rugby-player-jailed-assault-pitch/story-15409864-detail/story.html)

Saintjay
21-03-12, 11:12 PM
See that's what people think everytime they read that argument. Players don't consent only to what's within the rules only, or else a late tackle would be an actionable tort. It's when someone goes beyond what can be reasonably expected on a rugby pitch. I'd say what Clark did is bordering on that.


I'm just arguing this point for the sake of it. Of course I think these things should be kept internal short of full on violent attack. But the point is to ask where the line is drawn?

The law is clearly defined and that's is the problem hence why as you say it is where would you draw the line. In english law it is simple if you punch somebody in the face it is an assault. You can't consent to being punched in rugby as the law states consent can only be given if related to activities within the rules of a game.

TRF_Olyy
21-03-12, 11:18 PM
Glad to hear he's been cited, hopefully he gets a lengthy ban.

If he got, say, a six month ban, do the 3-4 months of off-season count towards the ban or does it go on hiatus until the season starts again?

Teh Mite
21-03-12, 11:20 PM
Any ban is defined in time, not number of matches. Hense England players only get long bans just before the season ends (e.g. Manu Tuilagi).

Does anybody have a link to this incident, I still ain't got a frigging clue what people are talking about.

TRF_Olyy
21-03-12, 11:34 PM
It's in the opening post....



With the premiership final on May 26th (if Saints were to get there) it's about 10 weeks away, so his actual ban will be 2+ weeks under the minimum (presuming it's not really long and goes in to next season).
Suppose it will probably stop him touring with England in the summer.

Feicarsinn
21-03-12, 11:34 PM
First post?

monkeypigeon
21-03-12, 11:41 PM
The law is clearly defined and that's is the problem hence why as you say it is where would you draw the line. In english law it is simple if you punch somebody in the face it is an assault. You can't consent to being punched in rugby as the law states consent can only be given if related to activities within the rules of a game.

The law is rarely clearly defined or there wouldn't be a need for lawyers (like Luimneach18). Where does the law state that consent can only be given if related to activities within the rules of the game.

I remember reading a number of cases where it was argued that a person consents activities common within the culture of the sport (or something along those lines). What you can't consent to is (I don't know what the technical term in England is) something along the lines of actual bodily harm (and a black eye isn't included in that).

I don't know English Criminal law, it's been a few years at this stage. All I can think of is R v. Billinghurst. Don't even know what happened in that. Some rugby player got done for assault I think.

Teh Mite
21-03-12, 11:42 PM
First post?
so it is... ****ty Android phones.

Is there any sort of possibility, you, just to consider the slim chance, that Wood rolling off Hawkins back and landing on his arm maybe just possibly could have been the primary cause of any injury??

I know of course there's not where near as much cause for hysteria and knee-jerk witch hunting witch thoughts like that, therefore not popular, but in a world where hating on the Murdoch family is "cool", maybe people could not behave like he employs them...

monkeypigeon
21-03-12, 11:46 PM
It's that blurry line between bias and overblown morality again.

Teh Mite
21-03-12, 11:48 PM
Precisely.

A bit like all the people who are all upset that a footballer has had a heart attack, but walked straight past a BHF charity desk last time they went on a spending spree in town centre.

dullonien
22-03-12, 01:02 AM
I think we can all accept that rugby is a physical game and injury is gonna happen now and again. Most will probably accept that due to the physical nature of the game, this can sometimes overflow into a bit of a punch-up. What I cannot understand, or accept is when off the ball incidents occur with little to no provocation. Deliberate acts of malice intended to severely injure another person should not be tolerated in any way, and my reasoning behind wanting police action is simply because I don't think a ban from playing rugby is enough of a punishment when there are other people getting jail-time for doing similar things.

There is a deliberate attempt to injure when someone sticks a finger in another person's eye, stamps on a player's head or breaks someone's arm. This is very different from throwing a punch which can maybe result in a broken jaw, but not intended to do so. Luckily there hasn't been too many incidents of players being seriously harmed due to foul play, but one look at Gavin Quinelle losing his sight in one eye shows how it can severely impact someone's life.

I'm not saying that Clark is definitely guilty, it's difficult to tell from a poor quality youtube video, but the citing board will have much, much better quality video to look at and probably multiple camera angles. If they find him guilty then imo the police should be then involved. I'm sure most won't agree.

racingmetrofan
22-03-12, 01:33 AM
I don't agree that it should be kept within rugby. This is a pretty serious act of foul play, something which could hold a prison sentence off the field. I would personally like to see things like this, along with deliberate gouging etc. referred to the police as well. Being banned from playing rugby just isn't enough sometimes.

I think it should only be reffered to the police if the player injured wants it to be. Ultimately if Hawkins doesn't think it is worth a criminal conviction, and isn't the same as if someone did it to him in a bar, then what's the point in Clark being taken to court? Because, essentially, both the attacker and the victim would believe that the attacker is not guilty in a 'criminal' sense...

Saintjay
22-03-12, 01:35 AM
The law is rarely clearly defined or there wouldn't be a need for lawyers (like Luimneach18). Where does the law state that consent can only be given if related to activities within the rules of the game.

I remember reading a number of cases where it was argued that a person consents activities common within the culture of the sport (or something along those lines). What you can't consent to is (I don't know what the technical term in England is) something along the lines of actual bodily harm (and a black eye isn't included in that).

I don't know English Criminal law, it's been a few years at this stage. All I can think of is R v. Billinghurst. Don't even know what happened in that. Some rugby player got done for assault I think.

I think it is from that case I got the idea that it has to be within the rules of the game, part of the sport etc. I looked it up and he was found guilty of assault 11 to 1. The defence argued that punching was part of the game and they even brought in an international player to say that it was.

The judge directed the jury that rugby was a game of physical contact necessarily involving the use of force and that players are deemed to consent to force "of a kind which could reasonably be expected to happen during a game." He went on to direct them that a rugby player has no unlimited licence to use force and that "there must obviously be cases which cross the line of that to which a player is deemed to consent." A distinction which the jury might regard as decisive was that between force used in the course of play and force used outside the course of play.

So is punching a player part of the sport and used in the course of play or part of the game. Clearly the judge and jury did not see it that way. A case in 2004 said a late tackle in the heat of the moment was ok as it was in the course of play though.

dullonien
22-03-12, 02:31 AM
I think it should only be reffered to the police if the player injured wants it to be. Ultimately if Hawkins doesn't think it is worth a criminal conviction, and isn't the same as if someone did it to him in a bar, then what's the point in Clark being taken to court? Because, essentially, both the attacker and the victim would believe that the attacker is not guilty in a 'criminal' sense...

Sounds fair.

Teh Mite
22-03-12, 07:01 AM
Tyburn could always be reopened. Blackett is "affectionately" known as the hanging judge...

TRF_Hulkster
22-03-12, 11:04 PM
Precisely.

A bit like all the people who are all upset that a footballer has had a heart attack, but walked straight past a BHF charity desk last time they went on a spending spree in town centre.

Really.

To be fair it's not suprising that you said that.

Teh Mite
22-03-12, 11:12 PM
Read the whole sentence, keep it in context, band wagons etc. You know better then that.

gingergenius
23-03-12, 10:41 AM
Clark's been suspended by Saints.

In other words, he's guilty as hell and they're trying damage limitation on his ban. Should be 52 weeks for that kind of behaviour, no place for it in rugby.

j'nuh
23-03-12, 11:18 AM
Is there any sort of possibility, you, just to consider the slim chance, that Wood rolling off Hawkins back and landing on his arm maybe just possibly could have been the primary cause of any injury??
If you push a guy into the street and a car hits him, should we lock up the driver? ;)

Whether Clark was intentionally trying to break Hawkins arm doesn't really matter imo, the negligence alone deserves a long ban.

Teh Mite
23-03-12, 01:17 PM
Wasnt attempting to redirect blame or excuse anything, merely looking as it without pointing fingers or talking in extremes. Wreckless actions leading to a horrible accident caused it.

RedWhite&Green
23-03-12, 02:22 PM
Any ban is defined in time, not number of matches. Hense England players only get long bans just before the season ends (e.g. Manu Tuilagi).

Does anybody have a link to this incident, I still ain't got a frigging clue what people are talking about.
how convenient!

TRF_SelimNiai
23-03-12, 02:23 PM
how convenient!

Selective reading

HowieLO6
23-03-12, 02:29 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17487713

If this was, indeed, done on purpose I'd very much like to see the RFU throw the book at him.

If you go to the Daily Mail, you can see the video of the incident.

Doesn't look accidental to me.

EDIT: Forgot it was in the LV cup and not the prem. My bad.

TRF_Olyy
23-03-12, 02:43 PM
EDIT: Forgot it was in the LV cup and not the prem. My bad.
No worries, I just merged the threads.

HowieLO6
23-03-12, 03:04 PM
Cheers.

Actually makes my stomach churn, watching this. Granted, i'm not one with an iron gut, but still.

Having a chat with a Saints-supporting friend and he's very much of the opinion that the club ban equates to an acknowledgement of guilt and he should thus be shown the door. Not ure if I agree with that, as I wouldnt jetison those who gouge, although i suppose theres a difference between fingers around the eyes & bending an arm, as opposed to jamming your thumbs in and snapping the arm back.

Saintjay
23-03-12, 03:08 PM
how convenient!

Yeah or prehaps he did not see the incident or could not view the video, maybe he was just busy. Some people do have lives outside of rugby however unconvenient that is.

dullonien
23-03-12, 03:11 PM
Yeah or prehaps he did not see the incident or could not view the video, maybe he was just busy. Some people do have lives outside of rugby however unconvenient that is.

He was viewing the thread on his phone = no video.

TRF_Olyy
23-03-12, 03:59 PM
Cheers.

Actually makes my stomach churn, watching this. Granted, i'm not one with an iron gut, but still.

Having a chat with a Saints-supporting friend and he's very much of the opinion that the club ban equates to an acknowledgement of guilt and he should thus be shown the door. Not ure if I agree with that, as I wouldnt jetison those who gouge, although i suppose theres a difference between fingers around the eyes & bending an arm, as opposed to jamming your thumbs in and snapping the arm back.
Also a bit of damage limitation - when Cueto got banned for "making contact with the eyes", that he'd already been banned by Sale took a bit of time off of his ban handed down from the citing people.

Teh Mite
23-03-12, 06:42 PM
Yeah or prehaps he did not see the incident or could not view the video, maybe he was just busy. Some people do have lives outside of rugby however unconvenient that is.
Don't feed the troll

RedWhite&Green
24-03-12, 06:44 PM
was merely making the point that 4 days after the incident and a day after the citing that a real Saints fan WOULD have had a frigging clue what it was all about
talking of selective reading "Hense (sic) England players only get long bans just before the season ends (e.g. Manu Tuilagi)."


He was viewing the thread on his phone = no video.
sorry I forgot phones don't have video.........oh! hang on a minute!

Teh Mite
25-03-12, 09:07 AM
Go away troll. Nobody cares for your personal abuse.

RedWhite&Green
25-03-12, 07:24 PM
you must lead a sheltered (and isolated life) if you think my questioning your support for a rugby club is personal abuse, really that's very amusing. I apologise for hurting your feelings

Teh Mite
25-03-12, 09:31 PM
you must lead a sheltered (and isolated life) if you think my questioning your support for a rugby club is personal abuse, really that's very amusing. I apologise for hurting your feelingsWhatever. Keep on topic or **** off, eh?

Peat
29-03-12, 10:41 AM
The hearing is today. Hawkins' arm was broken in four places, which I believe the committee will be taking into account.

TRF_Olyy
29-03-12, 10:54 AM
6.30pm, I think (was supposed to be morning but got put back again)
Looking forward to seeing what he gets.

Teh Mite
29-03-12, 12:22 PM
Less then 12 months and ill be surprised.

TRF_Olyy
29-03-12, 01:10 PM
I think around 6months, to be honest - He's not French so a mega-ban will be unlikely

psychic duck
29-03-12, 02:46 PM
I think around 6months, to be honest - He's not French so a mega-ban will be unlikely

I can't think of many players banned for more than a year in professional rugby, to be fair to David Attoub I think he probably deserved his ban but in comparison to others banned for the same offence (Schalk Burger 8 weeks) he was given a very unfair ban

Attoub is the only case I can think of in professional rugby of a player being banned for over a year for an on pitch incident (Brennan was banned for an off pitch one)

Feicarsinn
29-03-12, 06:50 PM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzs4sni39d1qbmaizo2_500.png

TRF_SelimNiai
29-03-12, 07:22 PM
32 week ban announced.

TRF_Olyy
29-03-12, 07:27 PM
Free to play from November 2nd.
Pretty fair ban, imo. If it was fully intentional then it should be longer, but there's no way of knowing what was going through his mind, so that's fair enough.

Robert Prosser
29-03-12, 07:33 PM
cant argue with that decision got what he deserved under the circumstances.

DuncTheDoodle
29-03-12, 07:37 PM
Probably the right amount of weeks, but I feel as though with the off-season not being far off, he's getting away with it slightly.

TRF_Olyy
29-03-12, 07:44 PM
Probably the right amount of weeks, but I feel as though with the off-season not being far off, he's getting away with it slightly.
Agreed - I think they need to give out bans in terms of games, rather than weeks - or at least postpone them over the off season.

Olliekooga
29-03-12, 07:50 PM
Good point amount the off season.

Should the banning rules be looked at to enable discplinary hearings to ban offenders for a set number of games rather than a period of time. How much rugby will Clark actually miss in those 32 weeks.

He deserves to have a long spell out, and looking at Youtube it seems this is not the 1st time he has transgressed.

j'nuh
29-03-12, 07:50 PM
For players getting banned for lengths of time, does the time of the ban get factored in? More than half of this ban is going to happen in the off-season...

lol, already covered.

I suppose he'll also miss South Africa during the off-season. Not sure he'd have played much of a part anyway. I'd have used him in mid-week games.

Teh Mite
29-03-12, 07:53 PM
Well what did you expect, he's in the EPS.

I expected him to miss the whole of next season.

psychic duck
29-03-12, 09:21 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center"><p>Calum Clark misses 3 months of rugby for a criminal act. I will be banned for 9 months if I tweet criticism. Jeepers.</p>&mdash; fuimaono-sapolu (@Eliota_Sapolu) <a href="https://twitter.com/Eliota_Sapolu/status/185472964110712832" data-datetime="2012-03-29T21:06:15+00:00">March 29, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Teh Mite
29-03-12, 09:33 PM
We can live in hope that racist ****head gets banned for 9 months anyway.

munstermuffin
29-03-12, 10:21 PM
Must say it is a fair call and ok the off season helps Clark but look he still doing time and it's in his record.
Saints know now that he done for season and can plan for his absence and well hope Clark learns from this because it was a blatant act of thuggery and he's let his club down big time.

gingergenius
29-03-12, 10:37 PM
you've gotta love EFS at times (and not just when he's playing football). Comedy gold.

Ban deserved, thought he should have 52 weeks but this one looks like he'll be back just in time for the AIs, which means nothing since he'll have no form, no game time and doesn't look good enough at the moment anyway. Hopefully this'll make him learn his lesson.

TRF_Olyy
30-03-12, 05:41 AM
It also means that we'll see a new backrow brought in to the EPS.
Will probably just be Saull/Waldrom/Narraway/A.N.Other from the Saxons, but would love to see someone like Gibson, Kvesic, Seymour or Wallace brought in to the squad.

Teh Mite
30-03-12, 06:46 AM
Wood will get reinstated.

TRF_Olyy
30-03-12, 06:52 AM
They were both in the EPS though, so it still leaves one spot - though wasn't Narraway, and then Waldrom, called up to replace Wood?
Will presumably be one of those two again.

Peat
30-03-12, 07:02 AM
They were both in the EPS though, so it still leaves one spot - though wasn't Narraway, and then Waldrom, called up to replace Wood?
Will presumably be one of those two again.

Hopefully he'll go with someone younger - I'm a big Narraway fan, and admit to a grudging respect for Waldrom, but if Lancaster is a) serious about building for 2015 and b) taking Dowson, then we've got enough experience around and need to be introducing players like Gibson and Wallace.

heineken
30-03-12, 07:04 AM
I would like to ask something, and I would like everyone's honest opinion, especially you Olyy.

I've seen the footage, and I agree with the suspension. And I've seen some comments and have to agree with a lot of guys saying they saw a lot worse on a rugby pitch.

I for one have seen it numerous times, that a smaller guy goes for the "Chris Benoit ankle lock" with great success and not get punished. In Clark's case, I thought it was malicious intent and got what he deserved, and with that said, here is my Question:

Everyone agrees that Clark should get a very long ban, some even said it's not long enough, and I don't want to take the focus away from Clark. but how is this different from as Olyy might say, the continuous unrugby-like conduct from other players like for example, Bakkies Botha and others?

TRF_Olyy
30-03-12, 07:15 AM
I'm not sure I understand your question?
I've not seen Botha break a mans arm (whether on purpose, or bending it almost to braeking, so a player moving off of a ruck will put the added pressure through it to snap).

Bakkies has a reputation for playing most of his career on the line/over it - Clarke doesn't have that (yet?) but is certainly losing the respect of the rugby public for this, and he's also shown his temper(/stupidity) for the U20s where he was redcarded for headbutting.
I don't like Botha because he's a consistent thug - Clarke is still young so hopefully he can get over his stupid streak - if not then he can go to hell in a handbasket, frankly.

Teh Mite
30-03-12, 07:16 AM
They were both in the EPS though, so it still leaves one spot - though wasn't Narraway, and then Waldrom, called up to replace Wood?
Will presumably be one of those two again.I was under the impression Wood was dropped because of his injury.

Peat
30-03-12, 07:57 AM
There is a difference between the cheap shot merchants who deliberately attempt to hurt players in an attempt to illegally gain an advantage while in play, and an attempt to deliberate injure a player with no regards to the ball or play; I have only really Botha and most of his ilk do the former, Clark's actions looked like the latter.

TRF_Olyy
30-03-12, 07:59 AM
I thought that too, but apparently he was:
http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?26224-England-Six-Nations-Squad-2012

heineken
30-03-12, 08:08 AM
I'm not sure I understand your question?
I've not seen Botha break a mans arm (whether on purpose, or bending it almost to braeking, so a player moving off of a ruck will put the added pressure through it to snap).

Bakkies has a reputation for playing most of his career on the line/over it - Clarke doesn't have that (yet?) but is certainly losing the respect of the rugby public for this, and he's also shown his temper(/stupidity) for the U20s where he was redcarded for headbutting.
I don't like Botha because he's a consistent thug - Clarke is still young so hopefully he can get over his stupid streak - if not then he can go to hell in a handbasket, frankly.

Well you sort of answered my question, but on numerous other posts you have spoken about Bakkies must be banned for life, where he hasn't done anything remotely as bad as this situation, yet you come with the excuse that Clark is young and would learn from this, blah blah... Bakkies is as hard as nails, and some of his suspensions was very questionable (the B&I Lions cleanout comes to mind), but that being said, he didn't go to injure a player on purpose and whenever he did do something wrong, was quick to admit it...

Clearly Clark and Bakkies are not on the same bandwagon?

big ginger 8
30-03-12, 08:11 AM
Well you sort of answered my question, but on numerous other posts you have spoken about Bakkies must be banned for life, where he hasn't done anything remotely as bad as this situation, yet you come with the excuse that Clark is young and would learn from this, blah blah... Bakkies is as hard as nails, and some of his suspensions was very questionable (the B&I Lions cleanout comes to mind), but that being said, he didn't go to injure a player on purpose and whenever he did do something wrong, was quick to admit it...

Clearly Clark and Bakkies are not on the same bandwagon?

That clearout was only legal if you were South African. Btw I do think Clark should have gotten at least a year.

heineken
30-03-12, 08:16 AM
That clearout was only legal if you were South African. Btw I do think Clark should have gotten at least a year.

Hehe, I said it was questionable, and every B&I Lions supporter will see it as malicious, dangerous and wrong!

big ginger 8
30-03-12, 08:22 AM
Very questionable in my mind means shouldn't have happened doesn't matter now anyway.

smartcooky
30-03-12, 08:37 AM
He started down this career path this with his deliberate head-butt in the JRWC Final of 2008 (for which he was RC)

He was the captain of the England U20 side at that time; not a very good example to set.

CALUM CLARK, sent off playing for England in a World Cup final, holds the key to restoring Red Rose pride according to Neil Back.

Back, arguably England's greatest openside flanker, says it is essential his old shirt is worn by a specialist No.7 in the upcoming Six Nations campaign.

And with Tom Wood out he not only believes the uncapped 22-year-old is the best option available.

He is convinced Clark, red-carded for a head-butt in the 2008 Junior World Cup final, has put his hot-headed days behind him.

Neil Back might be reviewing that position after this disgrace.

IMO, Clark is well down the track of becoming the new Danny Grewcock, a dirty toe-rag who ought to have no place in the game!

TRF_Olyy
30-03-12, 08:40 AM
Well you sort of answered my question, but on numerous other posts you have spoken about Bakkies must be banned for life, where he hasn't done anything remotely as bad as this situation, yet you come with the excuse that Clark is young and would learn from this, blah blah... Bakkies is as hard as nails, and some of his suspensions was very questionable (the B&I Lions cleanout comes to mind), but that being said, he didn't go to injure a player on purpose and whenever he did do something wrong, was quick to admit it...

Clearly Clark and Bakkies are not on the same bandwagon?

I think it's a bit of hyperbole on my part when I said Botha should be banned for life :p I do think that he's a scumbag though, but I now think the same of Clark. I know I won't look at him the same way when he's back from his ban, and I hope that he's not in the England squad again (and if he is it's after several years of 0 incidents/exemplary behaviour)

reis
30-03-12, 09:18 AM
I hope Saints don't appeal. Apparently he wasn't found to have done it with intent, which is why the ban wasn't as long as some may have expected but wehat he did was horriffic and any less would really discredit the RFU. I had hoped that my club would try to uphold the prestige of rugby, but judging by their statement it sounds like they are preparing an appeal, disappointed.

HenryChinaski
30-03-12, 09:38 AM
I hope Saints don't appeal. Apparently he wasn't found to have done it with intent, which is why the ban wasn't as long as some may have expected but wehat he did was horriffic and any less would really discredit the RFU. I had hoped that my club would try to uphold the prestige of rugby, but judging by their statement it sounds like they are preparing an appeal, disappointed.

I think I'd agree with the no direct intent thing. It's hard to measure, but after he'd done it he did sort of stop and stare at Hawkins who was clearly in immense pain at that point. I don't think that was his intention, but at the same time you have to ask, literally what the ***** did you think was going to happen if you did that!? There was never ging to be any other outcome, really. Insofar as players are now severely punished for dangerous play, Clarke definitely was deserving of a long ban. I mean, it's impossible for citing panel's to know the intention behind tip-tackles, for example, but they still are punished very severely. So I think they've got it right in giving a sizeable ban, even without the sense that it was intentional.

j'nuh
30-03-12, 10:40 AM
I think it's a bit of hyperbole on my part when I said Botha should be banned for life :p I do think that he's a scumbag though, but I now think the same of Clark. I know I won't look at him the same way when he's back from his ban, and I hope that he's not in the England squad again (and if he is it's after several years of 0 incidents/exemplary behaviour)
Fortunately, Lancaster seems to not tolerate misbehaviour. Also, I reckon he doesn't have much of a future with England anyway. When Haskell returns, we'll have 3 talented specialist 6s - it would be the position we had the strongest depth in. Clark (and Dowson too, hopefully) will be surplus to requirements. Considering this, and that Robshaw/Haskell can injury-cover 8, I hope a specialist 7 gets a chance to join the EPS if Clark is struck off. Steffon Armitage in? I'd like to see England try to deal with him: he'll be selected for England if he looks for an English club when his contract at Toulon ends at the end of next season.

Olliekooga
30-03-12, 11:17 AM
The law is rarely clearly defined or there wouldn't be a need for lawyers (like Luimneach18). Where does the law state that consent can only be given if related to activities within the rules of the game.

I remember reading a number of cases where it was argued that a person consents activities common within the culture of the sport (or something along those lines). What you can't consent to is (I don't know what the technical term in England is) something along the lines of actual bodily harm (and a black eye isn't included in that).

I don't know English Criminal law, it's been a few years at this stage. All I can think of is R v. Billinghurst. Don't even know what happened in that. Some rugby player got done for assault I think.

I assume the criminal law (as oppose to the laws of the game) that Clark would be in breach of would be under offences against the person. The issue of consent is dealt with in R v Brown (1993) in a which a group of sado masichists went at each other with 6 inch nails in the unmentionables. It was held that no person can consent to assault.

On a less high horse note I think it is vital that the game governs itself and is seen to be doing so. Players going to the police about other players actions on the field wouls set a dangerous precedent and allow those who are not familiar with the culture of Rugby to make important decisions and affect the game adversely.

Just my humble opinion but I haven't just had some psycho try to break my arm.

Teh Mite
30-03-12, 06:44 PM
Not as though any of the over-excitable children on this board will ever read it when there's hyperbole to be spouted:

http://www.rfu.com/News/2012/March/NewsArticles/300312_Calum_Clark_judgment.aspx


RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION
DISCIPLINARY HEARING
At: Park Inn, Heathrow
On: Thursday 29 March 2012
JUDGMENT.
Player: Calum Clark Club: Northampton Saints

Match: Leicester Tigers v Northampton Saints
Venue: Welford Road Date of match: 18 March 2012
Judicial Officer: Jeff Blackett
Secretariat: Bruce Reece-Russel
Rebecca Morgan
Attending: The Player.
Richard Smith QC (Counsel)
Jim Mallinder (Northampton Director of Rugby)
Preliminary Issue
1. The Player did not object to the RFU Disciplinary Officer sitting as a single
judicial officer under RFU Regulation19.2.4.


The Citing Complaint
2. The Player was cited for, and admitted, an act contrary to good sportsmanship
in that he hyperextended the right arm of an opponent, causing significant injury.


3. The citing complaint stated:
“Time on Elite Hub
21.56 No 1 for Northampton Tonga’uiha makes break from ruck, Leicester
forwards retreating.
21.58 Tonga’huia goes to ground tackled by Leicester No 15 Murphy.
21.59 Leicester No 2 comes from open play and wraps his arms over
Tonga’huia who is on the ground
22.00 Northampton forwards drive over the forming ruck.
22.01 Leicester No 2 Hawkin’s left arm can be seen over the body of
Tonga’huia22.03 Referee close to the incident on the open side of play, blow his whistle for
an infringement and brings the game to a halt. Hawkins has arms wrapped
round Tonga’huia
2204 Northampton No6 Clark, on the left side can be seen to go down towards
the ground
22.05 Clark’s left arm can be seen withdrawing and then returning back towards
the ground
22.06 Clark can be seen rotating onto his back, using other players as a fulcrum
as he pulls on the right arm of Hawkins, hyper extending the arm at the elbow
causing a significant injury. This action takes place three seconds arger the
whistle has been blown
22.07 Clark rolls away from ruck. Hawkins can be seen clutching his right
arm/elbow region.
22.10 Hawkins can be seen in considerable discomfort and receives medical
treatment in the field of play. Medical report is available.
24.30 Replacement hooker for Leicester enters the match.
The referee said that he saw nothing of the incident recorded above; he looked
back on hearing a scream after the whistle had gone.”


4. I viewed the DVD footage which included two angles and reflected the
sequence of events recorded by the citing officer. At the crucial moment, after the
referee had blown his whistle and the ruck was breaking up, the Player held Rob
Hawkins’ right arm under his own right arm pit and pulled the arm in the opposite
direction to its natural bend. A Northampton player was lying on top of Hawkins so
that he could not move when the Player pulled his arm backwards. The ruck broke up
and Hawkins was left lying on the ground in obvious pain. He was tended by
Leicester support staff and eventually left the field.


5. Hawkins subsequently had an X-Ray and CT scan on his right elbow, which,
according to an email from Puresportsmed dated 19 March, showed a comminuted
undisplaced fracture of the coronoid process. There were too many fragments for
surgical reconstruction but it should heal. It suggested that Hawkins would be out of
rugby for 8 – 10 weeks. A further medical report was submitted by Andrew Wallace,
a consultant shoulder and elbow surgeon. It stated:
“When I took Rob to theatre on Monday, I examined his elbow under
fluoroscopy. Whilst the joint was reasonably stable to varus-vagus loading in
the coronal plane, it immediately subluxed at any flexion angle less than 90
degrees. When I explored the medial aspect of the joint, I incised the flexor
origin to expose the underlying medial collateral ligament. Fortunately this was
intact, but I split it longitudinally to remove some small intra-articular fragments
of the coronoid fracture that were loose in the joint. I then repaired the ligament
and flexor origin but the coronoid fracture was too comminuted for internal
fixation.
Postoperatively he was placed in a backslab in 120 degrees flexion. My plan is
to see him in 2 weeks and inspect the wound, and transfer him into a dynamic
Mayo elbow brace. We will then gradually increase his extension range over a further four week period, hoping to achieve close to full extension by 6 weeks.
This will depend on how well the fracture and the torn anterior capsule heals.
After this six week period of relative immobilisation, he can then start to regain
strength over a further 4 – 6 weeks. Therefore it will be 10 – 12 weeks before
he will be fit to return to competitive rugby.
There is a risk of recurrent subluxation, wound infection, residual stiffness and
in the long term degenerative arthritis of the joint. Fortunately there was no
nerve injury either preoperatively or postoperatively. His injury was entirely
consistent with a forced hyper extension injury.”


6. The Player said that Northampton had made a break and were on the
ascendancy. He entered the ruck looking for a body to clear out but there was none so
he looked for the ball. He found a player (Rob Hawkins) obstructing the ball. He first
moved to place his hand on the ball and then the whistle blew. Hawkins’s had moved
his hand back to the ball, and that prompted him to take action so Northampton could
play quickly. He said: “I grabbed his arm to use as a lever to roll him away in
desperation to win the ball. I was not fully aware of how vulnerable he was and that
his body could not roll – mainly because another Northampton player was lying on top
of him. I felt some resistance from his hand and continued to roll back. I pinned his
arm to my chest and hyper extended his elbow. Never any intention for that to happen
– I expected his body weight to follow him. Because of his position he was unable to
move.” He continued: “I had realised what I had done – I put my hand to my mouth.
I knew I was responsible and played rest of game in a fog. After game I was
approached by their coach who made it clear what he thought. For me the result of the
game was insignificant.”


7. The Player said that after the game and since he has been devastated for lots of
reasons, primarily for Rob Hawkins himself. He said that he would not wish an injury
such as this on anybody. The most upsetting thing was how this reflects on him as a
player. He said: “I am physical and aggressive but always play within laws of the
game. It has been hard to deal with how others now think of me as a player.” He said
that he tried to apologise to Hawkins and sought him out at after match function. But
that was not well received – understandably – and he now intends to take it up further
by writing to him to say how sorry and upset he is and express how he feels about it.
Last weekend he went to coach local children and he was afraid that their parents
would not want someone perceived as a violent player to coach them. That fear was
difficult to deal with, although they were very understanding.
Submissions on behalf or the Player


8. The player is 22 years old. He has played 50 games for Northampton and
represented England at U16, U18 and U20 levels. He has a good disciplinary record –
with one matter recorded which occurred 5 years ago when he was 17 when he was
sent off for a head butt which led to a sanction of 5 weeks. He is part of the EPS
squad and had every expectation to be part of the England tour to South Africa in
June.

9. Mr Mallinder provided a written character reference to which he spoke. He
said he had known the Player since he was under18 and has watched his development.
He has seen his desire and willingness to give 100% commitment and he has watched
him develop. He appointed the Player as captain while the international players away.
He is a hard and committed man although he does become very frustrated at times and
something he has to learn is how to cope with frustration. This incident has caused
him great pain and upset and it is completely uncharacteristic.


10. Mr Smith traversed the criteria for assessing the seriousness of the offending
and submitted that the heart of this matter lay in the severity of the injury and the fact
that the victim player was vulnerable. He conceded that there was no guidance within
the recommended sanctions but suggested that, given there was no malicious intent to
hurt or injure, and that the Player had not intended the consequences this was not at
the top end of a scale of seriousness. Fortunately Mr Hawkins will be able to play in
about 3 months and, without playing down the seriousness of the injury, it is
important that any sanction was applied within the context of what occurred. He
conceded that it would be unfair for the Player to return to play before Mr Hawkins
was fully fit and suggested that period during which Mr Hawkins would be injured
echoed sensibly where the appropriate sanction should lie.


11. Mr Smith submitted that the one previous incident of foul play could be
ignored because it was five years old and committed when the Player was under 18
and that he could be treated as a man of good character. He said that it was clear to
see that his remorse was genuine and that he was fully aware of what he had done. He
asked that the Player be given full credit for all of these matters.
Sanction


12. I undertook an assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct.
a. The offending was intentional. The Player clearly intended to pull
Hawkins’ arm backwards after the whistle had been blown so that the ball
became available and his side could play the ball quickly. I accept that he
did not intend to harm Hawkins or cause him injury. I come to that
conclusion because the Player is not known as one who commits foul play,
and by the way he presented and expressed himself at the hearing. He is
not a thug and presented as a genuine young man who was prepared to, and
accepted, responsibility for his actions and their consequences.
b. There was no provocation. The act was designed to remove an opponent
from the ball.
c. The effect of the Player’s action on the victim were considerable. He
caused him significant pain and fractured his elbow. This injury required
surgery, will keep the victim out of the game for three months and may
have long term effects (residual stiffness and degenerative arthritis).d. Hawkins was very vulnerable – he was trapped beneath another body and
was unable to anticipate the Player’s actions nor take any action to avoid
the pain and subsequent injury.
e. The incident took about 2 seconds and there was no premeditation
f. There was no effect on the game.
g. The incident occurred after the referee had stopped play, and the Player
knew that to be the case. He then applied force against an opponent so that
his side could gain quick advantage. Taking this action after the whistle
was blown is a pertinent feature of the Player’s conduct which constitutes
the offending which makes it more serious, because it was not something
that occurred during play when opponents might have been competing for
the ball.


8. In those circumstances I assessed that this offence was high on the scale of
seriousness, not least because the Player intentionally bent a vulnerable opponent’s
arm backwards causing a very severe injury, and he did so after the referee had blown
his whistle to stop play. In assessing it as serious I would like to stress that I accept
that the Player is not malicious and did not intend to cause serious injury. Although
he did intend to pull Hawkins’ arm backwards he did so in an attempt to move
Hawkins away from the ball in his eagerness to maintain his side’s momentum.
Nevertheless he was reckless in not taking greater care to avoid causing serious injury.
This is a unique set of circumstances and so it would be meaningless to attempt to set
Low End, Mid Range or Top End entry points – it is enough to say this is a serious
matter. There is no guidance in the Recommended Sanctions for this offence and in
those circumstances the appropriate sanction to be imposed is at the discretion of the
Judicial Officer.


9. In exercising that discretion to determine the appropriate sanction I have
considered the rationale behind the sanctioning process. On field discipline is based
on at least three principles or tenets:
a. the protection of victim players from injury;
b. the protection of offending players from prosecution in the criminal courts
(on the basis that provided a sport’s sanctions are sufficient the courts are
less likely to intervene); and
c. the protection of the image of the Game.


10. In this case:
a. there has been a serious injury, and any sanction must demonstrate that
players who commit foul play – particularly interference with an opponent
after the referee has blown his whistle to stop play - which leads to
significant injury will be punished severely
b. police intervention is unlikely as the Player did not have the requisite mens
rea to have committed a criminal offence; and finallyc. this act looked dreadful and it had the potential to damage the image of the
Game and undermine the core values of discipline, respect and
sportsmanship.


11. In considering an entry point I have searched for precedents from the RFU and
other jurisdictions to see if they can render any assistance. I was unable to find any.
In those circumstances, the sanction is at large. Had there been any evidence that the
Player intended to hurt an opponent (even if he did not mean to injure him) the
appropriate entry point would have been in the order of five years’ suspension
1. That is not the case here, so the entry point can be considerably lower. However, I do not
agree with Mr Smith’s submission that the sanction should equate to the period of
Hawkins injury. In my view that approach would be inadequate because it would not
reflect the serious matters noted above. The Player must be suspended for a good deal
longer than Hawkins is absent from the game to reflect the seriousness of the
offending.


12. To a certain extent the entry point depends on my view of the offending and its
effect on the Game, based on my rugby experience. It is certainly worse than the
worst sort of punch which might attract a maximum suspension of 52 weeks, so it
must be longer than that period. In calculating the entry point I have therefore taken
that figure and added to it the length of time Hawkins is likely to be absent through
injury – that is 12 weeks. In those circumstances I have determined that the entry
point should be 64 weeks. This formula seems appropriate to reflect the importance
of preserving the image of the game, acknowledging the injury and discomfort caused
to Hawkins and the other factors noted which make this so serious, whilst taking
account of all that has been said by the Player and on his behalf.


13. There are no aggravating features and all of the standard mitigating factors are
present. The Player is genuinely contrite, he realises the damage done to an individual
and to the wider image of the Game, he admitted culpability at the earliest opportunity
and he undoubtedly wishes to make reparation for his offending. He is, therefore,
entitled to 50% discount from that entry point which leads me to conclude that the
appropriate sanction is a suspension of 32 weeks. Since this is a long sanction it will
run continuously through the summer vacation without a break.


14. The Player is therefore suspended for 32 weeks from 22 March to 1
November 2012. He may play again on 2 November 2012.
Right of Appeal


15. The Player is reminded of his right of appeal which should be notified to the
RFU Disciplinary manager within 48 hours of the publication of this judgment (not
including the weekend). For the avoidance of doubt, any appeal must be lodged by
1200 on Tuesday 3 April.
1
Based on the ERC case of Trevor Brennan (2007) who left the playing arena to attack a spectator and
was suspended for five years (on appeal).Costs


16. The Player/Club will pay the standard costs of £500.
Comment


17. I commend the Club for their prompt action in suspending the Player pending
the outcome of this hearing. I also wish to thank Mr Smith for his very helpful
submissions and assistance in determining the correct approach to sanctioning.


Signed: HHJ Jeff Blackett Date: 29 March 2012

TRF_SelimNiai
30-03-12, 07:42 PM
Fom that, yes I did read it all, I think the ban is just and should rid us of hyperbole. Should.

Can we move on now please?