Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
[2019 Rugby Championship] Round 3: Australia vs. New Zealand (10/08/2019)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RedruthRFC" data-source="post: 952805" data-attributes="member: 58362"><p>I didn't say anything to the contrary. My complaint was with standard stuff (apologising / conducting yourself well at the hearing) reducing bans and with the judiciaries' failure to hand out harsher bans to repeat offenders. If you reread my post, you will see that I was replying to ncurd's post which was talking about the judicial process in general, not about this specific instance.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure how I feel about a previous clean record leading to a reduction in length of ban. On the one hand, it seems like a fair thing to do (although I would like to see what constitutes a good / average / bad record clearly defined), on the other, I don't like the way that it muddies the waters as it means that there's no way that you can say that someone guilty of an X range offence of Y will receive a minimum ban of Z. To me, things would be clearer if the ban lengths assumed a clean record and harsher bans were handed out to repeat offenders. As I said, it wouldn't look so good for World Rugby though, as it would prevent them from misrepresenting how seriously they take foul play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RedruthRFC, post: 952805, member: 58362"] I didn't say anything to the contrary. My complaint was with standard stuff (apologising / conducting yourself well at the hearing) reducing bans and with the judiciaries' failure to hand out harsher bans to repeat offenders. If you reread my post, you will see that I was replying to ncurd's post which was talking about the judicial process in general, not about this specific instance. I'm not sure how I feel about a previous clean record leading to a reduction in length of ban. On the one hand, it seems like a fair thing to do (although I would like to see what constitutes a good / average / bad record clearly defined), on the other, I don't like the way that it muddies the waters as it means that there's no way that you can say that someone guilty of an X range offence of Y will receive a minimum ban of Z. To me, things would be clearer if the ban lengths assumed a clean record and harsher bans were handed out to repeat offenders. As I said, it wouldn't look so good for World Rugby though, as it would prevent them from misrepresenting how seriously they take foul play. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
[2019 Rugby Championship] Round 3: Australia vs. New Zealand (10/08/2019)
Top