Aviva Premiership Round 18

[smartcooky]

But Hughes can legitimately be trying to get back in order to force North to either ground the ball or get tackled by him in the dead ball area? That's allowed. Until North is actually tackled, Hughes is doing nothing wrong running that line for me. But that is exactly what they are saying. And if North hadn't been twisted by the tackle of Lozowski, Hughes wouldn't have made any contact running that line anyway.

http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/18/92/60/15/hughes10.jpg

Hughes cannot be sure that North is going to dive or be successfully tackled by Loz until it's already too late, he slows as soon as North is successfully tackled, what more was he supposed to do, apart from not be running back to cover North whatsoever?

It seems that the Judiciary agrees.

Hughes' appeal has been successful, the red card has been rescinded and the collision with North's head has been ruled an accident

http://www.wasps.co.uk/news/article/2015/04/10/nathan-hughes-wins-appeal

[TEXTAREA]"Jeremy Summers (Chair) said:
"The appeal Panel considered it appropriate to hear the matter afresh. Having done so and having had the advantage of evidence not before the original Panel, it concluded that no act of foul play took place in that the incident occurred occidentally."[/TEXTAREA]


The correct decision IMO. To have considered this anything other than a pure accident was lunacy

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

It seems that the Judiciary agrees.

Hughes' appeal has been successful, the red card has been rescinded and the collision with North's head has been ruled an accident

http://www.wasps.co.uk/news/article/2015/04/10/nathan-hughes-wins-appeal

[TEXTAREA]"Jeremy Summers (Chair) said:
“The appeal Panel considered it appropriate to hear the matter afresh. Having done so and having had the advantage of evidence not before the original Panel, it concluded that no act of foul play took place in that the incident occurred occidentally.â€[/TEXTAREA]


The correct decision IMO. To have considered this anything other than a pure accident was lunacy

I don't agree with this.

If you accidentally get your fingers around someone's eyes (which is easily done sometimes) you get penalised.

So why doesn't the same apply to kneeing someone In the head?

He should not have run full pelt standing tall into a man on the floor. If North was held up, Hughes would of been useless running full pelt standing tall. Hughes always intended to run into North on the floor otherwise he would have gone to ruck him or something

 

[Raggs]

Full appeal hearing.

Since the ref said one thing on the pitch, another in the red card report, and then the RFU hearing did Hughes on yet another basis. Hughes had no chance to get suitable defence. Therefore the appeal was in effect a new hearing. New hearing accepted that Hughes had every right to be competing until the try was scored, RFU disagreed, but made no objections when Dai Young and Hughes stated various scenarios that he could have legitimately needed to be back. Biomechanical expert points out that Hughes hit the brakes in a big way even slightly before the try was scored, and therefore had no chance to jump either. Also it's pointed out that between North grounding (or almost) the ball, Hughes only took one more stride (braking).

That no northampton player reacted negatively is considered significant.

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...earing-Friday10April-NathanHughes_Neutral.pdf

 

[goodNumber10]

Full appeal hearing.

Since the ref said one thing on the pitch, another in the red card report, and then the RFU hearing did Hughes on yet another basis. Hughes had no chance to get suitable defence. Therefore the appeal was in effect a new hearing. New hearing accepted that Hughes had every right to be competing until the try was scored, RFU disagreed, but made no objections when Dai Young and Hughes stated various scenarios that he could have legitimately needed to be back. Biomechanical expert points out that Hughes hit the brakes in a big way even slightly before the try was scored, and therefore had no chance to jump either. Also it's pointed out that between North grounding (or almost) the ball, Hughes only took one more stride (braking).

That no northampton player reacted negatively is considered significant.

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...earing-Friday10April-NathanHughes_Neutral.pdf

From the sublime to the ridicolous....

 

[RedruthRFC]

I don't agree with this.

If you accidentally get your fingers around someone's eyes (which is easily done sometimes) you get penalised.

So why doesn't the same apply to kneeing someone In the head?

I've got some sympathy with your view, but playing devil's advocate, does that mean that there's no such thing as a accidental piece of foul play? If not, where do you draw the line between accidental and reckless and how do you draw it?

 

[Every Time Ref]

That no northampton player reacted negatively is considered significant.

Very pleased that the sane decision was eventually reached, but does anyone else find this a little worrying? Are they saying if the Northampton players had reacted negatively they might have viewed it differently? That seems a very suspect precedent to set

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I've got some sympathy with your view, but playing devil's advocate, does that mean that there's no such thing as a accidental piece of foul play? If not, where do you draw the line between accidental and reckless and how do you draw it?

I genuinely don't know, I'm so split on this as if you watch most tries players who are near don't seem to run into the try scorer.

I guess we will never know his intention but I'm glad his ban has been rescinded.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Very pleased that the sane decision was eventually reached, but does anyone else find this a little worrying? Are they saying if the Northampton players had reacted negatively they might have viewed it differently? That seems a very suspect precedent to set

Well said - the RFU's judicial process is utterly farcical, they have no sense of themselves what so ever.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Gloucester have a hearing on Monday because they fielded Galarza in the game vs Sale, and he was unregistered.

London Welsh were fined 15k and docked 5pts for doing the same in 2013.