Hayes ban reduced by a week

Discussion in 'Guinness Pro12' started by An Tarbh, Oct 13, 2009.

  1. An Tarbh

    An Tarbh Guest

    Not really sure what the point of reducing his ban by a week was, surely they could have left it as is considering he wasn't going to be playing any extra games. Clueless from the IRFU.
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    Oh look... <_<
     
  4. Daylightfire

    Daylightfire Guest

    I'm shocked,, I'm really really shocked,,

    I thought they would of quashed the ban completely,,, B)

    On a seperate issue,, maybe they should get banned players doing some kind of community service, like coaching youngsters or groundskeeping.
     
  5. Blindside6

    Blindside6 Guest

    Ridiculous. Decisions like this are turning the disciplinary process of rugby into a laughing stock.
     
  6. bristol-iain

    bristol-iain Guest

    "The Whereever Rugby Union has banned A.Player for 27 minutes despite being found guilty of murder in the 1st degree. The Union made the decision after deciding that, athough Player made it fire it was actually the gun's fault that the opposing player had a bullet go right through his left nostril. Word is Player will appeal and a spokesman said "it's likley Player's ban will be shortened To the minumum sentence we have for cases like this which will be that he has to make the coach a cuppa every morning"

    You know, hypothetically an' all.
     
  7. Olyy

    Olyy Guest

    Hayes gets 5 for stamping on a guys face, and actually doing some damage, though luckily not too much
    Jennings gets 12 for (from what angles i've seen) putting his palm over kennedys eye/holding the side of his head.

    Load of tosh.

    I know it was by different citing boards/whatever they're called, but they should at least have some consistency in their crap.
    I wonder if Hayes had appealed after jennings citing, then it wouldn't have been shortened
     
  8. Blindside6

    Blindside6 Guest

    Kennedy was dealt with by the ERC Disciplinary Committee which has no national affinity.

    Hayes was dealt with by the IRFU Disciplinary Committee as the Magners League don't have their own independent one. Coincidence that Hayes' ban means he is still available for selection in the AIs? Hmmmmmm maybe...
     
  9. An Tarbh

    An Tarbh Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Blindside6 @ Oct 15 2009, 10:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    still 2 weeks more than Beattie got for the same offence from an ERC committee.
     
  10. Blindside6

    Blindside6 Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Oct 15 2009, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    still 2 weeks more than Beattie got for the same offence from an ERC committee.
    [/b][/quote]

    But they weren't exactly the same offence. The difference was that Hayes offence was deemed a High end with a starting point of 9+ weeks and Beattie's a mid scale with a starting point of 5 weeks. Beattie's was mitigated down by 2 weeks whereas Hayes was mitigated, following appeal, down by 4 weeks.
     
  11. An Tarbh

    An Tarbh Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Blindside6 @ Oct 15 2009, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    still 2 weeks more than Beattie got for the same offence from an ERC committee.
    [/b][/quote]

    But they weren't exactly the same offence. The difference was that Hayes offence was deemed a High end with a starting point of 9+ weeks and Beattie's a mid scale with a starting point of 5 weeks. Beattie's was mitigated down by 2 weeks whereas Hayes was mitigated, following appeal, down by 4 weeks.
    [/b][/quote]

    Hayes was deemed unintentional (despite such a concept being completely redundant) so his maximum ban was 8 weeks. Hayes had 3 weeks taken off what he should have got, Beattie had 5.
     
  12. MunsterMan

    MunsterMan Guest

    An ERC committee gave Mal O'Kelly 2 weeks for stamping on Phil vickery's head last year, suspension inconsistency is nothing new.
     
  13. shazbooger

    shazbooger Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Oct 15 2009, 04:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    But they had to factor in that it was Vickery. I'm sure that took about 6 weeks off the actual penalty.
     
  14. Blindside6

    Blindside6 Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Oct 15 2009, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    still 2 weeks more than Beattie got for the same offence from an ERC committee.
    [/b][/quote]

    But they weren't exactly the same offence. The difference was that Hayes offence was deemed a High end with a starting point of 9+ weeks and Beattie's a mid scale with a starting point of 5 weeks. Beattie's was mitigated down by 2 weeks whereas Hayes was mitigated, following appeal, down by 4 weeks.
    [/b][/quote]

    Hayes was deemed unintentional (despite such a concept being completely redundant) so his maximum ban was 8 weeks. Hayes had 3 weeks taken off what he should have got, Beattie had 5.
    [/b][/quote]

    The committee did deem it unintentional but it was still classed as a High End offence which meant the starting point is 9+ weeks with a maximum of 52 weeks. He had 3 weeks taken off the starting point and then another 1 week off on appeal which took him to 5 weeks.

    "...the committee accepted the action wasn't intentional yet decided the entry point for the offence to be at the higher range, the nine weeks reduced to six in mitigation."

    IRFU
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page