- Joined
- Nov 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- 566
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Pascal Papé's behaviour
- Thread starter tituslechmakus
- Start date
Help Support The Rugby Forum:
goodNumber10
International
Pape & Heaslip on twitter:
Caught this as well.
I think I may be automatically more cynical to things posted on Twitter. I think a phone call may have been a more appropriate/less self-serving approach. To be fair I'm sure Pape absolutely would feel bad about injuring Heaslip, but I think he was also trying to cover his basis a bit by apologizing in a public medium prior to his hearing.
I think I may be automatically more cynical to things posted on Twitter. I think a phone call may have been a more appropriate/less self-serving approach. To be fair I'm sure Pape absolutely would feel bad about injuring Heaslip, but I think he was also trying to cover his basis a bit by apologizing in a public medium prior to his hearing.
goodNumber10
International
completely agree, it smacks of his defence telling him to apologise publicly so they can show "great remorse" at the act.
Cynicism probably doesn't even start my opinion of a public apology like that.
True story: We didn't invite one of my wife's sisters to our wedding, I'm not going to go into details of the argument that was had but needless to say we felt we needed an apology and it was the last straw over multiple episodes of selfish behavior.
Anyway day of our wedding we are told (second hand as we both blocked her) she wrote on Facebook how sorry she was about what had happened and how she was disappointed about not being there.
We are still waiting for her to apologise to us personally.
So yeah public apologies are worth nothing and are just to save public face, they show no actual remorse and sometimes are just to illicit sympathy in the guilty party.
If he's spoken Heaslip fair dues but twitter? Yeah I feel it's more about reducing his inevitable ban.
True story: We didn't invite one of my wife's sisters to our wedding, I'm not going to go into details of the argument that was had but needless to say we felt we needed an apology and it was the last straw over multiple episodes of selfish behavior.
Anyway day of our wedding we are told (second hand as we both blocked her) she wrote on Facebook how sorry she was about what had happened and how she was disappointed about not being there.
We are still waiting for her to apologise to us personally.
So yeah public apologies are worth nothing and are just to save public face, they show no actual remorse and sometimes are just to illicit sympathy in the guilty party.
If he's spoken Heaslip fair dues but twitter? Yeah I feel it's more about reducing his inevitable ban.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 23,867
- Reaction score
- 12,225
Yeah I think it's cheap and puts pressure on Heaslip. He could still be raging at the fact that he's missing the biggest game in the 6 nations because he received a thuggish knee in the back, I doubt he is because he doesn't seem like that type of man, and now he had to reply accepting the apology or there's be hoards of people complaining about his lack of integrity and "rugby values". Especially Munster fans who have an unnatural hatred of the man.
Dr Dre doesn't do salt of the earth....
Do we not know if he didn't ring Jaime up and apologise as well as doing the Twitter thing?
goodNumber10
International
Not trying to be snarky here, if he did then why make the very public statement?
Additionally we can only speak on what we see/know, so even if he has given JH a cheeky little whatsapp it doesn't change the fact the twitter post seems very insincere and contrived.
Depends on how you judge and see 140 characters I suppose.
Also to make a public apology, people can see he has at least attempted to say sorry for what he has done.
Can someone supply a English translation of what pape said? Sorry I don't speak French and feel like I may do him a disservice and saying he didn't say stuff when he did.
Anyway with his public apology in it if he said he'd spoken to Heaslip I can understand why he made it public and fairplay to him. As you can send out multiple tweets he is not limited to 140 characters.
Anyway with his public apology in it if he said he'd spoken to Heaslip I can understand why he made it public and fairplay to him. As you can send out multiple tweets he is not limited to 140 characters.
goodNumber10
International
my French is less than perfect but it's roughly:
"My sincerest of apologies to Jamie Healsip for injuring him during the game, it was not my intention to do him harm: #objectivityforsome"
- - - Updated - - -
both good points.
dasNdanger
First XV
It is very possible that he spoke to Heaslip in private and both (along with legal counsel) decided it was a good idea to make the apology (and the acceptance of the apology) public. After all, a bit of this also reflects on Heaslip's character - is he a true gentleman, or is he going to hold grudges? I'm just thinking of that whole Kurtley Beale fiasco last year, and how keeping apologies and whatnot secret blew up in Australia's face. Best get both players' feelings on the matter out in the open, if for nothing more than to squelch wild speculations and unnecessary controversy.
Side question - anyone know when Pape's review comes up?
das
Side question - anyone know when Pape's review comes up?
das
goodNumber10
International
Today.
dasNdanger
First XV
Adjourned until the morrow...
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rug...easlip-adjourned-until-tomorrow-31003877.html
das
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rug...easlip-adjourned-until-tomorrow-31003877.html
das
goodNumber10
International
is that to give him time to apologise on facebook?
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 102
Is it a murder trial or a citing. Maybe they have to interview more witnesses or the jury needs counselling. Trial of the century!!
dasNdanger
First XV
Perhaps they're waiting for the bribe cheques to clear the bank...
das
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 102
Perhaps they're waiting for the bribe cheques to clear the bank...
das
Indeed.
And a night of free partying... I wouldn't blame them!
10 week ban for pape according bbc news sports feed
So beginning of May he returns...no more six nations, 5 rounds of top 14 but will play final 3 rounds,
Personally I'd have banned him for the rest of the season but I think that's pretty fair.
So beginning of May he returns...no more six nations, 5 rounds of top 14 but will play final 3 rounds,
Personally I'd have banned him for the rest of the season but I think that's pretty fair.
Seems slightly too long if you compare it to Schalk Burger's 8 weeks for gouging, didn't even apologise to Fitzgerald and for some reason Pape's entry point was 15 weeks and his remorse made it only 10 weeks. Don't understand the disciplinary committee sometimes.
dasNdanger
First XV
Fair enough. We could argue whether or not he deserved a longer ban, but I think 10 weeks sends a clear message all the way round. A shorter ban would have raised too many questions as to how seriously these infringements are taken (as well as possible accusations of favoritism, etc), and a longer ban could have turned the debate in the opposite direction with complaints that you shouldn't mete out an overly harsh punishment for a player being physical in a physically-demanding game. Ten weeks - that's two and a half months - plenty of time for Pape and everyone else to reflect on where physicality in rugby ends, and brutality begins.
das
- - - Updated - - -
Well, that was 5 years ago so maybe they've tightened things up a bit. Also, I think (if I recall correctly) it could be debated whether Burger was going for the eye, or just grabbing his face in general. It still was a terrible thing to do, but there may have been other factors involved in their decision (such as Burger's track record, his explanation to the review board, etc).
I'm not going to question the board's decision in comparison to other decisions they've made. I think this one is fair and sends the right message to other players who may be inclined to engage in a bit of foul play.
das
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- 566
This! Does anyone know where World Rugby's guidelines are available? I'd have thought that the guidelines used for incidents in internationals should be the same as are used by individual unions. The article I read (scrum.com) says that the maximum sanction PP could have received is 15 weeks, where as the RFU Recommended Sanctions document proscribes 15 weeks as the entry point for a top end offence (the entry point for a lower end offence is 4 weeks), while the maximum sanction is 52 weeks.
Reducing the sanction for expressing remorse is ridiculous - any player who doesn't express remorse after such an incident is an idiot (as is his coach for not telling him to do it), surely this should be an expectation of any player who has transgressed (i.e. failure to do so may extend the ban), not an act worthy of a reduced ban. At club level, I have yet to see a citing transcript that didn't have a standard phrase about showing remorse and apologising to opponent and referee copy and pasted into it!
Also, what about PP's previous disciplinary record? Isn't this taken into account in international hearings? Assuming his club record counts, surely it's enough to counteract what a good boy he is for showing 140 characters worth of highly transparent contrition.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,826
- Reaction score
- 3,238
How long did Healy get banned for stamping on Cole a couple of years back?
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,606
- Reaction score
- 566
Not meaning to single you out, but I don't really think that the posts seeking to compare this incident to ones in the past are too constructive.
Unlike RFU rulings, the transcripts don't seem to be publicly (detailing things like provocation, previous and contrition), nor can we look at the guidelines of the time.
I would rather judge this case on its merits, but the difficulty of obtaining the relevant documents from World Rugby makes it hard to do this (unless they are using the same parameters as the RFU).
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,826
- Reaction score
- 3,238
I just want to compare two incidents that are equal in my eyes. I think 10 weeks is a bit over the top, I was expecting around 4-6 weeks but year on year the bans are getting harsher.
SharksFan86
Academy Player
I think the 10 weeks given is a fair punishment, specially when he has poor disciplinary record prior to this incident.
dasNdanger
First XV
If players just aren't getting the message then you don't want to be rewarding bad behavior by handing out lighter punishments.
das
Similar threads
- lineens weegie army
- United Rugby Championship
