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
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
Potential citings for Quarterfinals
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: 760477" data-attributes="member: 58362"><p>This may be something that we'll have to agree to disagree on I think. I take your point, but there just isn't a sufficient volume of offences to establish precedent. Take a punch, there's a multitude of factors that will chance from incident to incident, off the top of my head:</p><p></p><p> - where it landed</p><p> - the target's status (aware / unaware, able to defend himself)</p><p> - the consequence of the punch</p><p> - the presence / absence of provocation</p><p> - the perpetrator's previous record and conduct regarding the incident / hearing</p><p></p><p>that it's unlikely that a comparable incident to any new incident can be found. As (presumably) recommended sanctions change over time, there is a limited timescale during which comparison is possible.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This <em>shouldn't</em> be the case, the guidelines as to what sanctions are recommended for what offence effectively set a precedent and should ensure consistency as long as they are followed properly. By and large, I think this works well, the only source of confusion is when bans are reduced or increased based on a player's previous record, but the sanction itself can be determined by looking at the report of the hearing. The only real grey area for me is determining where on the scale (LE / MR / TE) a particular offence sits. AFAIK the guidelines (assuming they exist) as to how to determine this are not a matter of public record.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RedruthRFC, post: 760477, member: 58362"] This may be something that we'll have to agree to disagree on I think. I take your point, but there just isn't a sufficient volume of offences to establish precedent. Take a punch, there's a multitude of factors that will chance from incident to incident, off the top of my head: - where it landed - the target's status (aware / unaware, able to defend himself) - the consequence of the punch - the presence / absence of provocation - the perpetrator's previous record and conduct regarding the incident / hearing that it's unlikely that a comparable incident to any new incident can be found. As (presumably) recommended sanctions change over time, there is a limited timescale during which comparison is possible. This [I]shouldn't[/I] be the case, the guidelines as to what sanctions are recommended for what offence effectively set a precedent and should ensure consistency as long as they are followed properly. By and large, I think this works well, the only source of confusion is when bans are reduced or increased based on a player's previous record, but the sanction itself can be determined by looking at the report of the hearing. The only real grey area for me is determining where on the scale (LE / MR / TE) a particular offence sits. AFAIK the guidelines (assuming they exist) as to how to determine this are not a matter of public record. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
Potential citings for Quarterfinals
Top