Premiership Rugby 20/21 - Rd 14

[will311293]

Ridiculous decision... how is it not reckless???? how is there no need for deterrent? how is pleading guilty an option to halve it??? oh i knocked a player out but i didn't mean it now the occasion has gone.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

how is it not reckless????

I think reckless = unintentional in these judgements (i.e. the French guy who accidentally grabbed the Welsh guy by the face when trying to clear out) - this was intentional which is what raised it to mid-level (I'm guessing top end entry point is for when you literally scoop a guys eye out? Cause surely intentionally eye gouging should be top end)

 

[will311293]

I think reckless = unintentional in these judgements (i.e. the French guy who accidentally grabbed the Welsh guy by the face when trying to clear out) - this was intentional which is what raised it to mid-level (I'm guessing top end entry point is for when you literally scoop a guys eye out? Cause surely intentionally eye gouging should be top end)

I mean when you watch the clip back, he intentionally goes looking for the eye. Saw a Falcons fan say it wasn't intentional... i am not sure how much more intentional you can get apart from holding a player on the floor and poking him in the eye.

This is where rules don't always make sense, Thorley got a four week ban for an accidental headclash which you see most weeks, Carreras gets 9 for gouging.. crazy

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I mean when you watch the clip back, he intentionally goes looking for the eye. Saw a Falcons fan say it wasn't intentional... i am not sure how much more intentional you can get apart from holding a player on the floor and poking him in the eye.

The citing panel did deem it as intentional, to be fair to them
I'm guessing top end is reserved for if you injure the player as that's the only box that's not ticked that's worse than the ones that are

I'm most annoyed about the reduction - the rules need to be re-written because no one should have 9 weeks taken off a ban because they pretended they're sorry

 

[will311293]

The citing panel did deem it as intentional, to be fair to them
I'm guessing top end is reserved for if you injure the player as that's the only box that's not ticked that's worse than the ones that are

I'm most annoyed about the reduction - the rules need to be re-written because no one should have 9 weeks taken off a ban because they pretended they're sorry

if all were ticks then 25% could make sense but 50% is mad. everyone's sorry after they have done something and get caught.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The citing panel did deem it as intentional, to be fair to them
I'm guessing top end is reserved for if you injure the player as that's the only box that's not ticked that's worse than the ones that are

I'm most annoyed about the reduction - the rules need to be re-written because no one should have 9 weeks taken off a ban because they pretended they're sorry

This, the "showing remorse" thing should be based on how a player appeared to act at the time in the heat of the moment rather than whatever they can play after. If a player doesn't give a **** at the time, chances are they are just acting later. If a player does something wrong and immediately shows remorse on field, I think that should be the only occasion it is given as mitigation.

Also I'd add an extension for petulance shown on field. If a player is carded for a serious incident and goes of smirking or doing the whole head shaking act, that should increase their penalty (looking at Duncan McRae)

 

[Which Tyler]

I've long held that 50% mitigation should the exception, not the rule.

I'd have something like 10% reduction for each of
Mitigating factors on-pitch
Immediate apology / remorse on pitch
Guilty plea with apology and remorse (this only counts at all if apology / remorse was shown at the time)
Clean record
Obviously accidental

Equally the opposite of these factors should all increase the sentence by 15%
I also regularly suggest that if any appeal is lodged, then all sentence reductions shold be removed; and only the additions allowed (if unsuccessful in appeal)



On this specific incident, I haven't actually seen it, so I can't judge; but if it was as deliberate as it sounds (here and elsewhere) then it should absolutely be a high-end entry point

 

[Reiser99]

This is what gets me.

"His evidence was that he had intended to 'irritate' the Wasps player but that he had not intended to cause any harm in his action," said a statement from the independent disciplinary panel.

"He accepted on reflection that by making contact with the eye of Josh Bassett he risked causing serious injury though this was a momentary action without thought for the consequences. Thankfully, there was no injury caused other than a temporary discomfort."

Sorry but saying "I went for the eye, but I only meant to annoy him and didn't realise I could blind him until after when I reflected" is ********. That's not remorse, that's making excuses. If this happened in a regular job he'd probably have been arrested for assault. Intentionally putting his hands in someone's eyes no matter the outcome should lead to a long ban and being fired in my opinion.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I'd be quite irritated if someone popped my eye, tbf

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'd be quite irritated if someone popped my eye, tbf

Mildly miffed at a minimum certainly.