[2019 Rugby Championship] Round 3: Australia vs. New Zealand (10/08/2019)

[rugga658]

so does that mean that you can go and play for your club while you are mission games for your national team?
Or you can play for your national team while you are under suspension from a club game?

To further clarify:

Using S Barrett as an example: He was sent off playing for ABs in a Test Match

He should be not allowed to play in ABs next 3 games: AUS SAMOA + SA

However he should be allowed to play for Canterbury in the meanwhile

 

[Derpus]

To further clarify:

Using S Barrett as an example: He was sent off playing for ABs in a Test Match

He should be not allowed to play in ABs next 3 games: AUS SAMOA + SA

However he should be allowed to play for Canterbury in the meanwhile

Thats the Soccer model which makes a lot more sense.

 

[Larksea]

Garces made the correct decision, I know it's hard to be completely neutral when these decisions affect their team but Barrett being banned for 3 weeks shows that is was a red card offence.

the ban doesn't say a lot the judiciary generally back the refs up if anything it only being 3 weeks and not much longer shows it was on the very low end of the scale.

nothing is black and white there are varying degrees of danger and mitigating circumstances, while there was contact to the upper back then neck and head putting it into the realm of red card territory. he did try and wrap his left arm and would have if coles had not pulled hooper down, the initial point of contact and the main force was not on the head or neck but the back of his shoulders. If it did actually hit his head or neck first for sure there would have been an HIA. No need for an HIA he got straight up, heck had had the presence of mind to cry to the ref as soon as hit happened. And all this happened under 3 feet from the ground, barrett had his knee on the ground making the tackle. yes there is a bit of poor technique tucking the arm its harder to get away with that these days, but there is a heck of a lot of bad luck involved as well. Even if he didn't change his technique he may never get another red card like this. it wasn't intentional, was it careless enough to ruin the match as a contest? I dont think so with all the circumstances taken into consideration. heck even the Aussie commentary wasn't sold on it being a red card and they are not known for their level opinions hehe.

 

[mania]

cant believe the aus media . they are just giving the ABs ammo. saying the ABs are panicking? sheesh
whats also bad is the NZ media saying franks and benSmith have been axed due to performance.
i'm only guessing but i'd say these 2 are being rested because they have nothing to prove.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

ive seen several people claiming Bender is injured but nothing official

 

[RedruthRFC]

the ban doesn't say a lot the judiciary generally back the refs up if anything it only being 3 weeks and not much longer shows it was on the very low end of the scale.

Once again, it was judged to be a mid range offence.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Just remember that mitigation in-game is different to that at a hearing. Any judicial proceeding allows parties to raise points of mitigation and/or aggrevation with regards to sentencing.

In this case they would look at Barrett's record of foul play incidents and if he's a habitual offender or not. If this was his first red card offence, then surely he would qualify for mitigation as a first time offender.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. My complaint was with standard stuff (apologising / conducting yourself well at the hearing) reducing bans and with the judiciaries' failure to hand out harsher bans to repeat offenders. If you reread my post, you will see that I was replying to ncurd's post which was talking about the judicial process in general, not about this specific instance.

I'm not sure how I feel about a previous clean record leading to a reduction in length of ban. On the one hand, it seems like a fair thing to do (although I would like to see what constitutes a good / average / bad record clearly defined), on the other, I don't like the way that it muddies the waters as it means that there's no way that you can say that someone guilty of an X range offence of Y will receive a minimum ban of Z. To me, things would be clearer if the ban lengths assumed a clean record and harsher bans were handed out to repeat offenders. As I said, it wouldn't look so good for World Rugby though, as it would prevent them from misrepresenting how seriously they take foul play.