Australia vs England - 3 Tests - June 2016

[RedruthRFC]

As I thought Watson has received a two game suspension in total.

He'll miss the 2 games against Sale and be available after that on April 25th.

I don't wish to get into the rights and wrongs of Watson's "crimes", but what a farce this makes of the whole process if he was found guilty on both counts and gets off with two weeks. According to the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...able-for-england-tour-after-escaping-with-tw/

his "language" was aimed at the fourth official, so that should have come with a low end of six weeks (not 12 as I said above).

To reiterate, I'm not commenting on the sanction he has received and its rights and wrongs, just the farce that is becoming the judicial process in rugby.

 

[Peat]

I'm not sure becoming is an accurate word there. I'm not sure I can remember a time it was otherwise.

I do apologise for the pedantic interruption.

 

[johnmac99]

I don't wish to get into the rights and wrongs of Watson's "crimes", but what a farce this makes of the whole process if he was found guilty on both counts and gets off with two weeks. According to the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...able-for-england-tour-after-escaping-with-tw/

his "language" was aimed at the fourth official, so that should have come with a low end of six weeks (not 12 as I said above).

To reiterate, I'm not commenting on the sanction he has received and its rights and wrongs, just the farce that is becoming the judicial process in rugby.

Why do you think it's a farce?

Watson was charged with 1) a dangerous tackle and 2) unsporting behaviour.

Anyone who saw the match would think the in-play punishment of a red card was harsh, and the panel obviously agreed by giving the minimum punishment of two weeks halved for previous good behaviour.
The second charge could have been dealt with by a fine, so he didn't receive the minimum for that when he got two weeks (halved again).

This was a young man who felt he had been dealt with harshly on the field of play for doing nothing malicious, and while I don't condone him sounding off at the fourth official, I can understand his frustration.

If you think he should have received more punishment to justify the actions of the disciplinary process then there is something wrong with your thought process.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Why do you think it's a farce?

Watson was charged with 1) a dangerous tackle and 2) unsporting behaviour.

Anyone who saw the match would think the in-play punishment of a red card was harsh, and the panel obviously agreed by giving the minimum punishment of two weeks halved for previous good behaviour.
The second charge could have been dealt with by a fine, so he didn't receive the minimum for that when he got two weeks (halved again).

This was a young man who felt he had been dealt with harshly on the field of play for doing nothing malicious, and while I don't condone him sounding off at the fourth official, I can understand his frustration.

If you think he should have received more punishment to justify the actions of the disciplinary process then there is something wrong with your thought process.

I think the farce is aimed at the whole process not just this individual ban. There are numerous accounts of players getting different length bans for the same offence or some getting longer bans for a lesser offence.

I agree in that the whole process is a farce.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I've said it before but taking time off the MINIMUM for good behaviour is just stupid.
Increase it for repeat offenders but what's the point of a minimum if it means nothing?

 

[RedruthRFC]

Why do you think it's a farce?

Watson was charged with 1) a dangerous tackle and 2) unsporting behaviour.

As I pointed out twice in my post, I was talking about the process in general, not this particular incident. However I will humour you. Problems:

- It took far too long for the case to be heard. The luxury to take so long wouldn't have existed in at any other point in the season.

- Verbal abuse of a match official comes with a LE of 6 weeks. If his behaviour wasn't deemed "abuse", what law was he cited under that comes with a LE of 2 weeks? Acts contrary to good sportsmanship comes with an LE of 4 weeks.

- As TRF_Olly says, LE should be exactly that, with previous offenders, those who showed no contrition or those who conduct themselves poorly during the hearing receiving harsher treatment.

- If you accept reducing bans, why reduce each individually rather than adding them together before making a reduction?

- Should someone who has committed two offences worthy of a red card in one match really get time off for good behaviour?

Anyone who saw the match would think the in-play punishment of a red card was harsh, and the panel obviously agreed by giving the minimum punishment of two weeks halved for previous good behaviour.

I don't think it's me who has something wrong with my thought process. I would question your understanding of it though. If the panel agreed that the red card was harsh, they would have rescinded the red card. As it is, they applied low end sanctions. This means that they agreed that the red card was awarded correctly, but that it wasn't a particularly heinous offence. The reduction in sanction doesn't relate to the seriousness of the offence, it reflects contrition, his previous record and his conduct over the matter.

If you think he should have received more punishment to justify the actions of the disciplinary process then there is something wrong with your thought process.

I don't understand what you mean by "to justify the actions of the disciplinary process". My point is two fold - the process is flawed and the flawed process as it stands wasn't followed correctly.

To re-reiterate, I didn't go into specifics because I didn't want to appear to be starting a witch hunt. That was not my intent. From a moral / common sense point of view, I think that this ban is about right. My interest is in establishing that the RFU's own protocols (inherited from World Rugby I believe) have been followed and in questioning whether these protocols could be improved upon.

 

[ncurd]

Watson plead guilty (which is why offences were halved) to both offences doesn't that stop to panel adjudging whether they felt it was red card offence or not. The only thing we know is they felt it was the very lowest end of offences for guilty plea if he plead not guilty he may have got off scot free. However had he not he'd be looking at a 4 week ban. Which is utterly ridiculous.

Honestly I'm not keen on guilty pleas as I'm not sure what worth they have.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I'm not sure becoming is an accurate word there. I'm not sure I can remember a time it was otherwise.

I do apologise for the pedantic interruption.

Lol, no problem, I take your point. What I was getting at is that I think that I know it has never been great, but it is going downhill.

- - - Updated - - -

Watson plead guilty (which is why offences were halved) to both offences doesn't that stop to panel adjudging whether they felt it was red card offence or not. The only thing we know is they felt it was the very lowest end of offences for guilty plea if he plead not guilty he may have got off scot free. However had he not he'd be looking at a 4 week ban. Which is utterly ridiculous.

Honestly I'm not keen on guilty pleas as I'm not sure what worth they have.

Do you have a link to the judgement please? These are always enlightening, everything I've said is based on what I've read in the press and my understanding of the process.

You might be right about the guilty plea, I hadn't considered that to be honest.

On reflection, I would question the value of requiring the accused to plead one way or the other - why not just let the panel get on and assess the incident as they saw it and avoid the scenario you describe?

In most cases, I think that a guilty plea is probably the sensible, pragmatic thing to do as things stand at the moment. Another of the shortcomings of the process as I see it is that the judiciary are aware that rescinding cards effectively shouts from the rooftop that the referee got it wrong, which is something that the establishment don't like doing.

 

[johnmac99]

"what a farce this makes of the whole process if he was found guilty on both counts and gets off with two weeks."

I read this as you saying that if the process wasn't a farce he would have received a bigger ban and not "gets off" with two weeks.

I understand what you are saying but don't agree with it. Eg. his charge for the verbals was 'conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game/union' not abusing officials. Maybe the details of the offence were not apparent to us, as someone else said. We don't know what was said or to whom, if anyone, it was directed at.

I agree the delay for his hearing was too long, probably something to do with Easter?

All I have about the RFU decision is what was on Skysports

"An RFU statement read: "Watson was charged with tackling the player in the air, contrary to law 10.4(i) and conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and/or the Game, contrary to RFU Rule 5.12.

"Watson pleaded guilty to both charges and was given a two-week suspension (one week for each charge). He is free to play again on 25 April."

 

[ncurd]

Nope not judgement but it's pretty standard to half sentences for guilty plea. But yeah Watson probably plead guilty to both offences knowing he was unlikely to win and increase chances of playing against Aus.

Still no idea why we have pleas it makes sense in a court of law but not here.

I've seen them essentially recind cards but usually they are more likely to apply cards after the fact. Dunno what's more galling losing a player you should never of had or the other team not losing one.

 

[McTallshort]

Hang him!

 

[Which Tyler]

As I pointed out twice in my post, I was talking about the process in general, not this particular incident. However I will humour you. Problems:

- It took far too long for the case to be heard. The luxury to take so long wouldn't have existed in at any other point in the season.

But they did have that luxury - if they didn't, I'm sure they'd have convened sooner, as they did for other incidences in the same match.

- Verbal abuse of a match official comes with a LE of 6 weeks. If his behaviour wasn't deemed "abuse", what law was he cited under that comes with a LE of 2 weeks? Acts contrary to good sportsmanship comes with an LE of 4 weeks.

He wasn't charged with abuse of a match official; he was charged with "Conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game" with a LE of asking him not to do it again.

- As TRF_Olly says, LE should be exactly that, with previous offenders, those who showed no contrition or those who conduct themselves poorly during the hearing receiving harsher treatment.

Seperate issue (for this post) - that's a systemic one rather than specific (and perfectly valid), although all it would do is immediately half the recommended tariffs with additions for aggravations rather than reduction for mitigations. It's basically semantics. I'd also suggest that it's semantically incorrect (the term is "Low Entry"; not "Minimum Sanction" - it's the entry point from which you then factor in both mitigation and aggravation)

- If you accept reducing bans, why reduce each individually rather than adding them together before making a reduction?

Because the 2 bans are for different acts, with different mitigating and aggravating factors.

- Should someone who has committed two offences worthy of a red card in one match really get time off for good behaviour?

He didn't commit 2 offences worthy of a red card - he committed one, and then a further offence as a direct result of the former; an offence that wouldn't have happened in the absence of the red card, and probably wasn't worthy of a red card in and of itself.

I don't think it's me who has something wrong with my thought process. I would question your understanding of it though. If the panel agreed that the red card was harsh, they would have rescinded the red card. As it is, they applied low end sanctions. This means that they agreed that the red card was awarded correctly, but that it wasn't a particularly heinous offence. The reduction in sanction doesn't relate to the seriousness of the offence, it reflects contrition, his previous record and his conduct over the matter.

Given the guilty plea, the panel didn't have the option of rescinding the red card - to my understanding. There is also no debate that the red card was correct; only debate on fan sites as to whether the law is correct.

I don't understand what you mean by "to justify the actions of the disciplinary process". My point is two fold - the process is flawed and the flawed process as it stands wasn't followed correctly.

I think we can all agree that the process is flawed - but I fail to see how process wasn't followed.

To re-reiterate, I didn't go into specifics because I didn't want to appear to be starting a witch hunt. That was not my intent. From a moral / common sense point of view, I think that this ban is about right. My interest is in establishing that the RFU's own protocols (inherited from World Rugby I believe) have been followed and in questioning whether these protocols could be improved upon.

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu.../31/75/72/WatsonBathJudgmentApr16_English.pdf

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Reading these comments and all the debate around Marler it's no wonder that the biggest houses in the country belong to lawyers.

Wonder how Lancaster's England would have viewed these 2 very naughty boys?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Reading these comments and all the debate around Marler it's no wonder that the biggest houses in the country belong to lawyers.

Wonder how Lancaster's England would have viewed these 2 very naughty boys?

They would have got the baby eating bishop of Bath and Wells treatment.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Jones has fired a warning shot across the bows of a few of the 6N squad.

I like him. As well as being a good coach, he's a good man manager. It may not last long, but it's going to be a fun ride to watch.

 

[ncurd]

I like the fact he doesn't name names either. He may not be telling the truth only one guy may be disappointing but he's making it clear no one stays in on reputation alone.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

For anyone wondering what they're talking about
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/36056761


Any guesses on who he means?
I'm hoping Haskell.
Can't think of anyone who's really stood out as poor since the 6N, though.
Ford?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Youngs

 

[Raggs]

You may not like Haskell but he hasn't played badly. Watson perhaps, Brookes though he didn't play much.

 

[j'nuh]

Prediction: he's BSing in the standard Jones way, to keep everyone's breeches suitably filled with excrement.