Aviva Premiership Round 16/17 Round 6

[TRF_Olyy]

That is so less bad than people have been making out

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Turns out Leota only got a two week ban because he apologised and because he was provoked by racism from Brew.
Neither Brew nor Bath denied it in the hearing (or their lawyers or whatever) and Leota's ban was reduced because of it so it looks like it did happen, as the panel have fully accepted that it happened.
Begs the question as to why Brew hasn't been punished for it?

 

[Which Tyler]

That's a remarkably one-sided account there Olyy
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...0/36/LeotaSaleSharksJudgmentOct16_English.pdf
He got a 2 week ban because the board decided that dump-tackling someone without the ball is more akin to spitting / hair pulling than it is to dump tackling someone with the ball; and therefore more lenient. They changed the charge from 10.4(e) "dangerous tackle" to 10.4(m) "acts contrary to goods sportsmanship".

The alleged racisim occurred AFTER Leota had dumped Brew on his neck/shoulder; and was used as mitigation for the following acts - not for the act that occurred beforehand.

Neither Brew or Bath, nor any representatives thereof were present and able to counter the accusations of racism, and this report is likely to be the first any of them knew of the accusation.

The only mitigation for the assault was that Brew had "back[ed] into" Leota.

Leota's ban wasn't reduced at all; they changed the charges to one he'd plead guilty of, instead of one he'd contest (in order to be over with sooner?); then looked at his recent history of kicking someone and decided not to reduce his ban at all.

Brew hasn't been punished for racism, as the accusation has only just come to light. I sincerely hope that the allegation is followed up on, and hopefully found not to have a case to answer; but if there is, then he should face the consequences. Currently, however, he hasn't been investigated for racism.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

" We accepted the Player’s evidence that he was racially abused and reacted to that."

"The Panel felt that the matter should be categorised as offending at the lower end of the scale for the following reasons :
[...]
The second and third incidents were provoked by racial abuse"

 

[Raggs]

" We accepted the Player's evidence that he was racially abused and reacted to that."

"The Panel felt that the matter should be categorised as offending at the lower end of the scale for the following reasons :
[...]
The second and third incidents were provoked by racial abuse"

Which isn't the same as Brew or Bath not denying it, if they weren't there, there was no chance to deny.

Lower end of the scale of a lesser punishment. How that was just contrary to sportsmanship, rather than dangerous tackle, I'm not sure. Even if the other offences were mitigated, the first should still have started at a higher starting point.

 

[Every Time Ref]

If I'm reading this right, he hasn't actually been punished for the dangerous tackle at all? Because of some vague unsubstantiated allegation of "racism" AFTER the incident?

 

[Raggs]

If I'm reading this right, he hasn't actually been punished for the dangerous tackle at all? Because of some vague unsubstantiated allegation of "racism" AFTER the incident?

Nope. He said he didn't feel the tackle was dangerous enough to warrant a red. The board sort of agreed, so everyone was happy when they said it was bad sportsmanship. Having downgraded it, the offences after the initial attack, were mitigated by Brews alleged response.

I don't understand how a player can be tackled off the ball (penalty on it's own anyway), in a dangerous manner, with the player landing in the red card area (shoulder neck is red card area), and yet everyone agreed it's not worth a red. Had that tackle been on the ball carrier in the middle of play, OK, could just about get it, but it was completely off the ball! That should step up whatever the punishment is by itself.

 

[Which Tyler]

" We accepted the Player's evidence that he was racially abused and reacted to that."

"The Panel felt that the matter should be categorised as offending at the lower end of the scale for the following reasons :
[...]
The second and third incidents were provoked by racial abuse"

And your point is?
"we accepted the Player's evidence that he had been racially abused" =/= "e have launched an exhaustive investigation and concluded that..."
"2nd and 3rd incidents" =/= all incidents - or even the incident that was specifically referred to the panel.
"lower end of the scale" =/= "we then reduced the sentence because..."

Nope. He said he didn't feel the tackle was dangerous enough to warrant a red. The board sort of agreed, so everyone was happy when they said it was bad sportsmanship. Having downgraded it, the offences after the initial attack, were mitigated by Brews alleged response.

I don't understand how a player can be tackled off the ball (penalty on it's own anyway), in a dangerous manner, with the player landing in the red card area (shoulder neck is red card area), and yet everyone agreed it's not worth a red. Had that tackle been on the ball carrier in the middle of play, OK, could just about get it, but it was completely off the ball! That should step up whatever the punishment is by itself.

Literally the only reason I can think of is that it meant Leota entering a "guilty" plea, instead of "not guilty" - which means that the meeting takes about 15-20 minutes rather than 2-3 hours (well, probably weeks given the allegation of racial abuse).

 

[Every Time Ref]

Nope. He said he didn't feel the tackle was dangerous enough to warrant a red. The board sort of agreed, so everyone was happy when they said it was bad sportsmanship. Having downgraded it, the offences after the initial attack, were mitigated by Brews alleged response.

I don't understand how a player can be tackled off the ball (penalty on it's own anyway), in a dangerous manner, with the player landing in the red card area (shoulder neck is red card area), and yet everyone agreed it's not worth a red. Had that tackle been on the ball carrier in the middle of play, OK, could just about get it, but it was completely off the ball! That should step up whatever the punishment is by itself.

Understood.

Either way, this is clearly bull****