Pascal Papé's behaviour

[nickdnz]

Looking at the incident - yeah its pretty bad. But people talking about a two year ban...these kinds of things happen pretty much every game, and while it's really sh*t that on this occasion Heaslip got seriously injured, I think it has to be dealt with consistently. Had it not occurred with a serious injury, I'd be surprised if people were talking about the incident beyond the given yellow. Pape's disciplinary record should be taken into account - which by the sounds of it is pretty bad.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I think the difficulty is punishing someone harshly when there isn't any conclusive evidence that it was intentional - scientifically speaking.

How do you prove "scientifically" that there was intent? In pseudo-legal cases like this, probably more so than real legal cases, there has to be a concept of reasonable doubt. In this instance when trying to establish intent, I would focus on the reason for his knee being so far out in front of his body. The way I see it, it's a much weaker body position to hit a maul in, so unless there's a legitimate reason that I'm missing, this was either clumsy or there was malicious intent. Personally I can't see how an international sportsman could do this clumsily, but that's a matter of opinion.

Maybe there would be merit in citing committees using kinesiologists to offer their take.

- - - Updated - - -

First up I've never bought the argument about the extent of the injury caused by the offense should matter. What should matter is the extent of injury that could have been caused, intention and previous record.

Well said sir, this has been my opinion since the Martin Johnson / Robbie Russell incident at least. I find the rugby authorities love of results oriented thinking intensely frustrating.

 

[ncurd]

After talking about the Russell/Biggar incident way too much I'd also add in unintentional incidents, players reaction to do what they can do avoid it once they are aware it will happen can count against/for them. If they can't do anything which 99% of the time they won't fair enough or are making split second reactions.

However in something like an accidental spear tackle there as an example are three things a play might do a) follow through (making it an intentional incident in my view) with the move. b) drop the player (highly ideal but you've probably realise you've made a mistake), c)trying you best to lessen the impact by keeping hold of the player and trying to stop momentum into the ground (bloody hard but doable)

 

[Amiga500]

I would focus on the reason for his knee being so far out in front of his body. The way I see it, it's a much weaker body position to hit a maul in, so unless there's a legitimate reason that I'm missing, this was either clumsy or there was malicious intent. Personally I can't see how an international sportsman could do this clumsily, but that's a matter of opinion.

To be honest, anyone that thinks it was accidental must be either an a naive idiot or never played contact sport at anything like a decent level.


Yes, a slimy lawyer could throw words around it right, left and centre and no doubt convince a jury that it was not deliberate. However, in reality, Pape meant to dig Heaslip's back with his knee. Hard. [That's not to say he intended to injure, but he did intend to cause pain.]

 

[RedruthRFC]

To be honest, anyone that thinks it was accidental must be either an a naive idiot or never played contact sport at anything like a decent level.

To a great extent I agree, although I often find doubt creeping in when watching replays. However in the context of the point I was making to ratsapprentice, in academia or (pseudo) law, saying "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot or a neophyte" doesn't hold a lot of truck, nor does it address how you can demonstrate intent beyond reasonable doubt in a pseudo-legal environment like a citing meeting.

 

[ratsapprentice]

"if you don't agree with me you're an idiot or a neophyte"

Are you trying to say that that's what I am saying or what Pape is?

Chucking in the term "scientifically" was a bit clumsy of me, but the case does leave a degree of doubt simply because he's not actively looking at his target.

FWIW, I don't disagree that there is enough evidence (as you say, it's not a natural position to be in, and you'd be extremely hard pressed to argue a legitimate reason for him to have his knee raised) to slam the guy.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Are you trying to say that that's what I am saying or what Pape is?

Neither. Just suggesting that that sort of rhetoric does nothing to demonstrate malicious intent, which is what you're seeking.

 

[ratsapprentice]

What?

I'm not doing that at all, In fact, I'm saying that I can't see any obvious way to objectively argue that it was intentional.
Even though, subjectively, I would say it's pretty clear that it was.

 

[RedruthRFC]

What?

I'm not doing that at all, In fact, I'm saying that I can't see any obvious way to objectively argue that it was intentional.
Even though, subjectively, I would say it's pretty clear that it was.

I think we're getting down in semantics, that's what I'm getting at and why I mentioned a consulting kinesiologist as a way of introducing objectivity. I was just pointing out that Amiga500's post is subjective and doesn't address the need for objectivity.

I suspect the only way that the point you're making will be tested is if a stringent ban is referred up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

 

[dasNdanger]

When you watch the video you can see that Pascal not only jabs with the knee, but in almost the same action he wraps his arm around Heaslip's neck and basically elbows him out of the way as he falls. Nothing seems accidental, rather it looks like a malicious clearing out of a player.




das

 

[RedruthRFC]

When you watch the video you can see that Pascal not only jabs with the knee, but in almost the same action he wraps his arm around Heaslip's neck and basically elbows him out of the way as he falls. Nothing seems accidental, rather it looks like a malicious clearing out of a player.




das

Good point. The first time I saw the clip that's what I picked on too.

 

[goodNumber10]

Pape & Heaslip on twitter:

 

[nickdnz]

Caught this as well.

I think I may be automatically more cynical to things posted on Twitter. I think a phone call may have been a more appropriate/less self-serving approach. To be fair I'm sure Pape absolutely would feel bad about injuring Heaslip, but I think he was also trying to cover his basis a bit by apologizing in a public medium prior to his hearing.

 

[goodNumber10]

Caught this as well.

I think I may be automatically more cynical to things posted on Twitter. I think a phone call may have been a more appropriate/less self-serving approach. To be fair I'm sure Pape absolutely would feel bad about injuring Heaslip, but I think he was also trying to cover his basis a bit by apologizing in a public medium prior to his hearing.

completely agree, it smacks of his defence telling him to apologise publicly so they can show "great remorse" at the act.

 

[ncurd]

Cynicism probably doesn't even start my opinion of a public apology like that.

True story: We didn't invite one of my wife's sisters to our wedding, I'm not going to go into details of the argument that was had but needless to say we felt we needed an apology and it was the last straw over multiple episodes of selfish behavior.

Anyway day of our wedding we are told (second hand as we both blocked her) she wrote on Facebook how sorry she was about what had happened and how she was disappointed about not being there.

We are still waiting for her to apologise to us personally.

So yeah public apologies are worth nothing and are just to save public face, they show no actual remorse and sometimes are just to illicit sympathy in the guilty party.



If he's spoken Heaslip fair dues but twitter? Yeah I feel it's more about reducing his inevitable ban.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yeah I think it's cheap and puts pressure on Heaslip. He could still be raging at the fact that he's missing the biggest game in the 6 nations because he received a thuggish knee in the back, I doubt he is because he doesn't seem like that type of man, and now he had to reply accepting the apology or there's be hoards of people complaining about his lack of integrity and "rugby values". Especially Munster fans who have an unnatural hatred of the man.

 

[Amiga500]

Especially Munster fans who have an unnatural hatred of the man.

Dr Dre doesn't do salt of the earth....

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Do we not know if he didn't ring Jaime up and apologise as well as doing the Twitter thing?

 

[goodNumber10]

Do we not know if he didn't ring Jaime up and apologise as well as doing the Twitter thing?

Not trying to be snarky here, if he did then why make the very public statement?

Additionally we can only speak on what we see/know, so even if he has given JH a cheeky little whatsapp it doesn't change the fact the twitter post seems very insincere and contrived.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Not trying to be snarky here, if he did then why make the very public statement?

Additionally we can only speak on what we see/know, so even if he has given JH a cheeky little whatsapp it doesn't change the fact the twitter post seems very insincere and contrived.

Depends on how you judge and see 140 characters I suppose.

Also to make a public apology, people can see he has at least attempted to say sorry for what he has done.