Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Peat" data-source="post: 814706" data-attributes="member: 42330"><p>I do not believe malice should enter the citing process except as a potential cause for mitigation or extra punishment right at the end. Either their actions were illegal and potentially harmful, or they were not. That is all that should matter.</p><p></p><p>I also believe consistency is important. Without some form of consistency, it is a farce. I think that World Rugby should seek to alter the length of suspension on offences where it is wrong but until they actually do so and publicly announce so, they should keep handing out the same level of punishment. There has to be a clear demarcation point after which things change. They have not done so in this case. To use the language of Rats' sentence: they should continue punishing people for the sake of consistency because they have not signalled an intent to be consistent in not punishing people for this.</p><p></p><p>The argument over whether people in this position deserve a lesser sentence than they currently receive should be separate from the argument as to whether Franks deserved punishment.</p><p></p><p>Also, if SANZAR had set a clear cut rule on this sort of action in the course of a citing that contradicts the precedents, I would be livid. That would be incredibly unjust, incredibly suspicious, and above and beyond the powers they should have. But then, the fact World Rugby couldn't appeal the lack of citing in this occasion says SANZAR have more powers that they should have. No major tournament should be beyond WR's ability to demand re-examination of a citing call.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Peat, post: 814706, member: 42330"] I do not believe malice should enter the citing process except as a potential cause for mitigation or extra punishment right at the end. Either their actions were illegal and potentially harmful, or they were not. That is all that should matter. I also believe consistency is important. Without some form of consistency, it is a farce. I think that World Rugby should seek to alter the length of suspension on offences where it is wrong but until they actually do so and publicly announce so, they should keep handing out the same level of punishment. There has to be a clear demarcation point after which things change. They have not done so in this case. To use the language of Rats' sentence: they should continue punishing people for the sake of consistency because they have not signalled an intent to be consistent in not punishing people for this. The argument over whether people in this position deserve a lesser sentence than they currently receive should be separate from the argument as to whether Franks deserved punishment. Also, if SANZAR had set a clear cut rule on this sort of action in the course of a citing that contradicts the precedents, I would be livid. That would be incredibly unjust, incredibly suspicious, and above and beyond the powers they should have. But then, the fact World Rugby couldn't appeal the lack of citing in this occasion says SANZAR have more powers that they should have. No major tournament should be beyond WR's ability to demand re-examination of a citing call. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.
Top