Potential citings for Quarterfinals

[bazz]

What's him being English got to do with anything?

its got everything to do with it ,your people and country cant be trusted

 

[celticc]

I think Gray's is probably correct. Until, that is, you look at the ridiculousness of the other decisions. Ford's is beyond comprehension for me and I believe this means the review panel feels we should have had 2 men red carded simultaneously. And I'm sorry, but one week for deliberately throwing a punch at a fellow professional is a complete joke.

 

[MunsterMan]

Pocock and Australia must be absolutely delighted with all this, first they get away without a ban, then everyone is too angry with everybody else afterwards to even bring it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Also not wanting to start **** slinging or anything but I love how Bosch has gotten off with barely a mention around here despite doing something which is generally considered to be more dangerous. Probably lucky it was against Namibia.

If you saw the Bosch incident, you'd realise the Namibian player was in no danger. Probably didn't deserve a ban at all, a yellow was enough.

Anybody have video of the Scottish tackles?

 

[Fard]

Pocock and Australia must be absolutely delighted with all this, first they get away without a ban, then everyone is too angry with everybody else afterwards to even bring it up.

- - - Updated - - -


Nothing to see here move along please.

 

[celticc]

Bosch incident https://vine.co/v/eEat1u3lVtJ

Gray/Ford https://twitter.com/gavinc42/status/653585272748294144

 

[The Jones Boy]

That was an awful dive by Nyanga who was hanging to to the jersey.

 

[YoungScud]

Pocock and Australia must be absolutely delighted with all this, first they get away without a ban, then everyone is too angry with everybody else afterwards to even bring it up.

- - - Updated - - -



If you saw the Bosch incident, you'd realise the Namibian player was in no danger. Probably didn't deserve a ban at all, a yellow was enough.

Anybody have video of the Scottish tackles?

Really? If by 'in no danger', you mean he was hit very late, and quite intentionally tipped over, lifted and dropped (hands behind both thighs), head down, thus fulfilling pretty much all the criteria the authorities claim they are determined to stamp out, then you may have a point.

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

Pocock and Australia must be absolutely delighted with all this, first they get away without a ban, then everyone is too angry with everybody else afterwards to even bring it up.

It's suspect is what it is.

 

[Tony Manx]

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/james-horwill-suspended-for-one-week/

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/owen-franks-suspended-for-two-weeks/

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/hayden-triggs-suspended-for-one-week/

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/bekhuis-issued-citing-commissioner-warning/

This is not really an unusual punishment for striking as evidenced as above.

People really need to do some reading and understand how the punishments are laid out.

Galarza was also considered to be a low entry point and actually had three weeks reduced. Once the Commissioner determined he made contact with the eye area he had to choose one of the set out punishment thresholds. Note I'm not saying I agree with him being cited.

The punishment thresholds are laid out in advance. There's a good bit of clarity to the procedures for anyone who wants to take a look.

Also not wanting to start **** slinging or anything but I love how Bosch has gotten off with barely a mention around here despite doing something which is generally considered to be more dangerous. Probably lucky it was against Namibia.

Now don't you start bringing clarity and reality into a nationalistic and uninformed discussion!!!!

 

[The Jones Boy]

Hear hear.

 

[YoungScud]

From the RWC news page, concerning the bans on Gray and Ford. I've included, at the beginning, a definition to illustrate my point.

Definition:
"Aggravating Factor. Any fact or circumstance that increases the severity or culpability of a criminal act. Aggravating factors include recidivism, lack of remorse, amount of harm to the victim, or committing the crime in front of a child, among many others."

"With respect to the sanction, the Judicial Officer deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point, namely four weeks. The Judicial Officer added one week for aggravation due to the need to deter this type of dangerous foul play. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the players' conduct prior to and at the hearing, their expressions of regret, exemplary characters and excellent disciplinary records, the Judicial Officer reduced the suspension to a period of three weeks in respect of each player. "

The desire to deter a particular offence surely cannot be described as an aggravating factor, since the purpose of any law is to deter. By that, I mean that surely the same extra sanction would have to apply to any citing, unless the claim is that they don't really care about some offences. It's ridiculous, therefore, to use this kind of language, and particularly that phrase.

As far as an appeal is concerned, I expect no result from it, but it has to take place, and the full trasncript has to be published for the world to see how utterly corrupt the whole process is.

 

[TRF_heineken]

From the RWC news page, concerning the bans on Gray and Ford. I've included, at the beginning, a definition to illustrate my point.

Definition:
"Aggravating Factor. Any fact or circumstance that increases the severity or culpability of a criminal act. Aggravating factors include recidivism, lack of remorse, amount of harm to the victim, or committing the crime in front of a child, among many others."

"With respect to the sanction, the Judicial Officer deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point, namely four weeks. The Judicial Officer added one week for aggravation due to the need to deter this type of dangerous foul play. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the players' conduct prior to and at the hearing, their expressions of regret, exemplary characters and excellent disciplinary records, the Judicial Officer reduced the suspension to a period of three weeks in respect of each player. "

The desire to deter a particular offence surely cannot be described as an aggravating factor, since the purpose of any law is to deter. By that, I mean that surely the same extra sanction would have to apply to any citing, unless the claim is that they don't really care about some offences. It's ridiculous, therefore, to use this kind of language, and particularly that phrase.

As far as an appeal is concerned, I expect no result from it, but it has to take place, and the full trasncript has to be published for the world to see how utterly corrupt the whole process is.

Hmmm...

Your Aggravating Factor definition is rather different that the one found in the World Rugby Lawbook: http://www.worldrugby.org/wr-resources/World_Rugby_Handbook/EN/index.html#/254/

The full judgement will also be available later today: http://www.worldrugby.org/documents/judicial-decisions

And here's the Disciplinary process for the World Cup: file:///C:/Users/Apprentice/Downloads/150723_WC15_Disciplinary_Process.pdf

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The longest ban came from something that was completely unintentional and resulted in no injury or disadvantage for the affected player/team. I am biased because it affects my team, but i can see how the TMO could have missed that one.

The lowest ban resulted from a player who intentionally punched an opponent while he is looking the other way. It's not his first time either (video here), yet his sentence gets reduced for "his good disciplinary record". To add insult to injury, it is incomprehensible how the TMO missed that one given the context.

Don't even get me started about Pocock.

The problem i have is that when i read Galarza's citing transcript i found its logic sound. I still find the final decision "unfair" when bench-marked against other sentences so i can only conclude i just dislike some of the rules. Not much i can do i guess.
Just venting tbh.

 

[big ginger 8]

- - - Updated - - -



If you saw the Bosch incident, you'd realise the Namibian player was in no danger. Probably didn't deserve a ban at all, a yellow was enough.

Fair enough, I'd only seen a picture which can obviously make things look worse.

Although I think World Rugby has made it clear in the past that they won't tolerate anything that endangers the neck, which is fair enough really. Having seen the vine now, one week is fine by me.

 

[barthelemy]

Hahahha this joke about SOB punishment, the big big joke ! Ho the poor irish boys, they have lost POC and Jonnie and O'mahony so lets not be too bad with them. I'm so looking forward for the next punch that a french will give to an Irish and see the punishment, will be higher and we will have all the fanboys here explaining that the intention was nastier, the elbow higher and that it was a full string compare to SOB.

Really guys, you do not understand how frustrating this is.

"The player has expressed remorse"

 

[Colombia]

The 1 week ban for O'Brien is a joke, he intentionally dropped his opponent with a punch and he wasn't right for a good 10 minutes after that. World Rugby just made themselves look like ****

 

[g6mcg]

Rugby again shows its favoritism to Uk countries.

Oi, we didn't leave last year!

 

[barthelemy]

Oi, we didn't leave last year!

Soon you will see your punishment increase, this is the rule

 

[YoungScud]

Hmmm...

Your Aggravating Factor definition is rather different that the one found in the World Rugby Lawbook: http://www.worldrugby.org/wr-resources/World_Rugby_Handbook/EN/index.html#/254/

The full judgement will also be available later today: http://www.worldrugby.org/documents/judicial-decisions

And here's the Disciplinary process for the World Cup: file:///C:/Users/Apprentice/Downloads/150723_WC15_Disciplinary_Process.pdf

How WR chooses to interpret the English language is hardly relevant to what I said. They don't get to define words. Of the three types of factor listed in the Regulations (not Laws), only one can be considered as a properly defined aggravating factor. Factor (a) is to a large extent within the control of the player, while (c) is very vague and (b) is simply an expression of desire. If I have my wish come true and one day see the fat cats who have sold my sport to commercial interests dragged into civil court, I fully expect that they will have their sorry arses handed to them. Meanwhile, I like to keep reminding them that it's our sport, not theirs.

 

[daluaine]

There appears to be no consideration on what are deliberate, isolated and "conscious" actions, and the accidental. If the Ford and Gray bans have both come from that single "clear-out" incident then it looks from my (admittedly extremely biased) view as though both players went in with the primary action of clearing the player out but in different directions. Their opposing actions created something that was unintentional and certainly could not have been co-ordinated between the pair of them. Lets face it, why dump an opposing player back on top of the ball your scrum-half is trying to play quickly. If you remove either Scottish player from this situation a tip tackle wouldn't have arisen. Yes, the player lands on his neck and it looks bad, but was it intentional? If you accept that it could have been a freak accident then can there be any ban? This is rugby being played at a ferocious speed and intensity; accidents are going to happen. Now compare that to some of the other citing being discussed in this thread?