7 week ban for Bradley Davies

by munkian Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:00 pm

7 week ban for Bradley Davies.

Right , onwards and upwards, Jones or Lou Reed to lock ?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:05 pm

Lou Reed to rock

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:08 pm

lucky to get away with only 7 IMO, was expecting 12+. Maybe a case of "missing the rest of the 6N is punishment enough", similar to the Quinlan case for gouging a couple of years ago...

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:09 pm

He can count himself very very fortunate with that ban. His saving grace is that 'intent' doesn't seem to be a factor in deciding whether to cite the player or not. If it was his cowardly assault would have seen a much longer ban.

I am still surprised Ryan wasn't cited though

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:12 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:He can count himself very very fortunate with that ban. His saving grace is that 'intent' doesn't seem to be a factor in deciding whether to cite the player or not. If it was his cowardly assault would have seen a much longer ban.

Not a factor in the card or citeing, but it is a factor considered when handing out the ban. As is provocation, although Id be very surprissed if they deemed a fairly inocuous shoulder cjharge on another player as a mitigating factor.

by Knowsit17 Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:16 pm

No more than he deserves, hopefully never to repeat such a stupid crime.

Lou Reed to start on Sunday, another opportunity to blood an option.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:16 pm

Adam's posted this on the other thread from the official press release:

At a disciplinary hearing in London today, Bradley Davies, Wales lock forward, was suspended for 7 weeks having been cited by the independent Six Nations citing commissioner Achille Reali (Italy), for an incident of foul play in the RBS 6 Nations match between Ireland and Wales in Dublin on Sunday.

The independent Six Nations Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England) along with John Doubleday (England) and Jean-Noel Couraud (France), having considered the citing report and the television footage and having listened to the player’s explanation, found that the incident, in which the player lifted his opponent beyond a horizontal position but did not bring him to the ground safely contrary to Law 10.4(j) and the IRB’s particular emphasis on this aspect of the game, merited a top end entry to the IRB’s table of sanctions.

The Committee applied an additional two weeks to the entry point of 10 weeks to reflect the need for a deterrent for this type of foul play but, in mitigation, took account of various factors in the player’s favour including his admission of guilt, his previous good disciplinary record and his conduct at the hearing in allowing the maximum possible reduction of five weeks.

Bradley Davies can resume playing on 26 March 2012, and has the right of appeal.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:18 pm

I'm an Irish fan, but I thought Ryan would have been cited purely on the Bakkies Botha precedent. The law is an ass in such a situation, but the IRB need consistency.

What I meant with intent here is that it appears that he clearly intended to cause Ryan injury. Otherwise why not just give him a old fashioned decking? Davies decided the best course of action was to caused injury and possibly worse to an opposition player. That is absolutely disgusting in my book. A seven week ban doesn't seem appropriate given that accidental contact with the eyes can land players 4-6 week bans.

Of course in many Welsh fans posts here (not all of course), they have been more busy discussing Ryan and Ferris. Go figure.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:20 pm

Kiwireddevil wrote:Adam's posted this on the other thread from the official press release:

At a disciplinary hearing in London today, Bradley Davies, Wales lock forward, was suspended for 7 weeks having been cited by the independent Six Nations citing commissioner Achille Reali (Italy), for an incident of foul play in the RBS 6 Nations match between Ireland and Wales in Dublin on Sunday.

The independent Six Nations Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England) along with John Doubleday (England) and Jean-Noel Couraud (France), having considered the citing report and the television footage and having listened to the player’s explanation, found that the incident, in which the player lifted his opponent beyond a horizontal position but did not bring him to the ground safely contrary to Law 10.4(j) and the IRB’s particular emphasis on this aspect of the game, merited a top end entry to the IRB’s table of sanctions.

The Committee applied an additional two weeks to the entry point of 10 weeks to reflect the need for a deterrent for this type of foul play but, in mitigation, took account of various factors in the player’s favour including his admission of guilt, his previous good disciplinary record and his conduct at the hearing in allowing the maximum possible reduction of five weeks.

Bradley Davies can resume playing on 26 March 2012, and has the right of appeal.

I look forward to reading their full report- they are often really enlightening and gives insight into their thinking.

Seven weeks does not seem anywhere near long enough for what Davies attempted to do. I am extremely disappointed by this decision.

by Chunky Norwich Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:21 pm

Knowsit17 wrote:

Lou Reed to start on Sunday, another opportunity to blood an option.

Bench surely?

7 weeks is about right.

by Guest Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:22 pm

You say 'appears' and 'clearly intended', but that is a contradiction surely?! There's no way of knowing, unless the player admits it, what he intended. Therefore it is not clear and the panel is unable to make a judgement on it.

by Knowsit17 Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:25 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Knowsit17 wrote:

Lou Reed to start on Sunday, another opportunity to blood an option.

Bench surely?

7 weeks is about right.

Not too bothered either way in fairness, Reed'll be in among the first choices available otherwise so should be fine.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:27 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I'm an Irish fan, but I thought Ryan would have been cited purely on the Bakkies Botha precedent. The law is an ass in such a situation, but the IRB need consistency.

What I meant with intent here is that it appears that he clearly intended to cause Ryan injury. Otherwise why not just give him a old fashioned decking? Davies decided the best course of action was to caused injury and possibly worse to an opposition player. That is absolutely disgusting in my book. A seven week ban doesn't seem appropriate given that accidental contact with the eyes can land players 4-6 week bans.

Of course in many Welsh fans posts here (not all of course), they have been more busy discussing Ryan and Ferris. Go figure.

Ridiculous.

Ryan was attempting to ruck Jones off the ball, not to injure him. He just did it without an arm wrap, no different to the kind of bad tackle youll normally see yellowed if called at all. Jones himslef said he didnt think the Bakies incident warrented a citeing, although charging would normaly be a yellow card offence.

The Davies incident as you say was bad, and clealry deliberate. But got more of a ban than a flurry of punches would have, despite being cut almost in half.
A 7 week ban puts him out of the torunamnet, thats pretty harsh. Its only eye gouging incidents that tend to cop longer bans, and only the extreme examples that get more than 10 weeks as a start point.

I dont think you can say hes gotten off lightly here.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:27 pm

Griff wrote:You say 'appears' and 'clearly intended', but that is a contradiction surely?! There's no way of knowing, unless the player admits it, what he intended. Therefore it is not clear and the panel is unable to make a judgement on it.

Hmmmmmm, I see your point Griff. That's a poor choice of English more than anything else. But when your coach comes out in the aftermath of a match and said there is intent there then that says alot.

Seven weeks is no where near enough. A cowardly assault on an opposition player than intended to cause harm. I expected the IRB to give him 12 weeks at least. They either are serious about this issue or they aren't, and this decision doesn't instil any confidence that they are.

by Guest Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:33 pm

He made the best tackle of the game

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:33 pm

To be honest I don't think Bradley was going out to break Ryan's neck, or to injure him at all. I think he was trying to do the 'I'm a harder man that you' act after Ryan forcefully (not to sure if illegally, to be honest) cleared out at the ruck. Second rows are well know for being a bit dull when it comes to proving who is tougher.

That said the incident was exceptionally dangerous, and it was not a good example to anyone watching the match. Yes he should be banned, and IMO 7 weeks is a bit of a let off, I think he could have ended up not playing again this season without having too much to complain about.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:34 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I'm an Irish fan, but I thought Ryan would have been cited purely on the Bakkies Botha precedent. The law is an ass in such a situation, but the IRB need consistency.

What I meant with intent here is that it appears that he clearly intended to cause Ryan injury. Otherwise why not just give him a old fashioned decking? Davies decided the best course of action was to caused injury and possibly worse to an opposition player. That is absolutely disgusting in my book. A seven week ban doesn't seem appropriate given that accidental contact with the eyes can land players 4-6 week bans.

Of course in many Welsh fans posts here (not all of course), they have been more busy discussing Ryan and Ferris. Go figure.

Ridiculous.

Ryan was attempting to ruck Jones off the ball, not to injure him. He just did it without an arm wrap, no different to the kind of bad tackle youll normally see yellowed if called at all. Jones himslef said he didnt think the Bakies incident warrented a citeing, although charging would normaly be a yellow card offence.

The Davies incident as you say was bad, and clealry deliberate. But got more of a ban than a flurry of punches would have, despite being cut almost in half.
A 7 week ban puts him out of the torunamnet, thats pretty harsh. Its only eye gouging incidents that tend to cop longer bans, and only the extreme examples that get more than 10 weeks as a start point.

I dont think you can say hes gotten off lightly here.

I'm not saying Ryan should have been cited. I'm saying that a precedent had been set and the IRB need to be consistent. Perhaps however they saw sense and realised it was a poor precedent to set and thus Ryan was let off the hook.

The problem is here the entry point for Ryan's offence was set by the panel at ten weeks. They added two weeks as a deterrent, then knocked 5 weeks off for previous good record and a guilty plea. If ten weeks is the entry point then ban him ten weeks. One doesn't like to speculate on 'what-ifs' but this player chose to deliberately try and injure another player. And you think seven weeks is sufficient for that? Sorry, that's just plain nonsense. I'm not suggesting that Davies is a dirty player, but the punishment must fit the crime. The IRB are attempting to cut down on SCIs on the rugby field and to suggest that seven weeks is a deterrent to a blatant assault on an opposition player is wholly wrong.

by Chunky Norwich Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:39 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

Of course in many Welsh fans posts here (not all of course), they have been more busy discussing Ryan and Ferris. Go figure.

Obvioiusly because thse are the 2 contentious incidents. Or are you feeling hard doen by so you have to try and stir up trouble?

Brad Davies is a lengthy suspension every time. Very few would argue therefore very few have debated it.

by Rory_Gallagher Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:42 pm

That is very rich coming from you Chunky about stirring up trouble.

by Chunky Norwich Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:43 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:That is very rich coming from you Chunky about stirring up trouble.

Why's that?

by gowales Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:43 pm

Id like Lou Reed to go to lock, Jones to stay at blindside and Lydiate on the bench.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:45 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

Of course in many Welsh fans posts here (not all of course), they have been more busy discussing Ryan and Ferris. Go figure.

Obvioiusly because thse are the 2 contentious incidents. Or are you feeling hard doen by so you have to try and stir up trouble?

Brad Davies is a lengthy suspension every time. Very few would argue therefore very few have debated it.

Why would I feel hard done by? I thought the scoreline flattered us on Sunday and have stated many many times that Wales were the better team and fully deserved to win.

Clearly you feel seven weeks is a 'lengthy' suspension for a player who purposefully intended to injure another player. That says more about you than me.

by Chunky Norwich Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:52 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

Clearly you feel seven weeks is a 'lengthy' suspension for a player who purposefully intended to injure another player. That says more about you than me.

Davies' suspension is longer than the IRB handed out to a player who openly gouged someone's eyeball a couple of years ago. It was 12 reduced to 7. Long enough. He misses the tournament.

Ferris and Ryan's incidents are far more worthy of discussion but as usual, a few Irish on here seem to take that as defelction of some sort.

by SecretFly Wed 08 Feb 2012, 2:59 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Ferris and Ryan's incidents are far more worthy of discussion but as usual, a few Irish on here seem to take that as defelction of some sort.

You mean Ferris and Ryan have a bigger case to answer for - "more worthy of discussion" - than the thing we saw done with such heedless dexterity in slow motion away from the ref's eye?

by flyhalffactory Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:03 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Lou Reed to rock

Just a perfect day drumroll

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:05 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I look forward to reading their full report- they are often really enlightening and gives insight into their thinking.

I'm looking forward to hearing what they had to say about the fact the ball was long gone when Davies did what he did. The fact that this was an off-the-ball incident makes it worse, for me.

by flyhalffactory Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:05 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Knowsit17 wrote:

Lou Reed to start on Sunday, another opportunity to blood an option.

Bench surely?

7 weeks is about right.

Bench surely????

WHY DO YOU SAY THAT........... he is a proper lock

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:05 pm

flyhalffactory wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Lou Reed to rock

Just a perfect day

If he is picked to start, I bet he'll be nervous on Sunday Morning...

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:07 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
The problem is here the entry point for Ryan's offence was set by the panel at ten weeks. They added two weeks as a deterrent, then knocked 5 weeks off for previous good record and a guilty plea. If ten weeks is the entry point then ban him ten weeks. One doesn't like to speculate on 'what-ifs' but this player chose to deliberately try and injure another player. And you think seven weeks is sufficient for that? Sorry, that's just plain nonsense. I'm not suggesting that Davies is a dirty player, but the punishment must fit the crime. The IRB are attempting to cut down on SCIs on the rugby field and to suggest that seven weeks is a deterrent to a blatant assault on an opposition player is wholly wrong.

I assume you mean Davies not Ryan.

If they didnt knock off the "good behaviour" weeks then they would just have set the entry point lower, and add on for bad behaviour. Or do you not think these factors should be considered, they would be in a court of law when sentancing a criminal. The whole process follows the basic principles of standard court systems.
In comparisson to other attempts to injure ( strikeing, charging, gouging) the entry point is quite high as this was considered an upper level offence. Had he raked his hand across the face and caught the eye (casuing a bit of pain but no lasting damage) he wouldve got a shorter ban. Had he punched him repeatedly leaving him needing stitches he wouldve got a shorter ban. Had he swuing his elbow into the temple he wouldve got a shorter ban.

Next time he is involved in a citedent he wont get the reduction. Thats not groissly unfair is it?

Missing the rest of the nations is a pretty strong detterent. Therescomes a point with bands where we need some players still elligable to turn up on a weekend.

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:08 pm

Ryan Jones to start at lock and Aaron Shingler to be named on the bench. Throwing a good old fashioned Gatland curve ball to all of us who think it is a two horse race.

by flyhalffactory Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:13 pm

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

Clearly you feel seven weeks is a 'lengthy' suspension for a player who purposefully intended to injure another player. That says more about you than me.

Davies' suspension is longer than the IRB handed out to a player who openly gouged someone's eyeball a couple of years ago. It was 12 reduced to 7. Long enough. He misses the tournament.

Ferris and Ryan's incidents are far more worthy of discussion but as usual, a few Irish on here seem to take that as defelction of some sort.

Chunky
The guy should have been out for the season............... it was highly dangerous and could have put the opposition player in a wheelchair for life, he landed on his neck and spine!!. Brad Davies is not a dirty player and it was in the heat of the moment thing but you cannae do that off the ball

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:14 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
The problem is here the entry point for Ryan's offence was set by the panel at ten weeks. They added two weeks as a deterrent, then knocked 5 weeks off for previous good record and a guilty plea. If ten weeks is the entry point then ban him ten weeks. One doesn't like to speculate on 'what-ifs' but this player chose to deliberately try and injure another player. And you think seven weeks is sufficient for that? Sorry, that's just plain nonsense. I'm not suggesting that Davies is a dirty player, but the punishment must fit the crime. The IRB are attempting to cut down on SCIs on the rugby field and to suggest that seven weeks is a deterrent to a blatant assault on an opposition player is wholly wrong.

I assume you mean Davies not Ryan.

If they didnt knock off the "good behaviour" weeks then they would just have set the entry point lower, and add on for bad behaviour. Or do you not think these factors should be considered, they would be in a court of law when sentancing a criminal. The whole process follows the basic principles of standard court systems.
In comparisson to other attempts to injure ( strikeing, charging, gouging) the entry point is quite high as this was considered an upper level offence. Had he raked his hand across the face and caught the eye (casuing a bit of pain but no lasting damage) he wouldve got a shorter ban. Had he punched him repeatedly leaving him needing stitches he wouldve got a shorter ban. Had he swuing his elbow into the temple he wouldve got a shorter ban.

Next time he is involved in a citedent he wont get the reduction. Thats not groissly unfair is it?

Missing the rest of the nations is a pretty strong detterent. Therescomes a point with bands where we need some players still elligable to turn up on a weekend.

Indeed. However, in many 'crimes' court are bound by minimum sentencing tariffs and guidelines. What I am saying is that if ten weeks was the 'entry' point for punishment, then why should that not be the minimum he receives? Effectively in this case the panel have gone for the 'high' end and then worked it back to a mid range offence punishment. That cannot be equitable whatsoever. Remember, this wasn't a tackle. This was off the ball where a player deliberately attempted to injure another player. Seven weeks is simply not enough.

by flyhalffactory Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:18 pm

[quote="ScarletSpiderman"]Ryan Jones to start at lock and Aaron Shingler to be named on the bench. Throwing a good old fashioned Gatland curve ball to all of us who think it is a two horse race.[/quote

RedWebSlinger

Jones played too good against the Irish to be moved to lock (altho I do like him at 5) I would put Reed in with Jones at 6, Shingler on the bench

Ooops then you guys have got Lydiate to come in as well............ back to the drawing board

by flyhalffactory Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:21 pm

gowales wrote:Id like Lou Reed to go to lock, Jones to stay at blindside and Lydiate on the bench.

gowales

Good Call................ thumbsup

by Guest Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:21 pm

[quote="flyhalffactory"]

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Ryan Jones to start at lock and Aaron Shingler to be named on the bench. Throwing a good old fashioned Gatland curve ball to all of us who think it is a two horse race.[/quote

RedWebSlinger

Jones played too good against the Irish to be moved to lock (altho I do like him at 5) I would put Reed in with Jones at 6, Shingler on the bench

Ooops then you guys have got Lydiate to come in as well............ back to the drawing board

Yep, you're right, Ryan played very well, but in all honesty I would have Lydiate back at 6 and keep Ryan on the pitch.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:25 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
The problem is here the entry point for Ryan's offence was set by the panel at ten weeks. They added two weeks as a deterrent, then knocked 5 weeks off for previous good record and a guilty plea. If ten weeks is the entry point then ban him ten weeks. One doesn't like to speculate on 'what-ifs' but this player chose to deliberately try and injure another player. And you think seven weeks is sufficient for that? Sorry, that's just plain nonsense. I'm not suggesting that Davies is a dirty player, but the punishment must fit the crime. The IRB are attempting to cut down on SCIs on the rugby field and to suggest that seven weeks is a deterrent to a blatant assault on an opposition player is wholly wrong.

I assume you mean Davies not Ryan.

If they didnt knock off the "good behaviour" weeks then they would just have set the entry point lower, and add on for bad behaviour. Or do you not think these factors should be considered, they would be in a court of law when sentancing a criminal. The whole process follows the basic principles of standard court systems.
In comparisson to other attempts to injure ( strikeing, charging, gouging) the entry point is quite high as this was considered an upper level offence. Had he raked his hand across the face and caught the eye (casuing a bit of pain but no lasting damage) he wouldve got a shorter ban. Had he punched him repeatedly leaving him needing stitches he wouldve got a shorter ban. Had he swuing his elbow into the temple he wouldve got a shorter ban.

Next time he is involved in a citedent he wont get the reduction. Thats not groissly unfair is it?

Missing the rest of the nations is a pretty strong detterent. Therescomes a point with bands where we need some players still elligable to turn up on a weekend.

Indeed. However, in many 'crimes' court are bound by minimum sentencing tariffs and guidelines. What I am saying is that if ten weeks was the 'entry' point for punishment, then why should that not be the minimum he receives? Effectively in this case the panel have gone for the 'high' end and then worked it back to a mid range offence punishment. That cannot be equitable whatsoever. Remember, this wasn't a tackle. This was off the ball where a player deliberately attempted to injure another player. Seven weeks is simply not enough.

Going round in circles in this one but are you arguing that they shouldnt reduce for good behavoiur and that a player who had done this 10 times before should get the same ban, or that the benchmark itself should be higher? There is a maximum they could recduce this by ( effectivly setting a minimum ban).
What hes got is the same as someone on a second charge for a reckless challenge ( say Warburton making the same mistake again). Added to that every time he is cited for anything this offence will be considered against him.

Theres clealry some people who feel this sort of act is over punished, and some who feels its under punished. In relative terms the IRB judge these harshly. Its rare for someone to cop a ban this long for any act.
If a 7 week tarrif doesnt discourage him or anyone else form doing it then a full 12 weeks wouldnt make much odds anyway.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:29 pm

I'd prefer an out-and-out lock to come in, seeing as Scotland's lineout is pretty damn good and we'll need to secure our own ball.

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:32 pm

Just seen on the BBC website, this who will play lock issue will be sorted come the next match as AWJ is expected to take to the feild for the Ospreys this weekend.

by dummy_half Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:34 pm

"What I am saying is that if ten weeks was the 'entry' point for punishment, then why should that not be the minimum he receives?"

Same question comes up for any number of bans handed down by the citing committee - the entry point is not a minimum tarrif, but is a sort of notional average ban for the offence. Players with a poor disciplinary record may get this or even an extension based on past behaviour, while those with a good previous record will be given a reduction of up to half of the length of the 'entry point' ban.

I seem to recall some discussion of this when Cueto was banned for making contact with an opponent's eye area, but was let off 13 weeks of a 26 week 'entry point' because of a record of good behaviour. By comparison, Grewcock (as an example) would not be given any reduction and could have his ban increased by up to 50% just for having been in front of the beak so often.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:35 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Going round in circles in this one but are you arguing that they shouldnt reduce for good behavoiur and that a player who had done this 10 times before should get the same ban, or that the benchmark itself should be higher? There is a maximum they could recduce this by ( effectivly setting a minimum ban).
What hes got is the same as someone on a second charge for a reckless challenge ( say Warburton making the same mistake again). Added to that every time he is cited for anything this offence will be considered against him.

Theres clealry some people who feel this sort of act is over punished, and some who feels its under punished. In relative terms the IRB judge these harshly. Its rare for someone to cop a ban this long for any act.
If a 7 week tarrif doesnt discourage him or anyone else form doing it then a full 12 weeks wouldnt make much odds anyway.

Again, I have no problem with his ban being reduced for previous behaviour. That is a fundamental legal principal. Once again to restate, the judicial hearing decided that he should have a entry point of ten weeks for this offence. That should be the minimum he receives. The were prepared to add a further two weeks to that given the seriousness of the offence. For his previous good behaviour why not knock those two weeks off and go back to the entry point. Now I know it is plainly obvious that 'entry' and 'minimum' are not the same thing, but there is a fundamental flaw in a process whereby what should be a high end offence is punished with a mid-range punishment. The entry level for Warburton's offence by the way was six weeks for a 'mid-range offence.' Davies got seven weeks. Previous good behaviour or not, that is a disgrace. If the 'crime' in high end then the punishment must also be. So while you talk to legalistic principals, there is one you are leaving out- proportionality. The IRB have got their sentencing practices completely wrong here.

by BlueNote Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:38 pm

He was quite lucky to get away with 7 weeks, he must have gone in with his chin on his chest.

by Duty281 Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:40 pm

Personally, I'd have banned the scummy expletive removed - KRD for much longer than that. He could have broken the guy's neck and certainly looked like he wanted to.

by wales606 Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:43 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Just seen on the BBC website, this who will play lock issue will be sorted come the next match as AWJ is expected to take to the feild for the Ospreys this weekend.

Fantastic news

Jones to lock (he cant be dropped and Lydiate is a very good player)

Reed or Shingler to the bench

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:44 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Going round in circles in this one but are you arguing that they shouldnt reduce for good behavoiur and that a player who had done this 10 times before should get the same ban, or that the benchmark itself should be higher? There is a maximum they could recduce this by ( effectivly setting a minimum ban).
What hes got is the same as someone on a second charge for a reckless challenge ( say Warburton making the same mistake again). Added to that every time he is cited for anything this offence will be considered against him.

Theres clealry some people who feel this sort of act is over punished, and some who feels its under punished. In relative terms the IRB judge these harshly. Its rare for someone to cop a ban this long for any act.
If a 7 week tarrif doesnt discourage him or anyone else form doing it then a full 12 weeks wouldnt make much odds anyway.

Again, I have no problem with his ban being reduced for previous behaviour. That is a fundamental legal principal. Once again to restate, the judicial hearing decided that he should have a entry point of ten weeks for this offence. That should be the minimum he receives. The were prepared to add a further two weeks to that given the seriousness of the offence. For his previous good behaviour why not knock those two weeks off and go back to the entry point. Now I know it is plainly obvious that 'entry' and 'minimum' are not the same thing, but there is a fundamental flaw in a process whereby what should be a high end offence is punished with a mid-range punishment. The entry level for Warburton's offence by the way was six weeks for a 'mid-range offence.' Davies got seven weeks. Previous good behaviour or not, that is a disgrace. If the 'crime' in high end then the punishment must also be. So while you talk to legalistic principals, there is one you are leaving out- proportionality. The IRB have got their sentencing practices completely wrong here.

So what youre saying is the entry point should be higher for this type of offence.

Fine thats your opinion. When it comes to proprtionality, its already been pointed out several times that all but the most extreme gouges get similar bans. Im struggling to think of a striking incident thats copped a ban like this(pre reductions). Proportionaltly, it is punished harshly.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:44 pm

is Warburton going to be fit?

by miteyironpaw Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:47 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Going round in circles in this one but are you arguing that they shouldnt reduce for good behavoiur and that a player who had done this 10 times before should get the same ban, or that the benchmark itself should be higher? There is a maximum they could recduce this by ( effectivly setting a minimum ban).
What hes got is the same as someone on a second charge for a reckless challenge ( say Warburton making the same mistake again). Added to that every time he is cited for anything this offence will be considered against him.

Theres clealry some people who feel this sort of act is over punished, and some who feels its under punished. In relative terms the IRB judge these harshly. Its rare for someone to cop a ban this long for any act.
If a 7 week tarrif doesnt discourage him or anyone else form doing it then a full 12 weeks wouldnt make much odds anyway.

Again, I have no problem with his ban being reduced for previous behaviour. That is a fundamental legal principal. Once again to restate, the judicial hearing decided that he should have a entry point of ten weeks for this offence. That should be the minimum he receives. The were prepared to add a further two weeks to that given the seriousness of the offence. For his previous good behaviour why not knock those two weeks off and go back to the entry point. Now I know it is plainly obvious that 'entry' and 'minimum' are not the same thing, but there is a fundamental flaw in a process whereby what should be a high end offence is punished with a mid-range punishment. The entry level for Warburton's offence by the way was six weeks for a 'mid-range offence.' Davies got seven weeks. Previous good behaviour or not, that is a disgrace. If the 'crime' in high end then the punishment must also be. So while you talk to legalistic principals, there is one you are leaving out- proportionality. The IRB have got their sentencing practices completely wrong here.

If their objective is to deter players from making this kind of tackle, then halving the sentence hardly seems a good way to go about it. Surely everyone in world rugby knows that this kind of "tackle" is being punished harshly right now. A Welsh player should be far more familiar with this idea than most. The fact that he did it anyway should cancel out any previous "good record" in my mind. I would have banned him for the year. Now that would be a deterrent.

by majesticimperialman Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:47 pm

I dont think that 7 weeks is enough.

He should of got a lot longer in my view.

This sort of thing should not be tolerated at all.

by RubyGuby Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:48 pm

Warburton, Lydiate and Jenkins all fit thumbsup

by geoff998rugby Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:49 pm

Ferris cleared - no action

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 08 Feb 2012, 3:51 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:is Warburton going to be fit?

The BBC's saying he missed training today and might not be ready for Sunday's game.

by Sponsored content