Clark/Hawkins incident from todays LV cup final

First topic message reminder :

Have a look at the youtube video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d_5Vlsyekio

After the whistle has gone, When Clark gets up he bends Hawkins right arm the wrong way. It's being reported that it dislocated his arm. What are your thoughts on it, should Clark be cited and banned?

In my mind it looks deliberate and therefore should see a fairly long ban. What do you guys think?

Sadly over on the Come On You Saints forum there are still people who are claiming that he has done nothing wrong.

Glad to hear Saints have done that at least. I feel this should be his last game in a Saints shirt.

Glad to hear that Saints have suspended him, and that he's being cited.
Coming back to what some posters have said about the possibility of Clark facing assault charges. There was a case a few weeks ago where an amateur player was arrested and jailed for 6 months after punching an opponent and breaking his jaw during the game.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110938/The-shocking-moment-rugby-player-hit-teacher-opponent-hard-match-broke-jaw.html

Surely then Clark could face an assault charge?

For Clark to face an assault charge there would need to be a complaint made to the police.

I suspect that until we know the outcome of the RFU disciplinary hearing, there will be no movement on where we are now.

Ozzy3213 wrote:For Clark to face an assault charge there would need to be a complaint made to the police.

I suspect that until we know the outcome of the RFU disciplinary hearing, there will be no movement on where we are now.

Would it be enough for anyone to make the complaint or would it have to be Hawkins himself (or a representative)?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:For Clark to face an assault charge there would need to be a complaint made to the police.

I suspect that until we know the outcome of the RFU disciplinary hearing, there will be no movement on where we are now.

Would it be enough for anyone to make the complaint or would it have to be Hawkins himself (or a representative)?

I'm not sure what the law is in UK, but in Ireland the police themselves can instigate an assault charge and it has happened in rugby, soccer and gaelic football matches where one player has assaulted another. There is no requirement for the assaulted person to take a case against the assaulter - unless it is for a civil case where he is seeking damages

Ozzy3213 wrote:Sadly over on the Come On You Saints forum there are still people who are claiming that he has done nothing wrong.

We're all guilty of being one-eyed but I just fail to see how anyone can condone these actions. I just hope the RFU don't bottle it a give him a throw away ban. Ban him for a year is my call (if not longer!)

If someone is seen assaulting another individual in public I didn't think it required a complaint for there to be an offense that the police could investigate. There has always been reluctance to prosecute over actions on the sports field but they have happened.

Was it today that they decided his fate ?

Isnt it on Thursday?

Double checked because I was not sure but according to the BBC it's today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17460982

Cheers Cymro, i wasnt sure. I guess we will hear tomorrow.

some places say today, I've read elsewhere though it's been moved back to Thursday so who knows.

I am confused again, thanks dreamer

ha sorry! Think be best to keep our eyes open for new stories this evening and tomorrow. if none appear then we know it was delayed to Thursday!

Good plan

it will be done on Thursday now at twickers

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/breaking-news-calum-clark-disciplinary-hearing-moved-1-3662345#

Some of the media/fans from NH are really getting on my jubblies, in that article they make out Cockerill was really angry about the incident, from what i saw on TV he said it looked nasty and he hoped it wasnt deliberate, but the citing people will do there thing. Not at all in an angry way?

Forgot to mention, did anyone see the alternative view? apparently sky showed it?

not seen it myself nathan, don't really think I want to see the incident again, tis too horrible!

Clark's been getting a lot of comments directed at him on twitter, and crazily some people are backing him and hoping he plays rugby again soon! Mental.

Do you have a link Nathan?

Also I agree, I think Cockerill handled it in a very professional manner and not many other coaches would have done the same.

Have to add, although what Clark did was one of the most shocking things I have seen, he does not deserve to be banned for life. It was awful, and he needs a very long ban, but a life ban is not necessary IMO. He will hopefully wise up.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Have to add, although what Clark did was one of the most shocking things I have seen, he does not deserve to be banned for life. It was awful, and he needs a very long ban, but a life ban is not necessary IMO. He will hopefully wise up.

True, i'm not for a life ban, but certainly more than a year.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Do you have a link Nathan?

Also I agree, I think Cockerill handled it in a very professional manner and not many other coaches would have done the same.

havent got a link unfortunately. trying to find one.

Dewi Morris and Will Greenwood on Sky looked rather sickened when the view from teh other side was shown. Of course Greenwood (and Healey and Kay on ESPN who also feel there should be a ban) are ex-Tigers.

Can anyone find the alternate view/what show was it on?

Once a line has been crossed, it can't be uncrossed. The Rugby Club pictures were pretty conclusive and would indicate a life ban. What is important is to show that such behaviour has absolutely no place in the game and anyone harbouring thoughts of deliberately injuring another player cannot be tolerated.

If the IRB want to stop the game gradually decending into a 30 man scrap they have to make an example of this now.

I'd like to reiterate my earlier post.

Matt Stevens had a 3 year ban for taking cocaine.

Cocaine is an illegal class A drug and any professional sportsman taking it clearly has issues that need to be dealt with, BUT, it is not performance enhancing and by-and-large in terms of the game is victimless. It does have wider implications with regard to criminal activity, but using Rugby Union as the terms of reference, what Stevens did was only ever going to damage himself, and it did, for 3 whole years.

He got banned - rightly, got sacked - rightly, got wise and came back (his own work) - but most importantly did his time.

As for what Clark has allegedly done...

If he is found guilty, he must surely serve a minimum of 3 years, or am I reading this wrong?

The way I see it is that both are very wrong examples of how to behave in our sport, but other than the lack of a third-party victim in the Stevens case, there'e little to discriminate between the two.

Zero tolerance has to be the message in both cases and unless Clark has some mitigating evidence for bending Hawkins' arm backwards until it broke, he should get 3 years (minimum), do his time and come back wiser and better for it if he can; if he can't, I'm sure there are nightclubs out there recruiting for persons of a certain ilk.

If proven, this is a reprehensible and vile act that needs to be stopped before we see another example in OUR sport.

Think of the kids.

I doubt anyone would want to see him lose his livelihood for ever, but this has to be dealt here and now, and hopefully for ever, by virtue of a stringent and long-reaching ban.

3 years was kind of ridiculous for Matt Stevens. Possibly a blessing in disguise for him, because it was as big a prompt for him to deal with his problems as he could have gotten, but ridiculously punitive for behaviour that only hurts himself. Still feel like he was made a scapegoat of as I'm sure there were/are many other players using that haven't been 'exposed'.

A couple of years would be a good ban for Clark, could be even more. There are no mitigating circumstances; the injury inflicted was serious, it was unprovoked and after the whistle, caught on camera from multiple angles, prior record of violent conduct on a rugby pitch etc. Everything is stacked in favour of a major ban.

I'm not sure about a ridiculous ban Notch, it was significant and harsh for sure, but it worked for Stevens in the end. Fair play to him for taking it and coming back the better for it. More to the point, it appears to have prevented further slides in that direction from other players - so far.

For me the point has to be that this incident, if it is proven, has to be at least as serious as the Stevens case and therefore should be the same length of ban as a minimum - if for no other reason than as an example for others.

I can't for the life of me see how a shorter ban from the game would be read differently from, "doing coke is worse than busting someone's arm up."

Well thats the problem- you can't compare. I think the Stevens ban was too harsh. So I can't really use it as a yardstick because there are many, many things worse than using cocaine you can do on a rugby field. We'd run out of players.

I do see exactly what you are saying Notch, but the prima facie point for me is that there is already a precident of a 3 year ban from rugby for naughtiness that has been dished and served.

I don't see how this incident, should it be proven, would be considered less of a "crime" against the sport.

You're right in so much as the two examples are incomparable per se, but if the focus on making a point remains a constant, and the case is proven, Clark has to do the right amount of time = at least as long as Stevens did.

Mea culpa - Stevens served a two-year ban not three as previously stated... more than once.

Ha, i knew that i had seen somewhere that it was to be held on Thursday. Cheers nathan.

The alternate view was shown in the preamble before the Saints/Wasps match.

As to length of any ban IF Clark is found guilty of misconduct (and it is if, not when). Well first I very much doubt they will find him guilty of deliberately breaking someones arm. Far more likely that he will be found guilty of reckless play. As such the "sentense" is likely to be aroung 13 weeks I guess.

Maximum sentence is probably 52 weeks as although this specific incident is not covered in the regulations, that is the norm:

http://www.rfu.com/TheGame/Regulations/~/media/Files/2011/The_Game/Regulations/RFU_Regulation_19_Appendix_2.ashx


IF he is found guilty of deliberate foul play - then I guess the CPS will become interested.

If it's proven and that's the kind of ban LT - I would consider that to be paltry.

If he is convicted of reckless play (and not deliberate) why should the ban be any longer than those given for reckless contact with the eyes etc?

If it is deliberate should he get a longer penalty than he would for stamping on someones head?

Cold, calm, calculated?

Not reckless in my opinion, just downright vile. I don't think this sort of incident is adequately covered by the present sanctions LT, essentially because I don't think anybody considered it as a possibility.

Hand on heart, I think almost every forward (self absolutely included) have had moments of "red mist" that they aren't proud of, but this to me is a different case, a watershed moment if you like, it was far too isolated from the game to have any form of mitigating factors attached to it.

Well the maximum ban for eye-gouging is 3 years - it should be the same here

Yes geoff - if it is deemed deliberate and that is because you can blind someone.

I know I am in a minority of one on here, but I do not see that clark deliberatley went out to break Hawkins arm. I do believe it was a reckless act that had a serious consequence - but not deliberate or malicious. If exactly the same thing had been done and Hawkins had not broken his arm the outcry would have been minimal.

As an action I do not see it as serious as gouging - but similar to stamping (of course you can argue that 52 weeks maximum for deliberately stamping on someones face is too low).

Understrood for the record my feeling is it should be 9 months to a year

i'm thinking in the year region too, certainly longer than Hawkins recovery time (which let's not forget, he may never fully recover. Tigers medical team say he may never be able to straighten his arm fully)

The talk of 3 year bans or life long bans is a bit much. 60 weeks would be ample in my opinion. Tell him that this season is over for him and not to bother with next season either. Everyone makes mistakes and this one has caused a severe injury to another player (Austin in the ESPN build up at the weekend said the Leicester medical staff were unsure as to whether Hawkins would ever be able to full straighten his arm again) and so the ban should be a hefty one.

LT's comments that had the injury not been as bad then there would have been no outcry are completely accurate. However, a serious injury has occurred and the RFU need to be seen to condemn that sort of play or risk bad PR which could easily effect the image of the game and the numbers within junior rugby (non-playing parents won't be keen if they hear about this).

Rugby demands one very difficult human characteristic - controlled aggression. At the professional level this skill is exagerated beyond the point that most of us can imagine. Add to this the visibility that professional rugby is played under and it becomes a huge part of the game.

In amateur rugby I have played with many people who could not stay the right side of the line and Ive seen a lot of thuggery and red cards.

Perhaps this lad Clark simply does not have what it takes to play a violent game within the laws. He isnt the first and wont be the last. If found guitly he'll serve a lengthy ban.

LondonTiger wrote:The alternate view was shown in the preamble before the Saints/Wasps match.

As to length of any ban IF Clark is found guilty of misconduct (and it is if, not when). Well first I very much doubt they will find him guilty of deliberately breaking someones arm. Far more likely that he will be found guilty of reckless play. As such the "sentense" is likely to be aroung 13 weeks I guess.

Maximum sentence is probably 52 weeks as although this specific incident is not covered in the regulations, that is the norm:

http://www.rfu.com/TheGame/Regulations/~/media/Files/2011/The_Game/Regulations/RFU_Regulation_19_Appendix_2.ashx


IF he is found guilty of deliberate foul play - then I guess the CPS will become interested.

Interesting that testicale grabbing has a higher max ban than eye contact, although those ceilings can be broken in exceptional circumstances ( eg the guy hwo got a life ban for a fend that blinded somone)
I cant see clearly which one this would fall under on there but I assume itll be a Top End sanction given the medical reports and that this was a non play incident, so 8 -52 weeks ( possible reductions because he hasnt had that bad a record and may show contrition and get his mum in to say what a nice guy he is etc)
When you look at some of the things people have had 10+ week bans for in the past I wouldnt feel the system has worked proportionatly if he were to get less than 12 weeks.

Healy was saying on Sunday that he's heard out of Leicester that Hawkins will never be able to fully straighten his arm [EDIT: read nathan's post below]. Not sure how true that is but leading on to permanant impairment could give problems. I seem to remember Cockerill saying that even if Clark did it deliberately, he doesn't believe he meant to break his arm. Cockerill's been pretty good through the whole thing.

Agree with you Hammer about how Cockerill has handled it, if it's true about Hawkins' arm though....man that could be his career over. Just horrible.

HammerofThunor wrote:Healy was saying on Sunday that he's heard out of Leicester that Hawkins will never be able to fully straighten his arm. Not sure how true that is but leading on to permanant impairment could give problems. I seem to remember Cockerill saying that even if Clark did it deliberately, he doesn't believe he meant to break his arm. Cockerill's been pretty good through the whole thing.

healey was told by the Leicester medical staff that Hawkins may never be able to straighten his arm. It was never a confirmed outcome, but certainly a possibility!

few people on twitter mentioning that the reason for the move to Thursday was so they could access the extent of Hawkins injury as he's having an op today.

The alleged incident looked deliberate. What does it matter whether it's the perpetrator's livelihood at stake, or why should the extent of the victim's injuries have any bearing on the punishment? If the intention was to physically damage an opponent then the defendant waives his right to any mitigation regarding his own livelihood. This happens in other professions all the time with people who break their code of conduct being barred for life.

IF it was intentional there is no place for either that sort of behaviour or the person who perpetrated it on a rugby field - ever. While the IRB keep handing out lily-livered bans they won't stamp out this cynical corruption of the game, and the shortening of careers because if it.

Spot on