ROG to be cited???

by brennomac Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:51 am

First topic message reminder :

Some speculation in Irish papers that O'Gara could be cited for that stupid kick into the back of the Edinburgh 2R's leg - didn't seem to connect very much but the intention was there and if it is deemed as foul play then he could face a ban which could keep him out of the Racing Metro game next weekend. Whether he gets a ban or not, it was a dumb thing to do whaterver provocation he got and it stood out that he was hauled off straight away by Penney.

Of course, there is the school of thought that if Munster are to have any chance of getting a BP then they would be better off with Keatley at 10 than ROG.

by brennomac Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:45 am

viewtothegym wrote:Any news on ROG?

Decision due later today

by Artful_Dodger Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:14 pm

Estebenez got 4 weeks, which is pretty lenient. Munster and Ireland fans getting worried that O'Gara might get off here?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:26 pm

Artful_Dodger wrote:Estebenez got 4 weeks, which is pretty lenient. Munster and Ireland fans getting worried that O'Gara might get off here?

It is when compared to Hore who did exactly the same thing (except for dropping the extra elbow once the player was down) and even with the panel accepting the ridiculous excuses he made got 5 weeks

by Artful_Dodger Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:48 pm

Hearing its a one week ban for O'Gara.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:54 pm

Seems about right, a classic " look we have to ban you but really this should never have been cite..however you are a massive t1t please stop wasting our time" case

by UlstermaninGlasgow Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:56 pm

Munster Rugby (@munsterrugby) One week suspension for Ronan O'Gara #HkenCup He misses out on Sunday's clash #MunRac

Poor effort by the citing panel but he's got a clean record and there was provocation.

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:08 pm

Wow!

I thought the maximum reduction was 50%.

Not saying the ban is wrong just that I didn't think they could go lower than 50% of the Low Entry Point.

He must taken his hands out of his pockets and not eaten any of the panel's fav bikkies!

by TJ1 Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:15 pm

One week? this is making a farce out of citing procedures. he was not punished during the game - low entry point is 4 weeks how can one week be justified? Citing really has to get sorted out as this is getting farcical.
Should have been 4 ie the low entry point.

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:19 pm

The summary says,

"Judge Blackett then determined that a two-week suspension would be wholly disproportionate to the level of offending as O'Gara had been body-checked by Sean Cox prior to the incident. He also accepted that O'Gara had intended to trip rather than to kick Cox."

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:20 pm

TJ wrote:One week? this is making a farce out of citing procedures. he was not punished during the game - low entry point is 4 weeks how can one week be justified? Citing really has to get sorted out as this is getting farcical.
Should have been 4 ie the low entry point.

Indeed. Can someone please tweet that Aussie at the IRB who likes appealing low suspensions!

by TJ1 Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:27 pm

Mrs P - tripping is still a red card offense and as anyone can see he aimed a kick at him - to say he intended to trip not kick is both a lie and no mitigation

We have seen too many inconsistent bans after citings recently - why have the guidance if it will be ignored.

Perhaps a standing committee on this with the same ( say 3 out of 7) people hearing each case is the way forward with all 7 hearing contentious cases.

It just make a mockery of the process when the guidelines are ignored

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:30 pm

Leniency cos he was provoked - joke decision

by Pot Hale Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:32 pm

TJ wrote:Mrs P - tripping is still a red card offense and as anyone can see he aimed a kick at him - to say he intended to trip not kick is both a lie and no mitigation

We have seen too many inconsistent bans after citings recently - why have the guidance if it will be ignored.

Perhaps a standing committee on this with the same ( say 3 out of 7) people hearing each case is the way forward with all 7 hearing contentious cases.

It just make a mockery of the process when the guidelines are ignored

All much ado about nothing. Cox knew what he was doing in blocking/checking O'Gara and trying to make an issue out of it after ROG kicked/tripped him in response (pity he didn't get him in the arse) was pretty pathetic.

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:36 pm

No argument from me there TJ.

Although to be honest it wasn't too much of a kick was it?

One week sounds about right on balance. Sure there's no game the week after anyway is there?

And although Tripping IS a Red Card offence it doesn't mean it would definately attract a ban.

by GunsGerms Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:41 pm

Rog was body checked alright. Cox deserved a kick. I dont know by rights Rog deserved a ban too but I think there should be room for a little retaliation or else things will get quite silly.

by TJ1 Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:43 pm

Pothale - all true but none of that can be considered in the sentencing. All that matters is he kicked him and thus should get a ban in line with the guidelines. Kick someone, get a 4 week ban. Having lied in the case ( claiming it was an intended trip) then no reduction can be given.

Once again the people judging a citing have looked for ways to get out of the ban rather than being strong enough to follow the guidelines.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:44 pm

ROG back for Ireland duty - great stuff?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:46 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Rog was body checked alright. Cox deserved a kick. I dont know by rights Rog deserved a ban too but I think there should be room for a little retaliation or else things will get quite silly.

Guns, "room for a little retaliation"?! - I must have missed that in the laws!

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:46 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:ROG back for Ireland duty - great stuff?

Which set of fans will be most disappointed with that fact Asbo?

by whocares Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:47 pm

4 weeks for Estebanez is shockingly low. is the ERC judging panel becoming soft?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:51 pm

MrsP wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:ROG back for Ireland duty - great stuff?

Which set of fans will be most disappointed with that fact Asbo?

by Sin é Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:54 pm

MrsP wrote:Wow!

I thought the maximum reduction was 50%.

Not saying the ban is wrong just that I didn't think they could go lower than 50% of the Low Entry Point.

He must taken his hands out of his pockets and not eaten any of the panel's fav bikkies!

The Judicial Officer upheld the complaint and found that O'Gara had committed a petulant act which was out of character. He determined that the act was in the lower end (4 weeks) of the IRB's sanctioning regime and taking into account the player's guilty plea and his good disciplinary record, the Judicial Officer reduced the suspension by 50 per cent.

Judge Blackett then determined that a two-week suspension would be wholly disproportionate to the level of offending as O'Gara had been body-checked by Sean Cox prior to the incident. He also accepted that O'Gara had intended to trip rather than to kick Cox.

I don't think 'Entry Point' is the same thing as 'minimum'.

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:55 pm

The weird thing is, why not just stick with 2 weeks? It would have made no difference to the amount of rugby missed but would have attracted less attention.

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:58 pm

Sin é wrote:
MrsP wrote:Wow!

I thought the maximum reduction was 50%.

Not saying the ban is wrong just that I didn't think they could go lower than 50% of the Low Entry Point.

He must taken his hands out of his pockets and not eaten any of the panel's fav bikkies!

The Judicial Officer upheld the complaint and found that O'Gara had committed a petulant act which was out of character. He determined that the act was in the lower end (4 weeks) of the IRB's sanctioning regime and taking into account the player's guilty plea and his good disciplinary record, the Judicial Officer reduced the suspension by 50 per cent.

Judge Blackett then determined that a two-week suspension would be wholly disproportionate to the level of offending as O'Gara had been body-checked by Sean Cox prior to the incident. He also accepted that O'Gara had intended to trip rather than to kick Cox.

I don't think 'Entry Point' is the same thing as 'minimum'.

Not sure what point you are trying to make there Sin e?

I know the difference between the two but I thought the maximum reduction allowed was 50%.

If that is true then the lowest ban would be 2 weeks.

by Sin é Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:16 pm

MrsP wrote:
Sin é wrote:
MrsP wrote:Wow!

I thought the maximum reduction was 50%.

Not saying the ban is wrong just that I didn't think they could go lower than 50% of the Low Entry Point.

He must taken his hands out of his pockets and not eaten any of the panel's fav bikkies!

The Judicial Officer upheld the complaint and found that O'Gara had committed a petulant act which was out of character. He determined that the act was in the lower end (4 weeks) of the IRB's sanctioning regime and taking into account the player's guilty plea and his good disciplinary record, the Judicial Officer reduced the suspension by 50 per cent.

Judge Blackett then determined that a two-week suspension would be wholly disproportionate to the level of offending as O'Gara had been body-checked by Sean Cox prior to the incident. He also accepted that O'Gara had intended to trip rather than to kick Cox.

I don't think 'Entry Point' is the same thing as 'minimum'.

Not sure what point you are trying to make there Sin e?

I know the difference between the two but I thought the maximum reduction allowed was 50%.

If that is true then the lowest ban would be 2 weeks.

What does it actually say though - does it say that the maximum reduction allowed is 50% of the Entry Level?

The 50% reduction is based purely on ROG's behaviour (good record, etc as in d) & e) below).

d) The Judicial Officer will determine the appropriate entry point based on his/her assessment of a number of particular characteristics of the player's actions, including whether or not they were intentional, whether or not they caused any injuries and whether or not they had any effect on the relevant match.

e) After deciding the entry point, the Judicial Officer will then consider whether the suspension should be increased from the entry point to take account of certain specified aggravating factors, such as a poor disciplinary record or the need for deterrence, and/or decreased from the entry point to take account of certain specified mitigating actions, such as a guilty plea, a good disciplinary record, the player's conduct at the hearing and expressions of remorse.

So ROG got a 50% reduction on that.

Then you have the mitigating circumstances of body check from Cox etc. and the fact that no one was injured and the outcome of the match wasn't decided by it - i.e., it was a waste of time.

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:35 pm

I think they have, in the past, referred to players being allowed the "maximum reduction of 50%".

I could be completely wrong about that I admit though.

by Sin é Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:43 pm

You'd need to see it written down though as to what they actually do mean.

The devil is in the detail!

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:26 pm

The Disciplinary Panel is entitiled to reduce the ban if they feel the length of ban left after all allowances are taken into consideration is still unjust.

Just seems to me a daft case to apply that to given it makes no difference at the end of the day.

by Glas a du Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:34 pm

Is there any truth in the rumour that Munster cited him?

by 21st Century Schizoid Man Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:37 pm

Christ now that ROG is available Ross Ford will be cacking himself !

by Pot Hale Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:38 pm

TJ wrote:Pothale - all true but none of that can be considered in the sentencing. All that matters is he kicked him and thus should get a ban in line with the guidelines. Kick someone, get a 4 week ban. Having lied in the case ( claiming it was an intended trip) then no reduction can be given.

Once again the people judging a citing have looked for ways to get out of the ban rather than being strong enough to follow the guidelines.

Maybe they were drenched in some good sense. Complete waste of time and shouldn't have been a citing.

by TJ1 Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:42 pm

Maybe but why have rules and guidance if you are not going to follow them. kick = red card = 4 wk ban with 50% off for good behaviour / mitigation. Given that he clearly lied by claiming it was meant to be a trip - when clearly he just lashed out in temper frustration ie no mitigation can be aplied 4 weeks is what he should have got.

It makes a mockery of the process these recent decisions

by Glas a du Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:44 pm

I don't agree with that. The process is a mockery anyhow, the decisions just confirm how much so.

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:47 pm

Mind you, on the "List of Incomprehensible Decisions by a Disciplinary Panel" this one doesn't even make page 4. And I'm only talking about this season!

by Glas a du Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:56 pm

This is a general comment and not about a specific case.

If the panels at the higher echelons had the same professional scepticism and intellectual rigour as at grass roots level, the process would be fine.

However despite the fact that at the higher level video evidence is often available, players seem to be put on a pedestal by soppy,dewy eyed amateurs. The expensive city lawyers favoured by players know full well by now what buttons to press and it works every time. As a tribunal they are laughable.

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:58 pm

Glas a du wrote:This is a general comment and not about a specific case.

If the panels at the higher echelons had the same professional scepticism and intellectual rigour as at grass roots level, the process would be fine.

However despite the fact that at the higher level video evidence is often available, players seem to be put on a pedestal by soppy,dewy eyed amateurs. The expensive city lawyers favoured by players know full well by now what buttons to press and it works every time. As a tribunal they are laughable.

That's the whole problem right there!!!!!

by Glas a du Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:00 pm

Mrs P you can't blame the fox if your chicken is stupid.

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:01 pm

The "Chicken" is a bloomin Lawyer too!

by Glas a du Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:02 pm

Then they need a better one. Very Happy

by brennomac Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:17 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:ROG back for Ireland duty - great stuff?

Great stuff for whoever's playing us Crying or Very sad

by Sin é Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:02 pm

Only lawyer at today's hearing was Judge Blackett, the tribunal chair. ROG had Garrett FitzGerald (Munster CEO) and Niall O'Donovan (Munster Team Manager) in his corner. Lawyers are only introduced now at the appeal stage.

O'Gara said "While I'm very disappointed that my action led to me missing this Heineken Cup game I have to say I was treated very fairly by Mr. Blackett and am very appreciative of his handling of this affair."

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:15 pm

Sin e,

Would they not have a lawyer there if they were pleading Not Guilty?

by TJ1 Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:15 pm

The excuses given to get people off / reduced bans often to me appear very like those used by celebs to get off on motoring charges when they are defended by expensive lawyers. Ie compelling cowpat but able to insinuate enough doubt or allow the tribunal to be lenient.

What happened to putting your hands up and admitting what you did? taking it like a man?

Rogs was a petulant kick. he should have just admitted it and said he was sorry he had been stupid not try to claim it was intended as a trip?

by Glas a du Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:43 pm

But why would he? Really, why would he? They seem only to accept the players word if he coughs it. Poor form.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:49 pm

Sin é wrote:Only lawyer at today's hearing was Judge Blackett, the tribunal chair. ROG had Garrett FitzGerald (Munster CEO) and Niall O'Donovan (Munster Team Manager) in his corner. Lawyers are only introduced now at the appeal stage.

O'Gara said "While I'm very disappointed that my action led to me missing this Heineken Cup game I have to say I was treated very fairly by Mr. Blackett and am very appreciative of his handling of this affair."

"Mr Blackett"?!?! Surely "His Worship, the Honorouble Right Honourable Blackett, OBE, BBC, MCC with garter"?

by Thomond Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:50 pm

I'm incredibly disappointed with this outcome, that's pretty much all there is to say, the length of the ban is quite ridiuclous, know why it is that long but it's downright farcical

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:54 pm

dont you think it wouldve been more of a farce if he had been banned for 4 weeks for f all?

by Thomond Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:58 pm

Nope, I would have been in complete favour of it, regardless of the force the intent is what mattered here to me. At least he is out for Sunday though.

by Glas a du Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:00 pm

He really is a polariser isn't he.

by MrsP Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:05 pm

Glas a du wrote:He really is a polariser isn't he.

Your word or a new one for the swear filter?

by Sponsored content