Ashton's appealed refused?

Ok maybe someone can shed some legal light on this but can they do this?
He was given the chance and time to appeal, then told they would not accept it!
Is it because they made a massive balls up with a 10week ban, especially after the victim has said there was no contact?

His appeal was turned down.

And when did Luke Marshall say there was no contact?

You sure Marshall didn't say something like "there was no 'rummaging' around in the eye area" - there was clear contact with the eye.

I'm just going by what's been reported on news feeds and Twitter etc.
But it seems very harsh to say the least when you look at what was dismissed/small ban on the same week

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35486219

There was clear contact with the eye and Luke Marshall clearly looked as if he was in pain afterwards. I would suggest that social media mobs aren't the best source of information in these events.

Marshall was clearly pointing to his eyes after the incident talking to the ref and medical staff

The ban was actually reduced when first handed out as the minimum ban is 12 weeks but apparently Ashton has a good character?

The fact it was a high tackle too and involved him throwing Marshall to the ground was never addressed so the ban could have been worse

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/chris-ashton-ban-england-wing-has-appeal-against-10-week-suspension-rejected-and-will-miss-entire-a6853091.html

Marshalls immediate reaction showed there was eye contact. Intentional or not, he made contact to the eye area and a 10 week ban is deserved.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/04/england-chris-ashton-miss-six-nations-10-week-ban-appeal-rejected

Both this and the one above reference appeal refused. I agree hand to the face in that situation deserves a ban but to refuse to hear an appeal Sets a dangerous precedent.

They heard the appeal as stated and turned it down. The refuse is just their language they're using to say he hasn't a leg to stand on.

An independent appeal committee has decided not to allow an appeal by the Saracens wing against a 10-week suspension, European Professional Club Rugby announced.

Nope that clearly states he was not allowed to appeal, rather than have the appeal turned down

Knackeredknees wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/04/england-chris-ashton-miss-six-nations-10-week-ban-appeal-rejected

Both this and the one above reference appeal refused. I agree hand to the face in that situation deserves a ban but to refuse to hear an appeal Sets a dangerous precedent.

refusing to hear it is your phrase not the committees

Knackeredknees wrote:An independent appeal committee has decided not to allow an appeal by the Saracens wing against a 10-week suspension, European Professional Club Rugby announced.

Nope that clearly states he was not allowed to appeal, rather than have the appeal turned down

'A statement said: "An independent appeal committee has today (Thursday) announced its decision not to allow an appeal by the Saracens player, Chris Ashton, against the 10-week suspension imposed on him as a result of a citing complaint arising from his club's European Rugby Champions Cup round five match against Ulster Rugby on Saturday, January 16.

"Ashton's suspension therefore remains in place, and he is free to play on Monday, 28 March, 2016.

"The appeal committee consisting of Lorne Crerar (Scotland), chairman, Rod McKenzie (Scotland) and Roger Morris (Wales), heard the player's appeal in London yesterday before adjourning to give the matter further consideration.'

From that Indepndant link. It is just their terminology as they state they did hear the appeal.

Which news outlet claimed that Luke Marshall had said there was no contact with the eye?

I remember a story around the same time from Dickson on a different incident?

Ok if that was the case they would say it has been rejected as they do each and every time, so they heard it but decided after hearing it, that it wasn't allowed? Heard early in the day, but adjourned for 24hrs? They did not take that long for the initial hearing

Maybe they let the intern do the press release, your really getting your knickers in a twist over something he was clearly guilty of?

Just terminology I think. A quick google search shows they've used similar before.

Ashton deserved the ban. I say that as a fellow Sarries fan.

Yes you can argue that squeezing someone's balls shouldn't be acceptable but that's another topic, deserving another thread.

Consistency is something sadly lacking in many aspects of rugby.

http://epcrugby.com/images/content/Decision_of_the_Judicial_Officer_-_Chris_Ashton.PDF

Page 4 has Marshall's statement.

Thanks LondonTiger as I thought - contact in the eye area but not in the eye.

Lesson to be learnt - don't believe what you read in the papers or what is on social media

It does also state that an contact with the eyes was not deliberate, merely reckless - being the major plank in the sentence being reduced.


also back to the original point on this thread, Ashton was allowed to appeal, but his appeal for clemency was refused. His right to appeal was not refused.

geoff999rugby wrote:Thanks LondonTiger as I thought - contact in the eye area but not in the eye.

Lesson to be learnt - don't believe what you read in the papers or what is on social media

If what they said were true most of the Ireland team would be playing abroad or be ready to ship out