Clarity and Zanders quest

So it looks like the France v Scotland match could be off which brings me to clarity, standardisation, consistency and the lack of damn common sense within rugby but particularly in european competitions e.g. 6Ns and squad sizes/selection, retention or releasing of squad players but this topic is all about appeals and the way we approach them. Here's a few relevant examples;

1. Owen Farrell  
A back of the head reckless collision that left Atkinson unconscious, which many have branded as potentially “career-ending” resulted in a 10 match ban which was reduced to 5 matches on appeal due to testimonials by ex-Saracens coaches Mark McCall and Eddie Jones and charity work had a bearing on the decision. The panel deemed the high tackle on Charlie Atkinson “reckless and not intentional”, with independent panel chair Mike Hamlin (ex Glos, England B player and Solicitor) adding: “Testimonials provided by Mark McCall, Eddie Jones and the founders of a charity with which the player works very closely were of the highest quality.”  However a previous similar incident was deemed to be irrelevant with regards to previous conduct and Farrell was able to play all the matches in the October ANC games which England won and we know in this 6Ns he attempted a similar play on the back/head of the Italian scrum half

2. Peter Mahony
Sent off for leading with his forearm into the face of Tomas Francis as the Wales prop lay in a ruck.
The committee found the Ireland flanker's actions amounted to "reckless contact with the head" and that the entry point was mid-range, which carries a six-week suspension.
However, the fact there were no off-field aggravating factors as well as the player's previous record and conduct in the hearing led to O'Mahony receiving a 50% reduction of his sanction in mitigation. The previous history somehow ignored the red card he got a few weeks earlier

3. Zander Fagerson
An independent disciplinary committee deemed that the foul play warranted a mid-range entry point - a six-week suspension. However, the 25-year old's admission of foul play and his previously positive disciplinary record saw that ban reduced by two weeks meaning he will miss the rest of the 6Ns and a potential Lions place

Now call me biased if you want, but ZF "foul" was no worse that POMs and his historical conduct is certainly better than both above players, at the very least he should have had the same result.

So why are the final decisions influenced on the quality of appeals if they are not consistent?

I could be wrong, but I don't think Fagerson admitted any wrong doing? I think that might have played a part, from what I've read on here and elsewhere.

The incidents considered before or ignored are hit and miss. I'm not sure of the previous incident of Farrells that was similar and ignored but the tackle on the scrum half was fair so not really relevant unless its a point for the coaches to ask him not to play to the line of the law.

POM didnt commit a straight red card offence previously, 2nd yellow and so the incident was ignored.

Fagerson accepted it was foul play but did not accept it was a red card; thats the only reason i can see from the notes why it was a 4 and not 3 week ban.

It's really as simple as 7.5 says, if Fagerson had accepted that it was worthy of a red card he would have received a further reduction in ban length. It's not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination but Fagerson either had some really bad advice or completely ignored any logical advice he had.
Here's my take on the whole thing. POM was indeed very reckless and deserved his red card. He made contact with his forearm to a player's face with some force so there's no issues with a red being awarded, contact with the head must receive a proportionate punishment whether it's the temple, back of the head or face. The neck and above are no go areas.
It is dangerous in this instance? A forearm to the front of someone's face may result in a bloody nose but in the POM case I don't think it was even as severe as that so in this case it wasn't dangerous, it was a cheap shot and very worthy of a red card.

Fagerson torpedoed into the ruck much in the same way that POM did except he was aiming with his shoulder. He made contact with the top of the players head and although it was a relatively glancing blow, you could still see the shudder of the impact. If the player hadn't been moving upwards due to Hogg's legal rucking the impact would have been shoulder to the back of the neck/head with some force. That's where he'd aimed his impact. Can you even describe that as a cheap shot? That's downright dangerous, very dangerous so thank goodness Hoggy was drivining the player upwards.
Was it deserving of a red card? Yes
Was it dangerous? In my mind it was much more dangerous that POM's.

I know many will disagree but watch Fagerson's indiscretion again and imagine if the player hadn't moved.

Pete330v2 wrote:It's really as simple as 7.5 says, if Fagerson had accepted that it was worthy of a red card he would have received a further reduction in ban length. It's not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination but Fagerson either had some really bad advice or completely ignored any logical advice he had.
Here's my take on the whole thing. POM was indeed very reckless and deserved his red card. He made contact with his forearm to a player's face with some force so there's no issues with a red being awarded, contact with the head must receive a proportionate punishment whether it's the temple, back of the head or face. The neck and above are no go areas.
It is dangerous in this instance? A forearm to the front of someone's face may result in a bloody nose but in the POM case I don't think it was even as severe as that so in this case it wasn't dangerous, it was a cheap shot and very worthy of a red card.

Fagerson torpedoed into the ruck much in the same way that POM did except he was aiming with his shoulder. He made contact with the top of the players head and although it was a relatively glancing blow, you could still see the shudder of the impact. If the player hadn't been moving upwards due to Hogg's legal rucking the impact would have been shoulder to the back of the neck/head with some force. That's where he'd aimed his impact. Can you even describe that as a cheap shot? That's downright dangerous, very dangerous so thank goodness Hoggy was drivining the player upwards.
Was it deserving of a red card? Yes
Was it dangerous? In my mind it was much more dangerous that POM's.

I know many will disagree but watch Fagerson's indiscretion again and imagine if the player hadn't moved.

Pete
I don't agree with you that POM was less dangerous in fact he run in much further than ZF and it was premeditated, deliberate, with intent, you can see from the moment he run that his target was Francis's head, compare the two here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CreJDCJWnJs&t=28s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHGBp87PQcw

In case you thought that Farrell shouldn't have been carded v Italy;
this is the tackle from behind, high and dangerous v Italy 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSR0jcRcki8
this is the push on Biggar from behind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLL_4T7wVvo
this is the Saracens v Wasps game where he got a 10 game ban reduced to 5 games
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y_anS1sRjg
and of course we could look at the Italian game with reference to similar play

The point is the inconsistency of the appeal process
https://www.rugbyworld.com/news/rugby-disciplinary-process-118554

That Italy one isnt a red card though. The Biggar push, don't care, too many players get away with obstruction on chases. Red card vs Wasps and rightly so and not even a pen vs Italy rightly so.

There's definitely inconsistency with approach to citings etc however, just not sure the example of Ferguson vs POM is quite the right example.

Well we can agree to disagree but targeting the back of someone's head with your shoulder is more dangerous IMO than targeting their face with your forearm.
Also, we can't deal with intent, the only person that knows the intent is the player whatever it may look like. Fagerson looks very intent on smashing his shoulder into a player's head. POM looked intent on smashing his forearm into a player's face. I know which one I'd rther be on the receiving end of.

I am certainly not here to defend Farrell, he's got form with all that you've referred to there, I think he's a dirty player. He does swing his arm into the Italian 9's head area so for me that would have been a penalty, perhaps a yellow. The push on Biggar is nothing but the "tackle" on the Wasps player should have received a longer ban, no excuse for it escpecially when every man and his dog knows Farrells tackle technique.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That Italy one isnt a red card though. The Biggar push, don't care, too many players get away with obstruction on chases. Red card vs Wasps and rightly so and not even a pen vs Italy rightly so.

There's definitely inconsistency with approach to citings etc however, just not sure the example of Ferguson vs POM is quite the right example.

As is pointed out in the comments after the push Biggar trips Farrell with an outstretched leg.

Pete330v2 wrote:Well we can agree to disagree but targeting the back of someone's head with your shoulder is more dangerous IMO than targeting their face with your forearm.
Also, we can't deal with intent, the only person that knows the intent is the player whatever it may look like. Fagerson looks very intent on smashing his shoulder into a player's head. POM looked intent on smashing his forearm into a player's face. I know which one I'd rther be on the receiving end of.

I am certainly not here to defend Farrell, he's got form with all that you've referred to there, I think he's a dirty player.  He does swing his arm into the Italian 9's head area so for me that would have been a penalty, perhaps a yellow. The push on Biggar is nothing but the "tackle" on the Wasps player should have received a longer ban, no excuse for it escpecially when every man and his dog knows Farrells tackle technique.

The point is not so much any particular offence, because you are right........every man and his dog will have a different opinion (as we three have today) and that's ok. The point is the inconsistency 1. dealing with the offence, e.g. just because ZF wasn't savvy enough to "play the game" and POM/OF was shouldn't matter, 2. The "quality" of the defence team presenting mitigation e.g. just because someone has been advised to by his marketing team to do some charity work shouldn't make a difference to any future on-field office

Reference to Farrell late hit to the head unfortunately is clear, if you think it's a foul (which on reflection it clearly was) and there is contact to the head then there is no option

The first italy one you mean? Initial contact under shoulder line.

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That Italy one isnt a red card though. The Biggar push, don't care, too many players get away with obstruction on chases. Red card vs Wasps and rightly so and not even a pen vs Italy rightly so.

There's definitely inconsistency with approach to citings etc however, just not sure the example of Ferguson vs POM is quite the right example.

As is pointed out in the comments after the push Biggar trips Farrell with an outstretched leg.

Sorry about the examples not judging the players/offences just trying to point out the judging panels poor assessment of the defence teams "mitigating circumstances"

The point is, not whether you care or not, the point is when a defence team state "previous good conduct record" it's not been dealt with consistency as we know in this case, the actual type of offence "hitting from behind" is a theme with Owen, we can't get away from that and the judging panel should know that even better than we do.

It's not obstruction though, Biggar was running back away from OF, he wasn't facing him and the current laws/rules are any player is entitled to stand his ground, but it is an offence to push someone without the ball and OF could have run around him. That's the point of a good defence team stating "good previous conduct" that and it being accepted by a judging panel willy nilly

No 7&1/2 wrote:The first italy one you mean? Initial contact under shoulder line.

Point of contact is immaterial. The law is "intent" and was there "head" contact. If so then red

2014 he grabbed his neck
2021 he hit his back but contact was straight arm concluding with a full blown head contact

Nope.

Didn't realise that Fagerson is appealing the decision this afternoon as well. Not sure on what grounds. Can additional bans be given for frivolous appeals in rugby; i know they can in football?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Didn't realise that Fagerson is appealing the decision this afternoon as well. Not sure on what grounds. Can additional bans be given for frivolous appeals in rugby; i know they can in football?

Do you think its a frivolous appeal?. I think that's the point of this thread, that both the recent media and in this consequential appeal is that there is an inconsistency in the assessment of appeals.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2021/02/18/owen-farrell-lucky-rugbys-disciplinary-lottery-undermining/
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/rugby-morning-headlines-lions-winger-18915538

Depends what his appeal consists of. I've read hes doing it but not why specifically. Cant really see much wriggle room, as I said think he got longer than POM due to not accepting it was a red. Certainly at present wouldnt be surprised if he came out with a 5 or 6 game ban.

The disciplinary process is marred, just as the judicial process is marred. Nothing is perfect but comparing lengths of bans isn't going to highlight this. POM plays to the rules in order to have certain boxes ticked, gets less of a ban than Fagerson who didn't bother. IMO, Fagerson's incident was every bit as bad as POMs if not worse and just because social media etc erupts in your defence doesn't take away from that. It was a justifiable red card and if he's accepted that he should have ticked some boxes too.
It's like how they do job interviews in certain public bodies these days, it's all about saying the right buzz words in order to tick the right boxes. Even if you're clearly a buffoon, tick the right boxes and you've got the job. Everything is process driven these days, it takes away the human element, the but that makes a judgement.

Pete330v2 wrote:The disciplinary process is marred, just as the judicial process is marred. Nothing is perfect but comparing lengths of bans isn't going to highlight this. POM plays to the rules in order to have certain boxes ticked, gets less of a ban than Fagerson who didn't bother. IMO, Fagerson's incident was every bit as bad as POMs if not worse and just because social media etc erupts in your defence doesn't take away from that. It was a justifiable red card and if he's accepted that he should have ticked some boxes too.
It's like how they do job interviews in certain public bodies these days, it's all about saying the right buzz words in order to tick the right boxes. Even if you're clearly a buffoon, tick the right boxes and you've got the job. Everything is process driven these days, it takes away the human element, the but that makes a judgement.

As a neutral, I don't think it was, but from a disciplinary perspective, the panel rated each as a mid level offence, so reasonably comparable, and meriting a 6 week suspension in each case. The issue was really about the reduction POM received and how it was apparently for a previously good record, which doesn't seem to have considered a previous sending off, while Fagerson got less of a reduction despite a better previous record (of course, neither is Dylan Hartley, who would get the full term even if he brought the best possible biscuits to the hearing) . As you say, perhaps the Irish were just better at playing the game with the disciplinary panel.

On a wider point, there is an issue with rucking and how to remove a jackalling player without risking impact to the head and neck or rolling them sideways and risking the sort of injury suffered by Jack Willis. Perhaps part of it is for referees to blow up much sooner for holding the ball on the floor, because if a jackalling forward is on their feet and has their hands on the ball, they should be able to lift it away immediately and be out of the vulnerable head-down position - if they can't lift the ball someone is obstructing it.

If you still haven't accepted that you've made a big mistake 48 hours after it happens then that's a problem.

Fagerson had no excuse. He was lucky the Welsh player moved up at the last moment as it was a glancing blow rather than a direct contact to the crown. It is a clear red card he received bad advice from the Scotland team to not admit fault and reduce the punishment.

whatahitson wrote:If you still haven't accepted that you've made a big mistake 48 hours after it happens then that's a problem.

Fagerson had no excuse. He was lucky the Welsh player moved up at the last moment as it was a glancing blow rather than a direct contact to the crown. It is a clear red card he received bad advice from the Scotland team to not admit fault and reduce the punishment.

This is not about making excuses, it's about consistency.

The point of the discussion is not that it wasn't a foul be it a pen, yellow or red, we all agree it was a red. It's how the judiciary system is so inconsistent in dealing with similar offences;
Basing it on
1. Players remorse
2. Previous historical conduct - On the field
3. References! - from within the rugby framework
4. References! - from 3rd Party e.g. charity institutions

1., 3. and 4. shouldn't have anything to do with the particular on-field offence in question and if we are looking at previous conduct then we should look at it two-fold, firstly let's look at the general playing conduct, secondly let's look at that particular type of offence to see if there is/was a trend. If we take just just 2. into account then it's an absolute travesty of consistency and justice that ZF gets a two match reduction for not "jumping through the hoops" and seemingly the other two who have clear history (whether its proven or not) and they have applied 1., 3. and 4. to "jump through the hoops", mitigating and thus reducing their punishment.

These arbitrary decisions are potentially ruining players opportunities and potentially affecting national teams progression in tournaments e.g. ZF misses the rest of the 6Ns and ruined any slim chance of a Lions place, whilst OF plays the ANC/6Ns and gets on the plane.

Just doesn't smell right to me

We should have a clear totally independent panel with a structured framework and standardised approach

So how would you judge 2 then fly half? Presumably you wouldn't just judge on red cards so where is the line drawn?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So how would you judge 2 then fly half? Presumably you wouldn't just judge on red cards so where is the line drawn?

It's a difficult one for sure. But at the moment there is no clear straight line at all.

I just don't think the judiciary process put enough research into it to reflect the potential seriousness of the outcome to player, club or country. If we are talking about historical data then the panel should look at 1. the players' recent playing history e.g. 3-4 years but it has to be consistent for everyone, and 2. has the player a repeated history of the same offence? (coaching issue?) or does he commit a variety of serious offences (player issue?). So if a player has a clean history, no pens, no yellows or reds over the last 4 years, he realises the extent of the offence, then yes then apply the agreed standard reduction, if a player has already had 4 pens, couple of yellows and a red then no reduction in the term at all.

But if there was standardised guidelines then maybe it would become more transparent

I do feel that to request a panel to review all penalties against a player for 3 years is a bit of overkill. Result is now supposed to be this afternoon isnt it?

The judiciary process is the same for everyone and like the legal system here in the UK and Ireland, you play it to your advantage if you can. You find loopholes and tick boxes, you say what the panel wants to hear and you receive leniency.

"These arbitrary decisions are potentially ruining players opportunities and potentially affecting national teams progression in tournaments."
Fagerson's foul play is what's to blame, that and his refusal to play the game at the hearing. Fagerson is acting like he didn't recklessly charge into a ruck aiming his shoulder at the back of a players head. I don't think the decisions are arbitrary, it's what you would expect if the defendant refuses to accept full responsibility, tell the panel that he's been bad, he's very sorry and he'll never do it again. The same thing would happen in a court of law for not showing remorse, be it fake or not.

N.B. I am no fan of POM. I think he has his assets but they are offset by his continuous recklessness, his berserker nature which was admired in days gone by but gets your team in difficulties these days. I am certainly not defending what he did, it was brainless but his grey matter kicked in when he was stood before the panel.

P.S. I also am no fan of people assuming they know a player's intent. There's the widely held consensus which I agree with that POM knew what he was doing, it was a cheap shot and he was caught. I agree with it but I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that it was clumsy and accidental. It's just that POM has previous form so I will assume guilt. I don't however agree that Fagerson's indiscretion was accidental. He charged into a ruck with his shoulder aimed at a players head. I'm not saying he did it intentionally, I just cannot say without a doubt that he didn't. Is he a fine upstanding, deeply religious guy who couldn't tell a lie? Perhaps, but in the heat of the moment even the most pius man can fall foul of the red mist.

I really don't get the religious bit at all. It has no bearing

Pete330v2 wrote:The judiciary process is the same for everyone and like the legal system here in the UK and Ireland, you play it to your advantage if you can. You find loopholes and tick boxes, you say what the panel wants to hear and you receive leniency.

"These arbitrary decisions are potentially ruining players opportunities and potentially affecting national teams progression in tournaments."
Fagerson's foul play is what's to blame, that and his refusal to play the game at the hearing. Fagerson is acting like he didn't recklessly charge into a ruck aiming his shoulder at the back of a players head. I don't think the decisions are arbitrary, it's what you would expect if the defendant refuses to accept full responsibility, tell the panel that he's been bad, he's very sorry and he'll never do it again. The same thing would happen in a court of law for not showing remorse, be it fake or not.

N.B. I am no fan of POM. I think he has his assets but they are offset by his continuous recklessness, his berserker nature which was admired in days gone by but gets your team in difficulties these days. I am certainly not defending what he did, it was brainless but his grey matter kicked in when he  was stood before the panel.

P.S. I also am no fan of people assuming they know a player's intent. There's the widely held consensus which I agree with that POM knew what he was doing, it was a cheap shot and he was caught. I agree with it but I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that it was clumsy and accidental. It's just that POM has previous form so I will assume guilt. I don't however agree that Fagerson's indiscretion was accidental. He charged into a ruck with his shoulder aimed at a players head. I'm not saying he did it intentionally, I just cannot say without a doubt that he didn't. Is he a fine upstanding, deeply religious guy who couldn't tell a lie? Perhaps, but in the heat of the moment even the most pius man can fall foul of the red mist.

I agree with you partially
Both were a red.
You initially said that POM had a short forearm into the nose of the Welsh player and that's all, whilst ZF took a lengthy run aiming with his shoulder at a particular players head inferring that POM was nothing as bad as ZF. The reality is (when you look at all angles) the exact opposite, Francis head was available above the ruck/maul, POM lookeded, then run at length shoulder first into the head of the Welsh prop, whilst ZF had to run around a Scottish player and yes shoulder first but head down not at a particular player. In my mind both were reds but that's as far as it goes, it's a travesty that one player gets his sentence halved because they looked at the players remorse but ignored his record whilst the other has a worse sentence because maybe he didn't agree 100% with the panel

Intent
That's why "intent" is the key criteria in assessing any offence, it's rubbish to assume we cannot assess whether a movement was premeditated or with intent, in the case of POM, Francis was unable to move or defend himself as both arms were lodged in the pile of bodies and only his head/shoulders were visible, POM knew that and it was a cheap dangerous play, in the case of ZF it was reckless but clearly not intent to "hit" any one particularly player, he came around the side of a Scottish player and head down recklessly tried to clear out.

He's got "form"
Historical playing record of any accused player should only be looked at after assessing the actual incident, however there is a definite correlation between an offence and previous history. I am not a fan of mitigating circumstances used to increase/decrease a term, be it players "remorse, testimonials, or players records.

The point is the way we cast judgements is a farce

"Francis head was available above the ruck/maul, POM lookeded, then run at length shoulder first into the head of the Welsh prop"

Except he didn't, he hit him with his forearm?
Did he mean to? Probably, I think he did.
Can we say for sure that he meant to? No, only POM knows that.
Was it dangerous? I don't think a forearm in the face is. The Welsh player didn't even have a nose bleed.

Fagerson, whether he saw the Welsh player's head or not I don't know, but....
Did he mean to? Probably not, I don't think he did.
Can we say that for sure? Please see above.
Was it dangerous? Yes, impact to the top of the head is dangerous. If the player hadn't have been moved by Hogg, the outcome could have been a lot worse.

All I'm saying is, why should Fagerson get a shorter ban for what IMO was a much more dangerous incident and why should he get a reduced ban if he wasn't willing to play the game at the hearing?

Pete330v2 wrote:"Francis head was available above the ruck/maul, POM lookeded, then run at length shoulder first into the head of the Welsh prop"

Except he didn't, he hit him with his forearm?
Did he mean to? Probably, I think he did.
Can we say for sure that he meant to? No, only POM knows that.
Was it dangerous? I don't think a forearm in the face is. The Welsh player didn't even have a nose bleed.

Fagerson, whether he saw the Welsh player's head or not I don't know, but....
Did he mean to? Probably not, I don't think he did.
Can we say that for sure? Please see above.
Was it dangerous? Yes, impact to the top of the head is dangerous. If the player hadn't have been moved by Hogg, the outcome could have been a lot worse.

All I'm saying is, why should Fagerson get a shorter ban for what IMO was a much more dangerous incident and why should he get a reduced ban if he wasn't willing to play the game at the hearing?

Except he did hit with his shoulder no doubt about it,
You are right "intent" is in eye of the beholder, in this case I think POM (when you view it from all angles) longer run, intentionally looking at one player, hitting with his shoulder initially then following through a second movement with his forearm was intentional and dangerous, ZF was not intending at one player specifically and was reckless.

The net effect POM got a ban halved (for a worse offence in my opinion, you have a different opinion and that's the beauty of the game) he got off because that particular panel took into account his remorse but not his history, whilst the panel looking at ZF didn't consider his history at all only his stance on the offence. Farrell even more premeditated and even more farcical

The point is the same with us both......there needs to be more consistency

Both the red cards against Wales were correct, both were cheap shots, and both players knew what they were doing.

The only difference is POM played the panel better.

Lastly, Farrell has been getting away with dangerous tackling for his whole career, and he is the darling of English rugby. The amount of times we have seen him leading into a tackle with his shoulder is ridiculous.

Unless all referees are in the pockets of the RFU or Saracens you'd have to say that Farrell's tackling is not often dangerous, and that in general he stays the right side of a difficult line. Your bias comes through much to easily.

He's hardly the darling of anyone, and he won't be remembered with the fraction of the respect of Wilkinson even if he overtakes JW's scoring record and wins another RWC. He is utterly committed and ruthless though.

Dont think Farrell has ever dodged a red. Jonny Williams did this 6 nations though.

flyhalffactory wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"Francis head was available above the ruck/maul, POM lookeded, then run at length shoulder first into the head of the Welsh prop"

Except he didn't, he hit him with his forearm?
Did he mean to? Probably, I think he did.
Can we say for sure that he meant to? No, only POM knows that.
Was it dangerous? I don't think a forearm in the face is. The Welsh player didn't even have a nose bleed.

Fagerson, whether he saw the Welsh player's head or not I don't know, but....
Did he mean to? Probably not, I don't think he did.
Can we say that for sure? Please see above.
Was it dangerous? Yes, impact to the top of the head is dangerous. If the player hadn't have been moved by Hogg, the outcome could have been a lot worse.

All I'm saying is, why should Fagerson get a shorter ban for what IMO was a much more dangerous incident and why should he get a reduced ban if he wasn't willing to play the game at the hearing?

Except he did hit with his shoulder no doubt about it,
You are right "intent" is in eye of the beholder, in this case I think POM (when you view it from all angles) longer run, intentionally looking at one player, hitting with his shoulder initially then following through a second movement with his forearm was intentional and dangerous, ZF was not intending at one player specifically and was reckless.

The net effect POM got a ban halved (for a worse offence in my opinion, you have a different opinion and that's the beauty of the game) he got off because that particular panel took into account his remorse but not his history, whilst the panel looking at ZF didn't consider his history at all only his stance on the offence. Farrell even more premeditated and even more farcical

The point is the same with us both......there needs to be more consistency

If there were rules, both in any judicial system and in rugby things would be more consistent and simple.
With laws however there are always different interpretations and this is where the inconsistencies appear. It really is part and parcel of anything that can be interpreted and sometimes twisted or swayed in or against your favour.
It was once explained to me why soccer players remonstrate with refs more than rugby players. In soccer there are rules, everyone knows them and can therefore contest them. In rugby there are laws, it's only human to view them differently and also not everyone knows how to interpret them fully. Hence why rugby player accept there fate because in truth, a lot of the time they haven't a clue what's going on anyway
An example of this being the time Italy were confusing England by not joining the mauls and therefore being able to run around to England's side etc.

To cut a long story short, we'll never agree on this but doesn't it make for great debate.

Confused Poite more than anyone. Hence why the law was changed.

flyhalffactory wrote:

We should have a clear totally independent panel with a structured framework and standardised approach

That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice.

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

We should have a clear totally independent panel with a structured framework and standardised approach

That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice.

Are you bleeding serious?

Can you prove its a structured auditable process based on legal precedence?, give me three panel decisions during the 2020-21 season where the decisions are based on legal precedence

Pete330v2 wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"Francis head was available above the ruck/maul, POM lookeded, then run at length shoulder first into the head of the Welsh prop"

Except he didn't, he hit him with his forearm?
Did he mean to? Probably, I think he did.
Can we say for sure that he meant to? No, only POM knows that.
Was it dangerous? I don't think a forearm in the face is. The Welsh player didn't even have a nose bleed.

Fagerson, whether he saw the Welsh player's head or not I don't know, but....
Did he mean to? Probably not, I don't think he did.
Can we say that for sure? Please see above.
Was it dangerous? Yes, impact to the top of the head is dangerous. If the player hadn't have been moved by Hogg, the outcome could have been a lot worse.

All I'm saying is, why should Fagerson get a shorter ban for what IMO was a much more dangerous incident and why should he get a reduced ban if he wasn't willing to play the game at the hearing?

Except he did hit with his shoulder no doubt about it,
You are right "intent" is in eye of the beholder, in this case I think POM (when you view it from all angles) longer run, intentionally looking at one player, hitting with his shoulder initially then following through a second movement with his forearm was intentional and dangerous, ZF was not intending at one player specifically and was reckless.

The net effect POM got a ban halved (for a worse offence in my opinion, you have a different opinion and that's the beauty of the game) he got off because that particular panel took into account his remorse but not his history, whilst the panel looking at ZF didn't consider his history at all only his stance on the offence. Farrell even more premeditated and even more farcical

The point is the same with us both......there needs to be more consistency

If there were rules, both in any judicial system and in rugby things would be more consistent and simple.
With laws however there are always different interpretations and this is where the inconsistencies appear. It really is part and parcel of anything that can be interpreted and sometimes twisted or swayed in or against your favour.
It was once explained to me why soccer players remonstrate with refs more than rugby players. In soccer there are rules, everyone knows them and can therefore contest them. In rugby there are laws, it's only human to view them differently and also not everyone knows how to interpret them fully. Hence why rugby player accept there fate because in truth, a lot of the time they haven't a clue what's going on anyway
An example of this being the time Italy were confusing England by not joining the mauls and therefore being able to run around to England's side etc.

To cut a long story short, we'll never agree on this but doesn't it make for great debate.

What we can agree on is, we can respect each others views and the law is an ass

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

We should have a clear totally independent panel with a structured framework and standardised approach

That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice.

Are you bleeding serious?

Can you prove its a structured auditable process based on legal precedence?, give me three panel decisions during the 2020-21 season where the decisions are based on legal precedence

Practice, not precedent.

This might be interesting for you: https://twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1361815321968078851

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

We should have a clear totally independent panel with a structured framework and standardised approach

That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice.

Are you bleeding serious?

Can you prove its a structured auditable process based on legal precedence?, give me three panel decisions during the 2020-21 season where the decisions are based on legal precedence

Practice, not precedent.

This might be interesting for you: https://twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1361815321968078851

I am not a lawyer, I am however a double first mathematician (ex-prof maths), economist/futurist and probably forgotten more about contract law than most barristers have learnt.

I know what I have written but in layman's terms just for you.
A precedent is a principle or rule that's generally established in a previous legal case, that (said principle/rule) is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts..... and that's what the panels are attempting to do and in a structured format, which they clearly are not

So before you start spouting or attempting to be clever, provide evidence or shut up

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

We should have a clear totally independent panel with a structured framework and standardised approach

That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice.

Are you bleeding serious?

Can you prove its a structured auditable process based on legal precedence?, give me three panel decisions during the 2020-21 season where the decisions are based on legal precedence

Practice, not precedent.

This might be interesting for you: https://twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1361815321968078851

I am not a lawyer, I am however a double first mathematician (ex-prof maths), economist/futurist and probably forgotten more about contract law than most barristers have learnt.

I know what I have written but in layman's terms just for you.
A precedent is a principle or rule that's generally established in a previous legal case, that (said principle/rule) is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts..... and that's what the panels are attempting to do and in a structured format, which they clearly are not

So before you start spouting or attempting to be clever, provide evidence or shut up

Excuse me? Where did THAT come from?

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

We should have a clear totally independent panel with a structured framework and standardised approach

That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice.

Are you bleeding serious?

Can you prove its a structured auditable process based on legal precedence?, give me three panel decisions during the 2020-21 season where the decisions are based on legal precedence

Practice, not precedent.

This might be interesting for you: https://twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1361815321968078851

I am not a lawyer, I am however a double first mathematician (ex-prof maths), economist/futurist and probably forgotten more about contract law than most barristers have learnt.

I know what I have written but in layman's terms just for you.
A precedent is a principle or rule that's generally established in a previous legal case, that (said principle/rule) is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts..... and that's what the panels are attempting to do and in a structured format, which they clearly are not

So before you start spouting or attempting to be clever, provide evidence or shut up

Excuse me? Where did THAT come from?

Well stating the bleeding obvious "That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice." which is wholly incorrect, the panel works in an inconsistent way basing; part on precedent, part on making it up as they go along
Then suggesting I am incorrect by stating its a legal practice not a precedent and further digging yourself in the hole by suggesting I read a cowboy brief who is famous for tweeting even more obvious bollox on rugby law.
The point which you cannot see is......the inconsistency of the panel deliberations case by case

Bollox - the disciplinary process is based around a rigid legalistic framework. Its not " make it up as yo go along" I suggest you look into the process

TJ wrote:Bollox - the disciplinary process is based around a rigid legalistic framework.  Its not " make it up as yo go along"  I suggest you look into the process

Is that you saying that it is a rigid legal framework or not?

We know it's supposed to be based along a legal framework, but we also know its not been adhered to, however ff you are stating that it is, then I'm happy for you to give recent examples of this rigid frame and I'll audit the "process" with you.
The three examples proves your take on what is "bollox" is.... well pretty much bollox and considering all the rugby media and columnists are saying the same, more than happy for you to prove us wrong

Well it's getting to be as long as a murder trial. You'd hope that when the extension of the ban back up to 6 days comes it'll be properly written up.

NeilyBroon wrote:This is an important discussion to be had but please can we keep it civil, thanks.

Morning Campers

Apologies Moderator , I shouldn't have reacted to the one-liners like that

But
Do I get my sentence halved....now I've shown remorse?   (just a joke)

flyhalffactory wrote:

NeilyBroon wrote:This is an important discussion to be had but please can we keep it civil, thanks.

Morning Campers

Apologies Moderator , I shouldn't have reacted to the one-liners like that

But
Do I get my sentence halved....now I've shown remorse?   (just a joke)

Yes!

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

We should have a clear totally independent panel with a structured framework and standardised approach

That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice.

Are you bleeding serious?

Can you prove its a structured auditable process based on legal precedence?, give me three panel decisions during the 2020-21 season where the decisions are based on legal precedence

Practice, not precedent.

This might be interesting for you: https://twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1361815321968078851

I am not a lawyer, I am however a double first mathematician (ex-prof maths), economist/futurist and probably forgotten more about contract law than most barristers have learnt.

I know what I have written but in layman's terms just for you.
A precedent is a principle or rule that's generally established in a previous legal case, that (said principle/rule) is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts..... and that's what the panels are attempting to do and in a structured format, which they clearly are not

So before you start spouting or attempting to be clever, provide evidence or shut up

Excuse me? Where did THAT come from?

Well stating the bleeding obvious "That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice." which is wholly incorrect, the panel works in an inconsistent way basing; part on precedent, part on making it up as they go along
Then suggesting I am incorrect by stating its a legal practice not a precedent and further digging yourself in the hole by suggesting I read a cowboy brief who is famous for tweeting even more obvious bollox on rugby law.
The point which you cannot see is......the inconsistency of the panel deliberations case by case

You seem confused about what the disciplinary process in rugby actually is. You can call it 'making it up as they go along' if you like, because you are a maths professor, but you'd still be wrong.

As I said, the panels are based on historical legal practice (not precedent, this was a misinterpretation by you which you then got angry about, and for some reason are still angry about) like the court martial system. They're not some entity made up by Paddy O'Brien in 2007.

I also think you need to calm down and stop being so aggressive as well. It doesn't make your argument more robust.

The fact that this thread exists and the range of views on it tells me that these issues are far from clear cut. I am sure you can find a seasoned pro/ref/barrister that supports any of the interpretations of this and this goes for most of the other controversial disciplinary hearings - there have been a few over the years. For me the context of the on field actions should be the key focus, not how much charity work is also done by the player. I’ll be curious to see how this appeal goes but the cynic that resides in my rugby brain says there will be a ban extension for daring to appeal. Let’s see.

So still 4 games but the appeal was to include a club match.

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

We should have a clear totally independent panel with a structured framework and standardised approach

That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice.

Are you bleeding serious?

Can you prove its a structured auditable process based on legal precedence?, give me three panel decisions during the 2020-21 season where the decisions are based on legal precedence

Practice, not precedent.

This might be interesting for you: https://twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1361815321968078851

I am not a lawyer, I am however a double first mathematician (ex-prof maths), economist/futurist and probably forgotten more about contract law than most barristers have learnt.

I know what I have written but in layman's terms just for you.
A precedent is a principle or rule that's generally established in a previous legal case, that (said principle/rule) is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts..... and that's what the panels are attempting to do and in a structured format, which they clearly are not

So before you start spouting or attempting to be clever, provide evidence or shut up

Excuse me? Where did THAT come from?

Well stating the bleeding obvious "That already exists. The disciplinary panels are based on legal practice." which is wholly incorrect, the panel works in an inconsistent way basing; part on precedent, part on making it up as they go along
Then suggesting I am incorrect by stating its a legal practice not a precedent and further digging yourself in the hole by suggesting I read a cowboy brief who is famous for tweeting even more obvious bollox on rugby law.
The point which you cannot see is......the inconsistency of the panel deliberations case by case

You seem confused about what the disciplinary process in rugby actually is. You can call it 'making it up as they go along' if you like, because you are a maths professor, but you'd still be wrong.

As I said, the panels are based on historical legal practice (not precedent, this was a misinterpretation by you which you then got angry about, and for some reason are still angry about) like the court martial system. They're not some entity made up by Paddy O'Brien in 2007.

I also think you need to calm down and stop being so aggressive as well. It doesn't make your argument more robust.

You seem confused about what the disciplinary process in rugby actually is. You can call it 'making it up as they go along' if you like, because you are a maths professor, but you'd still be wrong.

I actually am spot on. The reason I can say that is I deal with "legal" interpretation every single day whether its with Gov't depts, The Treasury, Scottish/Welsh Assemblies or private organisations

The very fact that you came on here initially stating the bleeding obvious with the intent of a being a WUM and then compounds it with a term "legal practice" that not one legal professional uses or has used, furthermore not understanding the basis of a legal framework i.e. presenting and countering based on precedent or case law is exactly what you naively called "legal practice"

Case law is simply collection of past legal decisions written by courts or similar tribunals in the course of deciding cases after a structured analysis/assessment, in which the law was analysed using these cases to resolve ambiguities for deciding current cases. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Now just for you as you clearly haven't got a clue These panels use the idea of precedent as the foundation of analysing, assessing and making a decision, it's not a legal format and thus you can appeal. In the case of Fagerson they successfully countered that all games should be taken into consideration and they won

Unfortunately your recent contributions are making out you clearly as a WUM and someone to steer clear of