Clarity and Zanders quest

First topic message reminder :

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?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So still 4 games but the appeal was to include a club match.

The appeal was based on all matches should have been taken into consideration, not the length of the ban.
The view by some, that the audacity of an appeal would increase the ban clearly was unfounded, because there clearly was no basis to increase the length based on recent comparable cases who had lesser bans

flyhalffactory wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So still 4 games but the appeal was to include a club match.

The appeal was based on all matches should have been taken into consideration, not the length of the ban.
The view by some, that the audacity of an appeal would increase the ban clearly was unfounded, because there clearly was no basis to increase the length based on recent comparable cases who had lesser bans  

He ran the risk but of course I caveated that by saying I wasn't sure what the exact appeal was. I also asked a question if appeals which were deemed frivolous would result in an increase as it does in football. As the appeal was simply asking for club games to be considered and not arguing that he didn't get exactly what he deserved that doesn't really come into it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So still 4 games but the appeal was to include a club match.

The appeal was based on all matches should have been taken into consideration, not the length of the ban.
The view by some, that the audacity of an appeal would increase the ban clearly was unfounded, because there clearly was no basis to increase the length based on recent comparable cases who had lesser bans  

He ran the risk but of course I caveated that by saying I wasn't sure what the exact appeal was. I also asked a question if appeals which were deemed frivolous would result in an increase as it does in football. As the appeal was simply asking for club games to be considered and not arguing that he didn't get exactly what he deserved that doesn't really come into it.

The point of this thread and it's the same concerns on all media platforms is
Are the panel decisions based on clear, transparent analysis?
The answer is without a doubt - No

Did he deserve to be banned for 4 games FOR THE OFFENCE.....whilst comparable Farrell and POM offences (as examples) got more lenient results - No

The SRFU decided to err on the side of caution and not appeal against the length citing cases like POM and Farrell, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see changes to the process next season

Actually to clarify (lifted form walesoneline) it appears they did appeal the red as well. I am a bit surpirsed they didn't increase his ban. Showing no remorse at all. Obviously hasn't learnt any lessons, lets hope he doesn't do it again.

“The Scotland No 3 (Fagerson) appeared before an independent Appeal Committee via a Zoom call on Tuesday 23 February.

“Mr Fagerson had received a red card in the match in the Guinness Six Nations Championship between Scotland and Wales on 13 February at BT Murrayfield.

“The red card had been issued for an infringement of Law 9.20 when, in the 64th minute of the match, he made contact with the Wales prop forward Wyn Jones.

“At a previous hearing before an independent Disciplinary Committee on 16 February Mr. Fagerson had accepted he had committed an act of foul play but had not accepted that it had warranted a red card.

“However, the Disciplinary Committee had found that Mr Fagerson had committed an act of foul play and that it had warranted a red card.

“The Disciplinary Committee had found that the act of foul play warranted a mid-range entry point (six weeks’ suspension) and reduced that by two weeks to take account of mitigating factors.

“Mr Fagerson had been suspended for four weeks and was to miss the three Scotland matches in the Guinness Six Nations Championship against France, Ireland and Italy, and one further match to be determined.

“At Tuesday’s hearing, the Appeal Committee, heard submissions from Mr Fagerson and his legal counsel as well as from Six Nations’ legal representative.

“Mr Fagerson challenged a number of the Disciplinary Committee’s findings, including that he had infringed Law 9.20(a), that his act of foul play had warranted a red card, that he had made ‘direct’ contact with Wyn Jones’ head, that the mitigating factors allowed him a reduction in his suspension of just two weeks, and that the two Glasgow matches in the Guinness PRO14 (to be played on the ‘fallow weekends’ in the Guinness Six Nations Championship) should not ‘count’ towards his suspension.

“The Appeal Committee were not satisfied that Mr Fagerson had established that the Disciplinary Committee had been wrong in upholding the red card, and therefore dismissed that part of the appeal.



“However, the Appeal Committee was satisfied that the Disciplinary Committee had not given appropriate weight to the evidence before it about the matches to be covered by the period of suspension.

“Necessarily, decisions on matches to be covered by suspensions are fact-sensitive and player-specific. On the basis of all the evidence, the Appeal Committee was satisfied that the suspension should have covered the Glasgow matches against Ulster and Zebre, with the effect that the Mr Fagerson’s suspension currently applies to the following matches:

19 February - Ulster

28 February - France (subsequently postponed)

6 March - Zebre

14 March - Ireland

“Due to the postponement of the France v Scotland match, the Appeal Committee will have the opportunity to review Mr Fagerson’s playing schedule and consider the consequences of the postponement.”

It would be good to see more transparency and full meeting notes on citings etc flyhalf, along with the framework the panel considers. They've been released in the past I'm sure.

Dear Mr Fagerson,

Please learn from this error of judgement and in future, should the need arise, bring JAFFA CAKES and we might consider your hearings with a sprinkling of leniency. Hobnobs, Shortbread and Rich Tea are no longer acceptable bribes.....we mean tea accompaniments.

Yours Sincerely

The Lads

P.S. Peter O'Mahoney brought a cake his Mum had baked. Just saying.

Actually to clarify (lifted form walesoneline) it appears they did appeal the red as well. I am a bit surpirsed they didn't increase his ban. Showing no remorse at all. Obviously hasn't learnt any lessons, lets hope he doesn't do it again.


Mate, thats total rubbish. Why is it obvious he hasn't learnt his lesson? because he decided to challenge the assessment, his argument was sound, he didn't make initial direct contact (to me this is immaterial as it was still reckless), the length was more than POM when it clearly shouldn't have been. He challenged the assessment not the offence.

Just because he didn't believe it was red doesn't mean he hasn't learnt his lesson, I think he clearly learnt there is a game to be played if you want leniency.

Pete330v2 wrote:Dear Mr Fagerson,

Please learn from this error of judgement and in future, should the need arise, bring JAFFA CAKES and we might consider your hearings with a sprinkling of leniency. Hobnobs, Shortbread and Rich Tea are no longer acceptable bribes.....we mean tea accompaniments.

Yours Sincerely

The Lads

P.S. Peter O'Mahoney brought a cake his Mum had baked. Just saying.

I like Peter's mum

flyhalffactory wrote:Actually to clarify (lifted form walesoneline) it appears they did appeal the red as well. I am a bit surpirsed they didn't increase his ban. Showing no remorse at all. Obviously hasn't learnt any lessons, lets hope he doesn't do it again.


Mate, thats total rubbish. Why is it obvious he hasn't learnt his lesson? because he decided to challenge the assessment, his argument was sound, he didn't make initial direct contact (to me this is immaterial as it was still reckless), the length was more than POM when it clearly shouldn't have been. He challenged the assessment not the offence.

Just because he didn't believe it was red doesn't mean he hasn't learnt his lesson, I think he clearly learnt there is a game to be played if you want leniency.  

Because at the first panel he said he didn't think it was a red and from this it appears he still doesn't. That to me shows he has little if any remorse and thinks he was hard done to. He wasn't. The laws are pretty clear. Is it a wider thing from the coaching set ups at Glasgow and Scotland? Watson clearly felt the same from his immediate comment, have they just not kept up with interpretations? If they haven't by now they're not likely to change their behaviour.

Thorley has just picked up a 4 match ban while not admitting guilt. However jonny Williams wasn't even cited for his red card offence of the same nature.

flyhalffactory wrote:

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

Look, you cannot go around flinging insults and accusations of people being 'WUMs' if your best argument is ad hominem attacks and 'I am so great look at my claimed credentials', which is just a bad version of an appeal to authority given it's just your word on an anonymous rugby forum. I haven't done that to you so I would appreciate the same level of respect in return.

I stated the obvious as you are still in denial about the obvious. In which case the obvious is worth stating. I'm not sure why you are so hostile to civil discourse other than the fact you don't really believe what you're saying so are resorting to personal insults. But I'll have one more try:

Your initial problem is with a perceived inconsistency with the disciplinary process in rugby. Ok fine. Even a basic understanding of how common law is implemented in the UK would mean you know this isn't a phenomenon unique to rugby. The 4 factors you raised all apply in criminal trials and sentencing. If you have previous criminal record it will impact the sentencing. Your character and social standing is taken in to account. Your plea will impact the sentencing. So what are you complaining about?

Your assessment of what appears to be inconsistency in the disciplinary process led you to conclude that they are 'arbitrary decisions' that 'don't smell right' as they could be ruining a player's and his nation's chances in a tournament. The last point sounds like it is veering in to a conspiracy theory about how the Scots are institutionally hard done by. I'll let you clarify that point if that isn't what you were implying.

The other points, however, are simply a misunderstanding of the disciplinary process in rugby.

My response was very simple: the disciplinary process is based on existing and historical legal practice (not precedent). I presume you didn't know this which is why you responded the way you did. You can take issue with that if you like but it's not as if it is some kind of kangaroo court where the right kind of biscuit will get you 2 weeks off a ban.

I believe your anger and hostility towards me is resulting from your misreading/misunderstanding of precedent v. practice. If the disciplinary process was based on legal precedent it wouldn't make much sense. Precedent refers to decisions relating to actions. As we often say, if you made a 'legal' rugby tackle on someone in the middle of the high street you would be arrested. Trying to employ legal precedent to high tackles (or any 'rugby action') is nonsensical. However, the use of existing legal practice as a means of constructing the disciplinary process in rugby makes a lot of sense.

Fagerson received a longer ban than O'Mahony as he didn't admit fault. That's it. It's very simple, really.

I don't want to receive an earful from you in response but if you want to carry on the discussion on productive grounds that don't immediately resort to personal attacks then I would be fine with that. Otherwise let's just leave it.

whatahitson wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

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

Look, you cannot go around flinging insults and accusations of people being 'WUMs' if your best argument is ad hominem attacks and 'I am so great look at my claimed credentials', which is just a bad version of an appeal to authority given it's just your word on an anonymous rugby forum. I haven't done that to you so I would appreciate the same level of respect in return.

I stated the obvious as you are still in denial about the obvious. In which case the obvious is worth stating. I'm not sure why you are so hostile to civil discourse other than the fact you don't really believe what you're saying so are resorting to personal insults. But I'll have one more try:

Your initial problem is with a perceived inconsistency with the disciplinary process in rugby. Ok fine. Even a basic understanding of how common law is implemented in the UK would mean you know this isn't a phenomenon unique to rugby. The 4 factors you raised all apply in criminal trials and sentencing. If you have previous criminal record it will impact the sentencing. Your character and social standing is taken in to account. Your plea will impact the sentencing. So what are you complaining about?

Your assessment of what appears to be inconsistency in the disciplinary process led you to conclude that they are 'arbitrary decisions' that 'don't smell right' as they could be ruining a player's and his nation's chances in a tournament. The last point sounds like it is veering in to a conspiracy theory about how the Scots are institutionally hard done by. I'll let you clarify that point if that isn't what you were implying.

The other points, however, are simply a misunderstanding of the disciplinary process in rugby.

My response was very simple: the disciplinary process is based on existing and historical legal practice (not precedent). I presume you didn't know this which is why you responded the way you did. You can take issue with that if you like but it's not as if it is some kind of kangaroo court where the right kind of biscuit will get you 2 weeks off a ban.

I believe your anger and hostility towards me is resulting from your misreading/misunderstanding of precedent v. practice. If the disciplinary process was based on legal precedent it wouldn't make much sense. Precedent refers to decisions relating to actions. As we often say, if you made a 'legal' rugby tackle on someone in the middle of the high street you would be arrested. Trying to employ legal precedent to high tackles (or any 'rugby action') is nonsensical. However, the use of existing legal practice as a means of constructing the disciplinary process in rugby makes a lot of sense.

Fagerson received a longer ban than O'Mahony as he didn't admit fault. That's it. It's very simple, really.

I don't want to receive an earful from you in response but if you want to carry on the discussion on productive grounds that don't immediately resort to personal attacks then I would be fine with that. Otherwise let's just leave it.

"I believe your anger and hostility towards me is resulting from your misreading/misunderstanding of precedent v. practice"
""My response was very simple: the disciplinary process is based on existing and historical legal practice (not precedent)"
"Fagerson received a longer ban than O'Mahony as he didn't admit fault. That's it. It's very simple, really."

Strewth that beggars belief
Those three sentences says it all  

It was nothing to do with admission of fault for pity's sake, ZF had always admitted fault from the start, however he challenged the decisions based on precedent (which for the 2nd time...is case law or historical cases etc)...good grief it's the same thing!

By the way, no anger towards you at all. I had read a previous article where a number of contributors stating their view of you and your contributions, then wham bam you gave your two-penneth in a similar vein by insinuating that I didn't understand

You tried to be clever by stating "its legal practice", btw no legal eagle has ever used that phrase ever. I gave you a bit of my background (I deal with legal eagles every day) to let you reflect upon what you said and maybe take it back
You then tried to be even more patronising by using an example of a well known (for his billy basic understanding of the law) "Twitter Fanatic" to qualify your stance

Anger no!, exasperation maybe at the predictability, bit like when I ask my grandson did he take a chocolate bar from the table and he steadfastly maintains he didn't

I brought this back from the dead as Thorley didn't have his ban reduced as he contested as Fagerson did ie the secerity of the foul play. And to point out there are real issues with citing ie it seems at times that its whatever the commentary team pick put rather than a detailed review of each match.

https://youtu.be/fcqcZB3fNuA

And the explanation for why Thorley was red carded and why Williams should have been cited.

OK, can we please let this go now ?

This was two weeks ago. What is done is done, we need to get over it and move on.

No doubt there will be more talking points after this weekend.

I think the overall point of consistency and process of TMOs, citing panels etc are still there to discuss. Plus, I'll always find a thread to link to Barnes' videos; they're class.

LordDowlais wrote:OK, can we please let this go now ?

This was two weeks ago. What is done is done, we need to get over it and move on.

No doubt there will be more talking points after this weekend.

Are you talking about regional rugby again?!