Crusaders vs Waratahs
-
-
Having seen those still shots 2 weeks seems anout right to me. However i would be pissed if i was a tah supporter. That try was a turning point. Take that away and add a yellow or red card and i don't see the Crusaders getting back into the game.
Oh well, im happy to see that happen to any team with Folau in it. -
It has now been found that Moody contravened Law 9.12: Striking with hand or arm. In his finding, Foul Play Review Committee Chairman Nigel Hampton QC ruled the following: “Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and a statement from the player, and submissions from his legal representative, Aaron Lloyd, the Foul Play Review Committee upheld the citing under Law 9.12.” “With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid-range entry point of 4 weeks due to the dangerous contact with the opposing Player’s head. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the Player’s excellent judicial record, good character and guilty plea at the earliest possible opportunity, the Foul Play Review Committee reduced the suspension to 2 weeks.” “The player is therefore suspended for 2 weeks, up to and including Friday 25 May 2018.” -
@pukunui said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
i would be pissed if i was a tah supporter. That try was a turning point. Take that away and add a yellow or red card and i don't see the Crusaders getting back into the game.
Yeah, nah. Thing is there were another stack of chances to win or stay ahead in that game, and we blew it.
-
The World Rugby Laws thing is offline apparently, and I believe they "simplified" it recently by rewriting a few sections.
I still had the 2015 copy I downloaded for one of our guys being cited. It states that under Law 10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist the entry level is 2 weeks, Mid-range is 5 weeks, Top End 8 weeks.
However, if they deemed it contact to the head - and understanding that Moody has a clean record* - then it doesn't send a great message about all the concussion-related stuff and protecting players' heads that has been talked about.
Not sure what his character has to do with fuck all. Its not a popularity contest.
But it was always going to be 2-4 weeks so yeah, all good.
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
It has now been found that Moody contravened Law 9.12: Striking with hand or arm. In his finding, Foul Play Review Committee Chairman Nigel Hampton QC ruled the following: “Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and a statement from the player, and submissions from his legal representative, Aaron Lloyd, the Foul Play Review Committee upheld the citing under Law 9.12.” “With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid-range entry point of 4 weeks due to the dangerous contact with the opposing Player’s head. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the Player’s excellent judicial record, good character and guilty plea at the earliest possible opportunity, the Foul Play Review Committee reduced the suspension to 2 weeks.” “The player is therefore suspended for 2 weeks, up to and including Friday 25 May 2018.”He's a very lucky boy. Leave your fate in the hands of the judiciary and anything can happen
-
Below is the relevant bit of the WR Handbook. I think what the key difference is between the accusations from Australian media on the one hand, and the citing and decision of SANZAAR on the other, is that the Aussies claimed that Moody hit Beale's throat with his elbow. The charge and decision are about striking with the hand or arm, not elbow. That's why they started with a mid-rang entry point of 4 instead of 6 weeks.
APPENDIX 1. WORLD RUGBY SANCTIONS FOR FOUL PLAY (REGULATION 17)
-
@Stargazer very important distinction. Maybe he would have had 4 weeks if the reduction stood at 2 weeks.
But treading a very fine line - any martial artist will tell you a forearm strike is just an elbow you mistimed
From now its up to Moody's good character to see it doesn't happen again, because he can't fall back on "clean record".
-
@nzzp said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
@toddy said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
Messam's against South Africa in 2013 would've had the Jaguares nodding in appreciation.
Wow. I just no longer know what is satire any more.
As an aside, have been watching some old AB SA games while exercising. Messam has been simply immense against him - a fair few saffer fans I know rate him, and I can see why based on his perforamnce against them. He was quality for a long time.
Don't know why, but Messam played like he way 5 kg bigger most of the times he played Boks, recall some extraordinary disruption of their maul.
-
Phew lucky for moody and ABs, the Ozzie forums are going to go nuts. Four weeks looks about right to me, initial impact chest, but just fkn stupid. Minus two weeks is stupid, but that is the citing random number generator in action.
Re Messam, he's been playing better this season than the last few I think, real freedom and venom
-
@machpants said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
Phew lucky for moody and ABs, the Ozzie forums are going to go nuts. Four weeks looks about right to me, initial impact chest, but just fkn stupid. Minus two weeks is stupid, but that is the citing random number generator in action.
Re Messam, he's been playing better this season than the last few I think, real freedom and venom
Although I also expected a four weeks suspension, it's all the result of a consistent application of the law.
Under Law 9.12, striking with the arm/hand where contact with the head is made results in a mid-range entry point of 4 weeks.
This is what the WR Handbook says about mitigating factors:
Mitigating Factors 17.19.5 Thereafter, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall identify any relevant off-field mitigating factors and determine if there are grounds for reducing the period of suspension and subject to Regulations 17.19.6 and 17.19.7 the extent, if at all, by which the period of suspension should be reduced. Mitigating factors include the following: (a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of culpability/wrong-doing by the offending Player; (b) the Player’s disciplinary record and/or good character; (c) the youth and inexperience of the Player; (d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing; (e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and (f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate. 17.19.6 Subject to Regulations 17.19.7 and 17.19.8, for acts of Foul Play the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer cannot apply a greater reduction than 50% of the relevant entry point suspension. In assessing the percentage reduction applicable for mitigating factors, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall start at 0% reduction and apply the amount, if any, to be allowed as mitigation up to the maximum 50% reduction.I've checked previous cases, and SANZAAR has consistently reduced suspensions to 50% of the entry point in case of at least two mitigating factors. In some cases, that resulted in the reduction of three weeks, because in those case the entry-point was 6 weeks. In case of another player, the reduction was even 6 weeks, because the entry point was 12 weeks (lower entry point for biting).
So while I agree 2 weeks seems short, there's nothing random about it and I think that that in itself is a good thing.
-
well I pretty much called how it would be approached and reduced to 2 weeks, I guess their approach may seem arbitrary, but I guess from their side they must have some logic and consistency for application of their complicated suspension algorithm otherwise those lawyer type folk would be all over them.
-
@taniwharugby Always going to be two weeks. Help the Hurricanes (and annoy me) without penalizing the ABs.
(Joe needs a warm-up game vs the Highlanders).
-
-
@kiwimurph said in Crusaders vs Waratahs:
How much different is Moody's to Luatua's v the Chiefs last year? Luatua got 4 weeks.
Luatua was charged for and found guilty of a different offence: Law 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an Opponent. It was an off the ball tackle, high (direct contact with the head) and with a swinging arm.
The number of the law seems to have changed, but the entry points haven't:
Mid-range entry point of 6 weeks, and the same deduction for mitigating factors (2 weeks) was applied. Hence the 4 weeks.
