Judiciary Happenings
-
@taniwharugby said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial not sure I agree with the drink driving analogy unless you think accidentally getting drunk and accidentally getting into your car and driving home happens too?
It is an extreme analogy I admit but I was also about to post about your previous post regarding 'accidental'
To continue the poor analogy, no-one sets out to have an accident when drinking and driving do they? They make poor deliberate decisions instead. WR are trying to reduce head injuries caused by poor decisions ie not being in control of a high hit and leading with the shoulder.
The protocol (if used correctly), should take into account real 'accidents', which IMO are only when a tackler does everything right - aims low, in control, arm forward..., yet through the BC slipping or getting lower ends up with head contact. One of those has already happened at the RWC and was correctly dismissed on the field. -
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@taniwharugby said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial not sure I agree with the drink driving analogy unless you think accidentally getting drunk and accidentally getting into your car and driving home happens too?
It is an extreme analogy I admit but I was also about to post about your previous post regarding 'accidental'
To continue the poor analogy, no-one sets out to have an accident when drinking and driving do they? They make poor deliberate decisions instead. WR are trying to reduce head injuries caused by poor decisions ie not being in control of a high hit and leading with the shoulder.
The protocol (if used correctly), should take into account real 'accidents', which IMO are only when a tackler does everything right - aims low, in control, arm forward..., yet through the BC slipping or getting lower ends up with head contact. One of those has already happened at the RWC and was correctly dismissed on the field.For road accidents there are effectively three tiers, careless, reckless and dangerous. (Might be a bit out of order). The higher the tier, the more severe the penalty.
The problem is that we have TAIC and the Police high speed crash unit to forensically reconstruct events and determine facts. Whereas the ref has his reaction in real time plus a couple of potentially obstructed camera angles.
-
@Cyclops it goes Careless, Dangerous, Reckless...reckless is where it is deemed pretty much a deliberate act (racing, driving excessive speeds, burnouts etc)
Pretty much any RTA that police attend in NZ, a minimum of Careless Use charge is issued, but they cal also have the additional bit at the end....for example Careless Use causing death or injury might result in a fine and demerits, whereas Reckless driving causing death or injury will sometimes result in time in jail or Home Detention.
-
@Cyclops said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@taniwharugby said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial not sure I agree with the drink driving analogy unless you think accidentally getting drunk and accidentally getting into your car and driving home happens too?
It is an extreme analogy I admit but I was also about to post about your previous post regarding 'accidental'
To continue the poor analogy, no-one sets out to have an accident when drinking and driving do they? They make poor deliberate decisions instead. WR are trying to reduce head injuries caused by poor decisions ie not being in control of a high hit and leading with the shoulder.
The protocol (if used correctly), should take into account real 'accidents', which IMO are only when a tackler does everything right - aims low, in control, arm forward..., yet through the BC slipping or getting lower ends up with head contact. One of those has already happened at the RWC and was correctly dismissed on the field.For road accidents there are effectively three tiers, careless, reckless and dangerous. (Might be a bit out of order). The higher the tier, the more severe the penalty.
The problem is that we have TAIC and the Police high speed crash unit to forensically reconstruct events and determine facts. Whereas the ref has his reaction in real time plus a couple of potentially obstructed camera angles.
The ref can check those camera views to assess some simple criteria. Did the tackler make contact with head? Shoulder charge? Mitigating factors. Not perfect but not overly complicated either.
The system isn't perfect but they have to work with the tools they have.
Upshot is that intent doesn't come into play unless that tackler has taken care to tackle correctly. That is a pretty good approach.If you go back to the Hodge situation it is pretty cut and dried.
Contact with head? Yes.
Shoulder charge? Yes (timing out).
Did tackler take care and try to effect a 'safe' tackle? No.IMO an aggravating factor should have applied that the tackled player suffered a head injury that has taken him out of the game (and subsequently)
-
@Gunner said in Judiciary Happenings:
What a fucking joke.
I couldn’t believe this was sighted in the first place and I’m absolutely stunned he got a holiday.
It’s only a matter of time before a big game (ie pool decider or a finals game) is decided on a red card due to minimal accidental contact with the head.
Rugby is heading down a very slippery slope, one that they won’t be able to climb back out of and it worries me.
Easy way to avoid a ban, don't shoulder charge people to the head. Barrett was dumb, Hodge was reckless and a little dumb. Both are responsible for how they tackle.
-
i keep seeing this "lead with the shoulder" every single decent tackle leads with the shoulder, arms come 2nd. This isn't AFL.
Hodge's technique was clumsy as shit, but his arms were in front of his body when contact was made. It certainly wasn't SBW circa-2006, or even Barrett a month or so ago.
I blew up at the time about anything being done about it. I've since watched the multi-angle gif over and over and i can see that it probably met yellow threshold because it was clumsy, and the outcome wasn't good. But 6 weeks? 6 fucking weeks for a clumsy tackle? What would a decent old-fashioned stomp get nowadays?
-
Some people seem to have missed the fact that the suspension is in matches, not weeks. That's the difference between suspensions during the RWC and suspensions pre-RWC. See the text quoted by @Quo-vadis:
@Quo-vadis said in Judiciary Happenings:
DISCIPLINARY UPDATE: REECE HODGE (AUSTRALIA)
The committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory mid-range entry point, which was introduced in 2017 to mitigate the risk of head injuries, which according to World Rugby’s sanctions table, carries a minimum six-match suspension.
Having acknowledged Hodge’s exemplary disciplinary record, good character and conduct at the hearing, the committee reduced the six-match entry point by three matches, resulting in a sanction of three matches.
Hodge will miss Australia’s three remaining pool matches. The suspension will end at midnight on 11 October, 2019 after which he is free to resume playing.
The player has the right to appeal the decision within 48 hours of receiving the written decision.
.
.@NTA said in Judiciary Happenings:
Hodge gets 3 weeks - down from 6. Therefore they considered it Medium and halved it?
Precedent set.... no wait: its the judiciary, so its just random madness from here on in.
Actually no, the judiciary is pretty consistent because the sanctions are prescribed in the regulations.
What is inconsistent is the the in-game sanctions (no card, YC, RC) during the game. Citings are already more predictable, because a citing commissioner has more time to review all the camera angles and cases may also be brought by the management of both teams. Some inconsistency is still present, but it's not really that bad. Take the examples of Lee-Lo and Matu'u. Inconsistency during the game (YC, where a RC would have been more appropriate), but consistency after: both have been cited.
.
The judiciary, however, doesn't have much choice, as is clearly stated in the decision:
The committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory mid-range entry point, which was introduced in 2017 to mitigate the risk of head injuries, which according to World Rugby’s sanctions table, carries a minimum six-match suspension.
.
This is from Regulation 17, Appendix 1:Note: Any act of foul play which results in contact with the head and/or neck shall result in at least a mid-range sanction.
.
I'd also like to emphasise the "at least". If, for example, the camera angles show that Matu'u's offending is way more reckless and dangerous than Hodge's, they could decide to go for a higher entry-point than 6 games. In other cases, if a player was found to intentionally aim at the head of an opposition player, they could go for anywhere from the high-end entry point of 10 games to the maximum of 52 weeks.Hodge got the minimum under the Regulations: mid-range entry point of 6 games.
The application of mitigating (and aggravating) factors is quite consistent, too. In this case, they were as lenient as possible: Hodge’s exemplary disciplinary record, good character and conduct at the hearing led to the full 50% deduction. They didn't even mention "early remorse shown" as often referred to in other cases (so maybe he didn't show early remorse and contested the citing).
So the initial 6 weeks is entirely consistent with the regulations (also applied in S Barrett's and other cases) and the deduction of 50% is as well.
Finally, I think everyone should take into account that we don't get to see all the camera angles available to the citing commissioners, the player's legal team and the judicial committees. There are way more camera angles than what is shown by the broadcasters.
..
By the way, the judicial decision still hasn't been published. Maybe, just maybe, this might mean that Hodge/the Wallabies are appealing the decision.
-
@Stargazer top post. But that is a warning for bringing facts to a discussion.
-
-
-
Also posted in the match thread:
Rey Lee-Lo suspended for 3 matches
Samoa centre Rey Lee-Lo appeared before an independent judicial committee having been cited for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13 (dangerous high tackle) in Samoa’s Rugby World Cup 2019 match against Russia on 24 September. The committee, chaired by Wang Shao Ing (Singapore lawyer and former international player) with former international players John Langford (Australia) and Olly Kohn (Wales), heard the case, considering all the available evidence, including multiple broadcast angles and submissions from the player and his representative. The committee deemed that the incident was an act of foul play and warranted a red card in line with the high tackle sanction framework. In following the framework, the committee determined: * There was an act of foul play (which was reckless, rather than deliberate) * The act of foul play was a high tackle * There was contact with the head * There was a high degree of danger * The ball carrier changed height, but not sufficient to mitigate from a red card to a yellow card Given the above outcomes, the committee determined that the act of foul play warranted a red card and applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point, which was introduced in 2017 to mitigate the risk of head injuries, carring a minimum six-match suspension. Having acknowledged Lee-Lo’s disciplinary record, good character and conduct at the hearing, the committee reduced the six-match entry point by three matches, resulting in a sanction of three matches. Lee-Lo will miss Samoa’s three remaining pool matches. The suspension will end at midnight on 12 October after which he is free to resume playing. The player has the right to appeal the decision within 48 hours of receiving the written decision, which can be read here when available. -
Also posted in the match thread:
USA flanker John Quill suspended for 3 matches
USA flanker John Quill appeared before an independent judicial committee having received a red card for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13 (dangerous tackle) in USA’s Rugby World Cup 2019 match against England on 26 September. The committee, chaired by Nigel Hampton QC (New Zealand) with former international coach Frank Hadden (Scotland) and former international match official Valeriu Toma (Romania), heard the case, considering all the available evidence, including multiple broadcast angles and submissions from the player and his representative. The player admitted that he had committed an act of foul play worthy of a red card. In determining the sanction, the committee deemed that: * There was an act of foul play (which was reckless, rather than deliberate) * The act of foul play was a shoulder charge * There was contact with the head * There was a high degree of danger; and * There were not sufficient mitigating factors to reduce the sanction from a red card to a yellow card Given the above outcomes, the committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point, which was introduced in 2017 to mitigate protect player welfare, deter high contact and prevent head injuries. This resulted in a starting point of a six-week suspension. Having acknowledged Quill’s good character and conduct at the hearing, the committee reduced the six-week entry point by three weeks, resulting in a sanction of three weeks, which equates to three matches in the context of the Rugby World Cup. Quill will miss USA’s three remaining pool matches (against France, Argentina and Tonga) at Rugby World Cup 2019. The suspension will end at midnight on 13 October, after which time he is free to resume playing. The player has the right to appeal the decision within 48 hours of receiving the full written decision. -
-
@Bovidae Yep, that's why there's consistency. As I've posted before, in case of a dangerous tackle (Law 9.13) in which contact with the head has been made, the mandatory mid-range entry point of 6 weeks is the minimum sanction. A reduction of 50% for all the mitigating factors mentioned above is also standard.
-
Also posted in the match thread:
Motu Matu’u suspended for 3 matches
Samoa hooker Motu Matu’u appeared before an independent judicial committee having been cited for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13 (dangerous high tackle) in Samoa’s Rugby World Cup 2019 match against Russia on 24 September. The committee, chaired by Wang Shao Ing (Singapore lawyer and former international player) with former international players John Langford (Australia) and Olly Kohn (Wales), heard the case, considering all the available evidence, including multiple broadcast angles and submissions from the player and his representative. The committee, by majority, deemed that the incident was an act of foul play and warranted a red card for the following reasons: * it was a reckless high tackle which made contact with the head of the opposition ball carrier * a high degree of danger was reflected in the approach to the contact and follow-through * the factors against mitigation in the High Tackle Sanction Framework were present, in that the tackler and the ball carrier were in open space and the tackler had clear line of sight of the ball carrier * the majority of the committee were not satisfied that the change in height of the ball carrier was unreasonable and/or outside the estimation of the player. The player’s execution of the tackle resulted in a loss of control of the terms of contact with the opposition ball carrier The committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point, which was introduced in 2017 to mitigate the risk of head injuries, carrying a minimum six-match suspension. Having acknowledged Matu’u’s disciplinary record, good character and conduct at the hearing, the committee reduced the six-match entry point by three matches, resulting in a sanction of three matches. The sanction applies to the next three matches Matu’u is scheduled to play in. Matu’u is not scheduled to play for Samoa against Scotland on 30 September due to undergoing the graduated return to play protocol. He will therefore miss Samoa’s final two pool matches and the quarter-final should Samoa progress, or his next scheduled match with his club London Irish on 26 October, 2019. The suspension will therefore end at midnight after the Rugby World Cup 2019 quarter-finals if Samoa qualify or at midnight on 26 October if Samoa do not qualify for the quarter-finals, after which he is free to resume playing. The player has the right to appeal the decision within 48 hours of receiving the written decision.Note how they take into account that he wasn't going to play the next pool game anyway, and therefore don't count that match for his suspension!
-
@Stargazer jeepers, talk about opening a can of worms! Are they saying it would have been shorter?
-
@Bones No can of worms at all. This is very clear. Three games is three games, but if it is clear from the outset that the player would never have played in a particular game (as in this case), then that game doesn't count. So if he had been healthy, this game probably would have counted (I doubt they'll speculate about whether a player would have been selected - that would have been a can of worms - but being medically unfit to play based on the existing concussion and return-to-play protocols is quite easy to establish).
