Judiciary Happenings
-
@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).
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@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.
My problem is if you look at the 4 cases so far the degree of recklessness of the tackler, and therefore the severity and point of the contact isn't the same. But the punishment has been.
I've asked this before, but do we know if Samoa are able to replace Matu'u? They have another 2 hookers in their squad but if one of them gets injured prior to their next match they won't be able to have 2 specialist hookers in their 23.
-
Also posted in the match thread:
England centre Piers Francis cleared to play - citing not upheld
England centre Piers Francis attended a disciplinary hearing on 29 September having been cited for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13 (dangerous high tackle) in England’s Rugby World Cup 2019 match against USA on 26 September. The independent Judicial Committee was chaired by Nigel Hampton QC (New Zealand), joined by former international coach Frank Hadden (Scotland) and former international player John Langford (Australia). The player admitted that he had committed an act of foul play but denied that it reached the red card threshold. Having considered all the angles of the incident, together with evidence from the player and submissions from his legal counsel, the panel determined that the act ought to have resulted in a yellow card on-field. Since the threshold for upholding a citing is ‘red card’, the Committee did not uphold the citing and the player is free to play again immediately. The Committee followed the High Tackle Sanction Framework (HTSF) in order to make its decision. The player accepted that it was a high tackle that made contact with the head of the opposition ball carrier. He also accepted that a high degree of danger was present. Following the HTSF, this results in a starting point of a red card. The Committee then considered whether mitigating factors should result in the sanction being decreased. The Committee decided that there was significant and sufficient mitigation to be found: * in the sudden change of height by the USA player immediately before contact. It was only at the time of that sudden change that the clear line of sight factor (against mitigation) came in to play and could become of relevance; and that line of sight factor, therefore, was somewhat limited in its application, and the weight to be given to it; * in that the Player, being in control of the tackle, attempted to avoid the opponent’s head by making a definite attempt to change his own height and his body position; * in the Player’s initial contact being with his own head on the ball carrier’s left shoulder (and which initial contact absorbed a large degree of force), with the Player’s left shoulder then slipping up to make indirect and minor contact to the ball carrier’s head, causing no apparent injury. The Committee weighed up the factors for and against mitigation and on the balance of probabilities, decided that the mitigating factors outweighed the factors against mitigation and so the appropriate on-field sanction was a yellow card. The citing was therefore not upheld.
Home | Women's and Men's Rugby World Cup
The official site of Rugby World Cup, with ticketing and event information, live streaming, news, videos, fixtures and results.
-
So no citings from Wales v Oz match then
-
@MiketheSnow said in Judiciary Happenings:
So no citings from Wales v Oz match then
didn't see anything that was worthy, even in these "interesting" times
-
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
@MiketheSnow said in Judiciary Happenings:
So no citings from Wales v Oz match then
didn't see anything that was worthy, even in these "interesting" times
It was more a response to Francis getting no punishment.
-
Also posted in the match thread:
Uruguay hooker Facundo Gattas suspended for 3 games
Uruguay hooker Facundo Gattas attended a disciplinary hearing on 1 October having received a red card from referee Wayne Barnes for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13 (dangerous high tackle) in Uruguay’s Rugby World Cup 2019 match against Georgia on 29 September. The independent Judicial Committee was chaired by Jean-Noel Couraud (France), joined by former international coach Frank Hadden (Scotland) and former international referee Jose Luis Rolandi (Argentina). The player sought to overturn the red card. Having considered all the angles of the incident, together with evidence from the player and his representatives, the panel upheld the decision of the referee. The committee considered the High Tackle Sanction Framework (HTSC) and decided the following: * The judicial committee did not accept that it was a passive tackle. For the committee, the action was more akin to a dominant tackle with a high degree of danger * There was a direct contact of the player’s left shoulder to the ball carrier’s head * There was no evidence that there is a significant change of direction from the ball carrier‘s running line until after the contact * The player was in an open space and has a clear line of sight before the contact * There are no mitigating factors Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the panel did not find that the referee’s decision was wrong and the red card was therefore upheld. Given the above outcomes, the committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point, which was introduced in 2017 to protect player welfare, deter high contact and prevent head injuries. This resulted in a starting point of a six-week suspension. Taking into account the mitigating factors that are considered in relation to sanction, including the player’s clean disciplinary record, 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 Rugby World Cup 2019. Gattas will miss Uruguay’s two remaining pool matches (against Australia on 5 October and Wales on 13 October) and the quarter-final at Rugby World Cup 2019 or should Uruguay not qualify for the quarter-final, the player’s next club match in his domestic competition. Therefore the player is free to play again on 21 October, 2019. -
Samoa hooker Motu Matu’u’s appeal against the decision of a judicial committee to suspend him for three matches, following his citing 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, was heard in Tokyo on 1 October. The independent appeal committee was chaired by Sir James Dingemans (England), joined by Jean-Noel Couraud (France) and former international referee Jose Luis Rolandi (Argentina). The appeal committee dismissed the player’s appeal for the following reasons: * the judicial committee was entitled on the evidence to find that incident met the red card test; * the player could not have been scheduled to play against Scotland on 30 September, 2019 due to being unavailable for selection because of injury meaning that match was correctly excluded by the judicial committee from the sanction; * if Samoa do not qualify for the quarter-finals the judicial committee was correct to carry the suspension forward to the English Premiership because the judicial committee did not find, and could not have found on the materials before them, that Samoa were likely to get into the quarter-finals because the committee’s decision was made after only one pool game. The suspension remains as imposed by the judicial committee. Matu’u will 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. -
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
Samoa hooker Motu Matu’u’s appeal against the decision of a judicial committee to suspend him for three matches, following his citing 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, was heard in Tokyo on 1 October. The independent appeal committee was chaired by Sir James Dingemans (England), joined by Jean-Noel Couraud (France) and former international referee Jose Luis Rolandi (Argentina). The appeal committee dismissed the player’s appeal for the following reasons: * the judicial committee was entitled on the evidence to find that incident met the red card test; * the player could not have been scheduled to play against Scotland on 30 September, 2019 due to being unavailable for selection because of injury meaning that match was correctly excluded by the judicial committee from the sanction; * if Samoa do not qualify for the quarter-finals the judicial committee was correct to carry the suspension forward to the English Premiership because the judicial committee did not find, and could not have found on the materials before them, that Samoa were likely to get into the quarter-finals because the committee’s decision was made after only one pool game. The suspension remains as imposed by the judicial committee. Matu’u will 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.Quite surprised they appealed. Sadly for Matu'u that initial ruling was spot on and frankly imo he got a light sentence if you compare his actions to those of for example Reece-Hodge.
As an aside - can anyone clarify for me: I am under the impression that when a player takes a ruling on appeal, he risks the sanction possibly being increased if the appeal fails and the judicial committee deem the original sanction as being too light?
-
-
@Stargazer Thanks Stargazer.
Interesting, while it covers a broad range of powers discretionary , and while it specifically mentions reducing a penalty, it omits to specifically mention increasing a penalty.
Deliberate omission?
-
@Billy-Webb I don't know. Although I usually read the decisions, I can't remember whether a sanction has ever been increased on appeal. Not many players appeal their decision. The wording of Reg 18.8 doesn't exclude it.
-
@Billy-Webb said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer Thanks Stargazer.
Interesting, while it covers a broad range of powers discretionary , and while it specifically mentions reducing a penalty, it omits to specifically mention increasing a penalty.
Deliberate omission?
Really quite weird. This would suggest that an increase isn't possible:
"power to reduce, uphold, decrease or cancel"
and yet clauses "c" and "d" suggest that they can do whatever they like.
-
@Snowy The word "including" suggests that it's a non-exhaustive list of examples of what they can decide to do with the penalty. So IMO it suggests that an increase is possible. It's just odd that they've listed all the other options, but not the possibility to increase.
-
@Stargazer Makes the whole thing a bit redundant.
"An appeal committee shall have to power to alter the decision as it shall think fit" would have done.
I wonder what someone got paid for that?
-
@Snowy said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer Makes the whole thing a bit redundant.
"An appeal committee shall have to power to alter the decision as it shall think fit" would have done.
I wonder what someone got paid for that?
Six minute blocks mate! No use having a lawyer write something in five minutes that could take an hour and 30 seconds.
C***ts basically.
-
