Brumbies v Chiefs
-
<p>Wow, you guus are harsh ...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Like him or not, this action is a fair way outside the public persona that he has built up. To post anything other than the above, would be out of character for him. He did something wrong, manned up, took his punishment and has written an apology. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's still no McCaw though.</p> -
<p>A cynic might point out he wrote his self serving apology after being suspended.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="570233" data-time="1459987075">
<div>
<p><strong>Wow, you guus are harsh ...</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Like him or not, this action is a fair way outside the public persona that he has built up. <strong> To post anything other than the above, would be out of character for him</strong>. He did something wrong, manned up, took his punishment and has written an apology. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>He's still no McCaw though.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Agree, but Pocock seems to get people's knickers in a twist around here.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The second bold is especially true.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="570239" data-time="1459988020">
<div>
<p>A cynic might point out he wrote his self serving apology after being suspended.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>A lawyer might point out that to say anything before the SANZAR judiciary hearing would be very unwise.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="570246" data-time="1459988716"><p>
A lawyer might point out that to say anything before the SANZAR judiciary hearing would be very unwise.</p></blockquote>
<br>
You mean this was just a basic, run-of-the-mill apology given by pretty much every player who pleads guilty before the judiciary? But I thought it was something special. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="570248" data-time="1459989461">
<div>
<p>You mean this was just a basic, run-of-the-mill apology given by pretty much every player who pleads guilty before the judiciary? But I thought it was something special.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Says who? Did Pocock say that?</p> -
Have a gander at Twitter or the Aus press.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="570246" data-time="1459988716">
<div>
<p>A lawyer might point out that to say anything before the SANZAR judiciary hearing would be very unwise.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Why would it if you're presenting an early guilty plea and seeking a reduction due to your genuine remorse and good character?</p> -
Actually to be fair I really think he is being genuine. If I'd been given just 2 weeks for that I'd have thanked SANZAAR too.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="570260" data-time="1459992773">
<div>
<p>Why would it if you're presenting an early guilty plea and seeking a reduction due to your genuine remorse and good character?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Because it's reality.</p> -
<p>Whatever.</p>
-
<p>So let's assume that Mr Pocock is a genuinely remorseful guy that had no intention to do anything wrong (even if he does come across as a nob
)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>None of that removes the fact that what he did was a very dangerous ecample of why players must take care not to grab around the head/neck area in a maul, and WR have decreed should be stamped on heavily.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It doesn't matter how genuine or heartfelt his apology is, he placed the welfare of another player at risk of serious injury.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My gripe is that I cannot see why the JO considered the act warranted a 'low entry point'. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Intent and remorse get taken into account in mitigation of the ban length NOT in determining the seriousness.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="570269" data-time="1459994323">
<div>
<p>So let's assume that Mr Pocock is a genuinely remorseful guy that had no intention to do anything wrong (even if he does come across as a nob )</p>
<p> </p>
<p>None of that removes the fact that what he did was a very dangerous ecample of why players must take care not to grab around the head/neck area in a maul, and WR have decreed should be stamped on heavily.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It doesn't matter how genuine or heartfelt his apology is, he placed the welfare of another player at risk of serious injury.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My gripe is that I cannot see why the JO considered the act warranted a 'low entry point'. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Agreed. But the conveyancing barrister is an <em>expert</em>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The whole process is a joke. If a player is going to enter a plea of guilty, why bother having a judicial officer? You've been charged with being an inveterate fluffybunny which carries a sanction of two weeks. Plea of guilt gets 50% off.</p> -
<p>I know it is a common legal thing but I have issue with reductions for pleading guilty, especially in the way that SANZAAR do it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The JO basically says 'if you plead guilty I will give you this ruling which takes into account your early guilty plea'. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>That means there is an incentive for the JO to set a low penalty to get a result.</p> -
<p>if you murder someone, do you get time taken off for pleading guilty?</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="570290" data-time="1459999375">
<div>
<p>if you murder someone, do you get time taken off for pleading guilty?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think your demeanour is taken into account, no? If you are seen to show contrition, apologise etc then the judge certainly can take that into account...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="570290" data-time="1459999375">
<div>
<p>if you murder someone, do you get time taken off for pleading guilty?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>This is getting ridiculous, you sound like Brian O'Driscoll.</p> -
<p>I am fine with Pocock's response to this, and I think it was the right thing to do.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The media painting him as some sort of saint annoys me though. He is getting plaudits for doing this, which makes no sense because at the end of the day he still did it, and will be sitting out the next two weeks because of it. It was a play that was at best reckless, and certainly dangerous. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>His apology should be greeted with a nod of the head, but nothing more. Certainly not vigorous applause.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That's not Pocock's fault, though.</p>
