Judiciary Happenings
-
@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.
-
-
@Snowy said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial Excellent legal work if you look at it like that. Ambiguous, open to interpretation, confusing, rugby allover really - as well as likely expensive in this case.
Sometimes you wonder if the writers are on a royalty from the work their regulations create for others in the legal club.
-
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@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.
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction.
These things are normally written by an organisation's own legal staff, not by external lawyers on high wages. Legal staff are usually not on extraordinary wages at all; I know quite a few people who do that kind of work (for all sorts of organisations). And they're no cnuts, by the way.
I guess you guys have no legal background, but listing examples in phrases like that is very common and not confusing at all for those who have to apply these legal provisions. It's a legislative technique to steer the interpretation of a legal provision, without being overly restrictive. In a way, it limits the discretion that judicial officers/judicial committee's have in the application of these provisions, without excluding another (non-listed) interpretation completely.
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction.
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Crucial said in Judiciary Happenings:
@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.
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction.
These things are normally written by an organisation's own legal staff, not by external lawyers on high wages. Legal staff are usually not on extraordinary wages at all; I know quite a few people who do that kind of work (for all sorts of organisations). And they're no cnuts, by the way.
I guess you guys have no legal background, but listing examples in phrases like that is very common and not confusing at all for those who have to apply these legal provisions. It's a legislative technique to steer the interpretation of a legal provision, without being overly restrictive. In a way, it limits the discretion that judicial officers/judicial committee's have in the application of these provisions, without excluding another (non-listed) interpretation completely.
It's pretty obvious from the above that you have no legal background either.
-
-
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction.
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
Where else would I go to get 20 links a day to instagram and twitter stories that I don't read?
Except for twitter and instagram.
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@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.
That runs contrary to standard interpretation of the law. The section only provides for the decrease, so according to the principle of ejusdem generis, it is limited to the meaning of the specific words listed.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@SammyC And it's even more obvious that you don't know anything about me and are very wrong.
Well in that case I'm glad you're not my lawyer.
-
@SammyC said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@SammyC And it's even more obvious that you don't know anything about me and are very wrong.
Well in that case I'm glad you're not my lawyer.
your honour, i point you to the highlighted Instagram post of September 26, 2019
