Australia v England - 1st Test
-
@Machpants said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
@Bovidae said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
Has Hill been cited (assuming the judiciary thinks he should have got more than a YC)?
No press, so I guess not
That’s an absolute travesty
-
@Smuts said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
@MajorRage Jones strikes me as a great coach but not a great manager/selector.
England’s current struggles also seem to highlight the critical importance of assistant coaches and the rest of the support staff. No coincidence that England’s battling when you look at the outstanding technical coaches that have moved on.
Nail on head, England have looked a different side since Steve Borthwick and Scott Wisemantel left.
-
Independent disciplinary process update: Darcy Swain (Australia)
Australia second row Darcy Swain has been suspended for two weeks after appearing before an independent Judicial Committee via video link, having received a red card for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.12 (a player must not physically abuse anyone) in Australia’s test match against England on 2 July.
The independent Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Wang Shao-ing (Singapore), joined by former players Chris Smith (New Zealand) and Stefan Terblanche (South Africa), heard the case and considered all the available evidence, including hearing from the player and his legal representative.
The player admitted that he committed an act of foul play but did not accept that it warranted a red card.
Having reviewed all the evident, the committee upheld the red card under Law 9.12.
On that basis, the committee deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point of six weeks given the provocation before the incident, low degree of force exerted by the player and that no injury was caused to the victim. This resulted in a starting point of a six-week suspension.
Having acknowledged mitigating factors, including the player’s acknowledgement of foul play, clean disciplinary record, conduct at the hearing and expression of remorse, the committee granted the player full mitigation of 50 per cent of three weeks.
The committee further determined that given the above off-field mitigating factors and that a three-week sanction would be wholly disproportionate given the level and nature of the offence, the sanction was further reduced by an extra week, resulting in a sanction of two weeks.
The player will therefore miss Australia’s next two matches against England on 9 and 16 July. -
@Stargazer said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
The independent Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Wang Shao-ing (Singapore), joined by former players Chris Smith (New Zealand) and Stefan Terblanche (South Africa), heard the case and considered all the available evidence, including hearing from the player and his legal representative.
I think Wanganui TCOB had a guy playing in their Magpies Team (essentially 4th Grade/Pressies) around the late 80s/early 90s that had a name of something like that, although he was referred to as something completely different as is the custom in those grades. He always reckoned he was good enough to play in the Wanganui B Team so clearly a player of some repute. Wonder if it is the same Chris Smith?
Come to think of it Wainui might also have had a guy with that name in the early 1990s so it might ring a bell with @mikey07
-
@Higgins The NZ Rugby History site has 4 Christopher Smiths listed. One played 3 games for South Canterbury, the second played 13 games for King Country, the third played one game for of Plenty, and the fourth played 55 games for North Harbour (2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013) and 5 games for NZ U20 (2008). My guess it's the last one.
-
-
@Bovidae said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
The North Harbour Chris Smith is a lawyer. He was the NZ U20 captain.
https://www.lawinsport.com/sports-law-advisors/item/chris-smith
-
-
@Stargazer that ruling makes an absolute mockery of the whole entry point system.
6 weeks!
But you seem sorry so 3 weeks
Aaawww, you little rascal, boys will be boys, 2 weeks!!No one gets 6. Get rid of the 6 as an "entry point"
-
@MN5 I know of at least one other with the name that losely translates to Chris Smith. I saw a guy by the name of Kalisi Samiti playing for Toloa Old Boys against Havelu Bulldogs when I was up there in Tonga round about 2003. Was going from town to the village where I was staying and saw a game about to start and just had to stop and watch as you do. Interesting to note that Ellis Meechan was also there watching as part of something he was doing for the IRB.
-
@mariner4life said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
@Stargazer that ruling makes an absolute mockery of the whole entry point system.
6 weeks!
But you seem sorry so 3 weeks
Aaawww, you little rascal, boys will be boys, 2 weeks!!No one gets 6. Get rid of the 6 as an "entry point"
I'm livid.
Fucking joke
Sends no message.
Biting, butting, booting, gouging, pulling hair, grabbing testicles - regardless of provocation - say goodbye to your season.
No ifs, buts, or fucking good disciplinary records & remorse.
-
I actually agree with the decision in Swain's case. That was the softest head butt to get red-carded I've ever seen. It was stupid to respond to a provocation like that, no doubt, but it's ridiculous that he gets suspended while the grub who pulled his hair (and the incident earlier in the game) didn't even get a mandatory meeting with the Disciplinary Committee.
-
I would have given it 3 weeks
I also would have given the English bloke 2
-
@Stargazer said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
I actually agree with the decision in Swain's case. That was the softest head butt to get red-carded I've ever seen. It was stupid to respond to a provocation like that, no doubt, but it's ridiculous that he gets suspended while the grub who pulled his hair (and the incident earlier in the game) didn't even get a mandatory meeting with the Disciplinary Committee.
Yeah exactly, calling it a head butt and getting frothy about that is a bit ridiculous. It was a nudge at best, might have been going in for a smooch.
-
@Stargazer said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
I actually agree with the decision in Swain's case. That was the softest head butt to get red-carded I've ever seen. It was stupid to respond to a provocation like that, no doubt, but it's ridiculous that he gets suspended while the grub who pulled his hair (and the incident earlier in the game) didn't even get a mandatory meeting with the Disciplinary Committee.
He was red carded for intent not execution.
Quite fucking rightly.
-
@Stargazer said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
I actually agree with the decision in Swain's case. That was the softest head butt to get red-carded I've ever seen. It was stupid to respond to a provocation like that, no doubt, but it's ridiculous that he gets suspended while the grub who pulled his hair (and the incident earlier in the game) didn't even get a mandatory meeting with the Disciplinary Committee.
I agree with all that and Hill should certainly have been cited for the hair pulling. Earlier incident? I must have missed that, what did he do?
-
@MiketheSnow said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
@Stargazer said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
I actually agree with the decision in Swain's case. That was the softest head butt to get red-carded I've ever seen. It was stupid to respond to a provocation like that, no doubt, but it's ridiculous that he gets suspended while the grub who pulled his hair (and the incident earlier in the game) didn't even get a mandatory meeting with the Disciplinary Committee.
He was red carded for intent not execution.
Quite fucking rightly.
Absolutely. However the real punishment here was leaving his mates a man down for 70% of the match. The subsequent punishment should reflect more than just intent. I’m ok with 2 weeks.
-
@Catogrande said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
@Stargazer said in Australia v England - 1st Test:
I actually agree with the decision in Swain's case. That was the softest head butt to get red-carded I've ever seen. It was stupid to respond to a provocation like that, no doubt, but it's ridiculous that he gets suspended while the grub who pulled his hair (and the incident earlier in the game) didn't even get a mandatory meeting with the Disciplinary Committee.
I agree with all that and Hill should certainly have been cited for the hair pulling. Earlier incident? I must have missed that, what did he do?
The earlier incident was at a ruck where Swain was standing next to the ruck as a guard and Hill just pushed him in the face as he attacked the line. It was high contact and just dumb. Went unpenalised and seemed to fire up Swain.
