Current Page: 1 of 2
More Gouging?
Posted by: Darraghgirl (IP Logged)
Date: 01 October, 2017 17:24

Sinkler video here

Ashy got banned for less!

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: JO'G (IP Logged)
Date: 01 October, 2017 17:43

much less



Park team from London
Just a park team from London
European Champions
Just European champions

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: tpr's headmistress (IP Logged)
Date: 01 October, 2017 18:33

More de-hatting. Why do they do that - just to irritate? (Sm55)

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: The Bard (IP Logged)
Date: 01 October, 2017 19:04

How utterly stupid of him, regardless of whether he actually gouged or not. Looks far worse than what Ashy did.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: Huxley (IP Logged)
Date: 03 October, 2017 21:20

7 week ban. Mitigating circumstances are that he plays for Quins, and isn’t Ashton....

In the words of the RFU, “it was an intentional act, but he didn’t cause an injury”, so reduced ban.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: King Zak (IP Logged)
Date: 03 October, 2017 21:48

Looks like his first game back could be against - Saracens!



Nous sommes l'armée noir et rouge !

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: Darraghgirl (IP Logged)
Date: 03 October, 2017 22:16

He pleaded guilty. I seem to remember ashy wanted to prove his innocence which with the benefit of hindsight and his record was never going to be easy. I'm not sure the presumption of innocence holds with rugby disciplinary committees !!

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: fatheralice (IP Logged)
Date: 03 October, 2017 22:33

Quote:
Huxley
7 week ban. Mitigating circumstances are that he plays for Quins, and isn’t Ashton....
In the words of the RFU, “it was an intentional act, but he didn’t cause an injury”, so reduced ban.

No he pleaded guilty which halves the tariff automatically. 12 weeks is the entry point for low level gouging of the eye, as laid down by the RFU scale of sanctions.

Ashton did not, so got the full term. He was daft to deny it imho, and would probably still be playing in England now had he got a 5 week ban at the time, as his England career would not have been destroyed given the timing and a general feeling that he was unlucky.
However he did make contact with the eye area, which was the charge levelled at him, so I fail to understand why he said he didn't!

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: Huxley (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 08:38

I’m sorry Fartheralice, but in the nature of a good spirited debate, that’s not completely true. While there is a reduction in sentence if the person pleaded guilty, it is not automatically halved. Where I feel the ban is leinient is that it was considered intentional but only considered entry as no injury was caused, in world rugby laws an intentional act shouldn’t be entry level, it should be mid point. Additionally world rugby have asked that an extra week be added for eye gouging, it wasn’t.

I agree that Ashton should have pleaded guilty, but there were other factors, and intention did not play the same role. When Kruis was accused of contact with the eye during a maul against Bath it was thrown out as rugby incident as it was unintentional. By the letter of their laws it was contact with the eyes, but no ban given as accidental. I’m not saying that Ashton’s wasn’t reckless, but it wasn’t intentional, and no injury was caused, which wasn’t a factor as it was this time

I’m not saying Ash shouldn’t have been banned, just that there should be consistency across punishments.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: Highbury Saracen (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 09:02

I think Ashy was european citing body too!
Never same outcome



Double Champions of Europe,we know who we are!! smiling smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2017 09:40 by Highbury Saracen.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: Huxley (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 09:19

Quote:
Highbury Saracen
I think Ashy was european city body too!
Never same outcome

Exactly! My idea would be for citing and banning should be run by a single body, funded equally by all RFUs then there can be a consistent approach and interpretation. It seems wrong that Huget can intentionally stamp on a player and not be punished because the French RFU want him available for France! Too many vested interests in the current system.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: TOKS (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 10:51

Of course the problem with this thread is that it gives the opportunity for trolls from other boards, who obviously never saw the incident in question, to...well...troll!

As we've done to death many times Ashy's only "offence", having not committed the crime in question, was to plead not guilty. That was not what the kangaroo court wanted to hear. Players now have the good sense to plead guilty and act very remorsefully and this seems to be a far better plan.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 12:39

I have no idea how anyone can say this was worse then Ashton's. Ashton grabbed a bloke by the face and threw him on the floor for heaven's sake!

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: Roger G (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 16:06

I think you can rest your case now TOKS.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 16:32

Quote:
King Zak
Looks like his first game back could be against - Saracens!

Scrum-caps for 1-23 and super-soakers for the waterboys when they get near Marler?

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: David@Sarries (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 17:06

I must admit to being totally bemused by this punishment; Sinkler admitted to doing to deliberately and yet he receives a lower punishment than Ashton. How does this work? Ashton's was accidental; he didn't go back for a second try; he didn't cause an injury and he didn't go for the eyes.

I agree with Huxley until there's consistency of review boards we will continue to see IMHO ludicrous decisions.

BTW, I like Sinkler as a player; this is not personal to him it's all about ensuring that "crimes" are judged consistently.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: GazzaFez (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 18:50

Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
I have no idea how anyone can say this was worse then Ashton's. Ashton grabbed a bloke by the face and threw him on the floor for heaven's sake!

For the sake of accuracy QP, Ashton was in the process of removing the player out of the maul. The fact that he threw him to the ground is entirely irrelevant. The concencus was that Ashton was guilty of lazy hands and nothing more. But his hands should not have been there full stop. However, the punishment was completely out of proportion with the crime. 10 weeks and the end of his England career, pretty much as a direct consequence.

Sinckler was a naughty boy and he was lucky to get off with such a comparatively light sentence; as we all know now primarliy because he pleaded guilty, whereas Ashton did not.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: fatheralice (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 22:26

Quote:
Huxley
I’m sorry Fartheralice, but in the nature of a good spirited debate, that’s not completely true. While there is a reduction in sentence if the person pleaded guilty, it is not automatically halved. Where I feel the ban is leinient is that it was considered intentional but only considered entry as no injury was caused, in world rugby laws an intentional act shouldn’t be entry level, it should be mid point. Additionally world rugby have asked that an extra week be added for eye gouging, it wasn’t.
I agree that Ashton should have pleaded guilty, but there were other factors, and intention did not play the same role. When Kruis was accused of contact with the eye during a maul against Bath it was thrown out as rugby incident as it was unintentional. By the letter of their laws it was contact with the eyes, but no ban given as accidental. I’m not saying that Ashton’s wasn’t reckless, but it wasn’t intentional, and no injury was caused, which wasn’t a factor as it was this time

I’m not saying Ash shouldn’t have been banned, just that there should be consistency across punishments.

Quote:
RFU judgement on Callum Clarke v Hawkins incident
There are no aggravating features and all of the standard mitigating factors are
present. The Player is genuinely contrite, he realises the damage done to an individual
and to the wider image of the Game, he admitted culpability at the earliest opportunity
and he undoubtedly wishes to make reparation for his offending. He is, therefore,
entitled to 50% discount from that entry point
which leads me to conclude that the
appropriate sanction is a suspension of 32 weeks. Since this is a long sanction it will
run continuously through the summer vacation without a break.


Quote:
19.11.11 Thereafter, a Disciplinary Panel shall identify all relevant off-field mitigating
factors and determine if there are grounds for reducing the period of
suspension and subject to Regulations 19.11.12 and 19.11.13 the extent, if at
all, by which the period of suspension should be reduced. Mitigating factors
include the following:
(a) The presence and timing of an acknowledgment of culpability/guilt
by the offending Player;
(b) The Player’s disciplinary record and/or good character;
(c) The youth and inexperience of the Player;
(d) The Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing;
(e) The Player having demonstrated remorse for the Player’s conduct to
the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and
(f) Any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Panel
considers relevant and appropriate.
19.11.12 Subject to Regulations 19.11.13 and 19.11.14 for acts of Foul Play the
Disciplinary Panel cannot apply a greater reduction than 50% of the relevant
entry point suspension. In assessing the percentage reduction applicable
for mitigating factors, the Disciplinary Panel shall start at 0% reduction and
apply the amount, if any, to be allowed as mitigation up to the maximum
50% reduction.

Just about everyone that pleads guilty will get this 50% reduction, unless they have a bad previous record, as it is a given that they will meet the other criteria ie be well mannered at the hearing (Venter aside!), express remorse, and provide good character references, including community work. You'd be pretty stupid not to meet these other criteria!

Just about every judgement I have read where there was a guilty plea has seen a 50% reduction of the entry point. Whilst not automatic perhaps, it is pretty much universal, given the above.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: fatheralice (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 22:31

Actually, having just read the Sinkler judgement, you could argue he was unlucky not to get 6 weeks taken off his 12 week ban rather than the 5, as he basically met all the mitigating factors.

Re: More Gouging?
Posted by: Adey (IP Logged)
Date: 04 October, 2017 22:55

Fatheralice, fair and reasoned arguement is not welcome here and they'll be bringing up Ashton and the ban that shouldn't have been very single time someone gets cited for contact to the eyes. Move on. Nothing to see here.

Current Page: 1 of 2
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net