Current Page: 1 of 2
Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: blucherquin (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 11:13

Hope people think it's worth a new thread for those interested in the actual judgement and evidence. RFU published today. He's been done because he reached into his face three times and the third time he puts his finger in his eye deliberately.

Here's the video -- ignore the bit from the match commentary and scroll until 6 mins 23 seconds and watch until the end, particularly the final images.

[www.englandrugby.com]

Here's the full citing report from the RFU:

[www.englandrugby.com]

If you can't open it for some reason here is the key bit on "gravity of player's actions"

"Having brought his opponent to ground the Player placed his hand under the head of his opponent and removed his scrumcap. Thereafter, and with the scrumcap now free from the head of the tackled player, the Player moved his right hand from underneath the opponent player’s head to on top of it. His fingers reach forward two further times. The first of which his fingers reach towards the strap whilst his thumb remains within the cap. At this stage the scrumcap strap is free and lying over the tackled players face. It is on the third movement that the hand and fingers of the Player then come across the face and make contact with the eye of the opponent Player. By the time this third movement is made it is our finding that the Player would have deliberately placed his fingers upon the right eye of his opponent. Whilst we are content with the submission that the Player’s original intent was to remove the scrum cap, his final movement with the fingers was intentional and intended to make contact with the eye, not simply the “eye area” (hence his accepted plea to that more serious offence contrary to 10.4(m)). "

Since there's been lots of debate about "gouging" and "eye area" -- this is very clear, it was the eye, it was deliberate -- and he pleaded guilty to the more serious offence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2017 11:23 by blucherquin.

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: D-Quins (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 13:03

Yes it is rather clear from the pictures there was contact with the eye and this would have been an easy case to conclude even if he had not pleaded guilty.

He has been a Silly lad and needs to sit down and learn from this quickly. He will get no sympathy I am sure from the rest of the squad, I have never met a player who thinks gouging is anything than a big no no. Yes I know that some countries have a bigger problem with this than others but England fortunately is not one of them.

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: Jammy Git (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 14:28

Ah it's that second go he has that's the problem. That looks like an actual gouge.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: Scaramouche (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 14:53

Come on Quinten, what do you think?



Illegitimi non carborundum

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: Harleys Evil Step Mum (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 16:03

God he got lucky with that punishment!!!!

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: InsertQuinsPunHere (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 16:09

Oh dear. That looks pretty vicious to me. I hope his team mates are berating him for it.

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: DOK (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 16:15

but it came in at the low end of punishment (12 weeks) and he then got 5 weeks off for wearing a suit and tie or whatever they give it for nowadays. Although their legal speak makes it sound like gouging "his final movement with the fingers was intentional and intended to make contact with the eye, not simply the “eye area”. If it was actual gouging, as you and I understand it, surely they'd have started at the top end and gone up?

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 16:31

Quote:
Scaramouche
Come on Quinten, what do you think?

I think he's a lucky boy and I think so much time off for pleading guilty to offences such as these is daft. Thank you for asking.

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: blucherquin (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 16:48

Quote:
DOK
but it came in at the low end of punishment (12 weeks) and he then got 5 weeks off for wearing a suit and tie or whatever they give it for nowadays. Although their legal speak makes it sound like gouging "his final movement with the fingers was intentional and intended to make contact with the eye, not simply the “eye area”. If it was actual gouging, as you and I understand it, surely they'd have started at the top end and gone up?

They say it was "actual gouging" -- intentional contact with the eye. I'm not sure there's any legal speak involved -- they repeatedly make it clear it's deliberate and it's the eye.

Here's the mitigation, which frankly looks a bit silly. For fear of re-typing everything in the RFU document linked to above -- he also gets time off for an ok record, and for pleading guilty via email to the more serious offence before the hearing.

"Having successfully removed the scrumcap, and through those actions ascertained where his hand was upon the head of his opponent, he then reached forward with his fingers one final time and intentionally made contact with the eye. Whilst any contact with the eye, or eye area, carries the potential for serious harm to be caused the panel felt that this particular offence was one which merited a Low End entry point because there was, thankfully, no injury caused and little to no force was applied to the eye during the fleeting contact. "

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: DOK (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 18:10

Sorry - you quote the phrase "actual gouging" but when I search for it in the judgement, I can't seem to find it. Can you just point where it is?

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 18:40

Quote:
DOK
Sorry - you quote the phrase "actual gouging" but when I search for it in the judgement, I can't seem to find it. Can you just point where it is?

And be careful where you put your fingers...

(sorry, couldn't resist!)

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: DOK (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 18:51

Ha ha! Very good. Made me chuckle out loud, even if not laugh! smiling smiley

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: Jammy Git (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 19:12

I've given up trying to make sense of disciplinary committees and how they reach their verdicts.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: blucherquin (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 20:48

Quote:
DOK
Sorry - you quote the phrase "actual gouging" but when I search for it in the judgement, I can't seem to find it. Can you just point where it is?

DOK come on, I want to think Sink didn’t do it but he did.

He’s pleaded guilty to putting his fingers deliberately into the eye of an opponent.

That’s the “legal” offence - and in any version of layman’s language that’s gouging. He jammed his finger into the guys eye socket - and I’d have given him a longer ban.

If you’re convicted of manslaughter you’ve killed someone but you won’t find it called killing in the court documents because there’s no offence called “killing”. Doesn’t mean you haven’t killed someone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2017 20:49 by blucherquin.

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: Bedfordshire Boy (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 21:11

Quote:
blucherquin
Quote:
DOK
Sorry - you quote the phrase "actual gouging" but when I search for it in the judgement, I can't seem to find it. Can you just point where it is?

DOK come on, I want to think Sink didn’t do it but he did.

He’s pleaded guilty to putting his fingers deliberately into the eye of an opponent.

That’s the “legal” offence - and in any version of layman’s language that’s gouging. He jammed his finger into the guys eye socket - and I’d have given him a longer ban.

If you’re convicted of manslaughter you’ve killed someone but you won’t find it called killing in the court documents because there’s no offence called “killing”. Doesn’t mean you haven’t killed someone.

I missed that bit.

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 21:47

I think some people don't know what a gouge is.

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: Jus-Quin-Time (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 21:49

Quote:
blucherquin

He jammed his finger into the guys eye socket - and I’d have given him a longer ban.


The judgement was that he did not jam his finger into the eye socket and that was the reason for the low entry point. I quote from the document you posted:

"Whilst any contact with the eye, or eye area, carries the potential for serious harm to be caused the panel felt that this particular offence was one which merited a Low End entry point because there was, thankfully, no injury caused and little to no force was applied to the eye during the fleeting contact." (Top of page 4)

and

"Minimal force was applied to the eye and it was but momentary." (Top of Page 3)

So the absence of injury was a consequence of minimal force and 'fleeting/momentary' contact. I can find no words in the report suggesting or describing that a finger was jammed into an eye socket, the likely outcome of which would have been injury and, I am sure, a longer ban.

Defusing the rather emotional discussion by posting the panel's report was good. However the intent is slightly undermined by extrapolating the documented evidence to suit your own version or interpretation of events.

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
Date: 05 October, 2017 21:52

I think some people don't know what gouging is.

[youtu.be]

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: blucherquin (IP Logged)
Date: 06 October, 2017 06:34

Quote:
Jus-Quin-Time
Quote:
blucherquin

He jammed his finger into the guys eye socket - and I’d have given him a longer ban.


The judgement was that he did not jam his finger into the eye socket and that was the reason for the low entry point. I quote from the document you posted:

"Whilst any contact with the eye, or eye area, carries the potential for serious harm to be caused the panel felt that this particular offence was one which merited a Low End entry point because there was, thankfully, no injury caused and little to no force was applied to the eye during the fleeting contact." (Top of page 4)

"Minimal force was applied to the eye and it was but momentary." (Top of Page 3)

So the absence of injury was a consequence of minimal force and 'fleeting/momentary' contact. I can find no words in the report suggesting or describing that a finger was jammed into an eye socket, the likely outcome of which would have been injury and, I am sure, a longer ban.

Defusing the rather emotional discussion by posting the panel's report was good. However the intent is slightly undermined by extrapolating the documented evidence to suit your own version or interpretation of events.

Fair comment - and to be very clear I have no version of events, I was careless with language.

My only interpretation of the events are that it turned out to be indefensible and I no longer have any sympathy and indeed think a lot less of Sinckler than before.

I get the debate on the the word gouging totally, but in the end I'm not sure the media use of the word would make me any more upset with Sinckler than the reality of what he did.

Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Posted by: DOK (IP Logged)
Date: 06 October, 2017 07:14

So we're agreed there is no phrase "actual gouging" in the judgement? There was minimal force and fleeting contact, almost as if someone who couldn't actually see where his fingers were touched an eye and withdrew fingers as soon as he realised where they were.

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