Anthony Watson RC

[The Fat]

The judgement document will be an interesting read.
Tackle Low End entry is 3 weeks
Verbal abuse of match official Low End entry is 6 weeks.

I assume he was found guilty of the dangerous tackle. Maximum reduction still only brings him down to 2 weeks but he got 1.
Even with max reductions, the abuse of a match official would have still attracted 3 weeks but he got 1.

I had been backing 2 weeks for the tackle but was not aware of the abuse directed at the 4th.

 

[The Fat]

The RC was a crock of shite, but I'm probably among the few who think that.

Well the ref, TMO and judiciary panel, presumably after watching numerous angles and slo mo replays, don't agree with you Ian

 

[crossref]

Well the ref, TMO and judiciary panel, presumably after watching numerous angles and slo mo replays, don't agree with you Ian

Watson didn't dispute the RC, so presumably the panel never had to make a judgement on whether it was justified.. but perhaps the fact that the ban was only 1 week gives us a clue as to what they thought.

 

[OB..]

Watson didn't dispute the RC, so presumably the panel never had to make a judgement on whether it was justified.. but perhaps the fact that the ban was only 1 week gives us a clue as to what they thought.

Makes sense to me.

 

[The Fat]

Watson didn't dispute the RC, so presumably the panel never had to make a judgement on whether it was justified.. but perhaps the fact that the ban was only 1 week gives us a clue as to what they thought.

Would I be correct in saying that you think that Watson made it easy for the judiciary in that he entered a guilty plea for the tackle RC?
Having pleaded guilty, the panel was then compelled to issue a "minimum" ban. Do you think that if Watson had pleaded not guilty, then they would have dismissed the RC?
That seems to be what you are saying.

I suppose we will just have to read the document when it becomes available.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Would I be correct in saying that you think that Watson made it easy for the judiciary in that he entered a guilty plea for the tackle RC?
Having pleaded guilty, the panel was then compelled to issue a "minimum" ban. Do you think that if Watson had pleaded not guilty, then they would have dismissed the RC?
That seems to be what you are saying.

I suppose we will just have to read the document when it becomes available.

In Watson's position, I would do the same as what he did, even if I thought the RC was unjust

1. Pleading not guilty and contesting the charge could get me a long ban.
2. I'm going to get a ban for the verbal anyway and bans are almost always concurrent.
3. Its getting into the business end of the season, a long ban could be detrimental to my team and I
4. Damage control is the way to go

To me, this looks to me like one of those good old fashioned "plea bargains" you see on American TV courtroom Dramas like Law & Order, plead guilty to a lesser charge and do the time.

 

[crossref]

Would I be correct in saying that you think that Watson made it easy for the judiciary in that he entered a guilty plea for the tackle RC?
Having pleaded guilty, the panel was then compelled to issue a "minimum" ban. Do you think that if Watson had pleaded not guilty, then they would have dismissed the RC?
That seems to be what you are saying.
.

indeed yes.

I don't know whether they would have dismissed it, but perhaps they might.

At the very least they would have had to write down a judgement as to why it was a RC (which might have been illuminating - recall in the RWC where almost every lift-and-drop tackle RC was assessed by the panel as NOT fitting lift/drop definition, and they fled to a generic dangerous tackle instead)

(BTW I agree with Ian's reasoning as well, I think Watson was sensible in his approach for the reasons Ian said. If Watson hadn't done the verbals, perhaps he would have contested the RC)

 

[Swiss Ref]

He was charged re Outburst with Unsporting behavior rather than Abuse of Match official. No England games to be missed (a la Joe Marler)

 

[Treadmore]

Full report here

Summary: collision wasn't solely his fault; outburst warranted a consecutive sanction, not concurrent with collision sanction. (I think if they thought the red was inappropriate they could have applied no further sanction.)

Last 3 paragraphs:

The above mitigation refers to the act of foul play. We have deducted 2 weeks (more than
50%) by application of Regulation 19.11.13. He is entitled to full credit (50%) for the features of mitigation identified above. In real terms that would mean 1 week with a starting point of 3 weeks. However, S14 destabilised the Player with the effect that he contributed materially to the subsequent collision with S15. Therefore in the context of offending of this type, we assessed the Player's fault as minimal such that a suspension of 2 weeks would be wholly
disproportionate. Accordingly we deducted a further week with a resulting suspension of 1
week.

Turning to the Rule 5.12 charge, there are no guidelines for such matters. Our powers are wide. We considered and found some assistance in Appendix 2, though we recognised that it does not apply directly. The low end entry point for a breach of Law 10.4(m) by way of a 'general' act contrary to good sportsmanship is 4 weeks. With his mitigation that would properly be reduced to 2 weeks. If we were minded to suspend the Player, Mr Jones invited
us to order it to run concurrently with the sanction for 10.4(i) matter. As a matter of principle, we considered that would be inappropriate. This was a separate matter, an act of dissent following his red card and therefore merited an additional sanction.

However, we considered that a total sanction of 4 weeks was disproportionate to the level of his overall offending (per Regulation 19.11.14) and so reduced what would have been 2 weeks (for the Rule 5.12) to 1 week. That will run consecutively to the 1 week for the law 10.4(i) making a total of 2 weeks. We also reprimand him and warn him about his future conduct. With his professional and international status goes responsibility which he knows includes respecting match officials and their decisions.

 

[Ian_Cook]

"However, S14 destabilised the Player with the effect that he contributed materially to the subsequent collision with S15"

Glad they saw it mostly the way some of us did, however, it is somewhat weak weasel-wording they have used here.

Ashton didn't just contribute materially to what happened, he caused it. If you apply the same logic we apply to a PT (take away the infringer then what happens?), then, as I said earlier, without Ashton's foul play, the whole episode never takes place; no collision, no verbals.

 

[The Fat]

"However, S14 destabilised the Player with the effect that he contributed materially to the subsequent collision with S15"

Glad they saw it mostly the way some of us did, however, it is somewhat weak weasel-wording they have used here.

Ashton didn't just contribute materially to what happened, he caused it. If you apply the same logic we apply to a PT (take away the infringer then what happens?), then, as I said earlier, without Ashton's foul play, the whole episode never takes place; no collision, no verbals.

And yet, rather than rescind the RC, they handed out a 3 week ban and then reduced it by more than 50% based on mitigating factors. Had the judiciary believed that Ashton was the absolute cause of the incident, they would have let Watson off. They didn't.

 

[RobLev]

And yet, rather than rescind the RC, they handed out a 3 week ban and then reduced it by more than 50% based on mitigating factors. Had the judiciary believed that Ashton was the absolute cause of the incident, they would have let Watson off. They didn't.

They couldn't - he pleaded guilty.

 

[Ian_Cook]

And yet, rather than rescind the RC, they handed out a 3 week ban and then reduced it by more than 50% based on mitigating factors. Had the judiciary believed that Ashton was the absolute cause of the incident, they would have let Watson off. They didn't.

As I said... "mostly"

And as Roblev said, they couldn't rescind the RC because he pleaded guilty, so they reduced his ban to the minimum possible withon the Regulations

 

[RobLev]

They couldn't - he pleaded guilty.

But they did say that:

At its very highest, it was a reckless act to which another (S14) contributed.

and:

However, S14 destabilised the Player with the effect that he contributed materially
to the subsequent collision with S15. Therefore in the context of offending of this type, we
assessed the Player's fault as minimal...

which do suggest that a not guilty plea might well have succeeded.

 

[OB..]

"However, S14 destabilised the Player with the effect that he contributed materially to the subsequent collision with S15"

Glad they saw it mostly the way some of us did, however, it is somewhat weak weasel-wording they have used here.

Ashton didn't just contribute materially to what happened, he caused it. If you apply the same logic we apply to a PT (take away the infringer then what happens?), then, as I said earlier, without Ashton's foul play, the whole episode never takes place; no collision, no verbals.

I think they are saying that after being destabilised, he should have taken clear avoiding action rather than blundering on into contact. You seem to be saying that there was absolutely nothing he could have done.

 

[RobLev]

I think they are saying that after being destabilised, he should have taken clear avoiding action rather than blundering on into contact. You seem to be saying that there was absolutely nothing he could have done.

Bear in mind that the RC report read:

Bath kicked the ball. Saracens 15 jumped into the air to catch it. Bath 15 collided with him in the air and Saracens 15 landed on the ground. I stopped the game immediately, chatted with my AR, and then reviewed the incident with the TMO.

After reviewing the footage with the TMO I came to the following conclusions:
Bath 15 had not been pushed by Saracens 14.
Bath 15 had not had his eyes on the ball, had stayed on the ground and had gone underneath the Saracens player whilst he was in the air.

This is clearly apportioning the entire blame for the incident to AW.

While not explicitly, the Panel are in the passages quoted fundamentally disagreeing with the RC report; they find his culpability "minimal". They are not making any comment on whether AW should have taken avoiding action; they need not, because AW pleaded guilty.

 

[crossref]

if he has learned one lesson it must be to keep his mouth shut !

that outburst effectively removed his chance of pleading not guilty. With two charges levelled against him -- one very arguable but the other stone cold guilty, he was clearly best advised to plead and apologise. I expect he was OK with the two weeks, all in all.

 

[FlipFlop]

One of those occasions where a result of Sending off Sufficient for the "in the air" part, followed by an 8 week ban for verbals, would have been a great result. I.E. a rare opportunity for the panel at the top level to send home the "Respect the Ref, and STFU" message.

So think the 1 week ban for the first art is okay. Disappointed at the second part. Although we do not know what he said, it must be bad for it to be acted upon.

 

[Pinky]

I don't understand how they can justify the reduction of more than 50%, and I think there is all sorts of weasel word about the second part, but overall 2 weeks for in the main mouthing off at the no4 is probably about right,

 

[OB..]

I don't understand how they can justify the reduction of more than 50%,

They disagreed with the view of the report in that they said Ashton destabilised Watson.