Anthony Watson RC

[Treadmore]

...so they reduced his ban to the minimum possible withon the Regulations

Not quite, they could have applied no sanction:

Regulation_19.11.13...the Disciplinary Panel may apply sanctions less than 50% of the lower end entry sanctions specified in Appendix 2, including in appropriate cases no sanction.

While not explicitly, the Panel are in the passages quoted fundamentally disagreeing with the RC report;

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

After quoting the referee's report, the panel said:

That accords with the footage, which we have viewed at full speed and in slow motion.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to take the Panel's judgement and interpret that as being they thought it should not have been a red card: they could have applied no ban at all and they could have said nothing or something less positive about the referee's report.

 

[OB..]

After quoting the referee's report, the panel said:

That accords with the footage, which we have viewed at full speed and in slow motion.

... and then they said Watson was destabilised by Ashton. Inconsistent.

 

[Treadmore]

... and then they said Watson was destabilised by Ashton. Inconsistent.

I read that as a bit of extra information, not in the referee's report, that they used for mitigation and to distinguish between deliberate and reckless. It doesn't contradict the referee (so no disagreement with the referee). I am not sure what you see as inconsistent?

 

[RobLev]

I read that as a bit of extra information, not in the referee's report, that they used for mitigation and to distinguish between deliberate and reckless. It doesn't contradict the referee (so no disagreement with the referee). I am not sure what you see as inconsistent?

Not quite. Ref's report said S14 didn't push AW; and that, by necessary implication, it was all AW's fault. The panel said S14 did destabilise (ie push) AW. They attributed blame to S14 for destabilising AW and thereby contributing materially to the collision with S15. They went on to say that as a result they assessed Watson's fault as "minimal".

They'd already said that AW's actions were "at their highest a reckless act to which another (S14) contributed".

So ref says it's all AW's fault, and that S14 didn't contribute. Panel says S14 materially contributes, and that AW's contribution was minimal. How is that not inconsistent?

 

[Treadmore]

Not quite.

I think you're trying to find a reading to suit your view.

Ref's report said S14 didn't push AW; and that, by necessary implication, it was all AW's fault.

That's quite some stretch.

The panel said S14 did destabilise (ie push) AW.

destabilise doesn't equate with push. (FWIW AW said his "path was blocked".)

They attributed blame to S14 for destabilising AW

the Panel do not use the word 'blame' nor any other pejorative terms for S14.

So ref says it's all AW's fault,and that S14 didn't contribute.

the ref doesn't say that in his report, you are asserting that.

Panel says S14 materially contributes, and that AW's contribution was minimal. How is that not inconsistent?

The refs report is pretty simple and factual. Is there anything in the ref's report with which you disagree?

The Panel, in deliberating the seriousness and mitigation have used additional information (quite rightly), not in the ref's report, that does not contradict anything the referee has reported.

Given the Panel could have applied no sanction but actually gave a 1 week ban, do you think it is a reasonable interpretation that they agreed with the award of a red card?

 

[RobLev]

I think you're trying to find a reading to suit your view.

That's quite some stretch.


destabilise doesn't equate with push. (FWIW AW said his "path was blocked".)



the Panel do not use the word 'blame' nor any other pejorative terms for S14.



the ref doesn't say that in his report, you are asserting that.



The refs report is pretty simple and factual. Is there anything in the ref's report with which you disagree?

The Panel, in deliberating the seriousness and mitigation have used additional information (quite rightly), not in the ref's report, that does not contradict anything the referee has reported.

Given the Panel could have applied no sanction but actually gave a 1 week ban, do you think it is a reasonable interpretation that they agreed with the award of a red card?

More later - pushed for time; but you're a ref, I'm a lawyer. The ref's report was written by a referee. Tell me what you would have said in the ref's RC report if you wanted to tell the panel either that:

• S14 did not contribute to AW's collision with S15; or that
• S14 materially contributed to that collision

or, perhaps, how the wording would differ in your report between those scenarios.

 

[OB..]

We are arguing about words again. The impression I got from the citing report was that Ashton's action was irrelevant whereas the disciplinary report says he destabilised Watson. If the citing officer had agreed with the destabilisation, would that not have reduced the incident below Red Card?

 

[RobLev]

We are arguing about words again.

Indeed; and while I don't know the referee's day-job, I do know that the Panel Chair is a QC and would use words carefully, as a lawyer would.

The impression I got from the citing report was that Ashton's action was irrelevant whereas the disciplinary report says he destabilised Watson.

Exactly so.

If the citing officer had agreed with the destabilisation, would that not have reduced the incident below Red Card?

Isn't the cite automatic if a RC is given? And once AW had pleaded guilty to the offence, I don't think the Panel has jurisdiction to overturn the RC in respect of which it was given.

But I agree that if the referee had agreed that S14 did destablisie AW, that the destabilisation was a material contributory factor, and that AW's fault was minimal, he w/shouldn't have given the RC in the first place.

 

[RobLev]

More later - pushed for time; but you're a ref, I'm a lawyer. The ref's report was written by a referee. Tell me what you would have said in the ref's RC report if you wanted to tell the panel either that:

• S14 did not contribute to AW's collision with S15; or that
• S14 materially contributed to that collision

or, perhaps, how the wording would differ in your report between those scenarios.

The Panel decision was written by a QC; unlike the Laws, then, which we are all agreed are to be construed against the background that they were written by the 12yo work experience pupil in crayon while the Lawmakers went to lunch; and unlike the referee's report, written by someone more literate but without necessarily any legal training; the precise wording of the Panel decision matters. It was IMHO very carefully written so as to walk the tightrope between on the one hand exonerating someone who had, after all, pleaded guilty to the offence with which he was charged, but who had in fact been the victim of circumstance and foul-play committed by the opposition winger, who had himself not been cited for his role; and, on the other, condemning him in such terms as to call into question the let-off administered to him.

 

[OB..]

The Panel decision was written by a QC;

.. who will be very well aware that even specialised legal draughtsmen can have problems. The law reports are full of examples.

To me the disciplinary report certainly reads as if they wished the RC had not been given. It was an exercise in diplomatic damage limitation with regard to all parties.

 

[RobLev]

.. who will be very well aware that even specialised legal draughtsmen can have problems. The law reports are full of examples.

To me the disciplinary report certainly reads as if they wished the RC had not been given. It was an exercise in diplomatic damage limitation with regard to all parties.

Exactly.