Aus v Ireland - red card

[Toby Warren]

The ban has landed for this tackle; http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/11/34...ves-five-week-suspension-for-dangerous-tackle

5 weeks.

I think when comparing it to the Toby Flood one he'll feel a little hard done by. What was pleasing was it was spotted live and dealt with correctly.

 

[menace]

No issue with the RC at the time nor the 5 weeks when looked in isolation from other cases.

What I don't like, and think it's just plain stupid was 'The tackle was deemed to be a mid-range offence (8 weeks).An extra week was added as a deterrent '.

WTF? Why not just add the deterrent factor at the entry ranges to begin with? Gve me a break. That's almost as bad as the discounting because 'they turned up in a suit and tie and looked remotely sorry'.

 

[The Fat]

No issue with the RC at the time nor the 5 weeks when looked in isolation from other cases.

What I don't like, and think it's just plain stupid was 'The tackle was deemed to be a mid-range offence (8 weeks).An extra week was added as a deterrent '.

WTF? Why not just add the deterrent factor at the entry ranges to begin with? Gve me a break. That's almost as bad as the discounting because 'they turned up in a suit and tie and looked remotely sorry'.

Would agree with those sentiments. Either 8 weeks is sufficient as a deterrent for an offence at that entry level or it isn't. If the IRB believe that there is a need to add more weeks as a deterrent, then why is the entry level not 9 weeks or 10 weeks?
I would have thought that adding weeks to act as a deterrent would have been for someone who has previous form. Kirudrani had his 9 weeks reduced by 4 because of his previously clean record. It doesn't make sense to me.
When I saw it live, I was confident that he would be outed for more than just a couple of weeks and I don't have a problem with the final length of ban but the process of getting to that point seems a little strange IMO.

 

[OB..]

In Gloucestershire we currently add an extra 2 weeks in all cases of referee abuse. We don't necessarily think the IRB tariffs should be modified.

 

[menace]

In Gloucestershire we currently add an extra 2 weeks in all cases of referee abuse. We don't necessarily think the IRB tariffs should be modified.

Do you then apply the full sentence or do you proceed to reduce it simply because they turned up dressed nice and with a sad face?

 

[didds]

This is Gloucestershire OB is talking about.

As well as the ban etc they also throw them down a hill after a huge cheese.

(Or rather did until the elf and safetee club came calling.)

didds

 

[didds]

OB - would you know which rugby club was making the tackles at the bottom of Coopers Hill??


cheers

didds

 

[Dickie E]

In Gloucestershire we currently add an extra 2 weeks in all cases of referee abuse. We don't necessarily think the IRB tariffs should be modified.

Are you suggesting Kuridrani is guilty of referee abuse? If not, I don't see the relevance of your post.

 

[OB..]

Are you suggesting Kuridrani is guilty of referee abuse? If not, I don't see the relevance of your post.

Because it was decided that there was too much referee abuse, the Disciplinary Panel will add 2 weeks to the initial assessment in all guilty cases regardless of other considerations. It was an example of why it can make sense to add the extra to underline the point.