Delon Armitage Citing

[Account Deleted]

Anyone know of a link for the incident?

 

[Account Deleted]

Got it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AitrpdqLi0&feature=youtu.be&t=43m50s

About 33 mins (game clock)

What do people think? Yellow or Red?

 

[OB..]

Got it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AitrpdqLi0&feature=youtu.be&t=43m50s

About 33 mins (game clock)

What do people think? Yellow or Red?

:rc:
Technically not a tackle because I don't think that player had the ball, but so what?

 

[smeagol]

Looked to me like 15 had the ball, and the 9 was there in support.

Lift went damn close to 180. :norc:

 

[Dixie]

yellow. Collapsing a maul.

 

[damo]

Red. I've Red Carded someone for doing that and I'd do it again. For me it makes no difference that it is in a maul rather than a tackle, if anything it is worse because the player had time to think about what he was doing and stop.

 

[Account Deleted]

Also, being a maul, there are a lot more bodies, potentially, to fall on top of the player who has landed on his head / neck area. This increases the potential for serious injury. The AR clearly states that the player landed on his back. Did he???

 

[SimonSmith]

Red. I've Red Carded someone for doing that and I'd do it again. For me it makes no difference that it is in a maul rather than a tackle, if anything it is worse because the player had time to think about what he was doing and stop.

Delon Armitage.
"Think"

I may know where you're going wrong here....

 

[TheBFG]

Delon Armitage in trouble for doing something stupid!!!!! :wow:

Hold the back page!

 

[Lex Hipkins]

Armitage suspended for eight weeks

The Toulon full back, Delon Armitage (No 15), has been suspended for eight (8) weeks following an independent Disciplinary Hearing in Dublin today (Thursday, 24 January 2013) arising from the Heineken Cup Pool 6, Round 6 match against Montpellier on Saturday, 19 January 2013.

Armitage was alleged to have carried out a tip tackle on the Montpellier full back, Pierre Bérard (No 15), during the first half of the match at Stade Yves du Manoir in contravention of Law 10.4(j) of the IRB's Laws of the Game. The complaint was made by Citing Commissioner, Shaun Gallagher (England).

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and either dropping or driving that player's head and/or upper body into the ground whilst the player's feet are off the ground.

Under the IRB Sanctions for Foul Play, Law 10.4(j) tip tackles carry the following sanction entry points: Low End - 4 weeks; Mid Range - 8 weeks; Top End - 12+ to 52 weeks. Note that under the new 'IRB Sanctions for Foul Play' table which was introduced this season, the entry point for sanctions for tip tackles was increased.

The independent Judicial Officer, Robert Williams (Wales), heard evidence and submissions from Armitage who pleaded not guilty, the Toulon Team Manager, Tom Whitford, and from the club's legal counsel, Sam Jones. The Judicial Officer also heard submissions from ERC Disciplinary Officer, Roger O'Connor.

The Judicial Officer upheld the citing complaint and found that Armitage had committed an intentional tip tackle. He determined that the act was in the mid range of the IRB's sanctioning regime (8 weeks) and in line with the IRB's memorandum on deterring tip tackles and taking into account the player's previous disciplinary record, he added a further two weeks.

Due to Armitage's remorse and his good conduct during the hearing, the Judicial Officer then deducted two weeks before imposing a suspension of eight (8) weeks.
Armitage will be free to play on Monday, 18 March 2013. Both the player and ERC have the right to appeal the decision.

 

[crossref]

Armitage suspended for eight weeks


The Judicial Officer upheld the citing complaint and found that Armitage had committed an intentional tip tackle. He determined that the act was in the mid range of the IRB's sanctioning regime (8 weeks) and in line with the IRB's memorandum on deterring tip tackles and taking into account the player's previous disciplinary record, he added a further two weeks ..

that's a bit odd - the IRB's memo doesn't say anything at all about disciplinary sanctions and punishments, it just discusses what happens on-field : a card.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/wiki/index.php/2009_Memo_on_Dangerous_Tackles

or has there been another secret memo?

 

[Robert Burns]

No, just a misinformed journalist. More non surprise.

 

[Pedro]

Hang on a second!!!

heard evidence and submissions from Armitage who pleaded not guilty,

in line with the IRB's memorandum on deterring tip tackles and taking into account the player's previous disciplinary record, he added a further two weeks.

Due to Armitage's remorse and his good conduct during the hearing, the Judicial Officer then deducted two weeks

How can you plead not guilty? Surely someone showed him the video of him doing it?
How can you be remorseful if you plead not guilty? Surely the two are mutually exclusive? "I didn't do anything wrong, and I'm very sorry for it"?????????

How can you justify taking two weeks off a sentence that you have just increased for poor previous disciplinary records?

I really don't think the logic circuits are working the way they should.

 

[crossref]

How can you plead not guilty? Surely someone showed him the video of him doing it?
How can you be remorseful if you plead not guilty? Surely the two are mutually exclusive? "I didn't do anything wrong, and I'm very sorry for it"?????????
.

good point.

I'd like to know the reason he pleaded NG -- perhaps he attempted to rely on the technicality that the victim didn't have the ball, so it wasn't technically a tackle...

 

[Pedro]

Crossref - I think you may be right.
Serious question though, has there ever been a case where a ban has been increased (or not reduced) for a players "poor conduct during the hearing"? and what would that involve? Swearing at the Judicial officer? Shouting, stamping feet, not answering questions?

 

[crossref]

Crossref - I think you may be right.
Serious question though, has there ever been a case where a ban has been increased (or not reduced) for a players "poor conduct during the hearing"? and what would that involve? Swearing at the Judicial officer? Shouting, stamping feet, not answering questions?

trying to get off on a technicality?

 

[Account Deleted]

... and in line with the IRB's memorandum on deterring tip tackles and taking into account the player's previous disciplinary record, he added a further two weeks ..

that's a bit odd - the IRB's memo doesn't say anything at all about disciplinary sanctions and punishments, it just discusses what happens on-field : a card.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/wiki/index.php/2009_Memo_on_Dangerous_Tackles

or has there been another secret memo?

The memo was part of the attempt to deter Tip Tackles so in line with that memo's aims, the additional two weeks is trying to send the deterrent message?

 

[crossref]

i guess. but the memo doesn't have anything to say about punishments --- entry points, maximums, minimums, all that sort of thing.
It just says 'give them a card'

 

[SimonSmith]

"Look, I don't think I did what you're accusing me of. I don't think it was a tip as you're saying, and therefore I'm not guilty. But I am truly sorry for my actions as they could have been (were?) potentially dangerous and I'm going to try really hard not to do that again"

Contritely innocent

 

[Pedro]

Or was it more:
JO "How do you plead?"
DA "not guilty"
JO "Have an extra two weeks then"
DA "I'm sorry"
JO "well done, that's two weeks off"