The Hartley comparison is flawed on two levels: Firstly, Sexton doesn't have a track record half as as bad as Hartley; secondly, challenging competence isn't the same as attacking their integrity.
That said - I've opined previously that the system is now clearly set up to keep The Product on the field as much as possible, and this is just representative of that. Joe Community Player would have been wearing substantially more than the derisory suspension handed down here. I'd be very interested to know what the Elite Referees Union think about this,
Despite your assertion I remain unsure Hartley's comparison is flawed. Hartley was on the pitch in the throes of a very tight game and felt the pressure and decision were going against his team. Sexton was not part of the match day squad and would ordinarily not have been on the pitch but for the fact it was a final. In that context given free rein he has according to the EPCR DO 'deliberately and repeatedly, abused and intimidated the match officials," charges 1-3. Moreover event 4, perhaps an indication of things to come and the point at which effective intervention should have occurred has been disregarded, this to me is an aggravating not mitigating factor:
- The Misconduct Complaint now rests upon three incidents referred to as Incident 1, Incident 2 and Incident 3. What is alleged to have happened at half-time was the fourth incident. Whatever that was, no complaint is raised.
Para 89 does not add up, it was deemed not to be 15/16 mins of conduct but "an episode" but neither was it a fleeting nor a single incident, see above about Incident 4. Additionally he:
- It was deliberate: Having “had a go” at TS, he then targeted and sought out the match officials by walking over to them for what became Incident 1.
So perhaps appropriate interventions and warnings should have been issued, he had opportunity during the second half to consider his actions and remove himself from areas or situations where his "emotions" could have been managed better; this appears to have been whitewashed.
This is not about track record nor action taking place on the pitch, this about retaining the respect of much officials, with this judgment that demand of respect has again been diluted by weak judgment based upon weak mitigation:
- There is a good deal of genuine mitigation:
- His early admission of Misconduct, without which there would be no proof of any of the words he used in Incident 1. His candour went some way towards establishing the extent of the Misconduct against him. That said, we found against him on Incident 2.
- His disciplinary record is excellent.
- He apologised to TS. We accept JS was intending to and believed he had apologised for “his conduct on Saturday” which in his mind included what we have called Incident 1. Until the hearing he had not apologised directly to any match official. Then it was done through his Counsel. Even if he was told not to contact them directly, he could still have found another route to apologise before now.
- We do accept he feels what is properly characterised as remorse and not self- pity and that is it genuine.
- The content of the character references to which we had appropriate regard.
- For the reasons we have explained, the Misconduct is self-evidently so serious that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction is an immediate suspension.
- As for the length of that suspension, we have regard to all the relevant features summarised above and that we have read and heard. The appropriate way to sanction is to impose a suspension which reflects the totality of his offending, having regard to all the matters we have identified. Even with the maximum mitigation which we give the shortest suspension we can impose is one of three matches. But for his mitigation it would have been twice that length.
Genuine enough?
It seems the target was three weeks now how do we make that happen? - Looks like a duck to me!
Interestingly the time machine was in operation:
- Pursuant to our direction a signed witness statement (dated 19 July 2023) was also obtained from Tony Spreadbury (‘TS’). We directed that as we wished to understand the:
- Content of a telephone call he had with JS on 22 May 2023; and
- Context for the email exchange with Leo Cullen (and others) relied upon by
Leinster.
