Does the delay undermine the disciplinary process?

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
719
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Given the incident occurred immediately after the final, 20 May 23, the hearing itself seemed to be extremely late, 13 Jul, but there is still no judgment.
  • Why not?
  • What evidence is currently missing that may be germane?
  • Does it support or undermine the allegations?
  • If evidence was not available then should the hearing have been deferred until all parties were prepared.
  • If a deadline is not met should the judgment not be concluded on that basis, any risk in not providing or assessing evidence lies with that party.
  • How can justice be seen to be done and the integrity of the process be upheld when unexplained delays are occurring?
  • How is this delay received and what are the possible ramifications if a ban is deemed necessary, to Sexton individually and also to Ireland in the RWC warm up and main event?
  • Is any sentence/ban backdated to date of offence or does it only apply from date of judgment?
Keeping this behind closed doors does not support the perception of an open, effective and just process.
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
190
Post Likes
57
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
South African here
Is it not obvious to everyone else that they are trying to find a way to get Jonny to the world cup, and you can't apply double standards with haste?
 

Treadmore

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
413
Post Likes
38

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
719
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade

The Disciplinary Committee found his behaviour confrontational and aggressive towards and disrespectful of the match officials, it included his pointing his finger at them and shouting at them something to this effect: “it’s a disgrace you guys can’t get the big decisions right” probably accompanied by expletives “most likely the f-word”. His conduct was obviously unsportsmanlike and brought the sport of rugby union into disrepute.
All seems equitable:


Nothing to see here move on now! :censored:
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,353
Post Likes
1,455
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,
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
719
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
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:
    1. 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:
  1. 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:
  1. There is a good deal of genuine mitigation:
    1. 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.

    2. His disciplinary record is excellent.
    3. 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.

    4. We do accept he feels what is properly characterised as remorse and not self- pity and that is it genuine.
    5. The content of the character references to which we had appropriate regard.
    1. For the reasons we have explained, the Misconduct is self-evidently so serious that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction is an immediate suspension.
    2. 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:
  1. 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:
    1. Content of a telephone call he had with JS on 22 May 2023; and
    2. Context for the email exchange with Leo Cullen (and others) relied upon by
      Leinster.
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
555
Post Likes
305
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Could there also be a backs vs. forwards bias at all? Just think of all the various jokes & memes that come on the various rugby sites and streams, for example pre-match the tight five are unleashed by their handlers while the backs are chauffeured in from the hair salon, etc. So could it be that the blazers feel the “threat“ is greater from a forward and so treat it with greater severity?

Or maybe @SimonSmith is right that they don’t want to mess with The Product this close to Payday.
 
Top