Fillol spit, Bath v Stade Francais

[Browner]

100% with you on your annalagy

59 Posts in 10 days - clearly you're not that Doctor doing 500 hours a week we all read about ! :biggrin:

 

[Daftmedic]

Nope. I'm on retirement leave. The wifey has banned me from any form of power tools as I have a tendency to drill into water pipes etc.

 

[menace]

Yes, it is a big deal. He is in charge of running the IRB, so the citing officers etc are in some real sense workiong for him. The judicial system needs to be seen as independent, and this looks like pressure to give a particluar decision. It is totally unacceptable.
I see that as a naive view of irresponsible comments from one's boss. Where is the independence in the eyes of the world when the boss makes that sort of comment?

You are not thinking straight. Imagine it was you on a charge of defrauding the taxman. You have seen the investigators are waiting to see whether you'll be charged with a criminal offence. You then note that the head of the Aussie judiciary has tweeted that Menace is clearly guilty and the presiding judges should throw away the key when they sentence you.

Now, you know that those judges report to the head of the judiciary. You know that their continued employment in the field is, to some extent, in the hands of the guy who has pronounced you guilty before you've even been charged. Would you expect your lawyer to point out that your right to a fair trial has been compromised? Or if he just shrugged and said "big deal", would you feel that you were getting value for your judicial dollar - and perhaps sack him for incompetence?

Not really a fair comparison.....jail/gaol time vs a slap in the wrist with couple weeks off???

I guess to clarify MY position. Firstly as I work in the judicial system and closely with judges, I somewhat have more faith in their ability to be independent and totally disregard external influences such as those of an opinion of a rogue CEO...or even their boss! Maybe IRB judiciary's are more fragile to external influences than I thought (though you wouldn't pick it from some of their decisions)? I sense that most of you don't trust them to be totally independent and abide by their rules of evidence and guidelines for sanctions. And just because you influence them to cite an offence, doesn't mean a conviction was demanded or influenced. Secondly, I have a total disdain for twitter. I just don't trust what you read on them to fully represent what people proclaim to be saying....and just because it's an 'official' account doesn't always mean they said it as there have been plenty of reported impersonators (but in this case I'm not saying it wasn't him...I don't know..but i don't care either). So I tend to ignore what is quoted as being said on twitter. Thirdly, I personally don't have issues with a person expressing their true opinion, even though it may be against the corporate line. I find it refreshing that they can speak for themselves. Unlike many of you, in my opinion, I didn't find that Gosper's expressed opinion too overly strong to actually try to influence a decision more than what the IRB judiciary would have decided anyway.

I understand where you are all coming from about Gosper overstepping his responsibilities ....I really do get it and at a generalised level I agree but I just don't think in this piddly case it's as big a sham as you all think and are vehemently expressing. Yet it is perhaps showing up Gosper's lack of judgment and so puts some doubt on his abilities to deal with critical and important issues when they arise. But IMO this is not one of those.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It is entirely inappropriate for a person in Gosper's position to be commenting publicly on these matters. Even if the judiciary is able to remain de facto independent (and I am personally confident that it does), the perception is that it could have been influenced by his pronouncements. This compromises the public trust in the judiciary, whether it has been influenced or not.

Someone at HQ needs to drop a word in Mr. Gosper's ear, telling him to stay off his twitter account regarding judicial matters.

 

[OB..]

Maybe IRB judiciary's are more fragile to external influences than I thought

AIUI their appointment process (and any removal process) is purely administrative, which is not the case for members of the judiciary

Secondly, I have a total disdain for twitter.

Irrelevant, Other people do take note. The fact that you don't makes no difference to the general principle.

Thirdly, I personally don't have issues with a person expressing their true opinion, even though it may be against the corporate line. I find it refreshing that they can speak for themselves.

If one of the JOs decided to express his opinion of Gosper. no doubt you would support him (even if you happened to disagree), but I think people would see that as a risk. Gosper is unlikely to be disciplined in any way, so the situation is not just one of people being entitled to give their views.

Unlike many of you, in my opinion, I didn't find that Gosper's expressed opinion too overly strong to actually try to influence a decision more than what the IRB judiciary would have decided anyway.

He should not be making comments about a sub judice issue when he is in a senior position in the organisation. It casts doubt on the impartiality of the system, to no benefit.

I understand where you are all coming from about Gosper overstepping his responsibilities ....I really do get it and at a generalised level I agree but I just don't think in this piddly case it's as big a sham as you all think and are vehemently expressing. Yet it is perhaps showing up Gosper's lack of judgment and so puts some doubt on his abilities to deal with critical and important issues when they arise. But IMO this is not one of those.

It does indeed show up a serious flaw in his judgement. I do not see that his remarks contribute anything useful at all.

I think we all agree that we do not want players trying to referee the game. Perhaps that is the appropriate analogy.

 

[menace]

AIUI their appointment process (and any removal process) is purely administrative, which is not the case for members of the judiciary
True...but I bet if you ask an independent judiciary body such as the irb judiciary if they're independent or just a puppet to their leader ...I bet I know their answer. Equally that's the same as suggesting that a judge appointed by a political party (or the Attorney General) in power at the time means that judge will somehow be indebted to that party or minister to follow their party line would be plain wrong. So my comparison was to say judicial independence can be compared at all levels

Irrelevant, Other people do take note. The fact that you don't makes no difference to the general principle.
True...and again it's just my opinion that I dont agree to subscribe to the general principle that the CEO has to keep his mouth shut when he has an opinion that may or may not be perceived as trying to influencing something as minor as this

If one of the JOs decided to express his opinion of Gosper. no doubt you would support him (even if you happened to disagree), but I think people would see that as a risk.
Yes I would support their right to have an opinion to express. I also recognise it is a risk...but it's their risk and so their choice

Gosper is unlikely to be disciplined in any way, so the situation is not just one of people being entitled to give their views.He should not be making comments about a sub judice issue when he is in a senior position in the organisation. It casts doubt on the impartiality of the system, to no benefit.
Why...isn't the CEO answerable to the board? Can't the board choose to release him if they deem he's broken their rules? Maybe I've misunderstood the hierarchy there...but I didn't think he was total Teflon?

It does indeed show up a serious flaw in his judgement. I do not see that his remarks contribute anything useful at all.
Agree...that's why I see little harm in them.

I think we all agree that we do not want players trying to referee the game. Perhaps that is the appropriate analogy.

Perhaps you're right...I see more sense in that comment than I have in any other.

My bold.

I'm happy to leave this and agree to disagree but respect your view and why you see it that way. Also content if you don't accept my view. That's the beauty of having an opinion...it's allowed to be different from others.

 

[didds]

i have to admit the spitting was the bit that got him the card. SHould it have been red :chin:

If i was to spit in YOUR face, what do YOU think should happen to ME ?

didds

 

[winchesterref]

I would have red carded withouth hesitation if I'd seen that.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I was interested to see there is a LE, MR & TE for spitting? Is TE where you pin your victim down and let it dangle a bit before it plops on their nose?

At least Springer was able to wipe his face. When Rudi Voller was gobbed on by Frank Rijkaard it all got tangled up in his permed mullet.

I digress.

I would RC that if I saw it. Disgusting.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Stade prop Rabah Slimani has also been cited after being sin-binned just before half-time after tackling Nick Abendanon in the air - he was only YC at the time).

Busy day at the office for the match's Citing Officer.

 

[Jacko]

I was interested to see there is a LE, MR & TE for spitting? Is TE where you pin your victim down and let it dangle a bit before it plops on their nose?

The charge is one of "Acts Contrary to Good Sportsmanship" in thathe spat rather than just "spitting". Many things fall into this category of offending, from Low End stuff like getting two yellows or a non-participant getting sent off for preventing a quick throw, through to Top End stuff like gouging. I suspect that spitting will also be Top End due to the disgusting nature of it and the damage it does to the image of the game.

 

[Toby Warren]

When's the hearing?

 

[Phil E]

So if the spitter and the prop had both been red carded would it have altered the result?

 

[OB..]

something as minor as this

It is irrelevant if the offence is minor or not (most people seem to think it is not minor). The point is the perception that the judicial system is being pressured by the CEO, who has no formal role to play.

Gosper is unlikely to be disciplined in any way[…]Why...isn't the CEO answerable to the board? Can't the board choose to release him if they deem he's broken their rules? Maybe I've misunderstood the hierarchy there...but I didn't think he was total Teflon?

If you think the offence was minor, of course he is “unlikely to be disciplined” You can’t have it both ways.

It does indeed show up a serious flaw in his judgement. I do not see that his remarks contribute anything useful at all.
Agree...that's why I see little harm in them.

Seeing no harm is not the same as seeing no benefit. The harm is the perception of undue influence.

I think we all agree that we do not want players trying to referee the game. Perhaps that is the appropriate analogy.

Perhaps you're right...I see more sense in that comment than I have in any other.

My bold.

I'm happy to leave this and agree to disagree but respect your view and why you see it that way. Also content if you don't accept my view. That's the beauty of having an opinion...it's allowed to be different from others.

Agree we have probably exhausted the issue (and other posters).

 

[L'irlandais]

I was interested to see there is a LE, MR & TE for spitting? ...

Here it is :

10.4(l) Spitting at Players
Low End: 4 weeks; Mid Range: 7 weeks; Top End: 11 to 52 weeks

Source : iRB PDF File]

Top end is where the act sparks of a brawl. :shrug:

 

[Dixie]

Here it is :

10.4(l) Spitting at Players
Low End: 4 weeks; Mid Range: 7 weeks; Top End: 11 to 52 weeks

Source : iRB PDF File]

Top end is where the act sparks of a brawl. :shrug:

I can spit in your general direction and miss - low end. I can spit in your general direction and hit your jersey - mid range. I can spit in your face and hit - high end.

 

[Daftmedic]

Sounds like a minty python sketch. We are the refs that say nihh. We spit in your general direction.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Mentioning Monty Python reminds me of a lunatic flanker I used to play with who was just like the Black Knight. Used to play on with broken bones, dislocated shoulders, cuts needing stiches with just a bandage wrap around them and blood staining through, etc.

 

[irishref]

Stade prop Rabah Slimani has also been cited after being sin-binned just before half-time after tackling Nick Abendanon in the air - he was only YC at the time).

Busy day at the office for the match's Citing Officer.

I watched most of the game and saw it "live". My first reaction was red, and after seeing the replays I thought "dark red".

 

[Phil E]

Red Card and six month ban for me. :norc: