Pegleg
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,330
- Post Likes
- 536
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 3
Hartley red card - Saints v Leinster
- Thread starter winchesterref
- Start date
The judgement is on teh EPRC news section.
It was MR (5 weeks entry) + 2 weeks for previous - 1 week for guilt plea = 6 weeks.
Panel was 2 Welshmen, 1 Italian.
If he hadn't of had previous, guess it would have been MR (5wks) - 2 weeks (max discount is 50%) = 3 weeks. so he got double what a non-serial offender would get.
I think MR is right for the action. I think the 1 week deduction for guilty plea is dumb. So would see it at 7 weeks - he would still be free to play 1st 6 nations game (but would be his first game back).
Of course you could also argue he should have more than 2 weeks added for his previous.
It was MR (5 weeks entry) + 2 weeks for previous - 1 week for guilt plea = 6 weeks.
Panel was 2 Welshmen, 1 Italian.
If he hadn't of had previous, guess it would have been MR (5wks) - 2 weeks (max discount is 50%) = 3 weeks. so he got double what a non-serial offender would get.
I think MR is right for the action. I think the 1 week deduction for guilty plea is dumb. So would see it at 7 weeks - he would still be free to play 1st 6 nations game (but would be his first game back).
Of course you could also argue he should have more than 2 weeks added for his previous.
Pegleg
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,330
- Post Likes
- 536
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 3
EP/ MP / TE
It was without doubt an intentional attempt at foul play .Mid point is therfore a minimum for me.
Deterence
Piddling bans have not provided any deterrence (54 weeks already) for DH so far so a solid additional tarrif is needed for any deterrent effect.
Previous record
Well what can we say repeating the above point: 54 weeks already. the boy has "previous"
Remorse / nice suit / Nice biccies take to the hearing.
Total codswallop!
That is why people se the systen as corrupted.
Some transparency would help.
If we had an explanation saying "It was mid range because...", "We thought his previous record should only add two weeks because..." it would help the accusations of corruption, but as it is, it looks like they've just pulled the numbers out of one orifice or another.
Paule23
Referees in Scotland
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 394
- Post Likes
- 153
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 7
Why is the general response here there is something wrong and that justification is required for mid range, 2 weeks additional etc.
The people complaining about leniency, what punishment would you have given, in line with the guidance and other similar incidents? What would your justification be for the sanctions you want/expect?
The people complaining about leniency, what punishment would you have given, in line with the guidance and other similar incidents? What would your justification be for the sanctions you want/expect?
SmeejDad
Referees in England
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2016
- Messages
- 24
- Post Likes
- 0
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 10
I think it's a totally fair length of ban. Watch it in real-time he had no time to react, O'Brien was going down.
What I'd say to Harley if I was afforded the opportunity would be to get better at keeping his cool when he is frustrated with something. It's been relatively easy for him to remain calm and collected with England this year because they've been winning, their set piece has been dominant and their game-plan has been successful every time. So the chips haven't really been down at all. However, he comes back to Northampton and they're getting completely outplayed in every department, he comes onto the pitch and they lose two scrums on the bounce, and he's lost control and just wants to hit someone.
Get a grip Hartley - you're like a kid throwing your toys out the pram. Learn to accept disappointment and move on. Not a lions captain for me.
What I'd say to Harley if I was afforded the opportunity would be to get better at keeping his cool when he is frustrated with something. It's been relatively easy for him to remain calm and collected with England this year because they've been winning, their set piece has been dominant and their game-plan has been successful every time. So the chips haven't really been down at all. However, he comes back to Northampton and they're getting completely outplayed in every department, he comes onto the pitch and they lose two scrums on the bounce, and he's lost control and just wants to hit someone.
Get a grip Hartley - you're like a kid throwing your toys out the pram. Learn to accept disappointment and move on. Not a lions captain for me.
Pegleg
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,330
- Post Likes
- 536
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 3
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,365
- Post Likes
- 1,466
It's a mid range offence in the current climate.
However:
1. The reduction for the guilty plea I have an issue with. In English criminal law, you can get a big reduction for an early guilty plea. However, the judge can ignore that if the totality of the evidence means that you're pleading guilty to the manifestly obvious. I see that as analagous to this - the video evidence speaks for itself, and a guilty outcome was always going to happen. Why discount him in those circumstances?
2. Deterrent: he has a horrendous record. Going into the hearing he had served 54 weeks of suspension. The addition of the 2 weeks, especially with the discount, is just a head nod in the deterrence direction. They weren't being serious.
I'll also add I found Ian Ritchie's comments prior to the hearing to be deplorable, and worried that he was trying to exert influence the outcome. He should have shut the hell up and let the process run out, and then, and only then, made his comments.
However:
1. The reduction for the guilty plea I have an issue with. In English criminal law, you can get a big reduction for an early guilty plea. However, the judge can ignore that if the totality of the evidence means that you're pleading guilty to the manifestly obvious. I see that as analagous to this - the video evidence speaks for itself, and a guilty outcome was always going to happen. Why discount him in those circumstances?
2. Deterrent: he has a horrendous record. Going into the hearing he had served 54 weeks of suspension. The addition of the 2 weeks, especially with the discount, is just a head nod in the deterrence direction. They weren't being serious.
I'll also add I found Ian Ritchie's comments prior to the hearing to be deplorable, and worried that he was trying to exert influence the outcome. He should have shut the hell up and let the process run out, and then, and only then, made his comments.
What did he say? I can't find it anywhere.
Pegleg
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,330
- Post Likes
- 536
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 3
L'irlandais
, Promises to Referee in France
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 4,724
- Post Likes
- 325
I must confess I don't understand what his record at captaining England has to do with his hearing.
That he still captains Saints, doesn't surprise me, given how that club handled George North's concussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...ng-mistakes-handling-george-north-concussion/. Shame because Northampton were such a good club before.
However I hope his chances of another England cap are put in doubt by his 6 week ban.
That he still captains Saints, doesn't surprise me, given how that club handled George North's concussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...ng-mistakes-handling-george-north-concussion/. Shame because Northampton were such a good club before.
However I hope his chances of another England cap are put in doubt by his 6 week ban.
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,067
- Post Likes
- 1,797
Unless Jones wants to make a "public statement" [which doesn't seem his style ? ] or he believes 6 weeks out would seriously jeopardise Hartley's effectiveness, why would he drop the captain that has just skippered 13 straight wins?
I expect him to be the skipper against France.
didds
I expect him to be the skipper against France.
didds
TBH, I don't think they were too bad. It looked to me like he was just commenting about whether he'd carry on as England captain and, in that context, I agree that his record as captain should be considered. It didn't sound to me like he was saying his record as England captain should affect his ban.
SmeejDad
Referees in England
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2016
- Messages
- 24
- Post Likes
- 0
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 10
I agree with the immediate above... I'd be interested to know how Eddie Jones felt about him making those comments. Ian Ritchie is a business man pure and simple. He shouldn't be publicly meddling with the affairs to do with the team and on pitch incidents. Leave it to the squad and coaches that's what they're their for.