Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2018
- Messages
- 2,779
- Post Likes
- 842
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
How dare you call me a gentleman!I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave at 8.37pm
;-) <<<--
How dare you call me a gentleman!I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave at 8.37pm
;-) <<<--
Swinging arm?This concept of "always illegal" ... apart from a shoulder charge, what else would be an always illegal act?
Not really. Had the judiciary hearing not incorrectly overturned his RC, his ban would have included that match. Its hardly OF's fault that the hearing cocked it up.Backdated to include the Ireland game he was not selected for. Crazy!
would a swinging arm across the waist or legs be illegal?Swinging arm?
Same here, the date of the judicial hearing, not the date of the appeal hearing.Here (at the level where I'm involved) bans do not start until the hearing. That way an "innocent" player serves no ban. I assumed this was so throughout.
In London grassroots hearings are on a Monday, so nine days after a typical Saturday game.Here (at the level where I'm involved) bans do not start until the hearing. That way an "innocent" player serves no ban. I assumed this was so throughout.
So typically they miss one game waiting for a hearing.
I am talking grass roots so it's very much self policed by the club, but if they took part in a warm up who would even know ?Would they be allowed to take part in warmups etc for that game, or would they be expected to observe all the protocols that apply to a suspended player?
Fair Questionwould a swinging arm across the waist or legs be illegal?
We allow nothing not even waterboy.Would they be allowed to take part in warmups etc for that game, or would they be expected to observe all the protocols that apply to a suspended player?
You can interpret this howsoever you like.
The Chair of the original DC for Farrell that handed down what might be charitably described as a 'generous' decision to the player was also the Chair of the DC that handed down 'only' a 30 year sanction for an assault that still leaves me with brain issues.
Well, again, interpret howsoever you like...I'm so sorry you had to go through that, and to learn that you still suffer from the consequences Brain injuries are horrible, and in many ways are an invisible disability that few of us are aware of, or make allowances for.
From my own personal point of view, I didn't think of the decision of the original DC as being generous, but rather as simply mistaken. I think they were genuinely doing their best to apply the law and Head Contact Protocol as best they could, but just got it wrong, and (got talked into?) applying mitigation where none was due.
[The alternative conclusion is that some sort of quiet backroom deal was made, presumably with some sort of quid-pro-quo promised if they let OF off. I would hate to believe this is true as it casts a lot of nasturtiums on people with most likely totally honest motives. However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility, and in my limited experience of how sport administration works, it would not surprise me, sadly.]
I do think the decision of the appeal committee was generous though, and they should have started at six, given him one off for remorse (which again I believe is genuine), and added (at least) one back on for repeat offending, as an aggravating factor. And backdating it was more than generous!!