RC issued in the bunker

[Marc Wakeham]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave at 8.37pm

;-) <<<--

How dare you call me a gentleman!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

This concept of "always illegal" ... apart from a shoulder charge, what else would be an always illegal act?

Swinging arm?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Backdated to include the Ireland game he was not selected for. Crazy!

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.
Think of it this way.. if you get found guilyy of a crime and get four years, and you appeal but are unsuccessful, they dont restart the clock on your four years from the date of the appeal. The four years still start from the original guilty verdict.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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.

 

[didds]

So the over riding impression I get from all of this is that the system is nopt fit for purpose.

winner.

 

[Dickie E]

Swinging arm?

would a swinging arm across the waist or legs be illegal?

 

[belladonna]

Billy gets 3 games (reduced to 2 if he does the Speed Awareness Course.)

England number 8, Billy Vunipola, appeared before an independent judicial committee via video link having [received a red card/been cited] for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13 (A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.) in the Summer Nations Series match between Ireland and England on Saturday 19th August 2023.

The independent Judicial Committee consisting of Roddy Dunlop KC – Chair (Scotland), Frank Hadden (Scotland) and Jamie Corsi (Wales) heard the case, considering all the available evidence and submissions from the player and his representative.

The player admitted that he had committed an act of foul play worthy of a red card.

On that basis, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head. This resulted in a starting point of a six week suspension.

Having acknowledged mitigating factors including his exemplary previous record, immediate apology and remorse, and noted the absence of any aggravating factors, the committee reduced the six week entry point by three weeks, resulting in a sanction of three weeks (to be served as the following given the player’s upcoming schedule):

• England v Fiji 26 August 2023
• England v Argentina 9 September 2023
• England v Japan 17 September 2023

The Player may apply to take part in the Coaching Intervention Programme to substitute the final match of his/her sanction for a coaching intervention aimed at modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play.

The player has the right of appeal within 48 hours of the issuing of the full written decision.

Billy Vunipola handed three-week ban ahead of Rugby World Cup

The England back-rower has been given a ban which will see him miss the start of the Rugby World Cup

www.walesonline.co.uk

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

Same here, the date of the judicial hearing, not the date of the appeal hearing.

It was the panel of the judicial hearing that overturned his RC, and that is the hearing they go back to. This is because the appeal hearing panel have deemed the judicial panel were incorrect to overturn the RC, and they should have given him a four week suspension.

 

[belladonna]

According to the (unreliable) Torygraft yesterday, OF took a highly active part in the warm-up against Ireland, which would not be consistent with the actions of a player under suspension. Can anyone who watched the match live confirm or deny?

 

[crossref]

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.

A player with a RC can't play until the hearing. So typically they miss one game waiting for a hearing.

 

[belladonna]

So typically they miss one game waiting for a hearing.

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?

 

[crossref]

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?

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 ?

In practice I imagine most players wouldn't actually want to
Or maybe they would, I dunno

 

[Marc Wakeham]

would a swinging arm across the waist or legs be illegal?

Fair Question

 

[BikingBud]

Could be:

Law 9 Dangerous play

12. A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm, shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking.

If it is deemed that it is physical abuse then yes.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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?

We allow nothing not even waterboy.

 

[SimonSmith]

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.

 

[Volun-selected]

So assuming no more shenanigans and OF is out for the first two RWC pool games - what do you all see as the impact on the (so far very underwhelming) England setup?
Will Borthwick focus on just Ford/Smith and OF will need to earn his slot back, or are they just placeholders until OF returns to the fold?

And from an officiating view, do we think OF is likely to see a greater scrutiny of his tackles in general during the tournament, and maybe some overacting to draw attention to any OF infraction (as per Nic White vs. Faf de Klerk)? Similarly, is OF likely to be less likely to get any benefit of doubt on a borderline high/reckless call?

 

[crossref]

They are placeholders, Borthwick plan revolves around OF .

Unless , I guess, we win both games emphatically, but it's hard to see that as very likely

I am not sure refs will focus on OF. They are going to refer every single tackle like that to the bunker , whether OF or not

I think the bunker officials watching videos will find it easier to be dispassionate about who it is than perhaps a on field ref can

 

[belladonna]

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.

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!!

 

[SimonSmith]

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!!

Well, again, interpret howsoever you like...

Chairs of DC can, and have, be cherry picked. Or to the use phrase emailed to me, "selected". I think it would be naive to think that picking certain people might not be happening with an eye to an eventual outcome.

I'm adding 2+@; I might be getting 4, I might be getting 5 - but I think it's an understandable answer...