Totally unacceptable behaviour!

[Account Deleted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26516631

 

[dave_clark]

plus a lifetime ban from any rugby club in the uk i hope.

 

[menace]

plus a lifetime ban from any rugby club in the uk i hope.

No no..that won't happen...the judiciary already knows there's mitigating factors and will discount the charge handsomely.

"He is very apologetic for losing his temper," Mr Jones said, adding that his client had been diagnosed with testicular cancer and was currently living on benefits because the treatment had left him unable to work."

So obviously having cancer and not working means he can have the shits with life and with all those around and so he is now entitled to punch the f@cking lights out of anybody. Lets not forget his parents got divorced 30 years ago when he was 16. C'mon it's only fair that he has to take his frustrations out on somebody. :sarc::sarc::sarc::sarc::sarc: (Just in case you missed the sarcasm tone)

 

[Browner]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26516631

Does the WRFU disciplinary case now start?

 

[Simon Thomas]

I doubt that WRFU will be the disciplinary entity as they only cover the Wellington area of New Zealand.

More likely is the WRU. :biggrin:

Certainly in RFUland any disciplinary action has to wait for either police investigations or the full legal case to be held first.

 

[Account Deleted]

Does the WRFU disciplinary case now start?

I'd certainly hope that the WRU will now look at the case. As Simon says they wait for the police case to end. We had a recent instance of Assault just before the end of a game the DVD etc were taken by the police until the case was over. The WRU will now discuss the events with a view to dealing with both sides. Can't say anymore at this stage.

 

[Browner]

I doubt that WRFU will be the disciplinary entity as they only cover the Wellington area of New Zealand.

More likely is the WRU. :biggrin:

Certainly in RFUland any disciplinary action has to wait for either police investigations or the full legal case to be held first.

Oops, I was up late......so i'm blaming tired eyes....soz

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Add him to the list of reasons to stop in bed on a Sunday morning.

 

[Taff]

.... So obviously having cancer and not working means he can have the shits with life and with all those around and so he is now entitled to punch the f@cking lights out of anybody.

Mmmmm. When exactly was he diagnosed with Testicular cancer?

 

[Account Deleted]

Mmmmm. When exactly was he diagnosed with Testicular cancer?

On one level: "Who cares?" It's nothing to do with his behaviour. I didn't notice "Smiler" decking ARs earlier in the season.

 

[Taff]

On one level: "Who cares?" It's nothing to do with his behaviour. I didn't notice "Smiler" decking ARs earlier in the season.

That's just my point ATTR. If it was after the assault, it serves no purpose apart from trying to muster up some sympathy for somebody who doesn't deserve any.

If it was before the assault, no doubt they will argue that the stress contributed towards his behaviour which was out of character. It still doesn't give you carte blanche to deck the nearest irritant mind.

 

[crossref]

I'd certainly hope that the WRU will now look at the case. As Simon says they wait for the police case to end. We had a recent instance of Assault just before the end of a game the DVD etc were taken by the police until the case was over. The WRU will now discuss the events with a view to dealing with both sides. Can't say anymore at this stage.

why would the WRU (and other unions) wait? A legal case can take months - years sometimes - is a player who seriously assaults another player or an official free to keep on playing all that time? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Browner]

why would the WRU (and other unions) wait? A legal case can take months - years sometimes - is a player who seriously assaults another player or an official free to keep on playing all that time? It doesn't make sense to me.

Crossref makes a great point, behaviour unacceptable to the sport isn't dependant upon a criminal conviction and should be dealt with separately.....

Maybe its that the outcome of union sanction could influence the criminal case???, although part of me thinks judges should be bright enough to ignore such.

If a player is RC his suspension starts immediately (doesn't it?? ?? I've lost track) , in which case provided the referee RC's the Coach AND SURELY THIS MUSTVE HAPPENED - if not WTF!!, then he should be suspended pending disciplinary hearing, which may be delayed until criminal case decided at the discretion of the union disciplinarians

Any problem with that?

 

[Simon Thomas]

crossref : under the newly applied IRB (and RFU, WRU, etc) Disciplinary Regulations a suspension starts immediately and cannot end until the case is heard by the CB or Union and guilty + sanction or not guilty decision is made. Hence the current rush to have all dismissal reports in within 48 hours, and if a not guilty plea the hearing held that same week.

It has always been the case that any offence that leads to any police investigation cannot be processed by the CB/RFU until the police decide to take no action, or if it goes to CPS for prosecution the relevant court process is completed.

so crossref if you think it should be otherwise write to Gerard McEvilly Head of RFU Disciplinary or his Welsh equivalent.

 

[Account Deleted]

why would the WRU (and other unions) wait? A legal case can take months - years sometimes - is a player who seriously assaults another player or an official free to keep on playing all that time? It doesn't make sense to me.

First the main evidence, the video of the game was confiscated by the police as potential witnesses might re watch the video and thus make there eye witness accounts unsound. So that evidence would be potentially inadmissible.

Second the player is not free to play. Certainly not in WRU land anyway (other unions pay differ).

Whilst there are different standards of "proof" required in legal courts as compared to internal disciplinary hearings A big ban from a union would undoubtedly influence a jury. So you have a potential perversion of justice.

You often hear, in all walks of life, internal disciplinary hearings awaiting the outcome of a legal case. Employees suspended on fraud charges being suspended whilst legal cases proceed for example.

 

[Account Deleted]

That's just my point ATTR. If it was after the assault, it serves no purpose apart from trying to muster up some sympathy for somebody who doesn't deserve any.

If it was before the assault, no doubt they will argue that the stress contributed towards his behaviour which was out of character. It still doesn't give you carte blanche to deck the nearest irritant mind.

Here we differ. It makes no difference either way in my book.

 

[Browner]

Jury's are only influenced if they are told.
Prejudicial info is often omitted.

So alone that's not a good enough reason.

 

[Taff]

Here we differ. It makes no difference either way in my book.

We are not differing; I agree with you.

I'm just pointing out what the defence will no doubt bring up if he had cancer before the incident. Stress can do strange things to you. Years ago I was under unbearable stress (personal and work) when my then manager deliberately pushed the wrong button ... again and again. Despite a verbal request to drop it, he didn't. That's the closest I've come to smacking a work colleague. As it happened, he was just pinned against the wall and told in no uncertain terms what he would get if he didn't keep quiet. I copped the mother of all bollockings from the big boss, but kept my job. Not proud of it, and I couldn't have complained if I'd been sacked TBH.

My point is that stress may be a contributary factor ie it may explain the outburst - but still doesn't justify the outburst.

 

[Account Deleted]

I had similar but walked away. It was not worth it the management structure was rotten / corrupt. I knew I had to get out. But on the point you raise it is time we made it clear that argument carries no water.
Under The provocation you describe, I understand a backlash occurring. not that it should happen even when the person is threatening you.

I almost died two years ago. In no way should I or anyone use that sort of experience justify unacceptable behaviour. No one was at fault for my illness. It was one of those things. I'm stronger for it. I was back reffing after 7 months and having had to regain the strength to walk. Why do people think that such experiences justify thuggish behaviour?

 

[didds]

cos they is tossers innit

didds