PDA

View Full Version : 3 year ban for pushing the ref over



mike_fernlea
29-01-14, 18:01
Apologies if this has been posted in another forum but I did a search and couldn't find it.

Anyway, someone posted this on Reddit with the accompanying messages:
"Amateur player banned for 3 years for collision with referee makes compilation video. His incident at the end. Deliberate?"

The link goes to a long video compilations of refs being hit and knocked over but the key is obviously the last one containing the hit that earned the ban
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpNjgL4_JvU#t=3m33s

First thoughts are that it seemed intentional to me, but 3 years might be a little harsh although there may be other things going on we don't know about, such as any previous history.

Thoughts?

mike_fernlea
29-01-14, 18:01
Actually, looks like there's a lot of history. The full write up from the RFU Disciplinary Hearing is here
http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgments-2013-2014/judgments-by-club/community-game/~/media/files/2013/discipline/judgments/27th%20nov%20uploads/burns%20wheatleyhills%20nov13.ashx

Lee Lifeson-Peart
29-01-14, 19:01
Simon got rid of his crutches a week or so ago.

dave_clark
29-01-14, 19:01
great to hear that he's on the mend, but what a horrific story.

should have been a lifetime ban, perhaps with an opportunity to review after five years.

LLP - do you know whether, fitness permitting, he has any intention to come back to refereeing?

Lee Lifeson-Peart
29-01-14, 20:01
great to hear that he's on the mend, but what a horrific story.

should have been a lifetime ban, perhaps with an opportunity to review after five years.

LLP - do you know whether, fitness permitting, he has any intention to come back to refereeing?

I think the fact he is still coming to meetings and is around Rugby (visits to his old club etc) tells me that with time he will be back. I suppose he needs to be back running before he can perhaps see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Adam may be in contact with him more often. I went round to SP's house the week he came out of hospital and he seemed keen.

I think the fact he told me he had got rid of the crutches suggested to me he was "mile-stoning" his recovery.

I hope he recovers. He is a nice bloke and a good referee.

mike_fernlea
29-01-14, 20:01
Give him our regards. I hope he comes back into the game again

Phil E
29-01-14, 21:01
The telling bit for me is that after the contact he just stands there staring at the referee.
He makes no attempt to follow the ball carrier, not with his head or his body.
If you were really chasing down the ball carrier you wouldn't have noticed the ref and would have been wholly focused on the BC, this was clearly not the case.
The hearing mentioned the same thing.

Taff
29-01-14, 22:01
The telling bit for me is that after the contact he just stands there staring at the referee. He makes no attempt to follow the ball carrier, not with his head or his body.And there's no "Oh sh**. I've just knocked the ref over" reaction.

Doesn't look natural to me.

crossref
29-01-14, 22:01
And just seven minutes in. Was it just for fun?
Very shocking, hope nothing like that ever happens to me.

Simon Thomas
29-01-14, 23:01
Disgraceful action and well done disciplinary. interesting that it was prosecuted as a 5.12 and not a 10.4 offence and sent up to RFU and not done by the CB.

Hence the length of the ban - the RFU were keen to throw the book at Burns and did him for abuse under 5.12

Level 6 match and Federation Squad member, so serious rugby. So two RFU match assessors reports (match observer and referee coach) and a DVD filmed by Yorks Society - wonderful evidence.

I fully endorse and echo para 14.

I wish Simon all the best with his recovery and based on the comments of his coach that he was challenging for L5 Group nomination, I hope I get to meet and observe him on and exchange to SW Group in the future.

menace
29-01-14, 23:01
It looks like one of those reactions where the ref did obstruct his way to tackle the ball carrier so out of pure frustration he just pushes the obstruction as if to say "you made me miss that tackle..it's your fault!"....then followed up with a "oh well, sheesh you got in the way what am I meant to do?"

Big tick for the 3 years IMO.

Ps the clip before looked bad too! That was very deliberate pushing the ref (although he was out of position) and deserved the player a holiday!

Ian_Cook
29-01-14, 23:01
The telling bit for me is that after the contact he just stands there staring at the referee.
He makes no attempt to follow the ball carrier, not with his head or his body.
If you were really chasing down the ball carrier you wouldn't have noticed the ref and would have been wholly focused on the BC, this was clearly not the case.
The hearing mentioned the same thing.

I agree, and I also agree that the ban (and its length) were justified. The collision itself might have been inevitable but the force applied looked intentional IMO.

However, I have to ask what the referee was doing in the 9/10's most obvious running line just after a ruck/maul(?). He's already missed the chance to catch Maroon offside (was looking the wrong way) so where the hell was he looking. If you want to get knocked over, then that is the place to be.

Of the seven incidents in the video (prior to the one in question), four of them involved referees caught in "no man's land" near the advantage line, and in the track most likely to be taken by the 9/10.

3rd: Scarlets v Munster - Romain Poite
4th: New Zealand v South Africa - Nigel Owens
5th: New Zealand v Ireland - Romain Poite
6th: Bath v Saints - Luke Pearce(?)

I don't like the positioning that referees are coached to take up in the modern game. I was coached never to stand where this referee got clobbered, for the very reason that I would be more likely to get clobbered. I do understand it is part of modern thinking, I just don't agree with it. Player/referee collisions were much less common in the past, and IMO the proliferation of referees involved in collisions supports my view that something is not right about the way they are coached in this aspect of the task.

crossref
30-01-14, 06:01
It's an odd video, all these televised games and then that one grassroots game

Was the compilation actually made for this case, in an attempt to support Burns? Is it an attempt to show that what he did "happens all the time" ?

Ian_Cook
30-01-14, 07:01
It's an odd video, all these televised games and then that one grassroots game

Was the compilation actually made for this case, in an attempt to support Burns? Is it an attempt to show that what he did "happens all the time" ?

The compilation was made by the player himself, so I imagine that is what he had in mind

"Amateur player banned for 3 years for collision with referee makes compilation video"

The thing is, the force with which he intentionally shoves the referee shows up starkly against the obvious accidental nature of all the others (with the exception of the Brian Mujati shove on NO, for which he was also banned).

If anything, this video harms his case rather than helps it.

damo
30-01-14, 07:01
After watching the video, and then reading the judicial report I can only assume this fellow is a bit of a narcissist. He got caught red handed deliberately pushing a referee, looking proud of himself at the time, causing serious injury, and then he had the temerity to plead not guilty. Then he makes a video of the incident which he thinks will cause people to feel sorry for him.

What an egg. 3 years is appropriate. I'm tempted to post a comment on the video, but then I'd have to put up with the trolling.

crossref
30-01-14, 07:01
After watching the video, and then reading the judicial report I can only assume this fellow is a bit of a narcissist. He got caught red handed deliberately pushing a referee, looking proud of himself at the time, causing serious injury, and then he had the temerity to plead not guilty. Then he makes a video of the incident which he thinks will cause people to feel sorry for him.

What an egg. 3 years is appropriate. I'm tempted to post a comment on the video, but then I'd have to put up with the trolling.

This video seems to be almost pursuing a line of defence that it's acceptable to push a referee if he is in your way.
I note that wasn't a line of defence used in the hearing.

damo
30-01-14, 08:01
This video seems to be almost pursuing a line of defence that it's acceptable to push a referee if he is in your way.
I note that wasn't a line of defence used in the hearing.
He would have gotten longer if he'd tried that. As it was, pleading not guilty was pretty marginal given the video evidence, and likely significantly contributed to sentence.

FlipFlop
30-01-14, 08:01
Have to say - think the hearing is fairly balanced and reflects what is in the video.

And the players record - wow - that is a lot of times to be in front of the disc. committee. Don't think in my playing career I know anyone who has received that many trips to the judge. So not a clean character on the field.

andyscott
30-01-14, 10:01
This video was made for the appeal to the 3.5 yrs ban that has been reduced to 3.

I know both parties involved, Simon is a good bloke, but I am dissapointed with his fracture he didnt bother trying to strap it up and take some brufen and finish the game :)

As for the player, he is a good rugby man, but has seen red mist in a couple of games I have seen, but usually managed well. I think he loss from the game would be as bad as losing Simon.
Thankfully I hope both continue.
Simon will get fit and referee well again.
Gaz hopefully will take up the whistle. He is only banned from playing (which is the correct decision). I think his experience in the game could be used to coach youngsters or to referee for the society/club.

He was originally charged from citing rather than sending off through the game.

Daftmedic
30-01-14, 11:01
The last Nigel Owens one by white looked deliberate. However the last bit of footage my word. There was venom in that.

TheBFG
30-01-14, 11:01
My own opinion, but it looks as though he tries to push the ref into the #9 to stop him?

wish the ref a full recovery and hope he gets back out. Hope the player realises what he's done by that moment of madness and comes back a better player for it.

Toby Warren
30-01-14, 11:01
I add my best wishes for a speedy recovery.



IF the ref hadn't suffered the injury would this have had a ban?

(not saying it's acceptable to push a ref provided you don't hurt him of course, just interested in whether that was a factor in the ban?)

leaguerefaus
30-01-14, 12:01
I add my best wishes for a speedy recovery.



IF the ref hadn't suffered the injury would this have had a ban?

(not saying it's acceptable to push a ref provided you don't hurt him of course, just interested in whether that was a factor in the ban?)

I think it's most certainly a factor in the ban. He still would have copped something regardless though. How much? Your guess is as good as mine.

OB..
30-01-14, 12:01
An injury always calls attention to the act that caused it.

Bunniksider
30-01-14, 13:01
Best wishes to Simon. I spent a very enjoyable weekend of rugby and beer with him, and Adam, at the Kiel 7s in Germany in 2012.

Toby Warren
30-01-14, 13:01
Indeed OB. But in this case had the ref not been hurt, the following could have happened;

Ref gets pushed - falls over
Thinks that's odd must look @ video after game (If I fell over and was being video'd I'd look mainly to laugh)
looks at video sees push submits abuse form

Would we be looking at 3 year ban or not then?

i.e. does the severity of the injury form part of the consideration for the length of ban?

SimonSmith
30-01-14, 13:01
In this case, I suspect that it did. My guess would be that since the charge was "deliberately or recklessly" the outcome has to be bad in order to justify the fullness of the charge.

In other words: if there is no bad outcome, then proving 'reckless' can be tough to prove. If you can prove a bad outcome that could have been foreseen when the action took place, then the action was therefore reckless.

MiniRef
30-01-14, 13:01
Indeed OB. But in this case had the ref not been hurt, the following could have happened;

Ref gets pushed - falls over
Thinks that's odd must look @ video after game (If I fell over and was being video'd I'd look mainly to laugh)
looks at video sees push submits abuse form

Would we be looking at 3 year ban or not then?

i.e. does the severity of the injury form part of the consideration for the length of ban?

Or, even worse (in slightly different circumstances):
Ref gets pushed - falls over
Thinks that's odd. Wish there was a video to look at but, alas, nobody is recording this match.
The end

Perpetrator gets away scot free.

crossref
30-01-14, 14:01
here there was an assessor and a coach who saw it. I understand there was a citing : perhaps from one of them? A citing doesn't depend on video evidence (though of course it's helpful)

ctrainor
30-01-14, 18:01
going back to his record i wonder how many yellow cards he had in his career also.
I think they should be recorded and reported at all levels as talking to my colleagues there are guys who seem to get a yellow every other week.

Adam
30-01-14, 21:01
He is out of the game until at least the start of the season. He's not allowed to run on it until at least September.

The player himself posted on the local rugby forum about his ban. See the thread here ("http://yorkshirerugby.net/index.php?topic=5817.0).

I'm gutted for him. It would be terrible if we lost him to the game. He's always helped me out whenever he can.

dave_clark
30-01-14, 22:01
guessing the thread has been taken down?

colesy
30-01-14, 22:01
Poor link. This is the correct one I think http://yorkshirerugby.net/index.php?topic=5817.0

RobLev
30-01-14, 22:01
guessing the thread has been taken down?

Nope; still there at:

http://yorkshirerugby.net/index.php?topic=5817.0

Edit: Sorry - colesy get there while I was commenting.

crossref
31-01-14, 10:01
Burns' video has now made it to the Guardian, where the rather disappointing introduction is


And if you'd rather laugh at some poor referees, here is a collection of rugby players colliding with officials.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/jan/30/classic-youtube-juan-mata-six-nations-maradona
see #3

Decorily
31-01-14, 11:01
Surely the incident directly before the one referred to in this thread is as bad, if not worse,than this one. Any action taken on it?

jonesp92
31-01-14, 11:01
Yes, he got a 6 week ban I think

Decorily
31-01-14, 12:01
Yes, he got a 6 week ban I think

Presuming you are correct it seems a huge discrepancy between 6 wks and 3 1/2 yrs for similar offences even taking mitigating factors, record and outcome into consideration.

Browner
31-01-14, 14:01
Fortuitous that assessor & coach & video were there. Without these this would never had reached the same conclusion. Protection of unpaid officials must be far greater than for the professionals for the simple fact that most are out their on their own each week. As I've said many times, a ban that can be reduced [ say 33%] by joining the society & learning & practicing the art, would be my preferred outcome.

jonesp92
31-01-14, 16:01
I'm surprised about how much he is protesting. Seems very remorseful...

Browner
31-01-14, 17:01
I'm surprised about how much he is protesting. Seems very remorseful...

Invariably post event remorse is heightened after the punishment starts being absorbed.

Not Kurt Weaver
31-01-14, 19:01
Gaz hopefully will take up the whistle. He is only banned from playing (which is the correct decision). I think his experience in the game could be used to coach youngsters or to referee for the society/club.



Andy,

Buy him a thunderer and hand it to him. If you have to explain why, he isn't gonna make it.

ddjamo
31-01-14, 20:01
that's horrible. I don't even know what to say. 3 years is sufficient but by no means excessive.

Ian_Cook
31-01-14, 21:01
Presuming you are correct it seems a huge discrepancy between 6 wks and 3 1/2 yrs for similar offences even taking mitigating factors, record and outcome into consideration.

Even more so when it comes to inflicting eye damage.

► Typical ban for intentional eye-gouging for Elite players = 20 to 50 weeks (yes there have been more and less).

► Callum Jennings' ban (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/7893035/Whitehaven-flanker-Callum-Jennings-banned-for-five-years.html) for unintentional eye-damage inflicted when executing an excessive fend (deemed striking) = 5 years!

I think Burns has a point when he says grassroots players are subjected to far more severe punishments than their elite counterparts

Browner
31-01-14, 22:01
I think Burns has a point when he says grassroots players are subjected to far more severe punishments than their elite counterparts
Yes he does , But IMO it needs to be Ian, deterents have to be big. Travelling alone, mostly unobserved/uncoached/Unsupported & standing among 30+ testosterone & adrenaline fuelled 'combatants' being watched by equally vociferous baying crowds , the Rugby Referee needs to be confident in the Blazers applying maximum discouraging punishments for assaults on Officials.

RobLev
01-02-14, 00:02
Even more so when it comes to inflicting eye damage.

► Typical ban for intentional eye-gouging for Elite players = 20 to 50 weeks (yes there have been more and less).

► Callum Jennings' ban (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/7893035/Whitehaven-flanker-Callum-Jennings-banned-for-five-years.html) for unintentional eye-damage inflicted when executing an excessive fend (deemed striking) = 5 years!

I think Burns has a point when he says grassroots players are subjected to far more severe punishments than their elite counterparts

To be fair, the RFU considered that Jennings's offence was a deliberate strike with "reckless disregard to potential of injury to an opponent’s eye"; and the consequences for Hedworth - permanent blindness in the "popped" eye - played a large part in determining the sentence. The relevant passage:


The Panel exercised its discretion in view of the permanent and life changing nature of the injury. Both these factors were highly material in the Panel reaching its entry point decision. This was not a case of a mere black eye or bruised cheek – such injuries may be significant and can result in temporary interference with vision. Likewise this injury was not a simple laceration to the forehead or eyelid which may produce a permanent disfiguring scar. This injury was of a far greater magnitude. The Player’s actions caused Mr Hedworth’s eyeball to burst. He is blinded in one eye with no prospect of regaining his sight. As a farmer, this injury has significantly affected his working capacity. And Mr Hedworth will never play competitive rugby again. For these reasons the entry point falls to be increased substantially over the normal maximum recommended tariff to reflect the preternatural nature of these facts. The Panel have determined it should be measured in years rather than months

From:

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgements2009-2010/~/media/files/2009/discipline/2009-2010/jenningswhitehavenappealfinaljudgmentpart2jul10.as hx

Ian_Cook
01-02-14, 03:02
Yes he does , But IMO it needs to be Ian, deterents have to be big. Travelling alone, mostly unobserved/uncoached/Unsupported & standing among 30+ testosterone & adrenaline fuelled 'combatants' being watched by equally vociferous baying crowds , the Rugby Referee needs to be confident in the Blazers applying maximum discouraging punishments for assaults on Officials.

Really? You think that like-for-like, grass-roots players should be more severely punished than elite players for the same offence?

Don't get me wrong. I am all for severe punishments for gross acts of violent foul play such as eye-gouging or bag-snatching, but I don't see how the RFU or anyone else can justify punishing grass roots players more severely than elite players. Dupuy got off far too lightly for his finger-poking episode on Stephen Ferris; he got six months but he should have got 18 months out of the game as did David Attoub for his disgraceful bit of thuggery on on the same victim in the same match.


To be fair, the RFU considered that Jennings's offence was a deliberate strike with "reckless disregard to potential of injury to an opponent’s eye"; and the consequences for Hedworth - permanent blindness in the "popped" eye - played a large part in determining the sentence. The relevant passage:

From:

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgements2009-2010/~/media/files/2009/discipline/2009-2010/jenningswhitehavenappealfinaljudgmentpart2jul10.as hx (http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgements2009-2010/%7E/media/files/2009/discipline/2009-2010/jenningswhitehavenappealfinaljudgmentpart2jul10.as hx)

I know this because I read it at the time. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now.

Their findings went against the evidence of the referee who saw nothing more than a hand-off, and against that of most of the independent witnesses.

"Mr Ray Fleming- Referee –gave evidence by telephone. He confirmed that he had been a referee since 1983 and was a level 8 referee. Mr Fleming described the incident to the Panel. He told the panel he had a good view of the incident - there was no one between him and the players. He said that Mr Jennings had tried to shove Mr Hedworth away with the flat of his hand – it was “a hand off”. He saw Mr Hedworth fall to the ground. He acknowledged that the incident had happened very quickly but as far as he could see, the hand off was with the flat of Mr Jennings hand. He did not see any fingers sticking forward nor was Mr Jennings hand closed to create a fist. He did not think there had been any foul play.

Mr Fleming said there was a ‘blow’ to Mr Hedworth and Mr Jennings continued with his run. He confirmed there was no reaction from the spectators or the players to the tackle. Mr Fleming accepted on questioning that the hand off had been performed with his arm stuck out straight so it was almost a collision rather than a hand off. Mr Jennings was running along with his arm out straight."

From http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgements2009-2010/~/media/files/2009/discipline/2009-2010/jennings%20%20judgementintermim%20decisionpart1.as hx


What the RFU did was assume that it must take an act of extreme violence to burst an eyeball, when in fact, it takes no such thing; all it takes is a moderate blow at a crucially unlucky angle. I had a colleague in the RNZAF who suffered a burst eyeball from falling off a stationary motorcycle. He had just stopped, and was getting off. It had been raining, and he put his foot down on a yellow painted dashed line near the kerb. His foot slipped, he went down and his head hit the kerb; and he WAS wearing a full-face crash helmet! A few days later, he died from a brain bleed!

RobLev
01-02-14, 03:02
Originally Posted by RobLev
To be fair, the RFU considered that Jennings's offence was a deliberate strike with "reckless disregard to potential of injury to an opponent’s eye"; and the consequences for Hedworth - permanent blindness in the "popped" eye - played a large part in determining the sentence. The relevant passage:

From:

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgements2009-2010/~/media/files/2009/discipline/2009-2010/jenningswhitehavenappealfinaljudgmentpart2jul10.as hx

I know this because I read it at the time. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now.

Their findings went against the evidence of the referee who saw nothing more than a hand-off, and against that of most of the independent witnesses.

You can disagree with the findings of fact; but those were the findings they reached. Having reached those findings, they therefore sentenced on the basis of an intentional act of foul play executed recklessly as to the consequences of that act, which in fact had very serious consequences. They also added 25% on for lack of contrition as an aggravating factor; again, you might disagree with the finding of fact, but once that fact was found, was a 25% hike unreasonable?

Find a pro case where the findings, and consequences, match this case, but the sentence was significantly lower without explanation and you can start to make a case for inconsistency of treatment. I'm not aware, however, of any pro case leaving the victim blinded in one eye (Gavin Quinnell notwithstanding, since there was insufficient evidence to charge and hence no-one was sentenced).

Browner
01-02-14, 15:02
Really? You think that like-for-like, grass-roots players should be more severely punished than elite players for the same offence?

Yes, because a severity uplift is necessary, for amateur & isolated reasons....... It's a necessary additional price to pay for all those that have to go to work on Monday... IMO

Ian_Cook
01-02-14, 18:02
Yes, because a severity uplift is necessary, for amateur & isolated reasons....... It's a necessary additional price to pay for all those that have to go to work on Monday... IMO

That is absolutely astonishing to me! I guess George Orwell was right!

Browner
01-02-14, 19:02
That is absolutely astonishing to me! I guess George Orwell was right!

Couldn't give a monkeys nuts about GO, but aggression against officials and pitch violence at GRoots must get the strongest of sanctions or I fear for Mr Whistler out in the sticks .... Everyone in the game sees a negative trend on the pitch from the coach & from supporters. Id love to see stats of physical assaults on officials 20y,15y,10y 5y & now .... I'm amazed you can't see the need for increased protection based on increased risk.

4eyesbetter
01-02-14, 19:02
Yes, because a severity uplift is necessary, for amateur & isolated reasons....... It's a necessary additional price to pay for all those that have to go to work on Monday... IMO

That is absolutely astonishing to me! I guess George Orwell was right!

I'll bite! What's he got to do with the price of training bibs, then?

Ian_Cook
01-02-14, 20:02
I'll bite! What's he got to do with the price of training bibs, then?

"All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others" is a quote from the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm#Plot_summary). The phase is a paraphrase of the line from the US Declaration of Independence that says "All men are created Equal..."

I am inferring that the more Elite you become, the less you appear to be punished for the same offence.

IMO, a judicial system needs to be fair AND equal. You eye-gouge, you get 12 months ban (or whatever) whether you are a star player for Leicester Tigers or Fred Blatt, reserve prop for Old Fartonians 4th XV

Account Deleted
01-02-14, 21:02
I am inferring that the more Elite you become, the less you appear to be punished for the same offence.

IMO, a judicial system needs to be fair AND equal.



I've been saying, on here, for a while that there is a massive issue with regard to the outcome of hearings. It is obvious that certain players / sides get far less punishing sentences than others.

Until the game becomes fairer in appearance and in truth we risk a football style revolt and on filed antics such as the high profile Man Utd vein popping barracking of officials. We need to act now, before and not after, it becomes an issue!

OB..
01-02-14, 21:02
IMO, a judicial system needs to be fair AND equal. Where fines are concerned it is normal to take a person's ability to pay into account. Fair does not necessarily imply Equal.

evilad
01-02-14, 21:02
Same thought as me. But would we be dragging ourselves down to this pillocks level?

Ian_Cook
02-02-14, 00:02
Where fines are concerned it is normal to take a person's ability to pay into account. Fair does not necessarily imply Equal.

Every player has the ability to be not allowed to play for a period of time commensurate with the seriousness of his offence. If that impacts more on the elite player because it might affect his livelihood, that is tough biscuit for him. He should have thought about that before committing the offence!

OB..
02-02-14, 12:02
Every player has the ability to be not allowed to play for a period of time commensurate with the seriousness of his offence. If that impacts more on the elite player because it might affect his livelihood, that is tough biscuit for him. He should have thought about that before committing the offence!
I see that as utopian and unrealistic.

Ian_Cook
02-02-14, 12:02
I see that as utopian and unrealistic.

I see it as justice, and I can tell youi that the NZRU Judicial system makes NO distinction between players at different levels. Whether are an All Black, a Super Rugby player or a President's Grade club player from the backblocks of Waikikamukau, you can expect the same punishment for the same offence.

Are you seriously suggesting that an elite player should have the privileged position of a lesser punishment for the same offence as committed by a grassroots player. If anything, the elite player should be held to a higher standard.

OB..
02-02-14, 18:02
I see it as justice, and I can tell youi that the NZRU Judicial system makes NO distinction between players at different levels. Whether are an All Black, a Super Rugby player or a President's Grade club player from the backblocks of Waikikamukau, you can expect the same punishment for the same offence.

Are you seriously suggesting that an elite player should have the privileged position of a lesser punishment for the same offence as committed by a grassroots player. If anything, the elite player should be held to a higher standard.I am objecting to the principle that all players are equal. They are not. It may indeed make sense to treat international players differently because we want them to be role models. How the differences should be handled is a question of detail which I am not attempting to decide.

(Law courts imposing different size fines also see that as Justice.)

Browner
02-02-14, 19:02
I am objecting to the principle that all players are equal. They are not. It may indeed make sense to treat international players differently because we want them to be role models. How the differences should be handled is a question of detail which I am not attempting to decide.

(Law courts imposing different size fines also see that as Justice.)

& I'm saying Grass-roots referees need greater protection than those in the elite game, because the former are more vunerable.

Ian_Cook
02-02-14, 20:02
& I'm saying Grass-roots referees need greater protection than those in the elite game, because the former are more vunerable.

& I'm saying that you don't need to have dramatically reduced elite player suspensions lengths to achieve that. There should be NO differential at all. If a grassroots player who intentionally knocks over a referee and injures him, gets three years, then an elite player who does that same thing should get a length of suspension that is in the same ballpark, i.e. three years, not three weeks!! This corruption of the judicial system in favour of the elite game has to end.

OB..
02-02-14, 22:02
& I'm saying that you don't need to have dramatically reduced elite player suspensions lengths to achieve that. There should be NO differential at all. If a grassroots player who intentionally knocks over a referee and injures him, gets three years, then an elite player who does that same thing should get a length of suspension that is in the same ballpark, i.e. three years, not three weeks!! This corruption of the judicial system in favour of the elite game has to end.You are exaggerating. I expect better of a professional player than I do of (some) grass roots players.

We are never going to agree. Not worth pursuing.