Disgraceful disciplinary decision

[crossref]

Is that not the point of the thread?

Yes.
I have given a clear and robust explanation.

[Dickie E]

But there is something else as well : Mahler's offence was redolent of a part of rugby culture that WR really want to stamp out : the culture of hazing, dares, humiliating / disgusting induction ceremonies etc. That's a part of the rugby cultire a lot of people would (righly) like to eliminate. Hence Mahler's severe penalty


The two offences were really quite different in nature.

Agree. The first was a pre-meditated "bringing the game into disrepute" offence. The second was a crime passionnel

[Marc Wakeham]

Yes.
I have given a clear and robust explanation.

Interesting definition of robust.

[beckett50]

I think we are missing a point here.

Was the Red Card report (and the case before the EPCR Committee) wording changed? Didn't see the match so have no idea what the referee said when he showed the RC.

Are the EPCR within their rights to change the charge once it is brought before them?

[crossref]

here's the note on the Epcr site
https://www.epcrugby.com/2020/12/16/...ons-round-1-4/

interestingly for both Rourke and Santo, the initial charge was changed, from 9.27 and 9.12 respectively to 9,11 in both cases

[DocY]

How do you explain the different treatment then ,?

French disciplinary panel?