Whatever your views on Saracens, whether a Sarries fan or not, leave them here.
To leave a message on this board you must register. To register click HERE,
it takes only a minute.
Non-rugby posts are welcome, but please prefix your subject header with "OT" or "Off Topic". 
Latest: EXETER CHIEFS 34:37 SARACENS BBC Online Rugby Union Commentaries
The Fish |
Rugby Union News | Fez Boys
| Saracens Fixtures
| The SSA
Thought for the Day:
DOUBLE DOUBLE
PREMIERSHIP & EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS
Next:
Audio: Click the link below. If it ain' there, it ain't on!
Upcoming TV:
More de-hatting. Why do they do that - just to irritate? 
How utterly stupid of him, regardless of whether he actually gouged or not. Looks far worse than what Ashy did.
7 week ban. Mitigating circumstances are that he plays for Quins, and isn’t Ashton....
In the words of the RFU, “it was an intentional act, but he didn’t cause an injury”, so reduced ban.
In the words of the RFU, “it was an intentional act, but he didn’t cause an injury”, so reduced ban.
Looks like his first game back could be against - Saracens!
Nous sommes l'armée noir et rouge !
Nous sommes l'armée noir et rouge !
He pleaded guilty. I seem to remember ashy wanted to prove his innocence which with the benefit of hindsight and his record was never going to be easy. I'm not sure the presumption of innocence holds with rugby disciplinary committees !!
Quote:Huxley
7 week ban. Mitigating circumstances are that he plays for Quins, and isn’t Ashton....
In the words of the RFU, “it was an intentional act, but he didn’t cause an injury”, so reduced ban.
No he pleaded guilty which halves the tariff automatically. 12 weeks is the entry point for low level gouging of the eye, as laid down by the RFU scale of sanctions.
Ashton did not, so got the full term. He was daft to deny it imho, and would probably still be playing in England now had he got a 5 week ban at the time, as his England career would not have been destroyed given the timing and a general feeling that he was unlucky.
However he did make contact with the eye area, which was the charge levelled at him, so I fail to understand why he said he didn't!
I’m sorry Fartheralice, but in the nature of a good spirited debate, that’s not completely true. While there is a reduction in sentence if the person pleaded guilty, it is not automatically halved. Where I feel the ban is leinient is that it was considered intentional but only considered entry as no injury was caused, in world rugby laws an intentional act shouldn’t be entry level, it should be mid point. Additionally world rugby have asked that an extra week be added for eye gouging, it wasn’t.
I agree that Ashton should have pleaded guilty, but there were other factors, and intention did not play the same role. When Kruis was accused of contact with the eye during a maul against Bath it was thrown out as rugby incident as it was unintentional. By the letter of their laws it was contact with the eyes, but no ban given as accidental. I’m not saying that Ashton’s wasn’t reckless, but it wasn’t intentional, and no injury was caused, which wasn’t a factor as it was this time
I’m not saying Ash shouldn’t have been banned, just that there should be consistency across punishments.
I agree that Ashton should have pleaded guilty, but there were other factors, and intention did not play the same role. When Kruis was accused of contact with the eye during a maul against Bath it was thrown out as rugby incident as it was unintentional. By the letter of their laws it was contact with the eyes, but no ban given as accidental. I’m not saying that Ashton’s wasn’t reckless, but it wasn’t intentional, and no injury was caused, which wasn’t a factor as it was this time
I’m not saying Ash shouldn’t have been banned, just that there should be consistency across punishments.
I think Ashy was european citing body too!
Never same outcome
European champions 2016 & 2017
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2017 09:40 by Highbury Saracen.
Never same outcome
European champions 2016 & 2017
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2017 09:40 by Highbury Saracen.
Quote:Highbury Saracen
I think Ashy was european city body too!
Never same outcome
Exactly! My idea would be for citing and banning should be run by a single body, funded equally by all RFUs then there can be a consistent approach and interpretation. It seems wrong that Huget can intentionally stamp on a player and not be punished because the French RFU want him available for France! Too many vested interests in the current system.
Of course the problem with this thread is that it gives the opportunity for trolls from other boards, who obviously never saw the incident in question, to...well...troll!
As we've done to death many times Ashy's only "offence", having not committed the crime in question, was to plead not guilty. That was not what the kangaroo court wanted to hear. Players now have the good sense to plead guilty and act very remorsefully and this seems to be a far better plan.
As we've done to death many times Ashy's only "offence", having not committed the crime in question, was to plead not guilty. That was not what the kangaroo court wanted to hear. Players now have the good sense to plead guilty and act very remorsefully and this seems to be a far better plan.
I have no idea how anyone can say this was worse then Ashton's. Ashton grabbed a bloke by the face and threw him on the floor for heaven's sake!
I think you can rest your case now TOKS.
Quote:King Zak
Looks like his first game back could be against - Saracens!
Scrum-caps for 1-23 and super-soakers for the waterboys when they get near Marler?
I must admit to being totally bemused by this punishment; Sinkler admitted to doing to deliberately and yet he receives a lower punishment than Ashton. How does this work? Ashton's was accidental; he didn't go back for a second try; he didn't cause an injury and he didn't go for the eyes.
I agree with Huxley until there's consistency of review boards we will continue to see IMHO ludicrous decisions.
BTW, I like Sinkler as a player; this is not personal to him it's all about ensuring that "crimes" are judged consistently.
I agree with Huxley until there's consistency of review boards we will continue to see IMHO ludicrous decisions.
BTW, I like Sinkler as a player; this is not personal to him it's all about ensuring that "crimes" are judged consistently.
Quote:Quinten Poulsen
I have no idea how anyone can say this was worse then Ashton's. Ashton grabbed a bloke by the face and threw him on the floor for heaven's sake!
For the sake of accuracy QP, Ashton was in the process of removing the player out of the maul. The fact that he threw him to the ground is entirely irrelevant. The concencus was that Ashton was guilty of lazy hands and nothing more. But his hands should not have been there full stop. However, the punishment was completely out of proportion with the crime. 10 weeks and the end of his England career, pretty much as a direct consequence.
Sinckler was a naughty boy and he was lucky to get off with such a comparatively light sentence; as we all know now primarliy because he pleaded guilty, whereas Ashton did not.
Quote:Huxley
I’m sorry Fartheralice, but in the nature of a good spirited debate, that’s not completely true. While there is a reduction in sentence if the person pleaded guilty, it is not automatically halved. Where I feel the ban is leinient is that it was considered intentional but only considered entry as no injury was caused, in world rugby laws an intentional act shouldn’t be entry level, it should be mid point. Additionally world rugby have asked that an extra week be added for eye gouging, it wasn’t.
I agree that Ashton should have pleaded guilty, but there were other factors, and intention did not play the same role. When Kruis was accused of contact with the eye during a maul against Bath it was thrown out as rugby incident as it was unintentional. By the letter of their laws it was contact with the eyes, but no ban given as accidental. I’m not saying that Ashton’s wasn’t reckless, but it wasn’t intentional, and no injury was caused, which wasn’t a factor as it was this time
I’m not saying Ash shouldn’t have been banned, just that there should be consistency across punishments.
Quote:RFU judgement on Callum Clarke v Hawkins incident
There are no aggravating features and all of the standard mitigating factors are
present. The Player is genuinely contrite, he realises the damage done to an individual
and to the wider image of the Game, he admitted culpability at the earliest opportunity
and he undoubtedly wishes to make reparation for his offending. He is, therefore,
entitled to 50% discount from that entry point which leads me to conclude that the
appropriate sanction is a suspension of 32 weeks. Since this is a long sanction it will
run continuously through the summer vacation without a break.
Quote:19.11.11 Thereafter, a Disciplinary Panel shall identify all relevant off-field mitigating
factors and determine if there are grounds for reducing the period of
suspension and subject to Regulations 19.11.12 and 19.11.13 the extent, if at
all, by which the period of suspension should be reduced. Mitigating factors
include the following:
(a) The presence and timing of an acknowledgment of culpability/guilt
by the offending Player;
(b) The Player’s disciplinary record and/or good character;
(c) The youth and inexperience of the Player;
(d) The Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing;
(e) The Player having demonstrated remorse for the Player’s conduct to
the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and
(f) Any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Panel
considers relevant and appropriate.
19.11.12 Subject to Regulations 19.11.13 and 19.11.14 for acts of Foul Play the
Disciplinary Panel cannot apply a greater reduction than 50% of the relevant
entry point suspension. In assessing the percentage reduction applicable
for mitigating factors, the Disciplinary Panel shall start at 0% reduction and
apply the amount, if any, to be allowed as mitigation up to the maximum
50% reduction.
Just about everyone that pleads guilty will get this 50% reduction, unless they have a bad previous record, as it is a given that they will meet the other criteria ie be well mannered at the hearing (Venter aside!), express remorse, and provide good character references, including community work. You'd be pretty stupid not to meet these other criteria!
Just about every judgement I have read where there was a guilty plea has seen a 50% reduction of the entry point. Whilst not automatic perhaps, it is pretty much universal, given the above.
Actually, having just read the Sinkler judgement, you could argue he was unlucky not to get 6 weeks taken off his 12 week ban rather than the 5, as he basically met all the mitigating factors.
Fatheralice, fair and reasoned arguement is not welcome here and they'll be bringing up Ashton and the ban that shouldn't have been very single time someone gets cited for contact to the eyes. Move on. Nothing to see here.
Fatheralice, in justifying yourself you also defeat your own argument - the law states that the 50% reduction is not automatic and is the maximum allowed.Indeed, it is not the starting point but is the cap. However, in practice it seems pretty automatic as you say!
I wonder if there is confusion in the various reports and comments between "deliberate" and "intentional". The panel found it was an "intentional action" and Sinckler said "More importantly I feel terrible that anyone would think I would deliberately gouge an opponent. That was never my intention - it was a genuine mistake and an act of recklessness on my part."
That's not necessarily inconsistent - if he intended to put his hand in or towards someone's face but did not intend to make eye contact, then it was an intentional and reckless action but not a deliberate gouging.
Whatever, he was an extremely silly boy, as his statement acknowledges.
Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade
I wonder if there is confusion in the various reports and comments between "deliberate" and "intentional". The panel found it was an "intentional action" and Sinckler said "More importantly I feel terrible that anyone would think I would deliberately gouge an opponent. That was never my intention - it was a genuine mistake and an act of recklessness on my part."
That's not necessarily inconsistent - if he intended to put his hand in or towards someone's face but did not intend to make eye contact, then it was an intentional and reckless action but not a deliberate gouging.
Whatever, he was an extremely silly boy, as his statement acknowledges.
Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade
Many people on this board are aware that the maximum discount for mitigating factors is 50%, and some reacted to Father Alice's original statement before he/she qualified it.
Ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall!
£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]
Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.
Ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall!
£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]
Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.
It's become a bit like a witchcraft trial, where you either plead guilty or face the ducking stool and drown.
The thing that annoys me about this whole judgement is that Sinkler pleads guilty to get the reduction and immediately goes to the press and says it wasn't intentional which was the finding of the board
This comment basically negates his guilty plea - so get that reduction removed
This comment basically negates his guilty plea - so get that reduction removed
Regardless of what people say after the event I think it's a silly reduction on serious offences like these. I think having a reduction when a player has a good previous record is okay, but 50% is way too much in general.
IMHO a guilty plea should just be a way of shortening proceedings and saving legal costs for all parties. I don't see why it should be a mitigating factor when it comes to the punishment, which should be judged on the severity of the offence (whatever the plea). Reductions for previous good character, or other potentially mitigating factors, are an entirely different matter.
Quote:JO'G
The thing that annoys me about this whole judgement is that Sinkler pleads guilty to get the reduction and immediately goes to the press and says it wasn't intentional which was the finding of the board
This comment basically negates his guilty plea - so get that reduction removed
Read the actual judgment, Jeremy (available on the Quins board) and you will be even more annoyed.
The inconsistency of disciplinary committees is one of the (few) areas where Rugby Union really lets itself down.
Which particular inconsistencies?
Quote:Quinten Poulsen
Which particular inconsistencies?
Well done people! I was afraid someone was going to take the bait!
Fair play to Sinckler, at least he owned up to breaking the rules. Better that than pretending it never happened even when everyone can see rules have been broken.
Quote:TOKSQuote:Quinten Poulsen
Which particular inconsistencies?
Well done people! I was afraid someone was going to take the bait!
Just to be clear - did you have any inconsistencies in mind or did you just post it so that someone would ask a question about it?
I did have inconsistencies in mind, QP, and if you think really really hard you could probably make an informed guess as to which ones they are.
You make several good points and are always welcome on this board. Unfortunately we have a slight male chicken problem at the moment, both of whom have raised their beak during this thread, and hopefully will disappear soon. Please don't allow yourself to get tarred with the same brush as your views are always welcome.
You make several good points and are always welcome on this board. Unfortunately we have a slight male chicken problem at the moment, both of whom have raised their beak during this thread, and hopefully will disappear soon. Please don't allow yourself to get tarred with the same brush as your views are always welcome.
Quote:Man from LA
Fair play to Sinckler, at least he owned up to breaking the rules. Better that than pretending it never happened even when everyone can see rules have been broken.
Nope. I think you'll find he pleaded guilty because of the irrefutable evidence in order to get his suspension reduced and has been claiming innocence ever since the judgement - have a look at the Quins site. Back to the LA for you before the white coats spot your absence.
As I understand it, KS denied the action immediately after the game. His coach, JK, swallowed that story and stood by his man. KS pleaded guilty, kept his hands off the biscuits and was given the minimum possible sentence. The panel decides that the action was deliberate, whilst KS leaves the hearing protesting his innocence.
World Rugby's charter document opens with just exactly five words set out on the first page. The first is INTEGRITY, the last is RESPECT. Perhaps neither of these individuals has ever read the charter, perhaps it doesn't apply to the way they see the game.
Innings
Points win matches: tries win hearts and minds.
World Rugby's charter document opens with just exactly five words set out on the first page. The first is INTEGRITY, the last is RESPECT. Perhaps neither of these individuals has ever read the charter, perhaps it doesn't apply to the way they see the game.
Innings
Points win matches: tries win hearts and minds.
Quote:Quinten PoulsenQuote:TOKSQuote:Quinten Poulsen
Which particular inconsistencies?
Well done people! I was afraid someone was going to take the bait!
Just to be clear - did you have any inconsistencies in mind or did you just post it so that someone would ask a question about it?
Because TOSS said so QP. It’s also noted that every time he has a dig at someone he brings up male genitalia. The man is obsessed with it. You might say he can’t get enough of it.
Adey - your cynicism/realism could be a real asset to our board, reigning back our more myopic/excessive posts, balancing our tendency to get carried away by our support for our team. May I ask that you think about the tone of your posts? Please consider presenting your viewpoint in a less confrontational manner. And avoid personal insults whatever the perceived provocation - something I'm not always good at doing!
This is generally a friendly, welcoming board with very few ongoing arguments. I'd hate to see it degenerate to a clone of the Quins board. Please have a look at TOK's reply to QP as an example of how to make balanced posts.
This is generally a friendly, welcoming board with very few ongoing arguments. I'd hate to see it degenerate to a clone of the Quins board. Please have a look at TOK's reply to QP as an example of how to make balanced posts.
Quote:Sara'sman
Adey - your cynicism/realism could be a real asset to our board, reigning back our more myopic/excessive posts, balancing our tendency to get carried away by our support for our team. May I ask that you think about the tone of your posts? Please consider presenting your viewpoint in a less confrontational manner. And avoid personal insults whatever the perceived provocation - something I'm not always good at doing!
This is generally a friendly, welcoming board with very few ongoing arguments. I'd hate to see it degenerate to a clone of the Quins board. Please have a look at TOK's reply to QP as an example of how to make balanced posts.
The reply to QP was noted when I made my comment.
As I’ve said before TOSS bangs his ‘no one likes us and we don’t care’ drum. But when anyone says anything he doesn’t agree with or questions anything Sarries his toys come out the pram and he start name calling (which is bizarrely always penis related.)
Quote:TOKS
I did have inconsistencies in mind, QP, and if you think really really hard you could probably make an informed guess as to which ones they are.
You make several good points and are always welcome on this board. Unfortunately we have a slight male chicken problem at the moment, both of whom have raised their beak during this thread, and hopefully will disappear soon. Please don't allow yourself to get tarred with the same brush as your views are always welcome.
Er, what? Stick to the topic please.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
