rugbyunion
Latest News:

Quinssa WebsiteQuins News from News NowQuins Official Site


Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
blucherquin (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 11:13
Hope people think it's worth a new thread for those interested in the actual judgement and evidence. RFU published today. He's been done because he reached into his face three times and the third time he puts his finger in his eye deliberately.

Here's the video -- ignore the bit from the match commentary and scroll until 6 mins 23 seconds and watch until the end, particularly the final images.

[www.englandrugby.com]

Here's the full citing report from the RFU:

[www.englandrugby.com]

If you can't open it for some reason here is the key bit on "gravity of player's actions"

"Having brought his opponent to ground the Player placed his hand under the head of his opponent and removed his scrumcap. Thereafter, and with the scrumcap now free from the head of the tackled player, the Player moved his right hand from underneath the opponent player’s head to on top of it. His fingers reach forward two further times. The first of which his fingers reach towards the strap whilst his thumb remains within the cap. At this stage the scrumcap strap is free and lying over the tackled players face. It is on the third movement that the hand and fingers of the Player then come across the face and make contact with the eye of the opponent Player. By the time this third movement is made it is our finding that the Player would have deliberately placed his fingers upon the right eye of his opponent. Whilst we are content with the submission that the Player’s original intent was to remove the scrum cap, his final movement with the fingers was intentional and intended to make contact with the eye, not simply the “eye area” (hence his accepted plea to that more serious offence contrary to 10.4(m)). "

Since there's been lots of debate about "gouging" and "eye area" -- this is very clear, it was the eye, it was deliberate -- and he pleaded guilty to the more serious offence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2017 11:23 by blucherquin.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
D-Quins (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 13:03
Yes it is rather clear from the pictures there was contact with the eye and this would have been an easy case to conclude even if he had not pleaded guilty.

He has been a Silly lad and needs to sit down and learn from this quickly. He will get no sympathy I am sure from the rest of the squad, I have never met a player who thinks gouging is anything than a big no no. Yes I know that some countries have a bigger problem with this than others but England fortunately is not one of them.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 14:28
Ah it's that second go he has that's the problem. That looks like an actual gouge.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Scaramouche (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 14:53
Come on Quinten, what do you think?



Illegitimi non carborundum

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
05 October, 2017 16:03
God he got lucky with that punishment!!!!

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
InsertQuinsPunHere (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 16:09
Oh dear. That looks pretty vicious to me. I hope his team mates are berating him for it.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
DOK (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 16:15
but it came in at the low end of punishment (12 weeks) and he then got 5 weeks off for wearing a suit and tie or whatever they give it for nowadays. Although their legal speak makes it sound like gouging "his final movement with the fingers was intentional and intended to make contact with the eye, not simply the “eye area”. If it was actual gouging, as you and I understand it, surely they'd have started at the top end and gone up?

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 16:31
Quote:
Scaramouche
Come on Quinten, what do you think?

I think he's a lucky boy and I think so much time off for pleading guilty to offences such as these is daft. Thank you for asking.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
blucherquin (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 16:48
Quote:
DOK
but it came in at the low end of punishment (12 weeks) and he then got 5 weeks off for wearing a suit and tie or whatever they give it for nowadays. Although their legal speak makes it sound like gouging "his final movement with the fingers was intentional and intended to make contact with the eye, not simply the “eye area”. If it was actual gouging, as you and I understand it, surely they'd have started at the top end and gone up?

They say it was "actual gouging" -- intentional contact with the eye. I'm not sure there's any legal speak involved -- they repeatedly make it clear it's deliberate and it's the eye.

Here's the mitigation, which frankly looks a bit silly. For fear of re-typing everything in the RFU document linked to above -- he also gets time off for an ok record, and for pleading guilty via email to the more serious offence before the hearing.

"Having successfully removed the scrumcap, and through those actions ascertained where his hand was upon the head of his opponent, he then reached forward with his fingers one final time and intentionally made contact with the eye. Whilst any contact with the eye, or eye area, carries the potential for serious harm to be caused the panel felt that this particular offence was one which merited a Low End entry point because there was, thankfully, no injury caused and little to no force was applied to the eye during the fleeting contact. "

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
DOK (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 18:10
Sorry - you quote the phrase "actual gouging" but when I search for it in the judgement, I can't seem to find it. Can you just point where it is?

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 18:40
Quote:
DOK
Sorry - you quote the phrase "actual gouging" but when I search for it in the judgement, I can't seem to find it. Can you just point where it is?

And be careful where you put your fingers...

(sorry, couldn't resist!)

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
DOK (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 18:51
Ha ha! Very good. Made me chuckle out loud, even if not laugh! smiling smiley

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 19:12
I've given up trying to make sense of disciplinary committees and how they reach their verdicts.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
blucherquin (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 20:48
Quote:
DOK
Sorry - you quote the phrase "actual gouging" but when I search for it in the judgement, I can't seem to find it. Can you just point where it is?

DOK come on, I want to think Sink didn’t do it but he did.

He’s pleaded guilty to putting his fingers deliberately into the eye of an opponent.

That’s the “legal” offence - and in any version of layman’s language that’s gouging. He jammed his finger into the guys eye socket - and I’d have given him a longer ban.

If you’re convicted of manslaughter you’ve killed someone but you won’t find it called killing in the court documents because there’s no offence called “killing”. Doesn’t mean you haven’t killed someone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2017 20:49 by blucherquin.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Bedfordshire Boy (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 21:11
Quote:
blucherquin
Quote:
DOK
Sorry - you quote the phrase "actual gouging" but when I search for it in the judgement, I can't seem to find it. Can you just point where it is?

DOK come on, I want to think Sink didn’t do it but he did.

He’s pleaded guilty to putting his fingers deliberately into the eye of an opponent.

That’s the “legal” offence - and in any version of layman’s language that’s gouging. He jammed his finger into the guys eye socket - and I’d have given him a longer ban.

If you’re convicted of manslaughter you’ve killed someone but you won’t find it called killing in the court documents because there’s no offence called “killing”. Doesn’t mean you haven’t killed someone.

I missed that bit.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 21:47
I think some people don't know what a gouge is.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Jus-Quin-Time (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 21:49
Quote:
blucherquin

He jammed his finger into the guys eye socket - and I’d have given him a longer ban.


The judgement was that he did not jam his finger into the eye socket and that was the reason for the low entry point. I quote from the document you posted:

"Whilst any contact with the eye, or eye area, carries the potential for serious harm to be caused the panel felt that this particular offence was one which merited a Low End entry point because there was, thankfully, no injury caused and little to no force was applied to the eye during the fleeting contact." (Top of page 4)

and

"Minimal force was applied to the eye and it was but momentary." (Top of Page 3)

So the absence of injury was a consequence of minimal force and 'fleeting/momentary' contact. I can find no words in the report suggesting or describing that a finger was jammed into an eye socket, the likely outcome of which would have been injury and, I am sure, a longer ban.

Defusing the rather emotional discussion by posting the panel's report was good. However the intent is slightly undermined by extrapolating the documented evidence to suit your own version or interpretation of events.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
05 October, 2017 21:52
I think some people don't know what gouging is.

[youtu.be]

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
blucherquin (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 06:34
Quote:
Jus-Quin-Time
Quote:
blucherquin

He jammed his finger into the guys eye socket - and I’d have given him a longer ban.


The judgement was that he did not jam his finger into the eye socket and that was the reason for the low entry point. I quote from the document you posted:

"Whilst any contact with the eye, or eye area, carries the potential for serious harm to be caused the panel felt that this particular offence was one which merited a Low End entry point because there was, thankfully, no injury caused and little to no force was applied to the eye during the fleeting contact." (Top of page 4)

"Minimal force was applied to the eye and it was but momentary." (Top of Page 3)

So the absence of injury was a consequence of minimal force and 'fleeting/momentary' contact. I can find no words in the report suggesting or describing that a finger was jammed into an eye socket, the likely outcome of which would have been injury and, I am sure, a longer ban.

Defusing the rather emotional discussion by posting the panel's report was good. However the intent is slightly undermined by extrapolating the documented evidence to suit your own version or interpretation of events.

Fair comment - and to be very clear I have no version of events, I was careless with language.

My only interpretation of the events are that it turned out to be indefensible and I no longer have any sympathy and indeed think a lot less of Sinckler than before.

I get the debate on the the word gouging totally, but in the end I'm not sure the media use of the word would make me any more upset with Sinckler than the reality of what he did.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
DOK (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 07:14
So we're agreed there is no phrase "actual gouging" in the judgement? There was minimal force and fleeting contact, almost as if someone who couldn't actually see where his fingers were touched an eye and withdrew fingers as soon as he realised where they were.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
thomh (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 07:36
Quote:
DOK
So we're agreed there is no phrase "actual gouging" in the judgement? There was minimal force and fleeting contact, almost as if someone who couldn't actually see where his fingers were touched an eye and withdrew fingers as soon as he realised where they were.

Except that the judgment directly contradicts that:

"...By the time this third movement is made it is our finding that the Player would have deliberately placed his fingers upon the right eye of his opponent"

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 09:29
Quote:
DOK
So we're agreed there is no phrase "actual gouging" in the judgement? There was minimal force and fleeting contact, almost as if someone who couldn't actually see where his fingers were touched an eye and withdrew fingers as soon as he realised where they were.

Well he had three goes at it. Seems very likely he knew where his fingers were. Watch what the fingers not holding the scrum cap actually do - there's no innocent explanation.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Boonie (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 09:59
Stupid thing to do, and the video seems pretty cut and dried. What is this fascination with scrum caps all of a sudden? And once you have removed it, why go back for a second and third go? In all honesty, I think he was lucky to get time off the 12 week sentence.



"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to bleat about it all over the internet"

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
blucherquin (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 12:57
Quote:
DOK
So we're agreed there is no phrase "actual gouging" in the judgement? There was minimal force and fleeting contact, almost as if someone who couldn't actually see where his fingers were touched an eye and withdrew fingers as soon as he realised where they were.

DOK, you know I didn’t say it was in the document.

I don’t agree that what he did isn’t “gouging”

He deliberately put his finger in the eye of an opponent. The fact he did it relatively gently and didn’t cause an injury doesn’t mitigate intent.

He pleaded guilty - and at no point did he argue that he “withdrew them when he realised where they were”. He in fact admitted the opposite - that he deliberately made contact with the eye.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Scaramouche (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 14:00
Outcome not Intent again innit.



Illegitimi non carborundum

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
DOK (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 14:09
Quote:
blucherquin
...
DOK, you know I didn’t say it was in the document.
...

You said "They say it was "actual gouging""

It was clear who "they" were and you put the phrase between quote marks, which to any reasonable person (me) indicates a quote.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
blucherquin (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 14:14
Quote:
DOK
Quote:
blucherquin
...
DOK, you know I didn’t say it was in the document.
...

You said "They say it was "actual gouging""

It was clear who "they" were and you put the phrase between quote marks, which to any reasonable person (me) indicates a quote.

Ok, I should have said “the offence was putting his finger in the eye, not near the eye area”

Either way - 7 weeks seems a gift

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
DOK (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 17:46
You're all going to tell me "Yes, we knew that", but I figured out what Kyle was doing in those 3 attempts where he got hands near eyes. He was trying to get Patterson's scrum cap off!

"Really?" you say. "He did that the first time then went back and gouged him!".

No he didn't. I was doing the old stop/start on the video

First look at 3:33. Sinckler grabs the scrum cap and pulls it off Patterson's head. However he can't do anything with it because of the chinstrap. You can see him go back for a second attempt pushing the scrum cap back over Patterson's face.

OK move to the end of the tape - at 6:59 you can see the chinstrap still under Patterson's chin.
At 07:00 Sinckler pushes the scrum cap back over Patterson's face. (If you correlate this with what's happened in other video angles Sinckler is lying on his back here with Charlie Matthews over him and can't see what he's doing). The chinstrap is now over Patterson's right eye.
At 07:04 the chinstrap is clearly over Patterson's right eye and Sincklers fingers are grasping the scrum cap.
At 07:05 He moves the scrum cap and fingers forward.
At 07:06 is where it looks like contact occurred because they froze it - but this is second attempt.
At 07:11 the hand comes back again (third attempt). The chinstrap is again pushed over Patterson's eye running between his eyebrows.
At 07:12 Kyles fingers come in, just miss the chinstrap, has a bit of a fumble round
At 07:14, it looks like that's when contact (if any) was made.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
blucherquin (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 18:25
Except he admitted he deliberately put his finger in his eye

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 21:05
DOK, he stretches the fingers not gripping the scrum cap and goes for the eye.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
thomh (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 21:29
DOK

Really don't know what you're trying to prove here. Sinckler was found to have made deliberate contact with the eye and admitted as such. You're arguing a case that even Sinckler isn't making.

The use of "gouging" rather than "deliberate eye contact" is just semantics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2017 21:30 by thomh.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Nopace (IP Logged)
06 October, 2017 21:32
It's a shocker really. Gobsmacked that someone would try to do that.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
ChipsteadQuin (IP Logged)
07 October, 2017 08:56
Thanks Blucherquin for posting that evidence , its pretty damning stuff. They seem to have abandoned the word 'gouging' because of the emotion that surrounds it , and whilst his fingers were clearly on the eye they didn't seem to 'dig in' which is one small mercy

I really didn't want to believe he had tried that , but his fingers were too close to the eye to make it comfortable watching . I'm pleased Paterson wasn't injured and he was certainly convinced Sincks was after his eyes , don't know anything about the bloke but most wouldn't run to ref like that without believing it was the case

His contrition clearly helped with the mitigation to reduce the ban to 7 weeks , so lets hope he learns a lesson , starts to channel his passion in the correct way.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
DOK (IP Logged)
07 October, 2017 09:09
Well I'm happy I know what he was trying to do, even if it was a stupid thing to be doing - trying to remove chinstrap from face.
I still don't accept he deliberately went for the eyes. I accept he may have touched the eye in the above.
The procedure is if you plead guilty, you get some remission. You plead innocent and are found guilty, then you don't. Not surprised he pleaded guilty therefore. Otherwise he'd have copped 12 weeks. Not exactly justice, but this isn't a court of law.
And that, my dears, is all I'm going to say on the subject. Time to move on.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
MrOther (IP Logged)
07 October, 2017 09:11
Quote:
DOK
Time to move on.

Quite.

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
07 October, 2017 09:13
DOK, the chin strap separates - it wasn't catching on anything as it was undone, it's just velcro. You're reaching almost as badly as Sinckler did when he went back in for more.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
DOK (IP Logged)
07 October, 2017 09:55

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Scaramouche (IP Logged)
07 October, 2017 13:10
AS theres no Stinky in sight I'll do it....


DOK I would rather have you next to me in the trenches than my Auntie Doris...



Illegitimi non carborundum

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
07 October, 2017 13:19
Quote:
Scaramouche
AS theres no Stinky in sight I'll do it....

DOK I would rather have you next to me in the trenches than my Auntie Doris...

Scabby douche rusty tongue (Sm92)

 
Re: Sinckler -- RFU judgement in full + video
Scaramouche (IP Logged)
07 October, 2017 13:42
#jealousslinky



Illegitimi non carborundum


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?