rugbyunion
Latest News:

Quinssa WebsiteQuins News from News NowQuins Official Site


Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Marler's Hearing
DOK (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:18
No, I don't mean after being whacked on the ear...

Tuesday 9 January at 18:30

A quick look at the sanction table shows
Offence                Min          Max 
Striking with shoulder LE – 2 weeks 52 weeks
                       MR – 6 weeks
                       TE – 10+ weeks
 A strike to the head shall result in at least a mid-range entry point sanction

So 6 weeks entry point. Can't see him getting let off for turning up, looking smart, showing remorse. Perhaps he'll get something for pleading guilty.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Months KYT (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:19
His previous would mean at least 10 weeks I would have thought

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Petros (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:20
And he's already had 3 weeks this season for use of his elbow

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Stooperman (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:20
Bearing in mind his previous record...TE looks favourite doesn't it? So he'll miss the 6n I suspect.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
DOK (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:21
Yes, I very much fear so. I can't see them giving him much leeway just because Ioane is up before the beak too for the strike in the 53rd minute.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
T-Bone (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:26
Not a good disciplinary record, but 10 weeks for that seems ridiculous really.

Will we be able to count AW games in his ban? Seem to remember earlier in the season that they decided AW games shouldn't count as it was unlikely we'd play whoever it was who was banned.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
DOK (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:31
If Joe had just cleared him out with his shoulder, this wouldn't have got this far. It's the fact it was a strike to the head that complicates things. To be fair, Ioane made no attempt to milk it, appeared to come out of it OK, but refs and disciplinary panels are hot on the concussion thing this season.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Stooperman (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:33
Depending on whether the A-W games count, we'll probably have use of Jo's services for between one and three games more this season (Sm56). If they go more than 10 weeks, we might have seem the last of him for this season!

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
D-Quins (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:42
If he pleads guilty he will get 6 weeks, reduced to 3 for remorse,pleading guilty and if you are cynical like me because the 6 nations is 4 week away! Although missing the first match is possible.


D-Quins

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Brown Bottle (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:46
Hard to see him pleading not guilty.



BB

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:47
Quote:
DOK
Yes, I very much fear so. I can't see them giving him much leeway just because Ioane is up before the beak too for the strike in the 53rd minute.

Have the panel ever considered provocation to be a mitigating factor? Genuine question as I can't think of an example of where they have so suspect you might be right.

I wonder if they have to do Ioane's hearing first if they suspect the two are linked.

Either way it doesn't stop Marler being a plum for reacting like that, but it would feel like he'd been a bit less of a nutter if there was something that at least got him riled up.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
T-Bone (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:47
Is potential provocation a factor in determining the length of the ban?

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Brown Bottle (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 14:49
Quote:
T-Bone
Is potential provocation a factor in determining the length of the ban?

Provocation maybe but not retaliation.



BB

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:00
Seen it now. Ioane elbows Marler to the side of the head just before the camera pans away at 52:40 on the match clock.

Disgraceful. Should have been red carded. Cheers Carley.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Barnetsarrie12 (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:08
I would be shocked if he gets 6 weeks as i think that's the best he will get. Normally pleading guilty will reduce the sentence but Marler has been suspended for a similar type of offence this year and this is a repeat offense and it's to the head. It could be very high but 6 weeks is the best i think he can get at this point

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Cookie (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:09
As much as I think Marler has been very silly, it was a perfect storm in that the opportunity to smash Ioane back presented itself very quickly after he'd been 'done'. I think he went with the swinging arm (yellow) but couldn't get it through quick enough and his shoulder ended up making contact (red).

Not sure he'll get much/any discount as he's already been in trouble this season. My bet would be the same 6 as was given to Kefu for this, plus 1 for 2nd ban, less one for pleading guilty, so 6 weeks. Anything less would be a big surprise.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:18
Quote:
RodneyRegis
Seen it now. Ioane elbows Marler to the side of the head just before the camera pans away at 52:40 on the match clock.
Disgraceful. Should have been red carded. Cheers Carley.

Yup from that angle it looks a very clear and deliberate elbow and whilst Joe isn't particularly clever for reacting, it's very frustrating that the ref and TMO in particular haven't done their job there, as if they had Ioane would have been off and Marler wouldn't have felt the need to get his own retribution (or wouldn't have had the chance to).

So I still think Marler let his team down. But the officials have to take some serious stick for that as well unless another angle shows that it was somehow an accident.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
ChipsteadQuin (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:25
The retaliation was 5 mins after the hit from Iaone ,so perhaps when they link the two incidents it could be deemed a premeditated act rather than an impulsive reaction from JM and go against him even more , plus he is only 6/7 weeks back after a 3 week ban , so I think Top End seems more likely .

I noted that Matthew Carley was very specific in repeating that he had hit [/b]' to the head , with force'[b]which will no doubt be in his report to the Disciplinary Panel

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:25
No one on here mentioned it until Ioane was cited, which means we all missed it, so I don't think the ref and the TMO have done anything wrong. It's why we have the citing process.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Bolly-Quin (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:26
Quote:
RodneyRegis
Seen it now. Ioane elbows Marler to the side of the head just before the camera pans away at 52:40 on the match clock.
Disgraceful. Should have been red carded. Cheers Carley.

I take it Carley didn't see it: the camera was panning away. So presumably play had moved on and he may not have seen the incident?

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:44
Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
No one on here mentioned it until Ioane was cited, which means we all missed it, so I don't think the ref and the TMO have done anything wrong. It's why we have the citing process.

It feels like something that should get picked up, particularly if a player is left bleeding in the head by it.

It's pretty clearly on the screen, so whilst the ref can be forgiven, I thought this was the sort of thing TMOs were supposed to be looking at.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:52
It was a good couple of minutes later that Marler mentioned it to the ref. I guess the TMO can only go back so far while the game is on.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:56
Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
It was a good couple of minutes later that Marler mentioned it to the ref. I guess the TMO can only go back so far while the game is on.

Does the TMO need the ref or a player to bring something up before they raise it, or can they bring things to the ref's attention that only they've seen?

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 16:56
Quote:
Bolly-Quin
Quote:
RodneyRegis
Seen it now. Ioane elbows Marler to the side of the head just before the camera pans away at 52:40 on the match clock.
Disgraceful. Should have been red carded. Cheers Carley.

I take it Carley didn't see it: the camera was panning away. So presumably play had moved on and he may not have seen the incident?

Of course. Was joking. Nobody saw it. That's why Ioane is a good cheat and Marler is a liability.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 17:15
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
It was a good couple of minutes later that Marler mentioned it to the ref. I guess the TMO can only go back so far while the game is on.

Does the TMO need the ref or a player to bring something up before they raise it, or can they bring things to the ref's attention that only they've seen?

They do bring things to the ref's attention sometimes but I've no idea what sort of guidance they're operating under.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
MrOther (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 17:29
Quote:
RodneyRegis
Seen it now. Ioane elbows Marler to the side of the head just before the camera pans away at 52:40 on the match clock.
Disgraceful. Should have been red carded. Cheers Carley.

Thanks for posting this.

Doesn't surprise me in the least that it was missed at the time. It's exactly the sort of subtle foul play that we have citing officers for. I'll be relieved if it somehow mitigates the inevitable ban, but I can't honestly say that I believe that it should.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Chris1850 (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 17:33
[quote talkshowhost86][quote Quinten Poulsen]No one on here mentioned it until Ioane was cited, which means we all missed it, so I don't think the ref and the TMO have done anything wrong. It's why we have the citing process.[/quote]

It feels like something that should get picked up, particularly if a player is left bleeding in the head by it.

[/quote

It didnt. Marlers cut came from the ruck immediately shortly before his transgression and was caused by an accidental knee from Ben Curry.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
T-Bone (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 17:44
Has anyone got a link to the Ioane elbow?

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 17:47
It's on the prem rugby site under TV and is just after 52:40 on the match clock.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Mayor West (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 18:06
Joe asks the ref about the, as we now know, Ioane first incident and he says that he couldn't see anything and doesn't seem interested. Joe is clearly not happy. Why has the TMO not looked at it. I was wondering and questioned on the other Marler thread as to whether Ioane had done something to Joe .

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 18:13
Quote:
Chris1850
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
No one on here mentioned it until Ioane was cited, which means we all missed it, so I don't think the ref and the TMO have done anything wrong. It's why we have the citing process.

It feels like something that should get picked up, particularly if a player is left bleeding in the head by it.


It didnt. Marlers cut came from the ruck immediately shortly before his transgression and was caused by an accidental knee from Ben Curry.

Ah.

Well either way Iaone is a very lucky boy and Sale are also very lucky as a result.

Iaone should have gone off for that and from there Marler stays on (probably) and Quins would likely have consolidated their position.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 18:25
Quote:
Mayor West
Joe asks the ref about the, as we now know, Ioane first incident and he says that he couldn't see anything and doesn't seem interested. Joe is clearly not happy. Why has the TMO not looked at it. I was wondering and questioned on the other Marler thread as to whether Ioane had done something to Joe .

How do you know the TMO didn't take a look back? It occurred 3 minutes before JM mentioned it to the ref, assuming JM was talking about the Ioane incident.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
T-Bone (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 18:31
Hmmm, it's clear that he elbows him, but unless there are other clips it's hard to say how deliberate it is. There's no need for him to move his elbow that way, but I'm sure Sale fans would argue he was just moving his arm. Just trying to play Devil's advocate.

Just before that it looks like Kyle is lucky to get away with a no arms chop tackle too. Ho hum

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
MrOther (IP Logged)
08 January, 2018 22:06
Quote:
T-Bone
Hmmm, it's clear that he elbows him, but unless there are other clips it's hard to say how deliberate it is. There's no need for him to move his elbow that way, but I'm sure Sale fans would argue he was just moving his arm. Just trying to play Devil's advocate.
Just before that it looks like Kyle is lucky to get away with a no arms chop tackle too. Ho hum

Yup. Agree with both these pointes.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Teddington Taff (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 11:29
I'm not defending Joe. I think he was a real numpty for putting himself, the rest of the team, the club and supporters in the position of losing the match. BUT...
1. I thought that he asked the Ref to look at the assault that caused him to bleed. The ref refused which given the condition of the side of his head was remis and inexcusable. The Ref only had to ask the TMO to review - that's what they (The TMOs) are there for. That would have calmed Joe down and in that respect I have sympathy for him. The officials are there to protect the players. Unfortunatley Joe has Zero Tolerance when they dont do that.
2. When Joe brainlessly cleared out Iaone I would argue that he was not aiming for his head; that it was aimed at the shoulder. I'm still not convinced that it caught the head - but either way it was a penalty and most likely only a yellow card.

That would be my defence.

Mitigation is not a defence but at the Quninsa evening with the Citing Officer he did say that they were starting to look at what led up to the incident as well as the incident itself.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 11:41
Quote:
Teddington Taff
I'm not defending Joe. I think he was a real numpty for putting himself, the rest of the team, the club and supporters in the position of losing the match. BUT...
1. I thought that he asked the Ref to look at the assault that caused him to bleed. The ref refused which given the condition of the side of his head was remis and inexcusable. The Ref only had to ask the TMO to review - that's what they (The TMOs) are there for. That would have calmed Joe down and in that respect I have sympathy for him. The officials are there to protect the players. Unfortunatley Joe has Zero Tolerance when they dont do that.
2. When Joe brainlessly cleared out Iaone I would argue that he was not aiming for his head; that it was aimed at the shoulder. I'm still not convinced that it caught the head - but either way it was a penalty and most likely only a yellow card.

That would be my defence.

Mitigation is not a defence but at the Quninsa evening with the Citing Officer he did say that they were starting to look at what led up to the incident as well as the incident itself.

I agree with point 1), and said something similar on a different thread. It doesn't excuse what Joe did, but it may go some way to explaining it. Maybe the TMO did look at it; but as I recall the ref's reply was something like "I didn't see anything". Bearing in mind Joe was bleeding from a head wound, that surely deserves either a thorough look, or the ref stating "I've asked the TMO to look". There is, rightfully, a strong focus on head injuries; bleeding from an ear falls into that category.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 11:44
Quote:
Teddington Taff
I'm not defending Joe. I think he was a real numpty for putting himself, the rest of the team, the club and supporters in the position of losing the match. BUT...
1. I thought that he asked the Ref to look at the assault that caused him to bleed. The ref refused which given the condition of the side of his head was remis and inexcusable. The Ref only had to ask the TMO to review - that's what they (The TMOs) are there for. That would have calmed Joe down and in that respect I have sympathy for him. The officials are there to protect the players. Unfortunatley Joe has Zero Tolerance when they dont do that.
2. When Joe brainlessly cleared out Iaone I would argue that he was not aiming for his head; that it was aimed at the shoulder. I'm still not convinced that it caught the head - but either way it was a penalty and most likely only a yellow card.

That would be my defence.

Mitigation is not a defence but at the Quninsa evening with the Citing Officer he did say that they were starting to look at what led up to the incident as well as the incident itself.

On the 'bleeding head' point, someone earlier in this thread suggested that came from a separate incident (a knee in a ruck) rather than the Iaone elbow. But either way you'd hope the panel would look at the fact that Iaone was clearly trying to wind up Marler and in fact struck the first blow.

As for your second point I think that's very generous to Joe. Looks fairly clear to me that he targeted the head of a player who wasn't really involved in play. Don't think he'll get any joy if he tries to make that argument.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Fearless Fred (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 12:04
Premiership Rugby notification.

So, Iaone's hearing is an hour after Joe's.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 12:18
Quote:
Fearless Fred
Premiership Rugby notification.
So, Iaone's hearing is an hour after Joe's.

That doesn't really make any sense.

Which in itself is completely expected.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
T-Bone (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 12:42
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Teddington Taff
I'm not defending Joe. I think he was a real numpty for putting himself, the rest of the team, the club and supporters in the position of losing the match. BUT...
1. I thought that he asked the Ref to look at the assault that caused him to bleed. The ref refused which given the condition of the side of his head was remis and inexcusable. The Ref only had to ask the TMO to review - that's what they (The TMOs) are there for. That would have calmed Joe down and in that respect I have sympathy for him. The officials are there to protect the players. Unfortunatley Joe has Zero Tolerance when they dont do that.
2. When Joe brainlessly cleared out Iaone I would argue that he was not aiming for his head; that it was aimed at the shoulder. I'm still not convinced that it caught the head - but either way it was a penalty and most likely only a yellow card.

That would be my defence.

Mitigation is not a defence but at the Quninsa evening with the Citing Officer he did say that they were starting to look at what led up to the incident as well as the incident itself.

On the 'bleeding head' point, someone earlier in this thread suggested that came from a separate incident (a knee in a ruck) rather than the Iaone elbow. But either way you'd hope the panel would look at the fact that Iaone was clearly trying to wind up Marler and in fact struck the first blow.

As for your second point I think that's very generous to Joe. Looks fairly clear to me that he targeted the head of a player who wasn't really involved in play. Don't think he'll get any joy if he tries to make that argument.

Yep, I agree with the first point, although still really stupid to retaliate, especially 5 minutes after when he should have had time to cool down and get over it. After 5 mins I don't think you can say that was natural retaliation, reaction, it becomes more premeditated.

as for the second point, I guess only Joe really knows, but I think it's very hard to argue that he didn't deliberately go for the head

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
thomh (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 14:34
Quote:
ChipsteadQuin
The retaliation was 5 mins after the hit from Iaone ,so perhaps when they link the two incidents it could be deemed a premeditated act rather than an impulsive reaction from JM and go against him even more , plus he is only 6/7 weeks back after a 3 week ban , so I think Top End seems more likely .

Quote:
Stooperman
Bearing in mind his previous record...TE looks favourite doesn't it? So he'll miss the 6n I suspect.

I don't think previous bans affects whether the act itself is deemed low, mid or top end (is there a "mid end"?). I think that's purely objective based on the incident. Previous bans will factor into whether the incident is aggravated or mitigated from the entry level position.

Could be wrong.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
akb1 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 14:44
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Fearless Fred
Premiership Rugby notification.
So, Iaone's hearing is an hour after Joe's.

That doesn't really make any sense.

Which in itself is completely expected.

Genuine question. What doesn't make any sense? Do you think the hearings should be the other way around? Why?
Each hearing will be independent of the other and shouldn't matter which order they take place.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
DOK (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 14:54
I would have thought if Ioane was heard first and found guilty, then Joe could play the "he hit me first" card. The fact that when Joe is dealt with they won't know the outcome of the other hearing makes it harder to do that.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 15:01
Quote:
akb1
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Fearless Fred
Premiership Rugby notification.
So, Iaone's hearing is an hour after Joe's.

That doesn't really make any sense.

Which in itself is completely expected.

Genuine question. What doesn't make any sense? Do you think the hearings should be the other way around? Why?
Each hearing will be independent of the other and shouldn't matter which order they take place.

Exactly what DOK says below.

Feels like if the two issues are linked, which it looks hard to say they aren't, then the incident that happened first should be looked at first.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
fandg2 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 15:11
All sorts of of ways this could play out but I'd guess both hearings will be looked at in isolation but with Joe going 1st, if Iaone's found guilty of something then that would probably help any appeal Marler could make to get a reduced ban. Atm Iaone's not guilty of anything where as Marlers already been red carded so guilty of something

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Hymenoptera (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 15:26
They should be treated as independent incidents, there is no mitigation...

Marler retaliated 5 mins later, so it isn't retaliation, its premeditated surely?

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 15:42
Quote:
DOK
I would have thought if Ioane was heard first and found guilty, then Joe could play the "he hit me first" card. The fact that when Joe is dealt with they won't know the outcome of the other hearing makes it harder to do that.

I should think he'll play it anyway. Even if there is officially no mitigation they might take it into account

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
HonkyTonk (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 15:42
Quote:
Hymenoptera
They should be treated as independent incidents, there is no mitigation...
Marler retaliated 5 mins later, so it isn't retaliation, its premeditated surely?

Agree, I dont care what Ioane did to Marler, Marler deserves a good ban.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 15:54
Quote:
Hymenoptera
They should be treated as independent incidents, there is no mitigation...
Marler retaliated 5 mins later, so it isn't retaliation, its premeditated surely?

I'm not sure there should be any mitigation, but I don't know how much the panel take that sort of thing into account.

Either way, it would surely make sense to take the first incident first. Just common sense really.

In this case I suspect it won't make much difference to Joe (and quite rightly) but I would have thought if any incidents like this are even potentially connected it makes sense to look at them in some sort of order.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
akb1 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 15:57
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
akb1
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Fearless Fred
Premiership Rugby notification.
So, Iaone's hearing is an hour after Joe's.

That doesn't really make any sense.

Which in itself is completely expected.

Genuine question. What doesn't make any sense? Do you think the hearings should be the other way around? Why?
Each hearing will be independent of the other and shouldn't matter which order they take place.

Exactly what DOK says below.

Feels like if the two issues are linked, which it looks hard to say they aren't, then the incident that happened first should be looked at first.


Quote:
I would have thought if Ioane was heard first and found guilty, then Joe could play the "he hit me first" card. The fact that when Joe is dealt with they won't know the outcome of the other hearing makes it harder to do that.

no don't agree and even if the hearings were the other way around, the result of the first hearing should not be passed on to JM and team prior to his hearing to use as defence.
It may be for this reason that they have scheduled them in the order they have.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Teddington Taff (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 16:23
I might be wrong but... from the "Evening with the Citing Officer" he said that they convene in different parts of the country. So Joe may well have his hearing in London whilst Iaone's hearing could be in Manchester. Different panel's with different interpretations. No guarantee how they view both offences.
Again - I might be wrong but... I believe the panels are made up from people who do not necessarily have a rugby background. Obviously there are numerous criteria involved in their appointment but they wouldn't necessarily have to have had a direct rugby involvement. The idea being that these citings should be viewed by a panel without any previous baggage.
I was quite impressed with how it is all managed.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
EnfieldMal (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 16:32
[quote Stooperman]Bearing in mind his previous record...TE looks favourite doesn't it? So he'll miss the 6n I suspect.[/quote

Having previous does up grade the level of offence. The panel will decide if the offence is LE ME or HI & then all the factors like pleading guilty, mitigating circumstances are taken into account giving a minus off the number & then previous record is taken into consideration giving the added number & then they have the total. What I am trying to say is a LE offence is not upgraded to HE due to previous but as 52 weeks is the max for all 3 they have a lot of lee way to adding for previous without having to upgrade the actual offence if they choice to give long ban

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
EnfieldMal (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 16:32
[quote Stooperman]Bearing in mind his previous record...TE looks favourite doesn't it? So he'll miss the 6n I suspect.[/quote

Having previous doesn’t up grade the level of offence. The panel will decide if the offence is LE ME or HI & then all the factors like pleading guilty, mitigating circumstances are taken into account giving a minus off the number & then previous record is taken into consideration giving the added number & then they have the total. What I am trying to say is a LE offence is not upgraded to HE due to previous but as 52 weeks is the max for all 3 they have a lot of lee way to adding for previous without having to upgrade the actual offence if they choice to give long ban



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2018 16:32 by EnfieldMal.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
HonkyTonk (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 16:32
Quote:
Teddington Taff
I might be wrong but... from the "Evening with the Citing Officer" he said that they convene in different parts of the country. So Joe may well have his hearing in London whilst Iaone's hearing could be in Manchester. Different panel's with different interpretations. No guarantee how they view both offences.
Again - I might be wrong but... I believe the panels are made up from people who do not necessarily have a rugby background. Obviously there are numerous criteria involved in their appointment but they wouldn't necessarily have to have had a direct rugby involvement. The idea being that these citings should be viewed by a panel without any previous baggage.
I was quite impressed with how it is all managed.

Im sure it was mentioned that Ioanes will be done over the phone!!

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Yareet (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 16:33
Quote:
Teddington Taff
I might be wrong but... from the "Evening with the Citing Officer" he said that they convene in different parts of the country. So Joe may well have his hearing in London whilst Iaone's hearing could be in Manchester. Different panel's with different interpretations. No guarantee how they view both offences.
Again - I might be wrong but... I believe the panels are made up from people who do not necessarily have a rugby background. Obviously there are numerous criteria involved in their appointment but they wouldn't necessarily have to have had a direct rugby involvement. The idea being that these citings should be viewed by a panel without any previous baggage.
I was quite impressed with how it is all managed.


The link in the first post mentions that the panels are the same for both players and that Ioane's case will be heard over the phone

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
akb1 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 16:34
in this instance both hearings have the same panel, Iaone's hearing will be by phone

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 16:38
Quote:
akb1
in this instance both hearings have the same panel, Iaone's hearing will be by phone

Surely they could do it by Skype to let Joe have his say thumbs down

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
akb1 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 17:10
they should live stream tbe hearing on youtube.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 17:20
Quote:
akb1
they should live stream tbe hearing on youtube.

Agreed.

The below the line comments would be worth the admission fee alone.

Actually if the RFU ever wanted to make a bit of extra cash, charging entry to the citing commission hearings would probably be more popular than the double header.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Mayor West (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 17:35
Sorry QP I've been busy for a while. I don't know how to do the quote box thingy but you asked, how do I know if the TMO did look at the incident. Firstly, people on here have spotted it so I would hope a professional would be able to if he did look. Secondly we don't know if Joe asked the ref immediately after the elbow and was asking later if the TMO had had time to have a look. I don't know but it might explain the three or four minute gap between the incident and when Joe clearly to us asks the ref about it.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
blucherquin (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 17:35
Anyway - here’s how they actually decide things, from the RFU disciplinary panel pages online...

The seriousness of the player's actions is the first assessment the Panel must make in order to determine which of the three entry points (lower end, mid-range and top end) is the most appropriate.
The Disciplinary Panel or Single Judicial Officer will determine the appropriate entry point based on an assessment of a number of particular characteristics of the player's actions, including whether or not they were reckless or intentional, whether or not they caused any injuries and whether or not they had any effect on the relevant match.
After deciding the entry point, the Disciplinary Panel or Single Judicial Officer will then consider whether the suspension should be increased from the entry point to take account of certain specified aggravating factors, such as a poor disciplinary record or the need for deterrence, and/or decreased from the entry point to take account of certain specified mitigating actions, such as a guilty plea, a good disciplinary record, the player's conduct at the hearing and expressions of remorse.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 18:12
Quote:
Mayor West
Sorry QP I've been busy for a while. I don't know how to do the quote box thingy but you asked, how do I know if the TMO did look at the incident. Firstly, people on here have spotted it so I would hope a professional would be able to if he did look. Secondly we don't know if Joe asked the ref immediately after the elbow and was asking later if the TMO had had time to have a look. I don't know but it might explain the three or four minute gap between the incident and when Joe clearly to us asks the ref about it.

Nobody mentioned it until after Ioane was cited, so there is no evidence to suggest anyone spotted it. I was giving you a perfectly valid reason why the TMO appeared not to spot it. It's why there is a citing process.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Chris1850 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 19:10
Quote:
Mayor West
Sorry QP I've been busy for a while. I don't know how to do the quote box thingy but you asked, how do I know if the TMO did look at the incident. Firstly, people on here have spotted it so I would hope a professional would be able to if he did look. Secondly we don't know if Joe asked the ref immediately after the elbow and was asking later if the TMO had had time to have a look. I don't know but it might explain the three or four minute gap between the incident and when Joe clearly to us asks the ref about it.

If you watch the whole sequence of about 5 minutes starting from the Sinckler tackle where Ioane is alleged to have elbowed Marler, through to Marlers shoulder charge, it seems that the only time Marler complains to the ref is immediately after the ruck where he carries the ball into contact about a minute before his 'rush of blood'. If you watch carefully, Ben Curry's knee catches the side of Marlers head and as he gets up Marler is feeling his left ear. He then speaks to the referee and subsequently commits his assault.

During the period following the Ioane tackle and Marlers carry above, he is not feeling his ear, showing any signs of blood or complaining to the ref, as far as can be seen on the video clip. I would therefore suggest that unless it is off camera, he has not complained about the Ioane elbow and only draws the refs attention to his ear following his carry which is when he sustained the injury.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Mayor West (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 19:21
I wouldn't have expected anybody to spot something like that while watching in real time but if it was asked to be looked at you would. If it had been looked at there would have been a very different outcome for both players. Joe doesn't strike me as being someone to complain about being roughed up but the skipper might on behalf of his players if he knew what had happened. Shouldn't be long before we know more.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 19:24
Anyone know how long these hearings normally take, and how quickly the outcome is reported?

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
HonkyTonk (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 19:26
Depends what the mobile reception is like

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Months KYT (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 19:41
10 game ban

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 19:43
Quote:
Mayor West
I wouldn't have expected anybody to spot something like that while watching in real time but if it was asked to be looked at you would.

I don't think it's realistic for a TMO to trawl back through the previous 3 minutes of play, particularly as he'd have no idea it was 3 minutes before. I think you're being unreasonable.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 19:46
Quote:
Months KYT
10 game ban

6 week ban, reduced to 1 week as he's never sat in someone else's seat.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Months KYT (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 19:54
Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
Quote:
Months KYT
10 game ban

6 week ban, reduced to 1 week as he's never sat in someone else's seat.
Ah but I didn’t forearm smash anyone to get to the vacant more expensive seat



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2018 19:55 by Months KYT.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Mayor West (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 19:59
Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
Quote:
Mayor West
I wouldn't have expected anybody to spot something like that while watching in real time but if it was asked to be looked at you would.

I don't think it's realistic for a TMO to trawl back through the previous 3 minutes of play, particularly as he'd have no idea it was 3 minutes before. I think you're being unreasonable.

I agree QP, I mean if it was drawn to the attention of straight after an incident. As we rarely hear what's said on the pitch we don't know unless something is picked up on reflink.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Mayor West (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 20:04
Thanks for the PM BB it seems to have worked. Although wasn't sure how to PM you back. I'm hopeless with computer stuff.

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Bolly-Quin (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 20:24
Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
Quote:
Months KYT
10 game ban

6 week ban, reduced to 1 week as he's never sat in someone else's seat.

I wondered we he’d gone - we’ll spotted!

I wonder where HSBC went?

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
akb1 (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 20:49
6 Weeks, available to play on 20th Feb

 
Re: Marler's Hearing
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
09 January, 2018 21:20
Quote:
Cookie
Not sure he'll get much/any discount as he's already been in trouble this season. My bet would be the same 6 as was given to Kefu for this, plus 1 for 2nd ban, less one for pleading guilty, so 6 weeks. Anything less would be a big surprise.

Spot on!

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2

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?