Print Page | Close Window

Disciplinary Matters

Printed From: National League Rugby Discussion Forums
Category: League Rugby - www.leaguerugby.co.uk
Forum Name: The Championship
Forum Description: Discuss the 12 clubs forming the English Championship.
URL: http://www.rolling-maul.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=16966
Printed Date: 23 Jul 2019 at 13:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Disciplinary Matters
Posted By: corporalcarrot
Subject: Disciplinary Matters
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2018 at 16:01
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/tj-ioane-to-face-disciplinary-panel/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/tj-ioane-to-face-disciplinary-panel/

-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.



Replies:
Posted By: islander
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2018 at 14:55

RFU Disciplinary: TJ Ioane, London Irish 

TJ Ioane of London Irish appeared before an independent disciplinary panel on Tuesday 25 September 2018. He was shown a red card by referee Matthew O’Grady in the second half of the Greene King IPA Championship match between London Irish and Bedford Blues on Sunday 23 September 2018. This was for dangerously tackling Alex Penny of Bedford Blues, contrary to Law 9.13.

Ioane contested the charge and it was dismissed by the panel comprising of Jeremy Summers (chair), Dr Julian Morris and Mike Tutty.

Panel chair Jeremy Summers said: “Having carefully considered the on-field position of the referee, the limited time he had to consider the incident and having heard from the Bedford player that contact was not to his head but to the ball, the panel was satisfied to the required standard that this was a rugby incident and not an act of foul play. The red card was therefore dismissed.

“The panel make clear that in reaching this decision there is no criticism of the match officials.”



Posted By: Brizzer
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2018 at 15:24
Interesting.
I love the fact that the 'victim' spoke honestly, which effectively led to the red card being revoked. I doubt that this would happen in certain other sports that I can think of.

Fortunately, the dismissal did not have a detrimental affect on the game.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2018 at 16:32



-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2018 at 09:42
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/rfu-disciplinary-rory-jennings-london-scottish/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/rfu-disciplinary-rory-jennings-london-scottish/  

Official ruling on page 4 of:
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/#" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/#


-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2018 at 18:40
5 weeks ban last night for Rory Jennings of London Scottish following a citing for an unprovoked off the ball elbow to the head of to Andy Bulumakauof Coventry.

Looks like Andy is out of action for the trip to Ealing TF and potentially the next few weeks with concussion from the attack. It’ll be interesting to see whether the ban or the injury is longer.
Potentially Jake Sharp too, who also failed a pitchside HIA check


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2018 at 18:50
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/richmond-s-damant-cited-for-tackle/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/richmond-s-damant-cited-for-tackle/  

Official result:

Rory Damant of Richmond F.C. has been given a three-week band after appearing before independent disciplinary panel.

He was cited by independent citing commissioner Danae Zamboulis following the Greene King IPA Championship match between Richmond F.C. and Nottingham R.F.C. on 20 October 2018 for dangerously tackling Gearoid Lyons of Nottingham R.F.C., contrary to Law 9.13.

Damant pleaded guilty to the charge and was given a three week suspension by the panel comprising Richard Whittam QC (chair), Mark Langley and Kylie Hutchison. The player is free to play again on 20 November 2018.

Panel chair Richard Whittam QC said: "The player accepted that although the tackle had only resulted in an on-field penalty, he reflected on the wording of law 9.13 once notified of the citing and accepted the charge.

“The tackle was reckless, it having occurred in a dynamic part of open play, and while the initial point of contact was difficult to ascertain from the video footage, the player did accept that he had made contact with the opposition player’s head. This results in a mandatory mid-range entry point under the sanction table.

“He pleaded guilty, has a clean record and was entitled to the full 50% mitigation on the basis of his submissions to the panel. The final sanction is therefore three weeks."




-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2018 at 15:52
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/richmond-s-mclean-dents-cited-for-tackle/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/richmond-s-mclean-dents-cited-for-tackle/

-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2018 at 13:09
 Alexander Schwarz of Cornish Pirates is due to appear before an independent disciplinary panel.

http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/pirates-schwarz-cited-for-alleged-stamp/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/pirates-schwarz-cited-for-alleged-stamp/


-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2018 at 09:06
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/three-players-to-appear-before-disciplinary-panel/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/three-players-to-appear-before-disciplinary-panel/

Blair Cowan of London Irish, Charlie Clare of Bedford Blues and Adam Lee of Richmond FC are each due to appear before an independent disciplinary panel.   

Offy judgement:
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/three-players-to-appear-before-disciplinary-panel/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/three-players-to-appear-before-disciplinary-panel/




-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 09 Jan 2019 at 16:05
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/jersey-prop-montout-alexis-cited/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/jersey-prop-montout-alexis-cited/

Ziana Montout-Alexis of Jersey Reds appeared before an independent disciplinary panel last night, where he received a four week ban for a dangerous tackle. 

Montout-Alexis was cited by independent citing commissioner Grant Seely for a dangerous tackle, contrary to Law 9.13. The incident occurred in the first half of the Greene King IPA Championship match between Ealing Trailfinders and Jersey Reds on Saturday 22 December 2018. 

The player was found guilty by the panel and received a four-week ban. He is free to play again on Tuesday 5 February 2019.

Panel chair Jeremy Summers commented: “The panel found that forceful contact was made to the head of an opponent player firstly with the shoulder and secondly with the player’s left arm. As required under the sanction table, this led to a mid-range entry point of six weeks. The player was not entitled to full mitigation because he contested the charge and he is therefore suspended for a period of four weeks.” 




-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: Rabbie Burns
Date Posted: 09 Jan 2019 at 19:05
You will also find that your prop on loan to Old Elthamians Cameron something was also banned (very lightly imo) at same panel for a dangerous tackle. What’s Harvey teaching these boys😜

-------------
So many Christians not enough Lions


Posted By: Brizzer
Date Posted: 09 Jan 2019 at 20:43
It’s unusual as the team tend to tackle low. Still, you get it wrong and you pay the price.


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 10 Jan 2019 at 09:29
This business of penalising players who plead not guilty is overdone. I presume it's a carryover from the Criminal Justice system where you get credit for a Guilty plea and a lighter sentence. In that context there is more justification because it is vastly more serious and saves witnesses from stressful cross examination and vast amounts of money on long trials.
Transferring it to a sporting disciplinary tribunal is  not necessary IMHO.
However these tribunals are packed with QCs who no doubt merrily apply the rules they're used to in their working lives.
I presume it's Hollenstein on loan to OE's?


-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 10 Jan 2019 at 18:46
http://www.englandrugby.com/governance/discipline/video/ziana-montout-alexis-jersey-reds-citing/" rel="nofollow - https://www.englandrugby.com/governance/discipline/video/ziana-montout-alexis-jersey-reds-citing/
The full RFU report with accompanying video is worth a look. Looks bang to rights to me so I'm surprised he contested it. The extra week for contesting the charge puts him out of the Irish match & the cup quarter final with Pirates.




-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 10 Jan 2019 at 19:46
Reading the report he was indeed bang to rights.

-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 10:49
Originally posted by Pappashanga Pappashanga wrote:

Reading the report he was indeed bang to rights.
The detailed report is very informative and helps to understand where the RFU stand on high tackles. The video footage clearly shows the incident and I have to say its a bang to rights yellow card and penalty which is what I (and the referee) thought at the time. The judgement converts the yellow card into a red card which appears to be the way the RFU are going on the high tackle issue and if they really want to stamp it out sanctions like this one may well achieve the objective. Personally I don't like the present card system which causes an unbalanced contest for at least 10 minutes out of 80 and often leads to unseemly barracking by supporters who look to see a player sent off. Its particularly the case when the sanction after a series of 5 metre mauls is a penalty try and a yellow card to a defending team forward who the referee randomly selects to pay the price. I do like the penalty try in such cases without the need for the conversion but it would be better imo to make it an 8 or even a 9 point score rather than 7 and a yellow card. If the referee really wants to make an example of an obvious offender he should call time off and make the culprit do 10 push ups at all four corner flags before restarting the clock with 15 a side competing. With their small squad I hope Jersey have enough cover at prop to field full teams particularly against Irish & Pirates in the coming weeks.

-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: Insignificant Tick
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 10:54
I have never understood why a penalty try is not sufficient. The game is about scoring in an even contest so why make a contest uneven for 10 mins after the reward has been given ?


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 11:17
I agree. Yellow card plus penalty try is a double punishment.The recent game where there were two yellow cards but no penalty try was very odd.Human variation.


-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: FHLH
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 12:35
Originally posted by Pappashanga Pappashanga wrote:

Reading the report he was indeed bang to rights.


Looking at the video alone it was a wrap tackle (0:07 - 0:15) starting mid arm that slid up to the neck due to forward momentum and tackled player falling back and down as he is pushed. I do not see a swinging arm and a side view would have been clearer. As such I disagree with the red... it's a perennial problem with wrap tackles and height differentials. Frame by frame doubtless gives a better view. Who'd be a ref?

-------------
"My father told me big men fall just as quick as little ones, if you put a sword through their hearts."


Posted By: Brizzer
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 13:36
Originally posted by Insignificant Tick Insignificant Tick wrote:


I have never understood why a penalty try is not sufficient. The game is about scoring in an even contest so why make a contest uneven for 10 mins after the reward has been given ?

I would go further than that. I have seen refs signal advantage near the goal line, only to run under the posts after 2 or 3 passages of play by way of 'no advantage coming' etc.
Why wait? if a player stops a clear scoring opportunity by foul play, then they should just go straight under the posts. In fact, I have seen play continue and the team score in the corner, but miss the conversion. If they had have dropped the ball then they would have automatically received all 7 points.


Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 13:49
Players like to score tries.
Some players are competitive as to the number they score compared to other members of the team.
Therefore referees like to let a player socre rather than deny them by awarding the penalty try.

You can argue that if the try is scored, then the foul play did not prevent the try from being scored - so it does not meet the requirements of a Penalty Try. Though there is the seconday claue about scored in a less advantageous position - whih is about the difficulty of the conversion.

Aside from the fact the conversion might be missed, referees often do not feel they can show a player a yellow if the try is scored.


-------------
Blood and Sand


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 14:01
But they can show yellows and not give the try.If a try is scored anyway wider it doesn't mean the the foul play didn't prevent a try-it just means there was another opportunity which was taken.


-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: Brizzer
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 14:57
Originally posted by Pappashanga Pappashanga wrote:

But they can show yellows and not give the try.If a try is scored anyway wider it doesn't mean the the foul play didn't prevent a try-it just means there was another opportunity which was taken.
But they are not getting advantage from the offence, they are being disadvantaged.
For instance, a player would have scored under the posts but a player tackles him whilst on the floor. Ref signals penalty coming. The play continues and a try is scored close to the 15mtr line, but as they were playing into the wind the kick is missed.
The player/team who was illegally tackled is now disadvantaged by 2 points. How can that be right?


Posted By: Brizzer
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 15:00
Originally posted by Brizzer Brizzer wrote:

Originally posted by Pappashanga Pappashanga wrote:

But they can show yellows and not give the try.If a try is scored anyway wider it doesn't mean the the foul play didn't prevent a try-it just means there was another opportunity which was taken.
But they are not getting advantage from the offence, they are being disadvantaged.
For instance, a player would have scored under the posts but a player tackles him whilst on the floor. Ref signals penalty coming. The play continues and a try is scored close to the 15mtr line, but as they were playing into the wind the kick is missed.
The player/team who was illegally tackled is now disadvantaged by 2 points. How can that be right?

Sorry, just read your post again Pappashanga, are you saying that the yellow is justified because the attacking team may have a less advantageous position or less time on the clock or both?
If so, then double jeopardy with a PT and YC is unfair?


Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 15:25
So, logivally if a team scores a try while the referee is signalling a penalty advantage in their favour, should the referee award the 7 points immeidiately as a panelty try?


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 15:39
I was commenting on what some referees do. If there was an offence which deserved a yellow but it didn't necessarily prevent a try, then there's a yellow but no try. It's a very fine judgment and might well be wrong though.
It is up to individual judgment and perhaps depends on how far the attacking team was from the try line- i.e. the further from the try line the more difficult to judge. Players do also drop the ball sometimes when a score is 'inevitable', so you can never be sure.
The more I explore this the less certain I become.


-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: Insignificant Tick
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 16:04
You can only go on what would probably have happened. There are always ridiculous things that happen once in a blue moon, so to deny a try after an offence because you once saw a dog run on and tackle the  winger who was about to score is clearly wrong.    


Posted By: Brizzer
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 16:09
Originally posted by Pappashanga Pappashanga wrote:

I was commenting on what some referees do. If there was an offence which deserved a yellow but it didn't necessarily prevent a try, then there's a yellow but no try. It's a very fine judgment and might well be wrong though.
It is up to individual judgment and perhaps depends on how far the attacking team was from the try line- i.e. the further from the try line the more difficult to judge. Players do also drop the ball sometimes when a score is 'inevitable', so you can never be sure.
The more I explore this the less certain I become.

I agree. You also have to add in the patience factor from Sir. I remember one of the Plymouth players getting a yellow following a PT. The Albion DOR protested double jeopardy after the game until the ref pointed out that there had been about 5 pens given in the 22 within the few minutes leading to the score, plus during the final move he played about 3 separate advantages before finally going under the posts. I think that the YC was given for sheer stupidity in the end.


Posted By: The Blues
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 19:44
I do think that a few games I have seen on TV mostly and perhaps one instant against the Blues that sometimes offending teams get away with it.  I probably haven't explained this well and you kind of need to see the match to probably understand.

I have seen a team get given a couple of yellow cards close to the try line in close proximity as they committed multiple penalty offences.  Despite the attacking team being camped on the offending teams try line for a number of minutes the penalties aren't really those that could make it into a penalty try situation - no realistic chance of scoring.  After a period of time the attacking team knock on or something, which has made me feel the offending team had got out of jail and perhaps some kind of points penalty would've been appropriate on a 2nd yellow card offence say 2 or 3 points.

You could argue well if the attacking team cannot score against 13 well they don't deserve it but if the ball is being slowed down all the time to let themselves organise their defence.

However this often happens at the end of the game and sometimes giving up a player for 2 or 3 mins before the 80 mins is up can be a better option than the try.

One game that sticks in the memory involved Exeter this season and they won the game I think by 4 points.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2019 at 20:09

It was cold in St Ouens today and in retirement I wimped out of my allocated task of pruning vines  and walking spaniels &  so read and watched this again. Sad I know but the other options were less than enlightening. My only conclusion is that it's a really tough job refereeing at this level. and  midgets  props are difficult to tackle. The Jersey tight head is certainly not a dirty player and I'm certain the game is not enhanced by his 4 week ban.



-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: No 7
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2019 at 21:54
< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0">< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0">< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0">
Originally posted by corporalcarrot corporalcarrot wrote:

It was cold in St Ouens today and in retirement I wimped out of my allocated task of pruning vines  and walking spaniels &  so read and watched this again. Sad I know but the other options were less than enlightening. My only conclusion is that it's a really tough job refereeing at this level. and  midgets  props are difficult to tackle. The Jersey tight head is certainly not a dirty player and I'm certain the game is not enhanced by his 4 week ban.



Elliot Millar Mills is certainly not a midget. Zi`s feet come off the ground ! take a look he is literally trying to take his head off ! .There is no type of tackle where you drive upwards towards a players head. I called it as a red card when it happened . It is Red card all day no attempt at a tackle whatsoever.

The aftermath is worth a look  the Jersey player strangles our scrum half all after the whistle is blown. I suppose you think he is another `midget` and some how vertically challenged people are worthy of decapitation and strangulation. Ouch 

It was a `dirty` tackle and undeniable . The four week ban may allow Zi to reflect on his actions and may stop a player getting seriously injured in the future and that will enhance the game.


-------------
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.


Posted By: Warman1
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2019 at 22:27
I'm with CC.

Contact occurred, so ban accepted, but he would never intend to do it.

Rules is rules.

And he is tiny for a prop.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2019 at 08:58
This doesn't add an awful lot without the video but for those interested the report on the Kuki Ma'afu judgement is accessed via this link:
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/Governance/Disclipine/01/33/24/34/MaafuJerseyRedsJudgmentJan19%28final%29_English.pdf" rel="nofollow - https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/Governance/Disclipine/01/33/24/34/MaafuJerseyRedsJudgmentJan19(final)_English.pdf
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/Governance/Disclipine/01/33/24/34/MaafuJerseyRedsJudgmentJan19%28final%29_English.pdf" rel="nofollow -


-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2019 at 18:36

Tobias Freeman of Cornish Pirates is due to appear before an independent disciplinary panel.

Freeman was cited by independent citing commissioner Michael Mason following the Championship Cup game between Jersey Reds and Cornish Pirates on 2 February 2019 for two cases of striking an opponent, contrary to Law 9.12. Both incidents occurred in the first half of the match.

The hearing will take place on Wednesday 6 February at 11:00. The panel will be chaired by David Lidbury with two panel members to be confirmed.



-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2019 at 14:55
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/coventry-s-woolford-cited-for-striking/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/coventry-s-woolford-cited-for-striking/
Alex Woolford of Coventry R.F.C. appeared before an independent disciplinary panel last night and received a five-week suspension for striking a player.


-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2019 at 15:07
Back from injury
gets awarded MotM
andf then gets caughut butting in a maul. 

Shame really, he was looking like getting a good few run outs before the end of the season.


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2019 at 15:13
He was interviewed and remarked on lack of composure so that’s a lesson for him.

-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2019 at 16:05
Shouldn't have let himself get riled by a hooker. 


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2019 at 16:06
Saysell is a flank.

-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2019 at 16:11
Ah, did he convert? 


Posted By: Kimbo
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2019 at 16:20
No. That was the full back.

Coat please.

-------------
Our City,
Our Club


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2019 at 15:10
Lewis Wynne of London Scottish has received a three-week ban for an incident that took place against Coventry. 
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/exiles-wynne-to-appear-before-disciplinary-panel/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/exiles-wynne-to-appear-before-disciplinary-panel/


-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2019 at 17:34
http://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/doncaster-s-challinor-cited-for-incident/" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/doncaster-s-challinor-cited-for-incident/

Matt Challinor Citing.

Doncaster Knights forward Matt Challinor has been suspended for one week.

He appeared before an independent disciplinary panel on Wednesday evening. He was cited by independent citing commissioner James Hudson following the Greene King IPA Championship match between Doncaster Knights and London Scottish on 31 March 2019.

This was for dangerous play in a ruck, contrary to Law 9.20 or in the alternative for striking with the shoulder, Contrary to Law 9.12. The incident occurred in the second half of the match.

Challinor accepted the charge under Law 9.12 and was given a one-week suspension by the panel chaired by John Greenwood with Adrian Senn and Peter Rhodes. He is free to play again on 16 April 2019.

“Matthew Challinor admitted a charge of striking with his shoulder contrary to Law 9.12. The panel accepted that there was no malice or intention to cause injury, but that the attempted clear out of a London Scottish player was mis-timed and reckless within the meaning of RFU Regulation 19 and Appendix 5," said Panel chair John Greenwood.

"The panel imposed a ban of one week after determining that this was a low end entry point and that the player should be entitled to the full mitigation.”




-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: The Blues
Date Posted: 16 Apr 2019 at 22:44
Ealing Durutalo and Davis cited for tip tackle on Nick Selway Jersey.  Hearing to take place in London April 17 6:30pm. 

Low end is 6 weeks
Mid range 10 weeks
Top end 14+ weeks to 52 max


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 08:34
Originally posted by The Blues The Blues wrote:

Ealing Durutalo and Davis cited for tip tackle on Nick Selway Jersey.  Hearing to take place in London April 17 6:30pm. 

Low end is 6 weeks
Mid range 10 weeks
Top end 14+ weeks to 52 max
 

I don't condone this but it is a huge pity as the game was already won and both lads had brilliant matches.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvn-bmP6hLM" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvn-bmP6hLM The incident shows towards the end of the highlights reel. I hope both lads can play in the forthcoming games against Irish.


-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: gerg_861
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 09:22
Originally posted by corporalcarrot corporalcarrot wrote:

Originally posted by The Blues The Blues wrote:

Ealing Durutalo and Davis cited for tip tackle on Nick Selway Jersey.  Hearing to take place in London April 17 6:30pm. 

Low end is 6 weeks
Mid range 10 weeks
Top end 14+ weeks to 52 max
 

I don't condone this but it is a huge pity as the game was already won and both lads had brilliant matches.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvn-bmP6hLM" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvn-bmP6hLM The incident shows towards the end of the highlights reel. I hope both lads can play in the forthcoming games against Irish.
 
Yes, a real head scratcher given that the game was over...


Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 09:26
5.40 on timeline


Posted By: oneagainstthehead
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 10:18
The lowering of the player was controlled and he was placed on his back so little likelihood of injury. However, he was clearly lifted beyond the horizontal. Definitely appears to be a tip tackle but I hope the panel consider it low end.

-------------
Speak softly, but carry a big stick.


Posted By: knightandday
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 13:38
Originally posted by oneagainstthehead oneagainstthehead wrote:

The lowering of the player was controlled and he was placed on his back so little likelihood of injury. However, he was clearly lifted beyond the horizontal. Definitely appears to be a tip tackle but I hope the panel consider it low end.


Just watched the video a couple of times and have to disagree with ‘controlled’ certainly no malice apparent but not controlled, just good luck he did land safely.

-------------
Winning isn't everything, it just makes the beer taste better


Posted By: gerg_861
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 14:04
I wonder how the game would have gone if the ref had seen this and handed out two red cards? Ealing was up 45-7 (to be 45-14 within the next few seconds) with 10 minutes to play. Could Reds have scored 5 converted tries in ten minutes with a two man advantage?


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 15:04
Originally posted by gerg_861 gerg_861 wrote:

I wonder how the game would have gone if the ref had seen this and handed out two red cards? Ealing was up 45-7 (to be 45-14 within the next few seconds) with 10 minutes to play. Could Reds have scored 5 converted tries in ten minutes with a two man advantage?

 I think if the ref had sent off 5 Ealing players on Saturday and made the remaining 10 hop on one leg Jersey might have got a bit closer in the last 10 minutes but that was a dominant performance by Ealing. To score 5 tries in the first half up the hill and with the wind against you was exceptional. Jersey were poor but mainly because Ealing were really good.


-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: The Blues
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 16:21
Yes that looks bad, it wasn't just a tip tackle it looks like a flip, can't see them playing again this season!  Guess we will see later. 

Was the Jersey player was ok?


Posted By: oneagainstthehead
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 17:02
Originally posted by The Blues The Blues wrote:

Yes that looks bad, it wasn't just a tip tackle it looks like a flip, can't see them playing again this season!  Guess we will see later. 

Was the Jersey player was ok?

As I recall, the player was straight back on his feet with no apparent ill-effects. I think you’re right about them missing rest of season and possibly a bit at the start of next. It could also impact Duratalo in the RWC, he’s been a regular in the US squad.

-------------
Speak softly, but carry a big stick.


Posted By: islander
Date Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 18:39
Jersey hooker Nick Selway was fine and played the remaining 14 mins of the game. I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting the Reds would have overhauled a 31-pt deficit had action been taken at the time; maybe a BP might have been achieved through 2 more tries, but the incident shouldn't change the verdict that Ealing's win was well-deserved.

The replacement prop Davis was described above as having "a brilliant match"... tho' he had only been on the field for one minute Confused


Posted By: Brizzer
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2019 at 13:48
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with a lot of what has been said with regards to this matter so far.
1. Yes, the game was gone, Ealing won fair and square - no argument.
2. At no point were the ET 'tacklers' in control of the situation, they didn't look after him, they both landed on top of him. They weren't in control of themselves, so how could the control the player? Basically, Selway was bundled over landing in his neck. Shocking!!
3. What for the love of all that is good was the Ref & the AR's looking at? The incident was right in front of them. I was always under the impression that the officials No.1 priority was player safety.....really?????????

I must admit from where I stood, I could only see 1 of the tacklers and you could tell from the hips driving upwards that he had got his driving position wrong. To now discover that there were 2, obviously doing the same thing is really really poor. No duty of care was given to the player at all by anyone......awful!!!!!!


Posted By: gerg_861
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2019 at 13:59
Does anyone know when the results of the hearing are due? I thought it was last night, but I've seen nought online about results.


Posted By: oneagainstthehead
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2019 at 14:47
Originally posted by gerg_861 gerg_861 wrote:


Does anyone know when the results of the hearing are due? I thought it was last night, but I've seen nought online about results.

Just checked RFU website, nothing yet. They’re normally very prompt.

-------------
Speak softly, but carry a big stick.


Posted By: EverOptimistic
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2019 at 16:07

Andrew Durutalo and George Davis of Ealing Trailfinders have been banned for three weeks after appearing before an independent disciplinary panel on Wednesday.

Both players were cited by independent citing commissioner Andrew Pearce following the Greene King IPA Championship match between Jersey Reds and Ealing Trailfinders on 13 April 2019. This was for tip tackling Nick Selway of Jersey Reds, contrary to Law 9.18. The incident occurred in the second half of the match.

Both players received a three-week ban and are free to play again on 7 May 2019.



Posted By: gerg_861
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2019 at 16:32
Ouch - that takes Durutalo out of both games against Irish.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2019 at 17:27

Andrew Durutalo and George Davis of Ealing Trailfinders appeared before an independent disciplinary panel.

Andrew Durutalo and George Davis of Ealing Trailfinders have been banned for three weeks after appearing before an independent disciplinary panel on Wednesday.

Both players were cited by independent citing commissioner Andrew Pearce following the Greene King IPA Championship match between Jersey Reds and Ealing Trailfinders on 13 April 2019. This was for tip tackling Nick Selway of Jersey Reds, contrary to Law 9.18. The incident occurred in the second half of the match.

Both players received a three-week ban and are free to play again on 7 May 2019.

“The panel found that the actions of the two Ealing players were reckless," said Panel chair Richard Whittam QC.

"Although the panel was satisfied that there was no intent to tackle the Jersey player in the manner that they did, the result was that the Jersey player was rotated with his legs going to the near vertical and he landed on his head and neck.

“The panel considered the mechanics of this particular tackle carefully in conjunction with the medical evidence from Jersey Reds, which confirmed no injury to their player, and determined that the appropriate entry point was low-end.

“Both players accepted that their own individual actions had met the red card threshold and accepted the charges at the earliest opportunity. They both had clear records and the panel found that they should both be given the full mitigation permissible.

“The two players will both be suspended for three weeks and will miss the remaining three Greene King IPA Championship games for Ealing Trailfinders this season.”

The panel was chaired by Richard Whittam QC with Becky Essex and Tim Naylor.



-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: Brizzer
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2019 at 19:29
So it's ok to give a 3 week suspension because the player didn't get injured, despite landing on his HEAD AND NECK!! but a player who is deemed to have tackled high because the ball carrier ducked into the tackle gets 4 weeks......the world has gone stark staring mad!


Posted By: The Blues
Date Posted: 18 Apr 2019 at 20:04
I do agree and it appears the suspension is an end of season one. Although I think it was Tupai once had a suspension that carried on to the following season. If it had happened in Jan they probably would’ve got longer. Other players have had the same lengths of ban for a lot less.

If any other teams have a similar situation you’d immediately bring up this judgment!


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 03 May 2019 at 08:46

Theo Vukasinovic of London Scottish and Craig Trenier of Richmond appeared before an independent disciplinary panel and received suspensions.

Vukasinovic and Trenier were each shown a red card by referee Fergus Kirby in the 50th minute of the Greene King IPA Championship match between London Scottish and Richmond on 27 April 2019. This was for striking each other contrary to Law 9.12 – a player must not physically abuse anyone including punching or striking with hand or arm.

Both players accepted the charge against them and were each given a three week suspension by the two-person independent disciplinary panel comprising Aidan O'Brien (chair) and Paula Carter.

The free to play dates for each player will be determined once they are in a position to confirm their next meaningful fixtures.

Panel chair Aidan O’Brien said: “Both players accepted the charges and provided an explanation to the panel for the incident.

“The panel noted that both players had struck an opponent to the head and therefore the mandatory mid-range entry point was applied.

“Due to their guilty plea, clean records and obvious remorse, the panel gave them both the full 50% mitigation.

“In the case of both players, they are joining new clubs for the 2019/20 season. As such, the dates of the three weeks’ suspension will be determined once their playing commitments are confirmed to the panel.”

Ealing red dismissed

Harry Casson of Ealing Trailfinders appeared before an independent disciplinary panel and had his red card dismissed.

Casson was shown a red card by referee Christophe Ridley in the 65th minute of the Greene King IPA Championship match between London Irish and Ealing Trailfinders on 27 April 2019. This was for acting in a manner that was dangerous and/or reckless contrary to Law 9.11.

The independent two-person panel chaired by Aidan O’Brien with Paula Carter dismissed the red card and the player is free to play with immediate effect.

Panel chair Aidan O'Brien said: “The panel heard evidence from the player, the Ealing Director of Rugby and the RFU and were able to review the footage at the same time in full time, slow motion and frame by frame.

"The player was able to demonstrate that his actions were not reckless or dangerous but instead the result of being driven off the ruck by the London Irish player and their combined force causing them both to go to ground as they did.

"The panel accept that on first view of this incident the player appears to be controlling the action but were satisfied after careful analysis that his actions did not meet the red card threshold nor did they amount to foul play. In the circumstances of there being no act of foul play, the red card was dismissed and the player is free to play with immediate effect”



-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: The Blues
Date Posted: 06 May 2019 at 15:00
Richmond in trouble?

https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/richmond-to-appear-before-disciplinary-panel/


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 06 May 2019 at 16:02
Interesting. Five individuals disciplined at various times during the season equals a 'bad disciplinary record'. That plus relegation is all Mond need. Plenty of lawyers in the club so I hope they pick a good one.


-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: islander
Date Posted: 06 May 2019 at 16:03

Richmond F.C. is to appear before an independent disciplinary panel for a breach of RFU Regulation 19.3.1 (bad disciplinary record).

In season 2018-2019, Richmond F.C. has appeared before an independent disciplinary panel on five occasions to deal with cases involving registered players: Cameron Mitchell, Rory Daman, Ronald McLean Dents, Adam Lee and Craig Ternier.

The club's hearing will take place in London on Tuesday 7 May at 1830 in front of an independent panel comprising Dr Julian Morris (chair) with two panel members to be confirmed.


5 cases across the season may be more than ideal, but doesn't sound horrendous. What are the authorities going to do? A points deduction this season wouldn't achieve much, to deduct points next season would seem harsh. So probably a fine and/or slapped wrist?


Posted By: Maroon
Date Posted: 06 May 2019 at 16:09
 

Richmond F.C. is to appear before an independent disciplinary panel for a breach of RFU Regulation 19.3.1 (bad disciplinary record).

In season 2018-2019, Richmond F.C. has appeared before an independent disciplinary panel on five occasions to deal with cases involving registered players: Cameron Mitchell, Rory Daman, Ronald McLean Dents, Adam Lee and Craig Ternier.

The club's hearing will take place in London on Tuesday 7 May at 1830 in front of an independent panel comprising Dr Julian Morris (chair) with two panel members to be confirmed.

 


RFU Regulation

19.3 Bad Disciplinary Record and Recognition of Sanctions

Bad disciplinary record

19.3.1 Where Players or members of a Club appear before a Disciplinary Panel on five or

more separate occasions in any one season, that Club may be charged by the RFU

Head of Discipline or Constituent Body Disciplinary Secretary and summoned to

attend before a Disciplinary Panel on the basis that it has a bad disciplinary record.

When dealing with a Club under this provision, the Disciplinary Panel has the power

to impose sanctions as set out in Appendix 2.



Posted By: FHLH
Date Posted: 06 May 2019 at 17:04
Appendix 2

"Bad Disciplinary Record:

When dealing with a Club under the bad disciplinary record provisions a Disciplinary Panel may impose any appropriate sanction, including (but not limited to) a reprimand, a financial penalty or deduction of league points or relegation, exclusion or disqualification from any competition, or a combination of the above. Sanctions may also be suspended if considered appropriate."

-------------
"My father told me big men fall just as quick as little ones, if you put a sword through their hearts."


Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 06 May 2019 at 18:16
Not much sympathy from me I’m afraid. Plenty for them being relegated by the unsporting manipulation of the loan system by Hartpury, but not for this.

The only offences taken to disciplinary hearings these days are for non-technical offences. I.e. violent, dangerous or foul play. Five is a lot of such offences in a season.

Only one other team in The Championship had more than two disciplinary cases - London Scottish, with three. Coventry, along with several others had two.


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 06 May 2019 at 20:22
Previous conduct is relevant. Nothing in 2017/18 except a dismissed citing so clean record. I think this season’s events were a freak rather than an indication of any deliberate attitude.

-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: SKalpy
Date Posted: 06 May 2019 at 21:13
Sale FC had the same charge against them earlier in the season. 

www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/Governance/Disclipine/01/33/33/62/SaleFC512JudgmentApr19_English.pdf


Posted By: The Blues
Date Posted: 06 May 2019 at 22:47
It's probably a little from the change in rules.  There have been a lot more citing's.

Some of the red cards on TV have been silly. I remember one that Cipriani got when the attacking opponent ducked his head into Cipriani's shoulder (making the tackle) as he was going into contact a metre or so away, yet, all they saw was a shoulder to the head, deeming it as with force.  The opponent was knocking Cipriani back, so there couldn't be any force there and you could argue the attacker was using his head dangerously.  Cipriani ended up with a ban as well. 

Also most of the seat belt tackle there is nothing wrong with them and shouldn't be a penalty.


Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 08:13
OldNick i would be interested to find out how many of Richmond's citings were under the failed tackle law experiment? As a part time club I assume they would have had significantly less time than the other 11 clubs for their players to practice the change in technique required.


Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 08:33
It took under 5 minutes to check on the publicly-available RFU disciplinary website.

Two. Both for high tackles. From a quick skim one would have been high in all circumstances - shoulder to head. The other (Adam Lee) was under the experimental law only.


Posted By: Hor Hey
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 08:46
The RFU rule creates a nonsense in that clubs which run one team are in the same boat as a club like ours which runs 5 senior mens sides, two ladies teams , a colts team and numerous mini Junior teams in all age groups. Richmond is such a club.

-------------
Hope springs eternal


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 09:15
No doubt the panel will examine the individual cases. Counting an ‘experimental ‘ infringement seems unfair.

-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 09:59
Originally posted by Hor Hey Hor Hey wrote:

The RFU rule creates a nonsense in that clubs which run one team are in the same boat as a club like ours which runs 5 senior mens sides, two ladies teams , a colts team and numerous mini Junior teams in all age groups. Richmond is such a club.


All five offences applied to Richmond’s first team playing in the Championship and Championship Cup. Your assertion they are discriminated against by having more than one team is nonsense.


Posted By: Kimbo
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 10:23
Richmond played in the Championship by choice.
Whether as full-pro, semi-pro, or completely amateur is absolutely their choice, so is also irrelevant.
Still p****d that they were relegated though.

-------------
Our City,
Our Club


Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 11:48
Old Nick - so if the one given under the experimental law not counted they would only have 4 offences and would not be up before the beak?


Posted By: Hor Hey
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 11:52
O N I wasn't aware all Richmond's were against their First team. In our case , dealt with by the CB, the cards were widely sprinkled around.

-------------
Hope springs eternal


Posted By: FHLH
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 12:54
Originally posted by OldNick OldNick wrote:

Plenty for them being relegated by the unsporting manipulation of the loan system by Hartpury, but not for this.


Welcome to the world of National One where D/R causes chaos on match days..... "Hello, who are you?" "I'm your centre today"

-------------
"My father told me big men fall just as quick as little ones, if you put a sword through their hearts."


Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 14:59
Originally posted by marigold marigold wrote:

Old Nick - so if the one given under the experimental law not counted they would only have 4 offences and would not be up before the beak?


Totally irrelevant. They played in both tournaments, as did all other teams I. The Championship.

I’m sure the disciplinary panel will consider the circumstances of each offence.


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 15:17
Rules are rules, but I would expect the 'experimental' offence to be regarded as less serious. Anyway, it's this evening so we'll know soon enough.


-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 07 May 2019 at 15:37
I've had a look at the reports. Four were for tackles and one for fisticuffs. Ironically the 'experimental' tackle, which looked innocuous to me, got four weeks,as against three for the others.
The fisticuffs ,which I witnessed, was started by the LS player, who was penalised by the penalty kick plus red card, but Trenier over reacted and got a red card too.
Can't wait for tomorrow .


-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: Pappashanga
Date Posted: 08 May 2019 at 15:18
Mond given a 'formal reprimand'. Presumably clean record in the two previous seasons counted. I really do think this was a freak set of circumstances,as the ethos of the club is one of good sportsmanship, and good behaviour is emphasised.


-------------
pappashanga


Posted By: No 7
Date Posted: 08 May 2019 at 15:32
The Harry Casson 'rescinded' red card is subject to further scrutiny by the RFU.

-------------
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.


Posted By: corporalcarrot
Date Posted: 11 May 2019 at 08:50
Originally posted by Pappashanga Pappashanga wrote:

Mond given a 'formal reprimand'. Presumably clean record in the two previous seasons counted. I really do think this was a freak set of circumstances,as the ethos of the club is one of good sportsmanship, and good behaviour is emphasised.

Richmond F.C. appeared before an independent disciplinary panel for a breach of RFU Regulation 19.3.1 for a bad disciplinary record and the club were given a formal reprimand.

In season 2018-19, Richmond F.C. had appeared before an independent disciplinary panel on five occasions to deal with cases involving registered players: Cameron Mitchell, Rory Damant, Ronald McLean Dents, Adam Lee and Craig Trenier.

The club was given a formal reprimand by the independent two-person panel comprising Dr Julian Morris and Kylie Hutchison which will sit on the club’s record.

Panel chair Dr Julian Morris said: “The panel decided to reprimand the club but also requires the club to emphasise, to all players in all age groups, the importance of good tackling technique and the implications of bad discipline, both on players as individuals and the club as a whole. In addition, the club was reminded of its responsibilities to the wider game in respect of discipline.

“The panel require the club to confirm to the RFU that this update to players has been carried out at the beginning of the 2019/20 season”




-------------
Dont kick it. Pick it up and GO FORWARD.


Posted By: gerg_861
Date Posted: 12 May 2019 at 12:09
Originally posted by No 7 No 7 wrote:

The Harry Casson 'rescinded' red card is subject to further scrutiny by the RFU.
How so?



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk