De Jaegar banned for two weeks
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
De Jaegar banned for two weeks
For head butting Wentzel
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
The independent Disciplinary Committee was chaired by HHJ Jeff Blackett (England) and also comprised Dr Barry O’Driscoll (Ireland) and Mr Robert Horner (England).
After considering the evidence available, the independent Disciplinary Committee found that Mr de Jager was guilty of foul play in that he had struck Marco Wentzel with his head in contravention of Law 10.4 (a).
The Committee determined that the offence was of the low-end in the level of seriousness. Having taken into account any mitigating and aggravating factors the Committee suspended the player for a period of two (2) weeks running up to and including Wednesday, 5 November 2008.
Exactly what mitigating or aggravating factors were there ? Obviously law 10.4(a) no longer applies as intended. Haskell dived over a ruck using his head, De Jager head butted Wentzel, but the crimes were 'of the low end in the level of seriousness.
In a previous thread I said that Blackett would be lenient, not because it was Tigers, but because the disciplinary panel has its own agenda, and that is to be a sounding board for HHR to air his views, not promote the safety of players.
After considering the evidence available, the independent Disciplinary Committee found that Mr de Jager was guilty of foul play in that he had struck Marco Wentzel with his head in contravention of Law 10.4 (a).
The Committee determined that the offence was of the low-end in the level of seriousness. Having taken into account any mitigating and aggravating factors the Committee suspended the player for a period of two (2) weeks running up to and including Wednesday, 5 November 2008.
Exactly what mitigating or aggravating factors were there ? Obviously law 10.4(a) no longer applies as intended. Haskell dived over a ruck using his head, De Jager head butted Wentzel, but the crimes were 'of the low end in the level of seriousness.
In a previous thread I said that Blackett would be lenient, not because it was Tigers, but because the disciplinary panel has its own agenda, and that is to be a sounding board for HHR to air his views, not promote the safety of players.
BillB
I am quite sure that the Disciplianry Panels have different agendas.
Low end of seriousness because no injury resulted and in no way did it affect anything on the field of play.
Remember you are quoting from a Press Statement not a transcript of the hearing (which would have itemised the mitigating /aggravating factors)and also indicated how the number 2 was arrived at.
Indeed, we do not know from the Press Statement whether he pleaded guily or not guilty!!!
Low end of seriousness because no injury resulted and in no way did it affect anything on the field of play.
Remember you are quoting from a Press Statement not a transcript of the hearing (which would have itemised the mitigating /aggravating factors)and also indicated how the number 2 was arrived at.
Indeed, we do not know from the Press Statement whether he pleaded guily or not guilty!!!
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
Bill,
I understand your comment, but the quotes were from the ERC website.
Its interesting that the citing of the French hooker Mr Guirado was dismissed :
''After considering the evidence available, the independent Disciplinary Committee found that there was insufficient evidence to show Mr Guirado had been guilty of foul play and accordingly dismissed the citing.''
If the citing commissioner was capable of identifying the offence, why was the panel unable to do so. After giving the referee, linesmen, and citing officer a verbal lashing after the Wasps game, and now saying that there was no case to answer, who the heck will want to be a Rugby official.
One of the other threads was making the point that referees are increasingly using the yellow card rather than the red and leaving it to the Citing officer to determine the seriousness of the offence. Given the lack of support from Blackett & Co, who can blame them!
I understand your comment, but the quotes were from the ERC website.
Its interesting that the citing of the French hooker Mr Guirado was dismissed :
''After considering the evidence available, the independent Disciplinary Committee found that there was insufficient evidence to show Mr Guirado had been guilty of foul play and accordingly dismissed the citing.''
If the citing commissioner was capable of identifying the offence, why was the panel unable to do so. After giving the referee, linesmen, and citing officer a verbal lashing after the Wasps game, and now saying that there was no case to answer, who the heck will want to be a Rugby official.
One of the other threads was making the point that referees are increasingly using the yellow card rather than the red and leaving it to the Citing officer to determine the seriousness of the offence. Given the lack of support from Blackett & Co, who can blame them!
BillB
I know the quotes were from the ERC website - that is where I got the info to start the thread.
It is a press release via the website. It is not a transcript of the hearing.
Again, the Press Release on the other case said they found insufficient evidence. Not no evidence. Insufficient evidence. i.e. insufficient to prove that on the balance of probabilities foul play had occured. The transcript would help us. Maybe they concluded the other player had thrust his face towards Guirados hand.
Just because an announcement is on a website does not mean that it contains full details, or indeed correct details. You may recall Wentzell was originally identified as Croft!
It is a press release via the website. It is not a transcript of the hearing.
Again, the Press Release on the other case said they found insufficient evidence. Not no evidence. Insufficient evidence. i.e. insufficient to prove that on the balance of probabilities foul play had occured. The transcript would help us. Maybe they concluded the other player had thrust his face towards Guirados hand.
Just because an announcement is on a website does not mean that it contains full details, or indeed correct details. You may recall Wentzell was originally identified as Croft!
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.
MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
