Harry Ellis banned for 6 weeks

[gooders060981]

Seems a little harsh dont you think???

I am not agreeing with what he did as it was clearly stupid but 6 weeks!!

[Tigerbeat]

The news is rolling at the top of the BBC Sports page - more to follow soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_u ... 784523.stm

[gooders060981]

More info from BBC

"Leicester scrum-half Harry Ellis has been banned for six weeks for a dangerous tackle on Perpignan's New Zealand fly-half Dan Carter.

England scrum-half Ellis upended Carter, who landed on his head, during their Heineken Cup tie last weekend.

Ellis was given a one-game ban by his club on Wednesday but an independent committee sitting Dublin has now handed him a more severe sanction.

All Blacks star Carter was making his debut for the French side."

[Tigerbeat]

Taken from other thread - dupliacte - now locked

Harry Ellis, the Leicester Tigers replacement (No 20), appeared before an independent Disciplinary Committee in Dublin on (Friday, 19 December as a result of a citing arising from the Round 4 Heineken Cup Pool 3 match against Perpignan at Stade Aime Giral.
The citing lodged by the Citing Commissioner for the match, Iain Goodall (Scotland) was for an alleged dangerous tackle on Perpignan player Dan Carter (No 10) in contravention of Law 10.4 (e).

The independent Disciplinary Committee was chaired by Professor Lorne Crerar (Scotland) and also comprised George Spotswood (Ireland) and Pat Barriscale (Ireland).

Mr Ellis admitted he was guilty of foul play in that he had committed a dangerous tackle.

After considering the evidence available, the independent Disciplinary Committee determined that the offence was of the top-end of the level of seriousness for a dangerous tackle.

Having taken into account any mitigating and aggravating factors the independent Disciplinary Committee suspended the player for a period of six (6) weeks up to and including Sunday, 25 January, 2009.

Both parties have the right to appeal.

Doesn't make clear whether the ban was reduced for admission of guilt, or extended because of previous.

Anyway, does that rule him out of the two remaining pool games?

[MJ Chairman]

If my maths is right that would mean that the six weeks would be up the day after the ospreys game

[Tigerbob]

Nice one 'Arry

[gooders060981]

There is also a notice on the bbc site unders Ospreys saying that he will not be avalible for our selection for the Ospreys game in late January.

I think Dupuy is currently better but its always good to have the likes of Ellis on the bench as an impact player for the last 20 mins or heaven forebid and injury replacement.

Obviously bringing Ellis on last week as an impact player probably didnt mean this sort of impact

[Tigerbeat]

Room for an appeal - that could reduce it but at the same time they could increase it!!!!

Is it something that should be appealed or should it just be accepted and move on?

[Arvski]

6 weeks for a stupid yet non malicious tackle Vs Cudmore's 5 weeks for blatant punching seems very harsh indeed!

Is the 6 weeks inclusive of the Tigers 1 week suspension?..

[LessThanSte]

The difference with Cudmore's is that it was provoked, as with most things. He threw the first punch but presumably wouldnt have done that had something a bit more minor happened before. I wouldnt have therefore said it was unprovoked, which is the opposite of Harry's.

And given that Harry's was unprovoked (ok if i remember right Carter was offside but still) it is arguably more serious!

[Chobbsy]

He definately deserves a ban but 6 weeks is outrageou, why can't these citings and bans at least appear fair across the board

[Iain D]

It's definitely worth an appeal. Firstly, its at the top end of the bracket for that offence - so there is little room for it to go upwards. Secondly, there seems to be little or no mitigation for his club ban, admission of guilt or his decent disciplinary record. Finally, the current ban sees him out until the start of the 6N (therefore missing both HC games, and games against Quins and Gloucs). Since he won't be playing in the GP, he's unlikely to be playing for England in the 6N - therefore if the ban were increased it'd have little impact on either Harry or the Club. So, there's really nothing to lose all round.

[hiraldos]

"the current ban sees him out until the start of the 6N " - that seems to be normal in these situations. It also seems very harsh for what he did but again it's not harsh for a Leicester player. Had he played for Wasps the ban would be for a week!

[Tiggersarewonderfulthings]

It's definitely worth an appeal. Firstly, its at the top end of the bracket for that offence - so there is little room for it to go upwards. Secondly, there seems to be little or no mitigation for his club ban, admission of guilt or his decent disciplinary record. Finally, the current ban sees him out until the start of the 6N (therefore missing both HC games, and games against Quins and Gloucs). Since he won't be playing in the GP, he's unlikely to be playing for England in the 6N - therefore if the ban were increased it'd have little impact on either Harry or the Club. So, there's really nothing to lose all round.

I would imagine the HEC game against Biarritz when he got carded for elbowing Yachvili in the face and put in a few other cheap shots would count against him when up before an ERC disciplinary.

But you're right, it's worth Leicester appealing - certainly isn't going to have too much effect on the club if the ban gets increased.

[TTRITH]

So Harry gets 6 weeks for a non-malicous tackle whereas the player who throws Marco Wentzal to the ground and kicks him in the head (which the French TV did not show replays of) gets away scott free?

This is another reason why we don't get top players, we seem to pick up lengthier suspensions and foul play against us goes unnoticed. (The wentzal affair and when Armatige stuck his finger in TV's eye)