Citing for Owen Williams

[DanDan]

Unfortunately our sport needs discipline and at times players have to be judged, however the current system shows its own flaws by the decisions and verdicts given by the panels. There appears no differentiation between an intentional act a careless act or an accidental act when a player pleads guilty.

A player can find themselves having to plead guilty to avoid an even lengthier ban when they know the evidence, if there is anymore than mere suspicion by a touch judge referee or the citing commissioner will show an act has occurred even when it it is an accident.

Players therefore are not necessarily guilty of anything more than being a bit clumsy or of accidentally making contact with a player when they have pleaded guilty.

The burden of proof appears lower than a court of law and can have huge consequences on a players career and a teams season.

It must be time that the RFU and the teams and players associations work together to improve the system if they are not already doing so.

[cidermark]

But then a citing only occurs when the citing officer feels there is a case to answer.

Or the opposition clubs officers....

http://www.rfu.com/~/media/files/thegam ... dix_4_2013

[snoopster]

No doubt there's an obvious answer to this question but it's just not occurring to me at the moment...how does a 6 week ban take him to 2 September? If it's only in effect during weeks when there are actually eligible matches being played, did this also apply last year to Hartley?

It did.
http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/j ... may13.ashx

I tried to copy the relevant section but the formatting went crazy.

[AidanMcDowell]

[quote="snoopster"][quote="AidanMcDowell"]No doubt there's an obvious answer to this question but it's just not occurring to me at the moment...how does a 6 week ban take him to 2 September? If it's only in effect during weeks when there are actually eligible matches being played, did this also apply last year to Hartley?[/quote]

It did.
http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/j ... may13.ashx

I tried to copy the relevant section but the formatting went crazy.[/quote]


Thank you Snoopster, paragraph 16 of your linked document explained it all very clearly.

[Christophelp]

But then a citing only occurs when the citing officer feels there is a case to answer.

Or the opposition clubs officers....

http://www.rfu.com/~/media/files/thegam ... dix_4_2013

What you have linked states the following, in relation to Premiership and Championship 1st XV Games:

6. A Club participating in a match may refer to the Citing Commissioner any incidents in that match that they want the Citing Commissioner to consider, within the timescales set out below:
Premiership – 4 hours of conclusion of the match
Championship – 8 hours of conclusion of the match

7. A Citing Commissioner alone shall have the power and responsibility to cite a player whom the independent video and/or other evidence shows to have committed an act of Foul Play whether or not it has been detected by the Match Officials.

So a club can refer an incident to the Citing Commissioner but whether or not a player is cited as a result of this referral is the responsibility of the Citing Commissioner alone.

So (playing Devil's Advocate) if Saints did refer the incident to the Citing Commissioner, he did not automatically have to cite Williams.

[Phil B]

So (playing Devil's Advocate) if Saints did refer the incident to the Citing Commissioner, he did not automatically have to cite Williams.

But as the incident is so unclear, he would not have been in any position other than to pass the buck upstairs.

[Bill W (2)]

Bring back HHJ J. Blackett!!

[Phil B]

Bill, you are starting to amuse me.

Why bring back said Judge?

And more than a one sentence reply, if possible?

[Soggypitch]

Has anybody noticed that Tigers have not yet commented on the ban on the web site?

Perhaps they are considering an appeal (on the length of ban), or is that not possible for a guilty plea?

Feel really sorry for Williams, but as B Jones said on Radio Leicester tonight, it will be character building!

[Tigerbeat]

http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/194 ... 4Y6GNq9KSM

Was posted on the website this morning

[Soggypitch]

http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/194 ... 4Y6GNq9KSM

Was posted on the website this morning

Sorry missed that! What a farce Owen banned until Sept 2 for an accident and the Saints prop is playing in the final on Saturday, following a one week ban for two punches that Joe Frasier would have been proud of!!!!

[Bill W (2)]

Bill, you are starting to amuse me.

Why bring back said Judge?

And more than a one sentence reply, if possible?

I am delighted that I have given someone somewhere some amusement!

HHJ JB did not always make decisions that I agreed with. And his decision to play politics was likely ill advised.

Nonetheless he always struck me as "reasonable". Albeit I did not always agree with him.

The one week for a deliberate punch to the head and six weeks for an accidental contact with the forehead in the same match and with the same officials and same panel is manifestly unreasonable.

So I say again bring back HHJ JB!!

[jgriffin]

The problem of course is that unintentional contact gets a lengthy ban, intention to maim (Umaga & Mealamu on BOD with full TV coverage) gets nowt. An inverse punishment system.

[Tigerref]

Rugby has always been soft on punches when the two players are on their feet squaring up to each other. What it doesn't like is the cheap shot and punishes that more severely.

Like it or not OW made contact with the face/ eye region. We know this because he admitted it.

Rugby rightly considers this as a serious offence and places a onus on all players to not make this contact in the first place.

The accidental nature of the contact is a red herring - the test would be whether it was reckless.

The video I have seen makes it really hard to comment further on this one - unless anyone else has got more detailed footage?

[cidermark]

Did he admit it or simply plead guilty?

Pleading guilt doesn't mean that you have, necessarily, done anything wrong, just that you have been advised that you will probably be found guilty, so take the hit and hope for a reduced sentence.