An RFU statement read: "Both of these cases were considered low-end entry points by the panel, however Kieran Brookes does not have a clean disciplinary record and so the panel did not feel able to reduce the sanction to one week as they could in the case of Calum Green."
Fair enough and good to see IMO but, by that same logic (alone), how did Calum Clarke (and probably other players before resident Tigers in disguise pipe up) get a reduction?
Inconsistent.
Perhaps.
Clark's previous offences were (apparently) considered but it appears that because his most recent offence was 4.5 years ago and he hadn't received many yellow cards in the intervening period, they were disregarded.
Brookes' suspension for pushing GG was from March 2014, which is 2 years more recent than Clark's and was therefore not disregarded.
I don't know if there is an official time limit after which offences are disregarded for suspension purposes.
If you disregard what type of offence each committed and in the absence of any official time limit, the different treatment probably sounds reasonable and is at least explainable.
Whether the type of offence should be disregarded is of course another question.
An RFU statement read: "Both of these cases were considered low-end entry points by the panel, however Kieran Brookes does not have a clean disciplinary record and so the panel did not feel able to reduce the sanction to one week as they could in the case of Calum Green."
Fair enough and good to see IMO but, by that same logic (alone), how did Calum Clarke (and probably other players before resident Tigers in disguise pipe up) get a reduction?
Inconsistent.
Perhaps.
Clark's previous offences were (apparently) considered but it appears that because his most recent offence was 4.5 years ago and he hadn't received many yellow cards in the intervening period, they were disregarded.
Brookes' suspension for pushing GG was from March 2014, which is 2 years more recent than Clark's and was therefore not disregarded.
I don't know if there is an official time limit after which offences are disregarded for suspension purposes.
If you disregard what type of offence each committed and in the absence of any official time limit, the different treatment probably sounds reasonable and is at least explainable.
Whether the type of offence should be disregarded is of course another question.
One of the reasons CC has not had any offences for a while is that he has been suspended/injured for a large chunk of it. Don't know how much exactly though. He got a large ban (26 weeks?) for Rob Hawkins arm and he came back a little earlier this season after about a year out injured.
The no-arms tackle has been seen too much in recent years and is rightly being clamped down on. Even at legal heights a shoulder charge to the knee is likely to do much more damage than a tackle using the arms. Above the shoulders and the consequences are worse than a flailing arm, even if the intent isn't to injure.
