Daly 3 week ban

[fleabane]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... ntina.html

As good as could be expected?

[WhitecapTiger]

As good as could be expected?

Bearing in mind he was banned for 6 weeks and it was reduced to 3 I guess so. I don't think it was worth 6 weeks to begin with myself, though I agree the ref got it correct to the letter of the law and produced a red card.

Mind you, if they'd stuck to his 6 weeks he probably wouldn't be available to play against us

Not specifically directed at Daly in this instance but the highlighted bit below I really disagree with. Why should a player receive any reduction based on them having good conduct at a disciplinary hearing? That should be expected, a given. Player conduct should only be considered a factor at a hearing if it is poor - in which case time should be added to any sentence. Guilty plea and remorse fair enough but not how they behave at the hearing (or whether they wear a suit or leave the biscuits alone ).

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/ne ... hree-weeks

"The Disciplinary Committee further found that there were no aggravating factors and that there were a number of mitigating factors (including Mr Daly's acknowledgement of wrongdoing, expression of remorse to the injured player and his good conduct at the hearing) such that his playing suspension be reduced by three weeks.

"Mr Daly is therefore suspended from playing rugby for a total of three weeks, up to and including Sunday 18 December 2016."

[fleabane]

Good point, it doesn't happen in court, reductions (up to a third off, not half!) only for guilty plea, remorse, saves witnesses and victim reliving the offence.

Time for a change?

[chewbacca]

Training sessions in cap doffing and forelock tugging to be introduced.

[BengalTiger]

Totaly agree regarding sentence reduction for wearing a suit, the offence carries a tariff the tariff varies according to severity of the offence, I cannot see how remorse, apologies or not eating the biscuits have on this.
Previous should only be used to increase the penalty not reduce it, a first offence of this nature could cause a broken neck,just as much as a 3rd offence, a history of negligence, recklessness or poor discipline should bring in a sentence multiplier. The only mitigation would be a 50-50 gone wrong, marginal miss-timing or the player being unsighted.
Notwithstanding the RFU disciplinary process is a joke anyway, witness Callum Clarke's let off for attempted assault.

[wormus]

Totaly agree regarding sentence reduction for wearing a suit, the offence carries a tariff the tariff varies according to severity of the offence, I cannot see how remorse, apologies or not eating the biscuits have on this.
Previous should only be used to increase the penalty not reduce it, a first offence of this nature could cause a broken neck,just as much as a 3rd offence, a history of negligence, recklessness or poor discipline should bring in a sentence multiplier. The only mitigation would be a 50-50 gone wrong, marginal miss-timing or the player being unsighted.
Notwithstanding the RFU disciplinary process is a joke anyway, witness Callum Clarke's let off for attempted assault.

In the case of Chris Ashton the starting point for the bite was low end 12 weeks but the jury were going to increase this by 2 weeks in view of his past "incidents" but decided on one week making 13 weeks of ban.
Not only did he eat all the biscuits he forgot that he must too provide them!
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document ... nglish.pdf
Now with Calum Clark his elbowing was classed as mid point = 5 weeks but the jury decided not to consider his past record and one being 32 weeks, so they Saints persuaded the jury on a 2 week "good behavior" reducting making a three week ban. This is outrageous and the jurors must look at past incidents and previous judgments to bring in some consistency - perhaps the same members of the jury should be used for all cases, well at least a small nucleus.
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document ... nglish.pdf

[jgriffin]

Totaly agree regarding sentence reduction for wearing a suit, the offence carries a tariff the tariff varies according to severity of the offence, I cannot see how remorse, apologies or not eating the biscuits have on this.
Previous should only be used to increase the penalty not reduce it, a first offence of this nature could cause a broken neck,just as much as a 3rd offence, a history of negligence, recklessness or poor discipline should bring in a sentence multiplier. The only mitigation would be a 50-50 gone wrong, marginal miss-timing or the player being unsighted.
Notwithstanding the RFU disciplinary process is a joke anyway, witness Callum Clarke's let off for attempted assault.

Agree 100%, especially with the 'good conduct' points. there does seem at times to be a mismatch between the nature of offences and the punishment, especially the catching ones.

[Iain]

I thought placing it as mid range was harsh. I expected a low entry decision which would have been a week.

[Hinckley Bob]

I don't agree with the offence severity being based on the outcome, that is just chance. The intention/recklessness is what counts.

[AndrewRL]

I don't agree with the offence severity being based on the outcome, that is just chance. The intention/recklessness is what counts.

I sort of agree that this feels "odd"/wrong but isn't this at least consistent with law in general?

I am sure those more expert in such things will tell me I am wrong but if I physically attack/push someone I could be charged with ABH, GBH or manslaughter/murder depending on the outcome (which may be a matter of chance...how the person fell, for example). Or if I drove in a bad way I could be prosecuted for dangerous driving, reckless driving or causing death by reckless driving again dependent on the outcome rather than the actions/intent.

Of course I would hope that nothing on a rugby field would ever be so serious as the examples!

Just a thought....with apologies for momentarily moving away from Rugby

[Ads677]

I don't agree with the offence severity being based on the outcome, that is just chance. The intention/recklessness is what counts.

I've argued this for some time and completely agree - if someone intentionally attempts to punch or kick someone, but misses, nothing happens; if they connect then sanctions usually follow. What's the difference, either the victim is clever and moves out of range or the culprit is poor at whichever action they've attempted and just don't connect.

Being able to prove intent is potentially subjective, but swinging a punch is, I would argue, intent enough.

In Daly's case his action was, probably, just stupidity or over-eagerness, but he could and should have pulled out. The red card was the only option left to the ref under the rules so fair enough. However, around the same level of stupidity existed when the Argentinian 11 upended May - the only difference was the outcome, both for May and the fact that the ref simply awarded a penalty.

After all, the majority of other penalty decisions are for the actions and not the outcome.

[Soggypitch]

Completely agree Ads the game's going soft! Daly's big mistake was letting go of the Argie, he could easily have held onto him and let him drop gently, but he was so shocked by his mistake that his first reaction was to open his arms wide - wrong call. He will learn and will be a great player for England going forward; when's his contract up with Wasps?!