Spencer banned for four weeks

[Scuttle]

It did appear there was contact so pleading not guilty by the letter of the law was a bit niaive. Personally feel should have accepted it happened and pleaded mitigation that Taylor dipping, too late to change angle etc with a strategy to have the red deemed sufficient punishment. I do think there was negligence on the part of ref and Wasps staff in not doing HIA when according to the ref and TMO there was direct contact to the head with force. Not sure this can be used as mitigation because the outcome is not the point.
Also feel some politics at play here as previously stated and think they felt a need to support the ref and TMO in the face of fairly strong and wide criticism especially after letting Smith off. In terms of the Tigers reaction to the red card maybe the maxim "less is more" should have been their guide.

[Loob19]

I’ve just re-read this post taking out BFG’s pointless and inflammatory comments.

I feel the main problem here is the inconsistency that the RFU are showing - throwing the book at someone who made a borderline red card tackle whilst having a relatively clean record from his past strikes me as being harsh. George Smith has a far worse track record and made a very similar tackle. Throw in to that mix the head shot by Will Skelton on Will Hurrell earlier in the season which didn’t receive a card nor citing.

I hear that the only way to resolve these issues with head shots is to make the rules black and white - yet the RFU are doing anything but that! I think the only thing to take away from this is that we are even more clueless as to how the next head shot will be dealt with by a referee or the RFU.

[BFG]

There is another example of that arrogance at it's finest!

I'd try not to listen to the Crumbie terrace on Sunday then; I predict there'll be arrogant chants of, "Off! Off! Off!" Any time a Worcester player gets anywhere near a Tiger head...

Yes I think you are right but hopefully it's more in fun than real seriousness otherwise that'll mean our players taking dangerous shots.
It's a shame for the player in this case, he looked genuinely gutted, but everything going on around him and the hearing itself is as important as the actual offence.
The panel already know the offence and study it beforehand.
I am not surprised that George Smith got off lighter as I've met him and for someone who has achieved so much he is a humble man.
Spencer is fairly young by comparison, he has been let down in my opinion.

[wormus]

That stinks. First red card but he still gets extra punishment for having the temerity to question an official's decision.

Got to make an example out of the non-conformist....

Let's hope there's continuity in future judgements... yeah, right.

4 weeks for an accidental contact? All been said here before, Taylor dropping into the tackle, split second to adjust (despite what higher sentient beings preach here). Farce.

Not sure how it differs to George Smith's red card, which saw no further sanction. May have to youtube it and look. Bed now though.

Wasn't one of the factors that helped Smith was Jackson Wray giving evidence in his (Smith's) favour? (to do with the tackle just being so forceful it snapped his head back), I wonder if anything similar was forthcoming from Taylor on behalf of Spencer. Not necessarily saying it should have, just wondering if the Wasp gave, or was asked to give, any contribution - within his 'off field references'..

It will be very interesting to see what Taylor and Wasps had to write in their submission as Jackson Wray was quite forgiving in his report. Both Smith and Spencer pleaded not guilty, Wray had a HIA, Taylor did not and continued to play with his same aggression. Do Tigers have anything to lose in appealing - I don't know but I question the competence/ experience of the TMO Malcolm Sinclair.
Here is the George Smith report for comparison if ever needed or relevant - https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Documen ... eutral.pdf

[daktari]

Inconsistency will be the death of Rugby. I have no problem with the Red under the laws but will we see reds for every single blow to the head? I doubt it. Will we see consistency in suspensions, well we now know we won't.

If RFU/WR are saying blow to the head is a red, then red card all players that hit the head. We'll know where we stand...but while you're at it, tell the Refs to ref properly. Don't tell players to get back on side, ping them. For the love of God, ref the breakdown correctly, players on their feet, not doing Superman impressions as they enter the ruck!

I can see at some point in the future I'll stop watching Rugby because of lack of consistency.

[johnthegriff]

Unfortunately Spencer is not a legend of the game like George Smith so it was to be expected that he would get different treatment.
Not sure these days where BFG is coming from, the player got credit for his on field acceptance of the red card. Tom Youngs comment that Rugby is changing was not unreasonable and not arrogant. Geordan Murphy's reaction to the dismissal was mirrored by many Leicester and Wasps fans that were present at the match. Will Spencer honestly believed he had not made contact with the head of Taylor and so pleaded not guilty, the panel were not certain hence the phrase " in all probability " being used in their summing up. The four week punishment is excessive when compared to sentences awarded for similar accidental or even intentional offences. I believe that the officials were determined before the enquiry that they did not want the embarrassment of reversing a referees decision for a second time.
BFG criticised the club consistently for a couple of years for selecting Harry Thacker who he regarded as too small, now it appears Spencer is too big.
Our 6'8" lock was attempting a legal tackle the unfortunate lowering of Taylors body meant that there was accidental high contact with the head (according to the judgement) if a four week ban for an accident is to become the norm one supposes deliberate high tackles will incur greater punishment. Clubs are going to need bigger squads to ensure a match day 23.

[Christophelp]

LLTC, I've read that any contact with the head was denied at the hearing.
Taking everything else out of the scenario, denying any contact with the head at all is just ludicrous and reflects arrogantly.
He didn't deserve four weeks and has been let down by a lack of sensible guidance in my opinion.
That is reflected in everything recently, the constant coaching sackings, the skipper saying what he did to the referee at the time live on T.V, the coach laughing at it etc, everything.

What length of ban would you say he did deserve?

[BFG]

Unfortunately Spencer is not a legend of the game like George Smith so it was to be expected that he would get different treatment.
Not sure these days where BFG is coming from, the player got credit for his on field acceptance of the red card. Tom Youngs comment that Rugby is changing was not unreasonable and not arrogant. Geordan Murphy's reaction to the dismissal was mirrored by many Leicester and Wasps fans that were present at the match. Will Spencer honestly believed he had not made contact with the head of Taylor and so pleaded not guilty, the panel were not certain hence the phrase " in all probability " being used in their summing up. The four week punishment is excessive when compared to sentences awarded for similar accidental or even intentional offences. I believe that the officials were determined before the enquiry that they did not want the embarrassment of reversing a referees decision for a second time.
BFG criticised the club consistently for a couple of years for selecting Harry Thacker who he regarded as too small, now it appears Spencer is too big.
Our 6'8" lock was attempting a legal tackle the unfortunate lowering of Taylors body meant that there was accidental high contact with the head (according to the judgement) if a four week ban for an accident is to become the norm one supposes deliberate high tackles will incur greater punishment. Clubs are going to need bigger squads to ensure a match day 23.

I criticised a scrum going backwards with Cole, Ayerza and Mulipola in it.
Thacker's arrival coincided with that, however I would enjoy seeing more smaller and skilful players like him allowed to thrive in the game and think that this tackle law could be the beginning of that process but that'll only happen if folk accept that it is needed.
You are too conformist to current club practices for me at present.
I usually respect your comments as you are one of the few who can debate and so will leave it here.
By the way John I will add this, my initial thoughts to the skipper saying the game has changed were yes it has, every time you go off your feet at the ruck and get away with it.

[BFG]

LLTC, I've read that any contact with the head was denied at the hearing.
Taking everything else out of the scenario, denying any contact with the head at all is just ludicrous and reflects arrogantly.
He didn't deserve four weeks and has been let down by a lack of sensible guidance in my opinion.
That is reflected in everything recently, the constant coaching sackings, the skipper saying what he did to the referee at the time live on T.V, the coach laughing at it etc, everything.

What length of ban would you say he did deserve?

None, the red card was enough, unfortunately I think a failure to accept any responsibility probably went against him.
It's a clear case of two players coming together at changing angles.
They are in it together and reliant on eachother really and so have to share the responsibility.
To completely deny any head contact happened though would be foolish in my opinion.
A complete guess on my part but I'd guess that they thought that he hadn't learned any lesson so needed something else to think on.

[ourla]

I am totally with BFG on this one.

The ref explained the decision at the time. I, and I suspect anybody without Tigers specs on, saw nothing to challenge that decision/logic. It had to be a guilty plea.

People need to read the two hearing documents to see why they were judged differently. It's written quite clearly.

If Spencer had pleaded guilty he would have probably got 2 weeks, maybe 3.

Anyway, time to move on. Will be interesting to see if there are more reds over the coming weeks.

[ellis9]

There is another example of that arrogance at it's finest!

I'd try not to listen to the Crumbie terrace on Sunday then; I predict there'll be arrogant chants of, "Off! Off! Off!" Any time a Worcester player gets anywhere near a Tiger head...

Yes I think you are right but hopefully it's more in fun than real seriousness otherwise that'll mean our players taking dangerous shots.
It's a shame for the player in this case, he looked genuinely gutted, but everything going on around him and the hearing itself is as important as the actual offence.
The panel already know the offence and study it beforehand.
I am not surprised that George Smith got off lighter as I've met him and for someone who has achieved so much he is a humble man.
Spencer is fairly young by comparison, he has been let down in my opinion.

Wow are you seriously suggesting Smith was let off because he is a humble man?!

[ellis9]

I am totally with BFG on this one.

The ref explained the decision at the time. I, and I suspect anybody without Tigers specs on, saw nothing to challenge that decision/logic. It had to be a guilty plea.

People need to read the two hearing documents to see why they were judged differently. It's written quite clearly.

If Spencer had pleaded guilty he would have probably got 2 weeks, maybe 3.

Anyway, time to move on. Will be interesting to see if there are more reds over the coming weeks.

Why would you plead guilty if you believe you are innocent?

[rich1576]

Not sure how it differs to George Smith's red card, which saw no further sanction. May have to youtube it and look. Bed now though.

Because George Smith isn't a Tigers player

[BFG]

I'd try not to listen to the Crumbie terrace on Sunday then; I predict there'll be arrogant chants of, "Off! Off! Off!" Any time a Worcester player gets anywhere near a Tiger head...

Yes I think you are right but hopefully it's more in fun than real seriousness otherwise that'll mean our players taking dangerous shots.
It's a shame for the player in this case, he looked genuinely gutted, but everything going on around him and the hearing itself is as important as the actual offence.
The panel already know the offence and study it beforehand.
I am not surprised that George Smith got off lighter as I've met him and for someone who has achieved so much he is a humble man.
Spencer is fairly young by comparison, he has been let down in my opinion.

Wow are you seriously suggesting Smith was let off because he is a humble man?!

I've met and chatted to him and he is an impressive character.
I guess that character came through at the hearing, that's all.

[ellis9]

Yes I think you are right but hopefully it's more in fun than real seriousness otherwise that'll mean our players taking dangerous shots.
It's a shame for the player in this case, he looked genuinely gutted, but everything going on around him and the hearing itself is as important as the actual offence.
The panel already know the offence and study it beforehand.
I am not surprised that George Smith got off lighter as I've met him and for someone who has achieved so much he is a humble man.
Spencer is fairly young by comparison, he has been let down in my opinion.

Wow are you seriously suggesting Smith was let off because he is a humble man?!

I've met and chatted to him and he is an impressive character.
I guess that character came through at the hearing, that's all.

That's irrelevant. If he is guilty, whether he is nice and humble makes no difference. He shouldn't be found not guilty on the basis he is nice and can talk a good game.