Spencer banned for four weeks

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Post Reply
Christophelp
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 2:00 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by Christophelp » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:17 am

BFG wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:49 am
Christophelp wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:34 am
BFG wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:47 am
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.
You're saying that Spencer should have accepted his guilt and plead guilty, that's your perfectly acceptable opinion.
But accepting guilt and pleading guilty of the offence with which he was charged would have resulted in a 3 week ban.
Disciplinary panels have clear guidelines that they can only reduce a ban for mitigation by 50% from the original entry point. With there being contact to the head, there's an automatic mid-range entry point for which the sanction is a 6 week ban. Therefore, pleading guilty to an offence that carries a 6 week ban entry point would result in Spencer receiving the maximum 50% reduction and a 3 week ban.

You can't say that he, "has been let down by a lack of sensible guidance in my opinion" but then provide an alternative guidance scenario that couldn't possibly be achieved (well, you can but in my opinion it would not be sensible to do that).

I do agree with you that it is ludicrous to suggest (as it was put in the disciplinary panel summary) that no contact was made to the head - it clearly was.

My opinion is that the initial contact (albeit only just) was not shoulder to head (it was shoulder to shoulder) but (again imo) following that initial contact there was indeed clear contact with the head.

If that was also the belief of the club and the player (that initial contact is not with the head), then it is perfectly reasonable guidance for him to have plead not guilty, knowing that the difference between being found guilty having plead not guilty is one additional week to your ban but that if you plead and are found not guilty the difference is not receiving a 3 week ban. There's a risk attached to pleading not guilty but that is balanced against the potential reward of being found not guilty.

That to me is reasonable and sensible guidance.

BFG
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2416
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by BFG » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:34 am

Christophelp wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:17 am

You're saying that Spencer should have accepted his guilt and plead guilty, that's your perfectly acceptable opinion.

I do agree with you that it is ludicrous to suggest (as it was put in the disciplinary panel summary) that no contact was made to the head - it clearly was.
It's not my plea to make and so impossible to say.
If his plea was not guilty then I suppose that's it, all that's needed is a solid argument to back up the plea.
It's possible that you sum things up pretty well in your comment.

Stephen18
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:51 am

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by Stephen18 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:41 am

[/quote]

You're saying that Spencer should have accepted his guilt and plead guilty, that's your perfectly acceptable opinion.
But accepting guilt and pleading guilty of the offence with which he was charged would have resulted in a 3 week ban.
Disciplinary panels have clear guidelines that they can only reduce a ban for mitigation by 50% from the original entry point. With there being contact to the head, there's an automatic mid-range entry point for which the sanction is a 6 week ban. Therefore, pleading guilty to an offence that carries a 6 week ban entry point would result in Spencer receiving the maximum 50% reduction and a 3 week ban.

You can't say that he, "has been let down by a lack of sensible guidance in my opinion" but then provide an alternative guidance scenario that couldn't possibly be achieved (well, you can but in my opinion it would not be sensible to do that).

I do agree with you that it is ludicrous to suggest (as it was put in the disciplinary panel summary) that no contact was made to the head - it clearly was.

My opinion is that the initial contact (albeit only just) was not shoulder to head (it was shoulder to shoulder) but (again imo) following that initial contact there was indeed clear contact with the head.

If that was also the belief of the club and the player (that initial contact is not with the head), then it is perfectly reasonable guidance for him to have plead not guilty, knowing that the difference between being found guilty having plead not guilty is one additional week to your ban but that if you plead and are found not guilty the difference is not receiving a 3 week ban. There's a risk attached to pleading not guilty but that is balanced against the potential reward of being found not guilty.

That to me is reasonable and sensible guidance.
[/quote]

Had he pleaded guilty he would have only got a 2 week ban, as they took 2 weeks off for his previous good record, then they would have took took another 50% off.
I don’t personally think it right that you get 50% off for pleading guilty, it should be up to the board to prove your guilty but that how it it.
I do believe the club advised him wrong he did make contake with the head weather he hit shoulder 1st or not hitting the shoulder is a high tackle yes Taylor dropped by a foot, yes Spencer is 6’7”, but he made contact with the head its clear in the footage, he should have plead guilty to that and argued the other points. I believe Tiger just assumed as George smith got Spencer would aswell and the rfu were never going to allow that to happen again as it undermines world rugby directives and the referees on the pitch.
The difference with George smiths tackle which I think also should have received a ban, is they claimed there was no clear footage, and Jackson Wray testified that the contact was on the ball and his chest, and that it was partially his fault as the ball infront of him forcing the tackle up. I not heard what Taylor testified but I’d assume it says his shoulder hit him in the head and doesn’t mention that he bent down to make the off load.

ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ourla » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:50 am

ellis9 wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:53 am
Why would you plead guilty if you believe you are innocent?
You wouldn't. Nobody is questioning that. What people are questioning is why Spencer thought he was innocent or was advised by others he was innocent. The visual evidence seemed irrefutable to me and most others and so it proved.

When it comes to matters like this you have to take emotion out of it and look at the evidence and understand the laws of the game. By pleading not guilty it shows you haven't done this, hence you receive the higher punishment.
You're either in or you're out

ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ourla » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:58 am

This was in the judgement:
The Panel rejected the Players evidence that any contact with the opposition Player had been limited to the top of his shoulder with no contact being made to his head.
So it seems Spencer claimed there was no contact with Taylors head. That is a crazy claim to make IMO. If I was on the panel I would have asked if he was taking the micky.
You're either in or you're out

Coops
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 489
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Coalville

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by Coops » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:08 am

It's happened. It's history. Take the punishment. Re-group. Learn. Adapt. Move on.

ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ellis9 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:12 am

ourla wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:50 am
ellis9 wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:53 am
Why would you plead guilty if you believe you are innocent?
You wouldn't. Nobody is questioning that. What people are questioning is why Spencer thought he was innocent or was advised by others he was innocent. The visual evidence seemed irrefutable to me and most others and so it proved.

When it comes to matters like this you have to take emotion out of it and look at the evidence and understand the laws of the game. By pleading not guilty it shows you haven't done this, hence you receive the higher punishment.
Stick to what you believe in. Fair play to Spencer. If he believed he was innocent, then well done to him for sticking to it. Also, maybe loads of evidence of similar incidents were taken in by Spencer where others weren't punished etc. The hearing lasted ages so there was obviously points raised by both sides.

Fighting for what you believe in is an excellent quality to have. Well done to him and Tigers for not backing down just to get a reduced sentence or just to make it easier for everyone.

I have no problem with that.

ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ourla » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:20 am

ellis9 wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:12 am
ourla wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:50 am
ellis9 wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:53 am
Why would you plead guilty if you believe you are innocent?
You wouldn't. Nobody is questioning that. What people are questioning is why Spencer thought he was innocent or was advised by others he was innocent. The visual evidence seemed irrefutable to me and most others and so it proved.

When it comes to matters like this you have to take emotion out of it and look at the evidence and understand the laws of the game. By pleading not guilty it shows you haven't done this, hence you receive the higher punishment.
Stick to what you believe in. Fair play to Spencer. If he believed he was innocent, then well done to him for sticking to it. Also, maybe loads of evidence of similar incidents were taken in by Spencer where others weren't punished etc. The hearing lasted ages so there was obviously points raised by both sides.

Fighting for what you believe in is an excellent quality to have. Well done to him and Tigers for not backing down just to get a reduced sentence or just to make it easier for everyone.

I have no problem with that.
The hearing will have lasted longer because of the not guilty plea which means they have to go through all the evidence fully. Which is fine if you have a good case. He clearly didn't. It was a waste of everybodys time. If that is what Spencer believes in then he's a fool.
You're either in or you're out

ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ourla » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:23 am

Coops wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:08 am
It's happened. It's history. Take the punishment. Re-group. Learn. Adapt. Move on.
Spencer and the club seemed to have had a problem with most of that.

Anyway, it's only Wednesday. What else are we going to talk about :smt002 :smt003 :smt002 :smt003
You're either in or you're out

ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ellis9 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:27 am

ourla wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:20 am
ellis9 wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:12 am
ourla wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:50 am

You wouldn't. Nobody is questioning that. What people are questioning is why Spencer thought he was innocent or was advised by others he was innocent. The visual evidence seemed irrefutable to me and most others and so it proved.

When it comes to matters like this you have to take emotion out of it and look at the evidence and understand the laws of the game. By pleading not guilty it shows you haven't done this, hence you receive the higher punishment.
Stick to what you believe in. Fair play to Spencer. If he believed he was innocent, then well done to him for sticking to it. Also, maybe loads of evidence of similar incidents were taken in by Spencer where others weren't punished etc. The hearing lasted ages so there was obviously points raised by both sides.

Fighting for what you believe in is an excellent quality to have. Well done to him and Tigers for not backing down just to get a reduced sentence or just to make it easier for everyone.

I have no problem with that.
The hearing will have lasted longer because of the not guilty plea which means they have to go through all the evidence fully. Which is fine if you have a good case. He clearly didn't. It was a waste of everybodys time. If that is what Spencer believes in then he's a fool.
It wouldn't have been a waste of time if he didn't get a ban. As I say, I'd rather our players and club fought for something they feel is right than just rolling over and accepting it so that's it's not wasting everyone's time. They called him in to the hearing, they can sit there for hours and listen to what the club want to say.
Last edited by ellis9 on Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wellstiger
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by wellstiger » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:33 am

A president has now been set. Interesting to see how referees now interpret this law and if the RFU stand by this decision. Continuity will be required.
Sorry for Will Spencer and his good conduct. I make the poin alluded to by another poster. If the Sir was satisfied contact was
with force and contact was made to the head, and care was not given to the opposition player... then why was HIA not enforced.
Surely Sir was failing in his duty of care.
Continuity and interpretation and the human element..
I am all for player welfare so... why do neck rolls go unpunished...at least two in the same game and it appeared Mr TMO G did not get involved.

ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ourla » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:42 am

ellis9 wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:27 am
It wouldn't have been a waste of time if he didn't get a ban. As I say, I'd rather our players and club fought for something they feel is right that just rolling over and accepting it so that's it's not wasting everyone's time. They called him in to the hearing, they can sit there for hours and listen to what the club want to say.
And that is typical of your attitude. Which is fine, if it only affects you. Unfortunately, we will now be missing Spencer for more games and our club loses a bit of its reputation. It's not "rolling over" to except what is plain to the naked eye and to support the laws that have been put in place for player protection.
You're either in or you're out

ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ourla » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:47 am

wellstiger wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:33 am
If the Sir was satisfied contact was with force and contact was made to the head, and care was not given to the opposition player... then why was HIA not enforced.
I do agree that in this situation an HIA should have been called for, regardless of the cursory on the pitch assessment. It wouldn't have changed the verdict on Spencer though so we should keep the two things separate.
wellstiger wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:33 am
I am all for player welfare so... why do neck rolls go unpunished...at least two in the same game and it appeared Mr TMO G did not get involved.
They don't go unpunished. They might go unseen but that is a different point entirely.
You're either in or you're out

strawclearer
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:13 am

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by strawclearer » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:50 am

wormus wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:07 am
WhitecapTiger wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:09 am
strawclearer wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:53 pm
That stinks. First red card but he still gets extra punishment for having the temerity to question an official's decision.
:smt002 :smt002

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.
happywomble wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:52 pm
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
Need to make a point here...

My original post was "First red card but he still gets extra punishment for genuinely believing he was innocent."

Whitecap then quoted me as "First red card but he still gets extra punishment for having the temerity to question an official's decision." Whitecap knew I hadn't said that but didn't make that clear - and Wormus then took my words at face value. Big ooops there, guys!

It's clear that putting something in bold doesn't immediately indicate that you've changed someone's words so let's be more careful when quoting other posters!
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Help save the Oceans - #RefuseTheStraw!

strawclearer
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:13 am

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by strawclearer » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:55 am

For what it's worth, Austin Healey's tweet:

"This for me was no different to the George Smith tackle, the contact point was similar the outcome similar.. the panel different... wrong decision ...should appeal."
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Help save the Oceans - #RefuseTheStraw!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dpoc74, JP14, Not a jock and 2 guests