Spencer banned for four weeks

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

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

Post Reply
wormus
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:23 pm
Location: "The Home of the Game!"

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by wormus » Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:58 am

strawclearer wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:05 pm
From Andy Goode:

Mathieu Bastareaud has been handed a 5 week ban for brutally forearm smashing a player in the head while they were lying prone and defenceless on the floor! When do France’s Autumn internationals start?! In 7 weeks so the 5 week ban seems legit.

So he got just 7 days more than Will Spencer.

Outrageous.
I totally agree with you Strawclearer, the French need Bully Bastereaud and adjusted the length of ban to suit their match schedule. BUT 5 weeks for this?? compare with our Spencer's nudge and Ashton's action.
10 weeks at least. Let others compare from the report and Sky video below.
- https://www.planetrugby.com/news/mathie ... -week-ban/ :smt017

BFG
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2525
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by BFG » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:04 am

Agree Bastereaud's punishment is light by comparison but the French lower leagues still love a dust up.
In this country the game is under more threat by a much stronger compensation culture.
The problem with the high tackle is how do you separate the deliberate from the accidental, it's down to the players word and that leaves it wide open to abuse if a clear sanction is not set for all!

ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2999
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ourla » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:40 am

wellstiger wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:47 am
Therefore can we please get back to common sense officiating and restrict red cards to Acts of deliberate intention rather than potential outcomes.
That can't happen. Just because someone doesn't intend something doesn't mean it should go unpunished. Poor judgement or poor technique that endangers other players has to be suitably penalised in order to set clear boundaries and change behaviour.
wellstiger wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:47 am
However if we go too far and reduce contact we get a game of tag rugby which is great for juniors but would destroy the game at senior level.
I listened to the Flats & Shanks podcast interview with Sam Warburton last night. Anybody who things the game has gone soft should have a listen.
You're either in or you're out

BengalTiger
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:16 am

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by BengalTiger » Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:48 am

The process is itself bringing the game into disrepute, Spencer pleaded not guilty to recklessly making contact with the head of an opponent, he did not deny the contact with the head but the charge was that he did it recklessly, for making this argument he got an extra weeks ban, there should be clear guidelines on accidental contact, reckless contact and deliberate contact, Basterdau made deliberate and forceful contact and should have got 10-15 weeks, Spencer should be able to argue his contact was accidental not reckless and the panel should be able to rule that it was reckless, but to punish the player for making a valid argument is stupid in the extreme

ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2999
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ourla » Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:07 pm

BengalTiger wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:48 am
The process is itself bringing the game into disrepute, Spencer pleaded not guilty to recklessly making contact with the head of an opponent, he did not deny the contact with the head but the charge was that he did it recklessly, for making this argument he got an extra weeks ban, there should be clear guidelines on accidental contact, reckless contact and deliberate contact, Basterdau made deliberate and forceful contact and should have got 10-15 weeks, Spencer should be able to argue his contact was accidental not reckless and the panel should be able to rule that it was reckless, but to punish the player for making a valid argument is stupid in the extreme
Reckless = not thinking of the consequences of your actions, being rash, careless.

Seems a reasonable decription of Spencers actions myself.

Whether it was accidental or not isn't a good way to go IMO. If I am not concentrating while driving and hit something, it was an accident but it's also reckless and a mistake on my part. I should expect to be punished as I am at fault. Yes, somebody who deliberately drives into someone should be punished more. Hence Bastereau's punishment seems (and is) light in comparison. But then B put his hands up and apologises so some of it is down to that.
You're either in or you're out

Scuttle
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:13 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by Scuttle » Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:41 pm

Definition of accidental. ..happening by chance, unexpectedly or unintentionally. You could equally argue that this applies to Spencer's actions/tackle. I think Spencer did assess the consequences of his actions and thought his tackle would be sound but Taylor unexpectedly dropped his height and Spencer unintentionally caught him higher than intended. For the avoidance of doubt I think it was a high tackle but feel the punishment was too severe.
As Good As It Gets

ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2999
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by ourla » Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:07 pm

Scuttle wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:41 pm
Taylor unexpectedly dropped his height
Why is it unexpected that a player about to be tackled would brace themselves for it and bend their legs to set themselves against the hit?
Scuttle wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:41 pm
For the avoidance of doubt I think it was a high tackle but feel the punishment was too severe.
Do you accept that Spencers shoulder hit Taylor in the head?
You're either in or you're out

northerntiger
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by northerntiger » Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:43 pm

Bit surprised that no one seems to have considered the time element in the tackle. People talk about deliberate, or reckless, but in the split seconds available I doubt players have time to make a conscious decision on exactly where the tackle will end up. Not making the tackle is not an option, so I expect a lot of it is luck. Taylor was moving forward with more speed than Spencer, so he can't really be accused of using excessive force.
In the context of the current laws, a red was inevitable, but a four week ban is incredibly harsh. What would be the ban if it was felt to be deliberate?

LE18
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:13 am
Location: Great Glen

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by LE18 » Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:28 pm

I still cannot get my head around the judgement based on "the balance of probabilities", this still implies to me there was an element of possibility there was not? :smt009 Unsound conclusion? :smt017

BFG
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2525
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by BFG » Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:47 pm

LE18 wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:28 pm
I still cannot get my head around the judgement based on "the balance of probabilities", this still implies to me there was an element of possibility there was not? :smt009 Unsound conclusion? :smt017
It's a common term used in civil matters and implies that the evidence for the decision is more than against it.
It wouldn't be wise to deny any head contact if indeed there was any as it could potentially discredit any other evidence and tip the balance of the scale of probability heavily, which in turn the scale of probability will determine the level of punishment.
For example tipping one side of the scale from 51% to 80% would have an impact on the level of punishment.
Hope that helps to try to understand it a little!

LE18
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:13 am
Location: Great Glen

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by LE18 » Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:34 pm

BFG wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:47 pm
LE18 wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:28 pm
I still cannot get my head around the judgement based on "the balance of probabilities", this still implies to me there was an element of possibility there was not? :smt009 Unsound conclusion? :smt017
It's a common term used in civil matters and implies that the evidence for the decision is more than against it.
It wouldn't be wise to deny any head contact if indeed there was any as it could potentially discredit any other evidence and tip the balance of the scale of probability heavily, which in turn the scale of probability will determine the level of punishment.
For example tipping one side of the scale from 51% to 80% would have an impact on the level of punishment.
Hope that helps to try to understand it a little!
Thanks for that, I still think its a poor use of our language and still implies there may have been a slight possibility, anyway thanks, nothing going to change it.

BFG
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2525
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by BFG » Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:42 pm

LE18 wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:34 pm
BFG wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:47 pm
LE18 wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:28 pm
I still cannot get my head around the judgement based on "the balance of probabilities", this still implies to me there was an element of possibility there was not? :smt009 Unsound conclusion? :smt017
It's a common term used in civil matters and implies that the evidence for the decision is more than against it.
It wouldn't be wise to deny any head contact if indeed there was any as it could potentially discredit any other evidence and tip the balance of the scale of probability heavily, which in turn the scale of probability will determine the level of punishment.
For example tipping one side of the scale from 51% to 80% would have an impact on the level of punishment.
Hope that helps to try to understand it a little!
Thanks for that, I still think its a poor use of our language and still implies there may have been a slight possibility, anyway thanks, nothing going to change it.
No problem! :smt023
Unfortunately no nothing will change it.
IMO he could've pleaded not guilty, explained it was an honest mistake of a big man still adapting to new laws and with his clean record could've possibly escaped with just the red card standing on the balance of probabilities...

Big Dai
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4493
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:04 pm
Location: Abergavenny

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by Big Dai » Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:13 pm

Reckless = not thinking of the consequences of your actions, being rash, careless.

I think if you took this definition to the extreme you'd never walk onto a rugby pitch leave alone tackle anyone.

The tackle is a dynamic situation and is thus subject to error. There's a probability of injury however you go about physically bringing down your adversary. What the laws are trying to do when faced with that probability, is attempting to reduce the severity of injury from a collision and hence reduce risk.
There will be error (Spencer) and there will be violation (Basteraud) a just culture would recognise the difference and punish accordingly. This is where the game is being poorly served. Over-regulation is not the solution.
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"

BFG
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2525
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by BFG » Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:37 pm

Big Dai wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:13 pm
Reckless = not thinking of the consequences of your actions, being rash, careless.

I think if you took this definition to the extreme you'd never walk onto a rugby pitch leave alone tackle anyone.

The tackle is a dynamic situation and is thus subject to error. There's a probability of injury however you go about physically bringing down your adversary. What the laws are trying to do when faced with that probability, is attempting to reduce the severity of injury from a collision and hence reduce risk.
There will be error (Spencer) and there will be violation (Basteraud) a just culture would recognise the difference and punish accordingly. This is where the game is being poorly served. Over-regulation is not the solution.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that Big Dai, in a perfect world it might.
In the proof of facts evidence refuted tips the balance heavily and the balance determines the punishment.
To be honest having seen the incident I was shocked at the approach taken to the charge and given how new the law is and how big a man he is it's not inconceivable to think that he might've been found not guilty had their been an acceptance of accidental head contact, it would've been low entry punishment in my opinion but also just the red card could've been viewed as sufficient in the circumstances.
Last edited by BFG on Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Big Dai
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4493
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:04 pm
Location: Abergavenny

Re: Spencer banned for four weeks

Post by Big Dai » Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:45 pm

BFG wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:37 pm
Big Dai wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:13 pm
Reckless = not thinking of the consequences of your actions, being rash, careless.

I think if you took this definition to the extreme you'd never walk onto a rugby pitch leave alone tackle anyone.

The tackle is a dynamic situation and is thus subject to error. There's a probability of injury however you go about physically bringing down your adversary. What the laws are trying to do when faced with that probability, is attempting to reduce the severity of injury from a collision and hence reduce risk.
There will be error (Spencer) and there will be violation (Basteraud) a just culture would recognise the difference and punish accordingly. This is where the game is being poorly served. Over-regulation is not the solution.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that Big Dai, in a perfect world it might.
In the proof of facts evidence refuted tips the balance heavily and the balance determines the punishment.
To be honest having seen the incident I was shocked at the approach taken to the charge and given how new the law is and how big a man he is it's not inconceivable to think that he might've been found not guilty had their been an acceptance of accidental head contact, it would've been low entry punishment in my opinion but also just the red card at the time could've been viewed as sufficient in the circumstances.
I didn't mean just culture as in no punishment, I meant just culture as in fair punishment. There is a difference between error and violation as illustrated in these two cases.

(Sings) "To make the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime."
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Darc Tiger, KevinR, kpj tiger, Leicestertinytiger, OakhamTiger32, RAFPvetTiger, Tiger_in_Birmingham, Tiglon, WhitecapTiger and 2 guests