Spencer banned for four weeks

[Tigerbeat]

Peoples are very subjective and this is confirmed by the number of individuals throwing their views into the ring on both sides of the fence: Red Card, Yellow Card........4 weeks / no time to be served.
The facts are that it has been heard by a Panel and they have made a decision and handed out the ban.
Another panel may see it differently, who knows
Until such time as an appeal is submitted, which may or may not happen, we have to accept that Spencer will not be available until the 16th October.

[Christophelp]

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.

Regarding the bit of your post that I've bolded - the RFU Short Judgement Form - see https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Documen ... eutral.pdf for the form in the Chris Ashton decision, clearly states (on page 7 and in red) that, "Subject to regulation 19.11.13, a disciplinary panel cannot apply a greater reduction than 50% of the relevant entry point suspension."

I'm not going to post a link (just Google 'RFU Regulations' if you're that interested) but Regulation 19.11.13 allows a disciplinary panel to reduce the suspension by more than 50% but that only applies when the offence is a lower end offence and this was a mid-range offence.

So if he pleads guilty he gets a 3 week ban, not a 2 week ban.
Given his clean record and intention to behave well at the hearing (and presumably also providing good quality biscuits for the panel) the club probably figured he would get a 4 week ban.
So pleading guilty or not guilty and arguing innocence is at the risk of one additional week on his ban.

[ourla]

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."

He's entitled to his opinion and I like Austin but I think he's wrong on this. The outputs of the two hearings explain the difference. I know Austin can read so I don't understand why he would ignore what was said. But then he is ex-Tigers and most of the people not liking it have some connection with Tigers. Sometimes it's wise to just put your hand up and say sorry.

[LE18]

https://premiershiprugby.com/gallagherp ... ll-spencer

He was shown a red card by referee Ian Tempest in the 40th minute of the match Wasps v Leicester Tigers on Sunday 16 September 2018. This was for a dangerous tackle on Wasps’ Tommy Taylor contrary to law 9.13.

The independent panel, chaired by Euan Ambrose with John Doubleday and Mike Curling, upheld the charge and Spencer was given a four week suspension. He is free to play again on Tuesday 16 October 2018.

Panel chair Euan Ambrose said: “The Panel considered carefully the oral evidence of the Player, the written evidence of Tommy Taylor and the Wasps medical report, alongside the video footage and found on the balance of probabilities that this was a reckless tackle that resulted in direct, forceful contact to the head of Tommy Taylor.

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. Given that finding, the mandatory mid-range entry point was applied. The Player was given credit for his previous clear record, his conduct both at the hearing and his acceptance of the on-field decision and his off-field references which reduced the sanction to four weeks. He was not eligible for the full credit due to his not guilty plea. He is free to play again on the 16 October 2018.”

"On the Balance of Probabilities" is this sufficient evidence to commit a player? I thought you have to be innocent until proven guilty, surely "the balance of probability" implies that there is a very small doubt and that a guess has been taken?

The ref didn't see the incident, the TMO had to point draw his attention, to what in his opinion, had happened, I still cannot see conclusive evidence that the head was hit, why no HIA, possibly because there was no clear evidence that the head had been hit?
If the club wanted to appeal, I think a very good barrister would on the balance of probabilities have a good chance.

[Crofty]

"On the Balance of Probabilities" is this sufficient evidence to commit a player?

As this isn't a criminal court Balance of Probabilities is an acceptable standard, I believe it's used in the civil courts (certainly in the US, not 100% sure about here though) and basically amounts to 50.1% likely. Criminal courts sre supposed to use Beyond Reasonable Doubt, but the sanctions handed out there are somewhat stiffer, to put it mildly.

[kend]

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."

He's entitled to his opinion and I like Austin but I think he's wrong on this. The outputs of the two hearings explain the difference. I know Austin can read so I don't understand why he would ignore what was said. But then he is ex-Tigers and most of the people not liking it have some connection with Tigers. Sometimes it's wise to just put your hand up and say sorry.

Is the full judgement on Spencer published? Can't find it on the system.

Even if the outputs are different, why does it negate an appeal? By definition he would be contesting the view this particular panel has taken. Certainly the two cases raise questions about the protocol - is any accidental contact with the head a ban? If so Smith should have also been banned as it was acknowledged the upright tackle rode up to Wray's chin. If Smith's panel allowed mitigating factors that Spencer's did not, then they may have grounds (it is notable the RFU contested Smith's account highlighting both the world rugby guidelines and the contact with the head, so they sought a ban)? Players are entitled to consistency.

Not surprised at the ban; Tempest judged Spencer was high throughout the process and it is unlikely the panel would overturn that. It will continue to be debated both inside and outside of Tigers, if only because the risk/benefit model of the dominant tackle changes. I said it elsewhere - I bet there are coaches working out how to get their ball carriers lower into contact (especially against Sarries 'wolfpack') as there is a good chance the opposition end up at 14!

[Traveller]

Semi-final 2019 WC. Tenth minute Retalick does the same thing to Faff de Klerk. Will the referee make the same decision? I think I know the answer. Laws are now implemented (or not) during matches on an arbitrary, preferential, faddish basis.

It is not inexpensive to pay to go to a game, and I am tired of seeing arbitrary refereeing decisions (based on the introduction of poorly constructed laws) dictate the outcome of matches. On Sunday neck rolls went entirely unpenalised, the law simply wasn't implemented. Was the TMO snoozing? Two years ago, nothing was more heinous than a neck roll. I haven't heard any coach or player argue that what happened on Sunday deserved the punishment Spencer received.

[jgriffin]

Semi-final 2019 WC. Tenth minute Retalick does the same thing to Faff de Klerk. Will the referee make the same decision? I think I know the answer. Laws are now implemented (or not) during matches on an arbitrary, preferential, faddish basis.

It is not inexpensive to pay to go to a game, and I am tired of seeing arbitrary refereeing decisions (based on the introduction of poorly constructed laws) dictate the outcome of matches. On Sunday neck rolls went entirely unpenalised, the law simply wasn't implemented. Was the TMO snoozing? Two years ago, nothing was more heinous than a neck roll. I haven't heard any coach or player argue that what happened on Sunday deserved the punishment Spencer received.

My view too and you can add flying entry into a ruck.

[DingDong]

Spencer pleaded not guilty to "a reckless tackle that resulted in direct, forceful contact to the head", clearly contact was made and to plead not guilty was in itself another example of players being in denial, hence the mid-range sanction. Poor advice from his brief maybe?

Why would Tempest request an HIA on Taylor when he was not knocked out or showed any sign of concussion? Not needed, nor many other head high incidents that day.

Appealing will be difficult for my first point, but I hope he does get it reviewed and reduced as there was (until he pleaded not guilty that is!) clear mitigation that it was just poor technique mixed with a bit of rugby collateral.

[ourla]

Is the full judgement on Spencer published?

No. It will appear here when available but there are several quotes from the panel chair on the judgement.

Even if the outputs are different, why does it negate an appeal?

It doesn't. There just doesn't appear to be any grounds for an appeal.

By definition he would be contesting the view this particular panel has taken.

The referee/TMO agreed, one RFU panel as agreed, the vast majority of non-Tigers fans agree. It would be foley to expect a second panel to say any different.

Certainly the two cases raise questions about the protocol - is any accidental contact with the head a ban?

Well, he didn't accidently tackle Taylor and he did't actually accidently lead with the shoulder or accidently tackle at that height did he?

If so Smith should have also been banned as it was acknowledged the upright tackle rode up to Wray's chin.

The judgement states "point of contact was not above the line of Mr Wray’s shoulder." and it rode up from there i.e, there was no direct contact with the head.

If Smith's panel allowed mitigating factors that Spencer's did not, then they may have grounds (it is notable the RFU contested Smith's account highlighting both the world rugby guidelines and the contact with the head, so they sought a ban)? Players are entitled to consistency.

It is consistent. As opposed to the above, the panel found Spencer made direct contact with the head.

Not surprised at the ban; Tempest judged Spencer was high throughout the process and it is unlikely the panel would overturn that.

Agreed.

[JP14]

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.

It could be argued it was shoulder to neck?

[JP14]

Appealing is pointless, it will take longer than the ban Spencer will serve so that defeats the object of appealing in the 1st place. We’ll just have to take this under our chin and torment the officials for high tackles on Sunday .

[jgriffin]

Appealing is pointless, it will take longer than the ban Spencer will serve so that defeats the object of appealing in the 1st place. We’ll just have to take this under our chin and torment the officials for high tackles on Sunday .

It is not high tackles as such but shoulder to head. Bet there will one every other ruck in every match.

[kend]

The judgement states "point of contact was not above the line of Mr Wray’s shoulder." and it rode up from there i.e, there was no direct contact with the head.

Except the guidelines say the sanctions apply "even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders". The fact that Smith didn't make initial contact with Wray's head is irrelevant - the RFU claimed he did so twice in the course of the tackle. Which might be why Austin is suggesting the club may have grounds for appeal as they found mitigating factors that are not apparently applied to Spencer's case. Be interesting to see the full judgement when it comes out.

I'm not sure about your comment that 'most non-Tigers' fans agree'. The consensus seems to be the red card was sufficient without the additional ban.

Kitson has a good article in the Guardian on the issues: www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/sep ... kles-rugby. I think he is right about it being a muddle!

[BFG]

FYI Smith took a ball and showed that with a ball between the players at chest height on contact this caused an exaggerated knock back of the head and I am led to believe Wray's account helped confirm that this was the case.