Seru get 14 weeks ban

[Bill W]

Are Tigers acceppting that there was a transgression and just appealing against the ban, with the intention of getting the ban reduced?

or

Are they appealing against the charge and the sentence - hoping that it will be quashed on appeal?

Not clear Tigerbeat - although Marcello has stated that in his opinion Seru is "not guilty".

[john_o]

My interpretation was that they are appealing the charge. If the contact was "accidental" then there should be no charge.

[Dave Angel]

The appeal hearing will almost certainly be heard on Tuesday or Wednesday next week (ie before the EDF Cup Final) and yes, the ban can very easily be extended.

Given that any (normal) extension would not impact any additional rugby games I would expect that should the appeal panel decide an extension is required then it will be so significant as to affect the start of the new Premiership season.

[salcombe bob]

Dave Angel doesn't appeal to me!

[adamv6]

Any extension that would lead into next season would be so ridiculous to be completely untenable as an option surely?

I believe the concept of the law being equal to all men is being well and truly stretched!

[salcombe bob]

yep

[westy154]

My gut feeling would be that an accidental but reckless charge would not get extended past 14 weeks. It is not like the appeal committee would extend the ban just because the club had the temerity to appeal.

I also have the gut feeling that the ban, if reduced, would be reduced by some silly amount which effectively has the same result - I.e. a 10 week ban which still rules him out of the rest of the season.

Pure speculation though.

[Dave Angel]

Any extension that would lead into next season would be so ridiculous to be completely untenable as an option surely?

I believe the concept of the law being equal to all men is being well and truly stretched!

Adam, that's one of the risks you take with an appeal.

If the panel consider that the appeal is valid (even if the verdict remains unchanged) then the ban should not lengthen but if they feel that Tigers only appealled in order to make Seru available for more games in the meantime or that the appeal was pointless then they would increase the ban in such a way that it would penalise the player for making the unneccessary appeal. As the ban currently ends in the close season the only way to penalise the player more would be to extend the ban in to the start of the new season.

If there was no risk whatsoever of the penalty getting larger on appeal then everyone would appeal everything regardless of justification or validity.



My gut feeling however is that the verdict will stand on appeal and the ban will remain unchanged.

[Bill W]

but if they feel that Tigers only appealled in order to make Seru available for more games in the meantime or that the appeal was pointless then they would increase the ban in such a way that it would penalise the player for making the unneccessary appeal. As the ban currently ends in the close season the only way to penalise the player more would be to extend the ban in to the start of the new season.

.

Fortunately there are legal eagles in the RFU and DA's belief that they would do this is false being totally against all tenets of justice.

They could fine the club/player for a frivolous appeal. They could date the sentence from the appeal hearing date. But to lengthen the sentence in order to punish the plkayer for taking advantage of his right to appeal they would not do. Not if they wanted to stay in the legal profession.

Perhaps you could point us to the bit in the discipline regulations where it says that they can Dave?

[RayDTuTu]

Bill - I believe that this happened a few weeks ago in the case of a footballer.
Chelsea or Arsenal, I can't remember which.
Anyway the player was red carded and banned for 4 games.
The red card was appealed and the FA(?) decided that the appeal was frivolous and extended the ban.

[Tigerbeat]

Bill - I believe that this happened a few weeks ago in the case of a footballer.
Chelsea or Arsenal, I can't remember which.
Anyway the player was red carded and banned for 4 games.
The red card was appealed and the FA(?) decided that the appeal was frivolous and extended the ban.

I beleive that it was Middlesbrough who appealed and got turned down and had it increased.

[RayDTuTu]

I've just found this on the BBC site.
It looks like the RFU can extend bans on appeal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7306573.stm

[RayDTuTu]

I beleive that it was Middlesbrough who appealed and got turned down and had it increased.

Yes - you are corect

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 263735.stm

[Bill W]

Let me be clear:

The Appeal can extend the length of the sentence if in their judgement it should be harsher;

The asppeal can view the appeal as frivolous;

That the Appeal in order to punish the player for appealing would extend the sentence beyond what was within margins of error is not only not likely, it is not, IMHO, allowed. To lift a "reckless" action from Lower Entry to Top End Entry would be such.

The Middleborough instance of an additional match, de facto, merely dates the three match sentence from the date of the appeal hearing.

[Pete]

but if they feel that Tigers only appealled in order to make Seru available for more games in the meantime or that the appeal was pointless then they would increase the ban in such a way that it would penalise the player for making the unneccessary appeal.

Which of course proves beyond all shadow of doubt that the disciplinary panel has its own agenda ie is biased against the players and clubs who wish to stand up for themselves. Soviet Russia is not dead.