Hearing was moved back to Thursday 29th March.nasher wrote:When is the hearing?
Hawkins Injury/Clark Citing - UPDATE - Now cited!
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
-
WhitecapTiger
- Super User
- Posts: 6051
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:23 am
- Location: Roaming
Re: Hawkins Injury/Clark Citing - UPDATE - Now cited!
Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
Re: Hawkins Injury/Clark Citing - UPDATE - Now cited!
i have seen the video of this & think the RFU should make it a life ban (but we now they won't).
however with what the S15 are trailing out with the white card that would be one i would use it for.
however with what the S15 are trailing out with the white card that would be one i would use it for.
TIGERS RULE WELFORD ROAD NO MAN CAN STOP THEM IN THERE WAY TO MORE SILVER
Re: Hawkins Injury/Clark Citing - UPDATE - Now cited!
We've played them since the 'purple patch' but the Orange One had gone by then!bc wrote:Tiger in Birmingham said (referring to the Ospreys) "we had a purple patch with incidents with Ospreys but have since then had a reasonable run in terms of fair play". Thats because we have not been in the same pool as them in the HC!
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
-
sam16111986
- Super User
- Posts: 7171
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm
- Location: Shepshed
Re: Hawkins Injury/Clark Citing - UPDATE - Now cited!
Everyone makes mistakes and even drug cheats don't get life long bans. 60 weeks would be my verdict. End his season and tell him not to bother with the next one. After that he should have had time enough to realise he was a fool and will no doubt return older and wiser than before.i have seen the video of this & think the RFU should make it a life ban
-
voice of the crumbie
- Super User
- Posts: 2007
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:25 pm
- Location: coalville
Re: Hawkins Injury/Clark Citing - UPDATE - Now cited!
And if he did get that long I wonder whether Stains would cancel his contract....60 weeks would be my verdict.
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
Re: Hawkins Injury/Clark Citing - UPDATE - Now cited!
A life ban would be unfairly harsh, but a six-month ban, half served in the off-season would also be unfairly lenient. I would think that a 12-month ban would be the right decision and would send out a strong message to anyone thinking about repeating a cowardly and thuggish act like Clarke did .... made worse and certainly more cowardly by the way he slunk away to try to avoid detection!
Always a Tiger
-
RoadtoRode
- New Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:29 am
Re: Hawkins Injury/Clark Citing - UPDATE - Now cited!
Just saw this post on the Planet Rugby forum. Rather curious, don't you think?
Interesting blog on Clark and the citing hearing's decision.
http://rugbylaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/ ... ision.html
If what this guy has written is true (and a quick glance at Wiki and Youtube backs up his version of the relevant dates) then there's been a bit of a cock-up at the hearing...
It seems that the red card at the Junior World Cup was actually issued when Clark was 19 - not 17 and didn't happen over 5 years ago but less than 4.
Richard Smith QC really should have checked his facts before making a submission to the hearing. And the hearing should also have checked his numbers.
Not clear from the judgement if it would have affected the length of his ban, though.
Interesting blog on Clark and the citing hearing's decision.
http://rugbylaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/ ... ision.html
If what this guy has written is true (and a quick glance at Wiki and Youtube backs up his version of the relevant dates) then there's been a bit of a cock-up at the hearing...
It seems that the red card at the Junior World Cup was actually issued when Clark was 19 - not 17 and didn't happen over 5 years ago but less than 4.
Richard Smith QC really should have checked his facts before making a submission to the hearing. And the hearing should also have checked his numbers.
Not clear from the judgement if it would have affected the length of his ban, though.