Any news on Clark hearing?

[Old Hob]

Unintentional? "I forgot to renew my TV licence and admit the offence of not having a licence but I plead that there was no intent to defraud." THAT is "unintentional" - an act of omission. Pulling, bending or twisting an arm can not be described as "unintentional".

[DickyP]

I can only say that I do not believe Clark's ban is trivial. It may affect England more than Saints, but most of all it affects him the player, which is as it should be.

The run-in games are critical to Saints and were extremely important to his chances of impressing the England set-up. He would have expected to go to South Africa and been seen in the Autumn internationals which will now not happen. Putting his potential international career on hold by a whole season will be of enormous impact on him (the financial impact of not being in the EPS is not trivial either). Similarly I suspect that by November there might be a good chance that he will have problems getting back into the Saints first team.

I would also say that Saints acted sensibly in the way that they handled the matter. No public comments immediately and a relatively swift investigation to get at the truth and then took decisive action. It was all they could sensibly do.

As we have recently seen with Cockers, the Coaches such as Mallinder in Clark's case are in an unenviable position when asked to comment post-game. They cannot say anything that can later be blazed as a headline; they cannot immediately castigate their player - loyalty means that the first conversation must be in private.

There is, despite the element of "he started it" involved, a difference between the altercations in bad tempered games where we can all understand how it started even if not approving of the actions, and an unwarranted assault as in this case in what was essentially a fairly good natured game(especially in Saints/Tigers terms!).

[Nailsworthstiger]

To include a summers break I think the ban is very lenient and so do most of the Saints fans if you look at their message board. However one of their mods, Boon, doesn't think so, as he or she says:-

Re: Callum Clark banned for 32 weeks
32 weeks wont be enough for some members of the leicester lynch mob, but its a substantial ban nonetheless.

i reckon callum would be well advised to keep his chin up but head down, & try to find a way to make the best use possible of this time so that as/when he does come back the positive elements of his games are at the fore and he can channel the commitment he brings without crossing the line.

Reading further down their messages I get the impression their fans are a little embarrassed at this post.

BTW, does anyone know if Clark still gets paid during his ban?

[Johnnyg]

I think a few on here are mis-reading this; the panel are not saying there was no intention to pull back or hyper-extend the arm, Clark admitted that. The panel have judged that he did not intend to cause the severe injury that resulted. The analogy would be throwing a single punch in a fight and the victim falls, bangs his head and suffers brain damage. There would clearly in such circumstances be the intent to be violent and to hurt to some degree, (as there clearly was here with Clark) but no intention to cause the actual severe injury that resulted. That is my reading of the judgement. Clark pleaded guilty to the deliberate hyper-extension of the arm but denied any intention to cause the actual severe injury that resulted, and it seems the panel accepted this. If there was any evidence he actually intended to break Hawkins' arm he would have been banned for years.

[jgriffin]

I think there is a leniency here that might not be demonstrated in a court of law. Hitting someone with no intention of killing them nevertheless results in a manslaughter charge, and indeed if no reasonable person could expect other than serious injury from the act, it would require plea-bargaining to avoid an attempted murder charge.
A reasonable person would expect that forced, levered, hyper-extension of the elbow against its joint would result in a painful and potentially serious injury. This is GBH regardless of Clark's stated intention and in the real world would likely attract a prison sentence.

PS Nice to find out Boon's real opinion of our Forum.

[GT1]

This is statement from Saints appeal??
http://www.premiershiprugby.com/premier ... /30232.php

[GS]

The eyes of the rugby world are now on Northampton, and their recent record for underhand play, and how they play this will set the club's reputation. For Clark not to have offered an apology is bad enough but for the club to publicly state that they are considering an appeal sends a message about the current ethos at the club.

We were all shocked once we realised what had happened, but now I'm shocked and disappointed at the response from the club and the player after the hearing (probably not so much the player with his past history of violence to players who are not in a position to defend themselves*). Northampton had the chance to try to reach the moral high ground but have now blown it.





Swinging arm entry to a maul and headbutting a player trapped in a maul.

[silverfish]

Judgement now published:
http://www.rfu.com/News/2012/March/News ... Clark.ashx
64 week entry point with 50% discount.

[Bill W (2)]

Judgement now published:
http://www.rfu.com/News/2012/March/News ... Clark.ashx
64 week entry point with 50% discount.

64 weeks would have been OK.

Discount very generous. IMHO.

[daktari]

Judgement now published:
http://www.rfu.com/News/2012/March/News ... Clark.ashx
64 week entry point with 50% discount.

64 weeks would have been OK.

Discount very generous. IMHO.

Very generous!

[Kit]

Surprised he got the full discount - and surprised that Saints know he has the full discount and are considering an appeal. Thoroughly approve of Hawkins's injury being taken into account ("The Player must be suspended for a good deal longer than Hawkins is absent from the game to reflect the seriousness of the offending.")

And finally, Blackett provides the answer to the defensive Saints fans I've seen drawing parallels with Manu's punches: "It is certainly worse than the worst sort of punch which might attract a maximum suspension of 52 weeks".

[Soggypitch]

It's a difficult one. Clark has been found guilty and given a ban until Nov 1st - my initial reaction was that this was quite lenient

We are now told that it was accepted he did not commit the offence with any intent - on that premis it could be argued the ban is a little harsh, hence Saints statement.

As has been said before on this forum, perhaps it's now time to move on and leave Clark to lick his wounds and contemplate his ban. As DickP said it will potentially have a significant effect on his career (quite rightly) so one would hope he will learn a lesson a be a better player/person for it.

[daktari]

Interesting that they can't get the venue right for the match...
Also that the act was intentional but that there was no intent to injure. Not entirely sure how those two square up.

[WhitecapTiger]

Also that the act was intentional but that there was no intent to injure. Not entirely sure how those two square up.

Admitted that he committed the act but implied it was for genuine reason, to release the ball and allow Saints to attack quickly without knowing the precarious and vulnerable position Hawkins was in. Without proving intent, almost impossible to do without an admission/confession, hands are tied. Easy to be contrite and formulate your defence with plenty of time to view the angles.

The part I find strange is that in mitigation he was said to have accepted/admitted his culpability at the earliest possible opportunity......when exactly was this then, when he was jogging away from the incident into the 'fog' that surrounded him for the rest of the game? I would've thought that the earliest possible opportunity would've encompassed helping the player on the ground he'd just severely injured. Or maybe it was standing there looking like a naughty schoolboy when Cockers had words at the end of the game.....instead of lamping him?

I think 50% reduction in this instance sends out the wrong message personally, and I thought the same for Manu's 50% reduction too. Standing in a hearing and saying the right words etc shouldn't count for anything. Saints and/or the player have the right to appeal this, if they do then they will also be sending out the wrong message IMO. Whatever happens now though the clubs should move on.

[Mersey Tiger]

Notwithstanding all the comments about the length of the ban, the good news is the detail contained in the published RFU report about the extent of Rob Hawkins' injury.
The medical advice is that he should be able to play rugby again in 10-12 weeks, with the important point being about there being no nerve damage pre-op or post-op.
The RFU is clear that it took this medical advice into account in constructing the length of the ban. Therefore, it seems that the medical evidence is that Rob should be back in time for next season, which would be great!
Let us trust that this is an accurate diagnosis and that Rob achieves a full recovery! All best wishes to him!