Byrnes gets 10 Weeks

[qwerty51]

Good point q51. You might well be right on. But in principle you should be able to appeal a sentence, even if admitted 'guilty'.

Would you be willing to have this clarified by SANZAR?...only trouble is, it's likely that you'd be 2 years older by the time the reply letter arrived in your mailbox.

In the DT

FOR​

​

those demanding that Reds winger Digby Ioane should appeal his five-week suspension for a lifting tackle ... newsflash: you can't appeal against a decision you plead guilty to. The suspension prompted much-heated debate this week, with former NRL players chiming in. But what has gone largely unreported is Ioane accepted the punishment.​

Under the new judicial process operating in Super Rugby, cited players first meet with a judicial officer who explains the reason for the charge and where it ranks in severity. If the player takes an early guilty plea, he receives a discount but must agree to whatever penalty is imposed.​

​

 

[Rugby rebel]

Scotty

The facts are quite clear. Byrnes was never cited for raking his fingers across the face of Carter. That footage which has been replayed and replayed and replayed wasn't even the subject of the citing. So what if he is a niggler. It's irrelevant to the charges here. Name a team that doesn't have one. That's exactly what the Wallabies need! Someone with a bit of mungrel. What is relevant is that his record is clean. Not bad for a 20 year career.

 

[vidiot]

Most of us were surprised by the footage shown as the incident, though I understand different footage (of a different moment?) was part of the original process.

I do feel sorry for Byrnes, victim of a terrible coincidence. What are the odds? His hands freakishly find their way to Carters face and Carter almost simultaneously gets obvious abrasions around the eyes. I would imagine that in a different universe that would constitute contact with the eyes or eye area. Cruel fate.

 

[Scotty]

Scotty

The facts are quite clear. Byrnes was never cited for raking his fingers across the face of Carter. That footage which has been replayed and replayed and replayed wasn't even the subject of the citing. So what if he is a niggler. It's irrelevant to the charges here. Name a team that doesn't have one. That's exactly what the Wallabies need! Someone with a bit of mungrel. What is relevant is that his record is clean. Not bad for a 20 year career.

20 year career! Gee, those Russians age well!

 

[Schadenfreude]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...e-gouging-report/story-e6frf4qu-1226307906278

I hope Adam Bynes isn't on GAGR - you can get banned for suggesting anything like this.

 

[Braveheart81]

I have to say that it is poor form for Byrnes to come out and call Tom Carter a disgrace. He should have just let it die.

The fact that his appeal was successful and his suspension has been overturned doesn't prove that he was innocent. All it says is that the evidence wasn't sufficient for him to be found guilty.

 

[Proud Pig]

I have to say that it is poor form for Byrnes to come out and call Tom Carter a disgrace. He should have just let it die.

The fact that his appeal was successful and his suspension has been overturned doesn't prove that he was innocent. All it says is that the evidence wasn't sufficient for him to be found guilty.

Which as we believe in a tenent of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." is exactly the same thing. No one needs to prove themselves innocent of anything.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree with that.

I don't think it justifies the attack on his accuser though. Just as the premise of being innocent until proven guilty is true, so is the fact that an accusation that can't be proven isn't neccessarily a lie.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I agree with that.

I don't think it justifies the attack on his accuser though. Just as the premise of being innocent until proven guilty is true, so is the fact that an accusation that can't be proven isn't neccessarily a lie.

I think we could both agree that Adam Bynes was probably in the best position to know what actually happened...

 

[Braveheart81]

Certainly. Tom Carter was also in a pretty good position to know that Byrnes' fingers went very close to his eye and cut his skin.

I just think launching an attack on Carter makes Byrnes look petty. In my opinion Byrnes would look far better out of it if he just said something like "I was confident that I was innocent and I'm relieved that the judiciary has overturned the suspension and I am free to play."

 

[fatprop]

Byrnes left marks around Carter's eye, it appears they weren't enough to be sanctioned , I see no problem with the complaint or the outcome

 

[qwerty51]

I don't hide from the fact I like to play hard and tough," Byrnes said. "But I always do it within the laws."

 

[Rugby rebel]

Braveheart try to put yourself in Adam's shoes.

1. You have been accused on international TV of one of the worst possible charges in the game. Carter could clearly be heard stating that Adam eye gouged him when he spoke to his captain.

2. Adam was never charged with eye gouging despite all the beat up in forums like this and the media.

3. Adam was found guilty of the charge. Please don't forget that the allegation did not relate to when Adam and Carter were standing up. This is all that we were shown on TV mind you in SLOW MOTION. It was when they were on the ground that the allegation was made. He was found guilty in relation to the incident when they were standing up which was not the subject of the complaint or the citation. Funny that. Natural justice anyone?

4. The appeal committee overturned the decision at first instance in a manner that was as kind to the first judicial officer as one could ever hope to be. The appeal committe found that there is no case to answer.

5. Adam has lived with the guilty finding since the 3rd of March.

Why isn't he entitled to tell his story and have his say. Is it a one sided affair whereby on Carter can put his version forward?

It is my opinion that he deserves an apology from SANZAR and Carter as to how the matter has handled.

 

[Braveheart81]

As I said a few posts up, I think a much better response from Byrnes would have been something like:

"I was confident that I was innocent and I'm relieved that the judiciary has overturned the suspension and I am free to play."

How does calling Carter a disgrace make him look in any way a better person out of this?

I agree that Byrnes deserves an apology from SANZAR. I certainly don't think Carter should apologise though. He felt contact from Byrnes fingers around his eye. He had a cut to show for it. Clearly he believed he was eye gouged when he made the complaint.

 

[fatprop]

apology, give me a break

 

[Braveheart81]

Also, I'm an Eastern Suburbs fan. I watched Byrnes play for Easts most weekends for several years and he was a constant niggle merchant and always putting in a few cheap shots. He was regularly sinbinned.

Out of almost everyone in Super Rugby, if you felt contact around your eye from Adam Byrnes, you'd be forgiven for your first assumption being that he did it intentionally. His reputation well and truly preceeds him.

 

[waratahjesus]

Braveheart try to put yourself in Adam's shoes.

1. You have been accused on international TV of one of the worst possible charges in the game. Carter could clearly be heard stating that Adam eye gouged him when he spoke to his captain.

2. Adam was never charged with eye gouging despite all the beat up in forums like this and the media.

3. Adam was found guilty of the charge. Please don't forget that the allegation did not relate to when Adam and Carter were standing up. This is all that we were shown on TV mind you in SLOW MOTION. It was when they were on the ground that the allegation was made. He was found guilty in relation to the incident when they were standing up which was not the subject of the complaint or the citation. Funny that. Natural justice anyone?

4. The appeal committee overturned the decision at first instance in a manner that was as kind to the first judicial officer as one could ever hope to be. The appeal committe found that there is no case to answer.

5. Adam has lived with the guilty finding since the 3rd of March.

Why isn't he entitled to tell his story and have his say. Is it a one sided affair whereby on Carter can put his version forward?

It is my opinion that he deserves an apology from SANZAR and Carter as to how the matter has handled.

He isn't entitled to tell his side of the story in my opinion because he claims to play to the laws of the game.

Fact - Carter had scratches around his eye and felt it had been targeted.

Fact - he told his captain and the ref

Fact - the ref cited the incident

Fact - Carter allowed the judiciary to do it's job without engaging the media.

Fact - Byrnes Wasserstein found guilty

Fact - Carter didn't engage the media and badmouth or bury Byrnes for his actions

Fact - the charges were overturned on appeal

Fact - Byrnes engaged the media to attack Carters integrity

My opinion, Byrnes is a dog.

 

[Rugby rebel]

Thanks "WaratahJesus"

I dont think it is quite accurate to state that Carter didn't engage the media. He engaged the world wide media by making a potentially defamatory comment that Byrnes eye gouged him.

According to the laws of the game he hasn't breached them so it's fair game.

 

[Scoey]

Byrnes 'disgrace' comment of Carter may be totally unrelated to the whole eye-gouge/judiciary incident. I know a lot of people that say Carter is a disgrace who have never even met the guy!

Maybe the use of the word disgrace is what has wound everyone up. Byrnes probably should've just called him a wanker like the rest of us do.

 

[Rugby rebel]

Oh and as to an apology if someone accuses you of something which at the end of the day has been found to have to not been proven then yes it deserves an apology.