Byrnes gets 10 Weeks

[Bruce Ross]

Has their been any progress on this one in the last week?

Be patient, lads. Those of a literary bent may recall Jarndyce v. Jarndyce:

The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless.

It is becoming increasingly improbable that judgement will be delivered before our man has served his sentence. If the judiciary's original decision is reversed, which is surely a logical possibility, then an innocent man will have suffered the torment of sleeping in of a morning instead of sweating it out on the training and playing fields.

 

[No4918]

Surely had enough time to sort this out. The longer it drags out the more i'm thinking the decision will be reversed or reduced. Great for Byrnes, very bad look for the guys making the decisions.

And Bruce, if it does take them that long to sort it out they should all be relieved of their duty immediately, regardless of the outcome. Back your decision, or admit you got it wrong.

 

[MrTimms]

Sorted. Byrnes cleared.

Thursday 22 March 2012

​

SANZAR NEWS RELEASE​

Adam Byrnes Appeal Approved​

A SANZAR Appeal Committee chaired by Nicholas Davidson has allowed an appeal by Adam Byrnes against the finding that he breached Law 10.4(m) by making contact with the eye area of another player, in circumstances constitutes dangerous play.

A Judicial Officer held such a breach occurred, but expressly rejected the allegation that this was “eye gouging” or otherwise an intentional attack. He held that the breach was the product of dangerous play involving a headlock, which constituted recklessness as to whether Byrnes made contact with the eye area.

On Appeal it was contended that the citing as originally detailed could not have been upheld on the facts, and the Judicial Officer was wrong to amend the detail of the citing. The citing alleged an attack to the eyes as the players were getting up after clearing out. The Judicial Officer considered video footage before the players fell to ground, not as they were getting up and that founded his Decision. The Appeal Committee rejected the submission that the judicial process was confined to the timing alleged in the citing and held there was no unfairness in the process adopted.

The Appeal Committee then addressed the allegation of breach as a re-hearing. It brought to account the evidence available, including extensive but inconclusive video coverage. Applying the standard of proof required under the Rules, the Appeal Committee concluded that it could not be said that a breach of the Laws occurred to the requisite standard as an act of recklessness which involved contact with the eye area. This was a serious allegation and must be clearly established on the balance of probabilities.

In the circumstances, the Appeal was allowed and the sanction was set aside.


Ends

Issued by SANZAR

 

[Braveheart81]

So in effect it becomes a two week suspension.

I wonder if he'll play for the Rebels this weekend?

This doesn't do much to help improve the reputation of the SANZAR Judiciary

 

[MrTimms]

Yeah, seems they don't even agree with themselves...

 

[FiveStarStu]

Sweet, delicious justice.

Amazing that the appeals committee have 'expressly' thrown out the first charge, and then determined there was no evidence for the new charge they came up with.

How the crap did they conjure enough evidence to get 10 weeks for the first charge in the first place?

 

[matty_k]

I think the blood on Tom's face coupled with the footage of Adam's hand over Tom's face.
The allegations have to be taken seriously.

 

[Proud Pig]

It is one thing to take the allegations seriously and rightfully so they did.
It is quite another to hand down a very hefty sanction when there was very little substantiating evidence.
It does leave an embarassing situation for SANZAR in that an "innocent", if anyone could call Adam Byrnes innocent, man has served a two week ban.

 

[RedsHappy]

"Your honour, the appeal by the alleged murderer has been upheld as it is now realised that the victim is no longer dead."

 

[suckerforred]

Thinking that a 2 weeks suspension for 'reckles contact with the eye' is probably fair.

Seems to be going from the rediculous to the sublime....

 

[Moses]

Does he get two weeks credit for time served next time he fronts the judiciary?

 

[RedsHappy]

BTW, this latest utter debacle by the SANZAR "judiciary" makes me doubly wonder why Link did not appeal the Diggers' ban period. Yes, the Diggers offence was far more clearcut, but this appeal shows yet again how subjective, non-rigorous and hokey the entire methodology, evidence assessment, and deemed process is.

The other maddening variable here (as many above have mentioned) is the ludicrous amount of time this appeal by Rebels/Byrnes has taken. Why on earth could it not be decided in 24/48 hours? That is part of the required justice in a sports banning process, an appeal should provide the potential benefit of no or minimal loss to the player and the team if that appeal is upheld. This is not a criminal appeal FFS. Now, the Rebels and Byrnes have had their interests prejudiced for an unconscionably long period (given each week really matters in an ongoing elite sports competition).

(I must remind that only a week or so I had cause to mention that SANZAR had great difficulty on its S15 website in even getting the k/o time right for a Reds match, in fact, they had it quite wrong. And it's SANZAR that organises and schedules all the matches! If you can't get the important 'little' things right, so often that's a reliable clue to second rate administration of the bigger stuff.)

 

[qwerty51]

I think you can't appeal if you plead guilty?

 

[RedsHappy]

I think you can't appeal if you plead guilty?

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.

 

[Lee Grant]

I glad that it is settled. Byrnes has done some grubby things on the park but it surprised me that he would have eye gouged anybody. When I saw the evidence I thought "Is that it?" - did they make their original decision based on that?

It was probably reckless to have his hands there in the first place; so the time missed was condign punishment; but crikey, how many weeks would Schalk have got in the RWC Q/Final on that basis? Probably 10 weeks for each attempt on Pocock's face.

I'm glad that Byrnes has cleared his name, but he is still an annoying, negative shit of the kind the game would be better without. Alas, all countries have them.

 

[Scotty]

Don't forget he is Russian not Australian!

 

[MrTimms]

Now the appeal is over, turns out he has been injured anyway:

@Adam_Byrnes: Just to let everyone know, I hyperextended my elbow v's the Tahs, damaged ligaments, in a brace, hope to be back soon #cmonrebels

I wonder if he hyperextended it going for someone's eye socket? Too early? Where's that fishing emoticon...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

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.

if you want to drag the law into it - in criminal law the court (in australia) can refuse to accept a guilty plea - which I think happened in the Dianne Brimble case...the cruise ship date rape case

 

[Rugby rebel]

Now that Adam has been cleared of all charges I wonder if all the people who have been hiding behind their computers out there in cyber space calling Adam names, labeling him and putting him down are going to come and apologise? I doubt it but I do live in hope. Perhaps the media will devote the same resources to publishing the appeal decision as they did to the initial decision. Eye gouging is one of the worst things a player can do on the rugby field. To drag someone's name thru the mud only to have that player cleared at the end of the day is disgraceful. SANZAR now needs to urgently review is processes.

 

[Scotty]

RR,

The fact is that Byrnes still appears to have a the very least raked across the face of Carter. I never thought he gouged anyone, but if you are going to be completely honest in your assessment of him, you would conclude that he does have history and could be considered somewhat a dirty player (at the very least a niggle merchant).

I agree on the review of the process though. From the outside it appears that this judgement was based on evidence from Carter and his doctor, almost solely, as the video evidence was not at all conclusive. How you can find anyone guilty on the evidence of a player from the other team is beyond me.