Digby banned for five weeks

[Braveheart81]

As I said, the Citing Commissioner can only cite something themselves if they believe it should have been a red card. I think this is stupid.

Whilst teams can ask for an incident to be looked at immediately after the game, I don't think the onus should be on them to do this. Teams aren't going to be keen to get players cited because what goes around comes around. It is in no teams interest to be getting more and more players suspended for bad tackles.

I think it is SANZAR's responsibility to get consistency on these issues and shouldn't be left to teams to dob in their opposition after each match for incidents that were missed by the referee.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

They cite offences if it is a red card under the law (it's not just opinion based). And the whole thing about teams report players is just if they think the commissioner/ref missed something.

 

[Proud Pig]

The AFL has a fixed penalty system and that causes just as much debate about consistancy as this system.
The argument there always seems to be "How can this be classified as reckless when the one the other week was intentional. They were exactly the same."
Personally I believe that each incident needs to handled purely on its merits and in this situation Digby deserved a sanction.
I think 5 weeks is a little harsh but his history does need to be considered.

 

[Braveheart81]

Digby's was a red card offence (spear tackle). Do you know of any spear tackles that haven't been sanctioned? (IMO the AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) one was just a lifting tackle, not a spear tackle)

Under the laws of the game, the sanction for driving someone into the ground is the same as dropping them from a height without regard for their safety (what Poki did to AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)).

Once you have lifted them beyond the horizontal, the damage is essentially done.

 

[Cave Dweller]

There is no twisting or nothing of that sorts. Lifitng a player and dropping him on his head/shoulders is dangerous play.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Under the laws of the game, the sanction for driving someone into the ground is the same as dropping them from a height without regard for their safety (what Poki did to AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)).

Once you have lifted them beyond the horizontal, the damage is essentially done.

Sure, if that's how you interpret the tackle. It's a borderline case thought which the commissioner/s probably ruled the other way on. Poki would be able to make a pretty good case against the "dropped from a height with no regard for player safety" part of the charge.

 

[Karl]

The “lift” was as much a drive as a lift, the other guy was not speared, was barely horizontal and landed on his back, no malice in it and then put on an Academy Award winning performance. I agree with the article where Martin said it was a "dominant" tackle and that the pendulum has swung too far on this sort of thing. That player was in no more danger in that tackle to any other tackle he might have put on him in a game, in my view. This “repeat offender” thing is being blown out of all proportion – it was 4 years ago. He's made a few tackles in those 4 years I would imagine. How long should a single incident like that haunt a player? If this was number 3 in 4 years or there had been other infractions as well indicating a disregard for the rules of the game in general, sure, but it's not like Diggers is a dirty or dangerous player ffs. He pleaded guilty because he knew anything else was pointless and it was the only way to keep the sentence under some kind of control – the system penalises you for having the temerity to defend yourself. I bet he would have had a crack if he knew they were going to slot him for 5 weeks and not 2 like most people expected.

All of that aside, 5 weeks for that tackle is a ridiculous sentence, completely over-the-top. Plus it’s been handed down by a body that can’t even be bothered setting up a proper structure to deal with these issues and which hands out sentences like a lucky dip.

 

[kiap]

Last comment promise.....

The issue here is not weather or not Digby should have been suspended, it is the inconsistancies shown in the penal system of SANZAR. By definition the tackle was a tip tackle - the tackled players hips went above his head. It is not allowed and some sanction was required against the tackling player. I think many of us were expecting 2 weeks, and having forgotton about his previous suspension, I would have been happy with 3. The fact of the matter is that Polki lifted AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and dropped him on his head the week before and received no sanction at all, was not even penalised or warned. Sidey was warned regarding his tackle on Barnes. Strauss was given 2 weeks for a significantly worse tackle from an earlier round. And then Digby gets 5 weeks.....

Fine the ref's and Judicary were advised after the Polki incident (alledgely) to crack down on the lifting tackles. That explains the Polki incident as an aberation, not the fact that Strauss was suspendend for 2 weeks and Diggers got more then double of that penality. I guess we will have to wait until the next tip tackle to see if there is going to be any consistancy from here on in.

Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in...

Agree with the post, although I would say Strauss landed his bloke on his head, whereas Poki's is not quite as clear cut; but it is dangerous regardless. In some ways Poki's tackle is worse than Ioane's in that AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is dropped onto his back/neck/head. The disciplinary process is inconsistent.

 

[emuarse]

Agreed - anything to give their teams a leg up!

Can anyone on this thread remember a suspension on a foreign player given by the SA judiciary to be too light?
I can't, they always seem to go overboard, but I would appreciate anyone's contribution in this regard.

 

[Da Munch]

Can anyone on this thread remember a suspension on a foreign player given by the SA judiciary to be too light?
I can't, they always seem to go overboard, but I would appreciate anyone's contribution in this regard.

I can only refer to the Ranger one to disregard this.
And to pour salt on my own wounds about this one he had priors;
http://www.espnscrum.com/super14/rugby/story/92389.html

 

[BPC]

There is also a big difference bewteen expecting the unrealistic and accepting the current mess.

I agree but your original post seemed to be aiming at a standard that criminal judiciaries, with the funding and years of tradition and precedent, can even manage. Consistency is a wonderful concept but if the referees aren't consistent, how can we expect the part-time SANZAR judiciary to be any better?

 

[Bullrush]

I can only refer to the Ranger one to disregard this.
And to pour salt on my own wounds about this one he had priors;
http://www.espnscrum.com/super14/rugby/story/92389.html

I think it's funny that some people are trying to bring Ranger into this. Poki I can agree - very similar. Ranger....errr - no.

The incidents are completely different.

 

[BPC]

Any international business the size of this should have clear and transparent procedures for dealing with almost every aspect of thier business

Other than disclosure obligations forced on them by share trading exchanges, no business is willingly clear and transparent. When was the last time Coles, Caltex, BHP etc were clear and transparent about why they charge customers what they do. How about banks and interest rates? When was the last time the public were invited to the board meeting where a bank decided to jack up the interest rate 15 basis points above the Reserve Bank rise? It's a false analogy. We may expect transparency but for reasons other than contemporary business practices.

 

[BPC]

You have no doubt seen how the league system in aus works with set offenses and gradings within those. Rugby would be a lot more consistent if it adopted a similar system.

Arguably, although much of the problem people have been complaining about is why some things are cited and others aren't, which gradings don't even address. Plus restricted 'sentencing' guidelines simply create other problems.

 

[BPC]

See my quote above. The NRL does it. The AFL does it. Why is it too hard for rugby?

The whole "too hard" excuse is a load of rubbish when the NRL do it so much better.

That's assuming the NRL do it better. I am not sure I agree. Citing is still a problem either way which is independent of the judiciary decision.

 

[kiap]

I think it's funny that some people are trying to bring Ranger into this. Poki I can agree - very similar. Ranger....errr - no.

The incidents are completely different.

Bullrush, he's not comparing the incidents on the field.

Da Munch was looking for a case where a judiciary in South Africa was arguably lenient to a non-SA player.

 

[BPC]

It would seem a relatively easy thing for a reasonably small group of representatives from each Union to be formed whose responsibility was to review every red, yellow and white card from the round. Maybe each week a ref, a former player and a legal type person?
Firstly - was the sanction at the time sufficient?
Secondly - categorise the offence - e.g - lifting tackle, attacking the face, striking, other foul play
AND - set a table of recommended ban periods for the more common offences.
I just for the life of me cannot understand why it is so hard to do? In this day of Skype / video-conferencing etc it can and should be done.
But somehow I know it won't.

It sounds easy but the human element means that it will never be very consistent. For example, referees from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have different views about the breakdown. How can we assume that their views on dangerous play will coincide?

 

[suckerforred]

It sounds easy but the human element means that it will never be very consistent. For example, referees from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have different views about the breakdown. How can we assume that their views on dangerous play will coincide?

Yes you are right, but in the case of a lifting tackle I would have thought it was fairly clear cut. Hips above head, it's dangerous. Human element is always going to be a problem, but surely something, anything, is better then what is happening at the moment.

 

[kiap]

It sounds easy but the human element means that it will never be very consistent. For example, referees from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have different views about the breakdown. How can we assume that their views on dangerous play will coincide?

Who said their views would coincide?

... You have a Scotsman in your avatar. Your argument is invalid.

No, I agree with Cyclopath on a more formalised group for overseeing the incidents. The panel members put their views and produce their decision; whether by compromise or majority, drawing the decision makers from the same small collaborating group will lead to more consistent outcomes.

Perfect arbitration doesn't exist but can you sure as hell improve on the existing system.

 

[Bullrush]

Bullrush, he's not comparing the incidents on the field.

Da Munch was looking for a case where a judiciary in South Africa was arguably lenient to a non-SA player.

I think there have been a couple of posts where people have compared the incidents in trying to justify why they felt Diggers suspension was overly tough.