Digby banned for five weeks

[The Red Baron]

I don't think anyone has said Digby didn't deserve some sanction, it is the consistency that is the issue.

There should be clear documented examples and consistent penalties across all three countries.

Instead the whole thing is a lucky dip.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

As for past history, were the previous spear tackles in 2008? Incidents that happened four years ago being taken into account with this ruling is a bit of a stretch. Considering Diggers has maintained a clean record for that period of time.

But I suppose as Diggers' previous encounters with the judiciary (apart from his tweet last year!) were for the same thing..

 

[Dan54]

I have been to judiciary meetings with club players here in Brisbane, and actually in NZ in my role of manager with teams, and always players that were repeat offenders were treated a lot more harshly. I had one player taken up for a late charge , because he had earlier offences he got 6 weeks.

 

[qwerty51]

Surely Ash Sanzar will say rightly or wrongly that Digby got longer because he is a repeat offender. I am sure if it had been someone outside the Reds or Aus a lot would be saying serial offender etc .

We all know he has priors but that doesn't add 5 weeks onto a sentence..

 

[densamer]

More worrying is the amount of arm flailing and carrying on to get the ref to call a penalty. I noticed it with this incident and a few other games on the weekend - please don't end up like that other world game.

 

[RedsHappy]

I have been to judiciary meetings with club players here in Brisbane, and actually in NZ in my role of manager with teams, and always players that were repeat offenders were treated a lot more harshly. I had one player taken up for a late charge , because he had earlier offences he got 6 weeks.

So, 4 X the Cheetahs' 2 weeks for a 'serial offence' that happened 4 years back seems equitable and fair, does it?

 

[Scotty]

System seems crazy. A ban that is loaded due to past incidents then reduced after? Doesn't make sense at all?

 

[PaarlBok]

You lot jump up and down because its your local hero banned. Pretty sure once the incident hits the pressbox well get to the depth of this.

 

[RedsHappy]

System seems crazy. A ban that is loaded due to past incidents then reduced after? Doesn't make sense at all?

This SANZAR set up is patently not a 'judiciary' in any proper definition of the term; it's more like a local headmasters' disciplinary system across totally different schools where the rules can be varied 'by discretion yet without proper explanation'.

 

[No4918]

You lot jump up and down because its your local hero banned. Pretty sure once the incident hits the pressbox well get to the depth of this.

What if we jump up and down about the bullshit Ranger decision as well? Both terrible calls.

 

[Scotty]

You lot are quick to jump on the Saffer thug bandwagon and personal insult wont help the cause. The laws are clear on this and hopefull your Digby will learn his lesson.

How ironic, since you are the one that mentioned 'thug' first. If you can't handle responses along the same lines as your posts don't start it in the first place.

 

[What2040]

Facts: Digby lifted the bloke;
- bloke hit his shoulder
- no malice:
- Bloke takes a dive (should be playing poofball)

Digby very hard done by

 

[qwerty51]

Luke Braid just got banned 3 weeks for striking, watched the game did not see the incident, seems a little harsh must be the same judge

 

[Dan54]

So, 4 X the Cheetahs' 2 weeks for a 'serial offence' that happened 4 years back seems equitable and fair, does it?

I not saying it fair Reds, I not even saying I agree with how long he got, I just think everyone needs to calm down and remember
1 He is a repeat offender, and rules are ther for repeat offenders whether right or wrong Digby must know it.
2 What everyone is ignoring is that Digby pleaded GUILTY, in other words even he said he did something dangerous!!

The other thing as I said it happens at judiciary all thye time not just in Sanzar. I also think everyone unhappy because he is an Aus player. I am pissed off at Digby because as I support Reds his stupid behaviour has damaged teams chances!!

 

[Dan54]

Facts: Digby lifted the bloke;
- bloke hit his shoulder
- no malice:
- Bloke takes a dive (should be playing poofball)
-Digby drives player down

Digby very hard done by

lol fixed

 

[Dan54]

Luke Braid just got banned 3 weeks for striking, watched the game did not see the incident, seems a little harsh must be the same judge

Lets hear all the outrage about this, he got one week less than Digby for first offence

 

[Scarfman]

Well, for what it's worth I think that sentence is fair. Very clear tip tackle + history. Everyone here is arguing that other tip tackles were just as bad or worse, so I agree that the judiciary is inconsistent. But I think this was a dangerous tackle and deserves a ban of about that length.

 

[PaarlBok]

First articles coming in thick and fast now
Sport24

The 26-year-old admitted he was guilty of lifting Sharks loose forward Marcell Coetzee and failing to return him to the ground safely in the Reds' 27-22 defeat in Durban on Saturday.
SANZAR judicial officer Mike Heron said previous disciplinary matters relating to dangerous tackles in 2008 had counted against the New Zealand-born back.
Spear or tip tackling, where a player lifts an opponent into the air and returns them to the ground head first, is outlawed because of the potential for head injuries

There you got it, done that before and should take his pain.

 

[No4918]

Dan54, those 2 reasons are poor at best and the main complaint is the consistency where similar instances are not reported at all.

 

[RedsHappy]

Just BTW: I am on record as saying Diggers' tackle was utterly reckless (in itself and for the Reds'), and that of course he'd cop some weeks off the grass. Of course he'd plead guilty, it's 100% clear it's a demonstrated offence under the rules, he'd have asked for trouble to show no contrition and plead not guilty in this case.

 

[Scotty]

Well, for what it's worth I think that sentence is fair. Very clear tip tackle + history. Everyone here is arguing that other tip tackles were just as bad or worse, so I agree that the judiciary is inconsistent. But I think this was a dangerous tackle and deserves a ban of about that length.

You could argue that in isolation it is fair. I fail to see how you could argue it is fair in the context of the history of bans for this sort of tackle. (Which is surely the 'fairer' way to judge these things.)