Digby banned for five weeks

[Linebacker_41]

Been reading some of the tweets from a couple of different players including players outside of the Reds.

Given that Digby got fined last year for criticising officialdom last year, I would not be surprised if a few more players receive similar attention from SANZAR.

Freedom of speech is alive and well in Australia, unless you are a professional sportsperson.

 

[Braveheart81]

Freedom of speech is alive and well in Australia, unless you are a professional sportsperson.

I disagree with this. I think the players should keep their mouths shut or if they want to say something, say it in private.

They are attacking the very organisation that pays their salary. If they want to take a public crack at SANZAR, they should expect the repercussions.

 

[redstragic]

I disagree with this. I think the players should keep their mouths shut or if they want to say something, say it in private.

They are attacking the very organisation that pays their salary. If they want to take a public crack at SANZAR, they should expect the repercussions.

Twitter is intimate, personal chat with the whole planet at once. I think it is tough to remember this in the heat of the moment. I hope SANZAR don't take offense.

 

[Linebacker_41]

Twitter is intimate, personal chat with the whole planet at once. I think it is tough to remember this in the heat of the moment. I hope SANZAR don't take offense.

Tragic - I do hope common sense prevails but I do not think this will be the case as SANZAR seem to be very protective of their reputation . Mind you what I have read so far is not nearly as bad as Digby's tweet from last year.

 

[Da Munch]

For comparison, I have added the Strauss tackle.

Adding the Ranger one (which at the time I thought 2 weeks ridiculous, considering how dangerous it was and that it was two offenses, now ...):

Inconsistency alive and well in SANZAR! the youtube comment also says "again" in the title, so I can only assume he has priors as Digby does

 

[Troy]

How long does an appeal take? Have they lodged one yet?

I'm guessing best case scenario would be to get the sentence reduced ..

 

[Sully]

no appeal. They're gonna take the punishment.

 

[Troy]

no appeal. They're gonna take the punishment.

That sux! Would have liked him back for the Stormers game

 

[BPC]

All of SANZAR judiciary should be objective, with clear gradings or ratings for each piece of foul play, with clear video examples of what each grading is. Each rating or grading should have a base penalty. Additions or subtractions should be well defined and obviously calculable.

I fail to see how the SANZAR, which handles a couple of cases a week for a few months of the year, can achieve this holy grail which no western legal system, dealing with hundreds or thousands of criminal cases a week all year, has achieved in the last few hundred years.

Judges, whether on the bench, a tribunal or a sports judiciary, are human. Subjectively is inherent in the process. Consistency is an ideal, and while the SANZAR judiciary could arguably do better, its best not to expect the unrealistic.

 

[Scoey]

I fail to see how the SANZAR, which handles a couple of cases a week for a few months of the year, can achieve this holy grail which no western legal system, dealing with hundreds or thousands of criminal cases a week all year, has achieved in the last few hundred years...

I think that one of the big differences is that the SANZAR judiciary system shouldn't be seen as a "legal system". SANZAR and Super Rugby is a business. A business with numerous vested interests. Any international business the size of this should have clear and transparent procedures for dealing with almost every aspect of thier business and for this reason, SANZAR need to do better in this department. The fact that the system is so subjective is evidence of this fact.

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

 

[twenty seven]

Appealed immediatley but original ban stands.

 

[twenty seven]

Tackles are bound to go wrong at times. Some hit them with malice and some just go wrong. The unfortunate thing is that you only have splits of a second to try and correct. 2008 is many rugby games ago and that much of a break is a positive not a negative. His style of playing does not indicate an aggressive player with malice, just a hard hitting and powerful player who loves running the ball.
Pardon my ignorance but is it just one man who decides the fate of a player or is it a committee of people from the differing countries involved in the competition?

 

[ACT Crusader]

I think that one of the big differences is that the SANZAR judiciary system shouldn't be seen as a "legal system". SANZAR and Super Rugby is a business. A business with numerous vested interests. Any international business the size of this should have clear and transparent procedures for dealing with almost every aspect of thier business and for this reason, SANZAR need to do better in this department. The fact that the system is so subjective is evidence of this fact.

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

I don't understand what part of the process is not clear and transparent that isn't comparable to what a business would experience. Businesses have workplace policy and contracts of employment, but even an incident occurs, they are dealt with subjectively.

Lets say the tackle is comprable to a discretion by an employee. So the employee does something a manager (referee/citing comm.) doesn't like, they initiatie the procedure of dealing with this - meet together, discuss the issue and disciplinary action is taken. And in some cases requires tribunal/court arbitrary processes to be called on.

I think the current system is very much designed on a bussiness dispute settlement model.

 

[Dan54]

Well, you can see in here how you can't win with even the small number of people here not agreeing with what is correct for offence.

 

[Scotty]

I don't understand what part of the process is not clear and transparent that isn't comparable to what a business would experience. Businesses have workplace policy and contracts of employment, but even an incident occurs, they are dealt with subjectively.

Lets say the tackle is comprable to a discretion by an employee. So the employee does something a manager (referee/citing comm.) doesn't like, they initiatie the procedure of dealing with this - meet together, discuss the issue and disciplinary action is taken. And in some cases requires tribunal/court arbitrary processes to be called on.

I think the current system is very much designed on a bussiness dispute settlement model.

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.

 

[Ash]

Well, you can see in here how you can't win with even the small number of people here not agreeing with what is correct for offence.

I don't get it - so you are saying the inconsistencies aren't glaring? You are saying the inconsistencies, if they exist, aren't more easily rectified by having video evidence for difference levels (say, low, mid, and high, which SANZAR do try to clarify events as)?

The NRL system is a lot better, and stands up to much better scrutiny. NRL clubs hire SCs to argue the cases and look carefully over videos for similar rulings for different cases, so the system has to be, at least, fairly consistent. So it is definitely doable. SANZAR has something like 16 years of pro-super rugby to get video samples from to grade offences, and more if it wants to use other comps and international rugby as well.

It's just that SupeRugby is years behind the NRL and AFL, to use some Aus examples, for citing and punishing illegal play.

The whole "too hard" argument for SANZAR isn't an excuse. The whole system is a balls up of inconsistencies, from the Ranger decision to Ioane to Strauss.

It's not about us agreeing. It should be SANZAR have a set of guidelines and clear examples of what makes each grade for an offence, which they clearly don't have, or a better set of rules to punish people.

And I don't think that Digby deserves 5 weeks. But damnit, if you're suspending someone for 5 weeks, a bye or weeks without rugby should not count. Just another silly little quirk from a whole system that is broken.

 

[Ash]

I fail to see how the SANZAR, which handles a couple of cases a week for a few months of the year, can achieve this holy grail which no western legal system, dealing with hundreds or thousands of criminal cases a week all year, has achieved in the last few hundred years.

Judges, whether on the bench, a tribunal or a sports judiciary, are human. Subjectively is inherent in the process. Consistency is an ideal, and while the SANZAR judiciary could arguably do better, its best not to expect the unrealistic.

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.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

What aspect of the NRL judicial system do you want SANZAR to adopt? I'm confused. They do grade offences, that's why the reports talk about things like the "entry sanction" which for a dangerous tackle I think is 3 weeks.


edit: found this in about 1 minute, table towards end of document: http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17a4_874.pdf

 

[Scotty]

So you don't agree that the nrl system seems to work better?

 

[Braveheart81]

On the whole it probably does because they deal with a lot more charges so it averages out better.

I would say that the NRL system causes just about as many discrepancies though. They have lots of gradings and different points for each grade of each offence.

The problem is that the difference between the gradings is not cut and dry and arguably there are almost as many complaints about trying to get charges downgraded.

I think the biggest problem with the SANZAR judiciary is that some very similar offenses don't get charged whilst others get harsh suspensions.