Digby banned for five weeks

[Cave Dweller]

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

Question: I have just watched the Cheetahs vs Bulls game for my Tuesday evening entertainment!

Craig has been very candid with his recent duty ref offerings!

I wonder whether when he had seen the video of the Blue 9 tip tackle whether he felt red was harsh? I know you must bring a player to ground safely if you pick his legs off the floor you mustn't drive or drop but does not the action of the white player twisting himself to present the ball to his players make the deed look worse? thoroughly enjoyed the feisty game and thought as always cool calm and collected man in the middle!!!

Stu Berry: Hi John, thanks for your mail. I was assistant referee for Craig at that game, and we've chatted about that incident. The law, as it currently stands, says that if you pick a player up off his feet, and he falls in a dangerous manner in which his head/shoulders make contact with the ground before the rest of his body, then it needs to be a red card. No requirement anymore for a twist or a drive. We all felt that it was a red card post game again, and the judiciary vindicated this by providing a one-week suspension.

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2854824.htm

 

[Dan54]

Every year I hear complaints about NRL decisions, I don't follow the game so can't comment much. Just lets say I hear a lot of complaints on radio and TV every year about how biased the NRL judiciary is, so don't see it any better.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

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

I'm not that familiar with it, but it seems to work alright for NRL because the comp revolves around 2 states. The SuperXV is over 3 countries so gathering everyone who was reported in a conferences room every week (like NRL) is pretty much out of the question.

We could probably take some stuff on board from them. Maybe having a panel of judges in the conference call instead of one (if that will result in different decisions being made)?

Anyway, I don't mind the current system and think this hysteria is over the top. But as we've seen SANZAR wont hesitate to trial ideas so maybe in the future they'll adopt new policies in the future.

 

[RedsHappy]

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.

There is one thing I have learnt above all else in my time on these boards Ash: there is a vast body of rugby followers whom have convinced themselves or become convinced that the game and its status quo leaders are more or less as good as they could be, and that no management class or group sitting over it should be held to account for anything, as though the whole game is on a golden autopilot governed by a benevolent god that will always ensure the best possible outcomes for all, and that the way it is, is pretty much as good as it could be. And so, to critique what is there ruling over all the outcomes on the field of play, be it coaches, "judiciaries", CEOs or whatever, is dangerously destabilising or disloyal, and so not a good thing at all.

 

[Slim 293]

Every year I hear complaints about NRL Super Rugby decisions, I don't follow the game so can't comment much. Just lets say I hear a lot of complaints on radio and TV every year about how biased the NRL Super Rugby judiciary is, so don't see it any better.

I don't care much for that other game... but their judiciary system with its set guidelines is without question better than our current lottery.

 

[No4918]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...dangerous-tackle/story-e6frf4qu-1226306206730

Should i be worried i agree with most of this?
Really am surprised they are not appealing.

 

[Slim 293]

Nah, just more rubbish from Greg Martin...

It was clearly a dangerous tackle... And I think he'll find that even in the NRL players are penalized for lifting somebody past the horizontal...

 

[Bardon]

Pretty sure you can't appeal when the ban has been reduced due to the player admitting the offence early in the process.

Article was very biased and not really helped by the quotes to back up his opinion both coming from League players, one of which freely admitted his ignornace of the laws of Rugby.

 

[kiap]

Pretty sure you can't appeal when the ban has been reduced due to the player admitting the offence early in the process.

No, an appeal against sanction and/or cost order can be made regardless of an appeal against the decision itself.

 

[suckerforred]

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.

 

[Braveheart81]

It would seem that the biggest flaw with this process from SANZAR is the lack of a match review committee (or if they have one, they're not doing their job properly).

All the games should be rewatched afterwards and incidents like these all need to be addressed. It can't be left to a situation where some go unpunished and some get severely punished. The fact that Kade Poki was neither penalised nor suspended afterwards for his tackle on AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is stupid. You can't have a situation where if an incident goes unpunished during a game it also goes unpunished afterwards whereas Ioane got punished during the game and afterwards for a very similar incident.

 

[cyclopath]

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.

 

[suckerforred]

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?
.

But the Polki incident has shown that the ref does not necessarily go for a card when there is an incident that requires 'reviewing' so I don't think that it should only include those incidences that have attrached an on field sanction.

Otherwise I agree with everything that you have said Cyclo.

Does anyone have any data on the use of the white card so far? i.e. how many (I think there have onle been 2-3) and which ref's. I am guessing Bryce has not been one of them, but that is my bis showing.

 

[Cave Dweller]

It would seem that the biggest flaw with this process from SANZAR is the lack of a match review committee (or if they have one, they're not doing their job properly).

All the games should be rewatched afterwards and incidents like these all need to be addressed. It can't be left to a situation where some go unpunished and some get severely punished. The fact that Kade Poki was neither penalised nor suspended afterwards for his tackle on AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is stupid. You can't have a situation where if an incident goes unpunished during a game it also goes unpunished afterwards whereas Ioane got punished during the game and afterwards for a very similar incident.

This is from here

1. Citing Commissioners - Who are they and what do they do?
Citing Commissioners must have appropriate rugby experience and are required to act independently of match officials.
The Citing Commissioner has, with limited exceptions, 12 hours from the end of the match to cite a player.
The Citing Commissioner has the power to cite any player for an act of illegal or foul play which, in the opinion of the Citing Commissioner, warranted the player concerned being sent off. Therefore, if a citing commissioner is of the opinion that a referee would have red carded a player, he has to cite the player. It is important to note that all acts of foul play therefore do not necessarily result in a citing.
A Citing Commissioner may cite a player even if the referee saw the incident and decided either not to act, or to warn the player, or to give the a penalty, or a yellow card and in the circumstances the Citing Commissioner, in his opinion the transgression warranted a red card
Unions or teams cannot cite an opposing player, but the Union or other affiliated body responsible for the management of either participating team may refer an incident to the Citing Commissioner for consideration within four hours of the conclusion of the match.
The Citing Commissioner's decision as to whether or not to cite a player is final.

2. Disciplinary Committees - Who are they and what do they do?
Each of the three SANZAR Unions is responsible for appointing a Disciplinary Committee for each Super 14 match played in their country.
Each Disciplinary Committee consists of three members and is chaired by a senior legal practitioner experienced in rugby disciplinary hearings. The make-up of the Disciplinary Committee is determined in advance of matches.
Decisions of the Disciplinary Committee are made in private and based on simple majority (members can not abstain).

3. The Hearing - What happens?
A hearing will be convened before a Disciplinary Committee if a player is red-carded by the match referee, cited by the Citing Commissioner or receives three yellow cards in the Super 14 competition.
Players are entitled to attend hearings which are generally held in the country where the match was played, although consideration may be given to have he hearing in another country taking into account e.g. procedural fairness, player travel schedules, etc.
Players are entitled to legal representation and are provided with sufficient opportunity to consider the available evidence prior to the hearing.
In the case of an ordering off, the Disciplinary Committee will consider the circumstances of the case and determine what further sanction, if any, should be imposed on the player.
In the case of a citing, the Disciplinary Committee will review the case and determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the player committed the acts of illegal and/or foul play alleged.
A Disciplinary Committee will not make a finding contrary to a referee's decision unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, the referee's reasons for his decision are wrong.

4. Penalties
SANZAR is bound by IRB's Regulation 17 which sets out a schedule of penalties.
In considering penalty, the Disciplinary Committee must decide if the nature of the offence is at the low, mid-range or high end of the scale of offences set out in the IRB Regulations.
That decision will determine the "entry point" in terms of the length of suspension which can then be increased or decreased according to the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors.
Mitigating factors could include a player's good record and character, provocation, remorse, etc.
Aggravating factors could include the player being classified as a persistent offender of the laws of the game, lack of remorse, the need for a deterrent to combat a pattern of offending, premeditated behaviour, injuries.

5. Appeals
Players have the right of appeal to an independent SANZAR Appeal Committee. That right to appeal is an important part of rugby's judicial process and completes the chain of natural justice.
The Appeal Committee for the Super 14 competition comprises one appointee from each of Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.
Except in cases where the Appeal Committee decides exceptional circumstances exist to warrant conducting a fresh hearing, the player has the burden of proving the decision being challenged should be overturned or varied.
The Appeal Committee has the power to dismiss, quash, or vary the Disciplinary Committee's decision and/or penalty. It also has the power to take what steps it deems necessary to deal justly with the appeal.

6. Consistency of SANZAR Judicial Decisions
While the media and public may at times express concerns over the consistency of judicial decisions, it is important to note that every case is different and is treated according to its merits.
Disciplinary Committees consider in detail all the evidence and submissions put forward by a player. This may include video evidence, evidence from a player/s, evidence from the referee and/or touch judges, medical evidence and legal submissions.
Having considered all the evidence relating to the particular offending and the circumstances of the offender, the Disciplinary Committee imposes in every case what it believes is a fair and proportionate penalty in accordance with the rules.
At the conclusion of the Super 14 season, SANZAR will undertake a comprehensive review of the tournament in which all aspects of the judicial process are reviewed.

 

[Braveheart81]

That to me seems silly.

So yellow card offences can get suspended for 5 weeks with an early guilty plea (i.e. Diggers) yet a similar tackle can't be cited by the Citing Commissioner because it was possibly only a yellow card offence that was missed completely and not a red card offence.

If you can be suspended for non red card offences, why can't you be cited for the ones that are missed?

 

[Proud Pig]

The stupidest part of this is that he gets a 5-week suspension but due to pure luck the reds have a bye during that time so it is only 4 games. Does that mean that if this had been the last game of the season his 5 weeks could be served by the pool while the reds were on a holiday? It could make the last round a free for all for the sides not in the finals as they have no repercussions.

 

[Bullrush]

When so many of you think that the NRL judiciary does such a good job, it's obvious you really don't watch or follow the sport at all. Do you know how many times Kiwis have complained about inconsistencies in rulings when NZ players got banned just before ANZAC Tests while seemingly similar or worse incidents by Aussie players were over looked? And just read what some leagies are saying about their judiciary right now:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/03/21/hasler-wants-clarity-on-head-shot-ruling/

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/bre...ciary-needs-fixing-toovey-20120321-1viwa.html

I agree that the 5 weeks seems a bit harsh but do we have to wait till someone is seriously injured or finishes their career before we decide to go hard?

 

[Cave Dweller]

That to me seems silly.

So yellow card offences can get suspended for 5 weeks with an early guilty plea (i.e. Diggers) yet a similar tackle can't be cited by the Citing Commissioner because it was possibly only a yellow card offence that was missed completely and not a red card offence.

If you can be suspended for non red card offences, why can't you be cited for the ones that are missed?

From the above

A Citing Commissioner may cite a player even if the referee saw the incident and decided either not to act, or to warn the player, or to give the a penalty, or a yellow card and in the circumstances the Citing Commissioner, in his opinion the transgression warranted a red card
Unions or teams cannot cite an opposing player, but the Union or other affiliated body responsible for the management of either participating team may refer an incident to the Citing Commissioner for consideration within four hours of the conclusion of the match.
The Citing Commissioner's decision as to whether or not to cite a player is final.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

That to me seems silly.

So yellow card offences can get suspended for 5 weeks with an early guilty plea (i.e. Diggers) yet a similar tackle can't be cited by the Citing Commissioner because it was possibly only a yellow card offence that was missed completely and not a red card offence.

If you can be suspended for non red card offences, why can't you be cited for the ones that are missed?

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)

 

[Bullrush]

d54, you can clearly see that it's not intentional that Diggers 'comes down on top of player', he just sort of slips backwards a tad and then is out of control of his stance, and then falls forward as he's awkwardly trying also to reduce the severity of the tackled player's fall, no way that 'falling on' appears deliberate, or readily avoidable.

Note: the ref's and linesman call was 'not putting a player down safely'.

I can't help but chuckle over this......the old 'I slipped sir' defense...LMAO

And for those calling for 'justice4digby' armbands, I think it would be more appropriate to wear 'justice4ashley-cooper' armbands.

Digby is guilty.