MrTimms
Ken Catchpole (46)
Late to this, on my way through the thread now, but it was the same judge.
Digby banned for five weeks
- Thread starter barbarian
- Start date
- Status
Late to this, on my way through the thread now, but it was the same judge.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Looks like Digby's bad record of spear tackles made it a 5 week ban.
edit: It's a 4 game ban, not 5 game (as i first thought). So he is really only 1 game past the entry point in this case.
edit: It's a 4 game ban, not 5 game (as i first thought). So he is really only 1 game past the entry point in this case.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
True, reading through the report now and picking up details.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
You must believe in the tooth fairy.
Troy
Jim Clark (26)
Agreed - anything to give their teams a leg up!
MrMouse
Bob Loudon (25)
Now THAT was a spear tackle!!!
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
The other genuinely unacceptable consequence of this laughable 'judiciary system' is this: the team that cops the more brutal headmaster's discretion (vs the more amenable headmaster who sees the offence differently), could very possibly have its whole S15 comp prospects negatively prejudiced by the inconsistent ban that's the long one.
Obviously, to have a player of Diggers' calibre out for 5 weeks, vs the 'other unexplained banning norms' of 2 or so weeks, could impact on the Reds' S15 prospects, not certainly, but it's likely. How can this be equitable or decent unless the banning system is rigorously consistent and transparent in advance of any offence? How does it inspire confidence in the senior reaches of code management in SANZAR?
Just one of 20 good reasons why this current SANZAR 'judiciary system' is a disgrace for a supposedly elite international sporting body representing a global football code in the SH.
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
I think there are some very unrealistic expectations of the citing and judiciary system coming through some of the posts. What is the "consistency" that some are calling loudly for?
Things get missed. Incidents are overlooked. Bans are different lengths. Some players seem to get off scot free. All these facets in my view are a feature of and consistent with many of the judicial systems across society. Things are judged on the individual merit of the case. And some imperfect humans are making those calls.
On a personal level I can't say I've ever got worked up over the whole citing and judicial systems part of the game. It seems pointless, much like trying to 'explain' civil penalties or sentencing in the legal system.
But I think players that lift an opposition player in any manner almost leaves their fate in the hands of the ref/citing commissioners. What I like in rugby is that the majority of players seem to be able to play 80 minutes without resorting to this and would rather have their fate in their own hands.
Things get missed. Incidents are overlooked. Bans are different lengths. Some players seem to get off scot free. All these facets in my view are a feature of and consistent with many of the judicial systems across society. Things are judged on the individual merit of the case. And some imperfect humans are making those calls.
On a personal level I can't say I've ever got worked up over the whole citing and judicial systems part of the game. It seems pointless, much like trying to 'explain' civil penalties or sentencing in the legal system.
But I think players that lift an opposition player in any manner almost leaves their fate in the hands of the ref/citing commissioners. What I like in rugby is that the majority of players seem to be able to play 80 minutes without resorting to this and would rather have their fate in their own hands.
W
Waylon
Guest
After he lifted him, there was a moment where he could have let him down gently.......but he made a clear decision to drive him. He didn't drive him on his head. Two weeks tops. The game has become ridiculously soft
meatsack
Ward Prentice (10)
After you lift someone, there isn't really a point you can 'clearly' decide to do anything. The momentum is already applied.
There are ball runners who try and bust through tackles (like Digby); with those attackers, you have to take leg drive out of the tackle or have another defender close by to finish them off. If you don't take them head on, you run a risk of getting palmed off. So maybe Digby was in that mindset.
The main misread in my opinion is that the Shork got a hospital pass. Digby read the play and thought the Shork would catch the ball and get low to take the hit. He wasn't able to, so what would have been a great hit, got turned into a hospital hit. Pause at around 14 seconds in the first Digby video. 6 catches it on his cheek due to his own players pass, Digby is still shuffling across, not even lining him up properly yet. Yeah he drives up, because he's anticipating a lower player and just wants to put him on his back for a pilfer....
PaarlBok
Rod McCall (65)
Why would he have pleaded guilty if he was on your mindset?
meatsack
Ward Prentice (10)
I said earlier, he was guilty of lifting in a reckless manor. It wasn't malicious though, and thats what I'm arguing against. Yeah 2-3 weeks; and he couldn't plead not guilty, he clearly lifted. I'm just pointing out, if you're lining up for a good hit on a guy trying to bust the line, you want to lift a little to stop their drive. If the attacker becomes wrong footed at the last instant because of a bad pass it can go wrong, but it isn't malicious.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
The problem is in the gradings and the big differentials in base penalties. Should be on a closer sliding scale which also accomodates mitigation for remorse. For consistency with other cases, Ioane probably should have got about 3 weeks (perhaps increased to 4 for prior form and for an early plea set at 3 weeks). The disciplinary process is too opaque:
- Van Heerden lifted and driven back, tipped beyond horizontal and brought to ground on his head, being dropped in the tackle by Strauss. Yellow card and rated at 3 weeks for Strauss. Due to a guilty plea and remorse, reduced to a 2 week ban.
- Coetzee lifted and driven back in the tackle, tipped beyond horizontal and brought to ground on his back, being held in the tackle by Ioane. Yellow card and rated at 6 weeks for Ioane. For previous suspension and deterrence, increased to 8 weeks. Due to a guilty plea and remorse, reduced to a 5 week ban.
- Ashley-Cooper lifted and driven back, tipped beyond horizontal and brought to ground on his back, being dropped in the tackle by Poki. No penalty for Poki.
Click to view full size.
- Van Heerden lifted and driven back, tipped beyond horizontal and brought to ground on his head, being dropped in the tackle by Strauss. Yellow card and rated at 3 weeks for Strauss. Due to a guilty plea and remorse, reduced to a 2 week ban.
- Coetzee lifted and driven back in the tackle, tipped beyond horizontal and brought to ground on his back, being held in the tackle by Ioane. Yellow card and rated at 6 weeks for Ioane. For previous suspension and deterrence, increased to 8 weeks. Due to a guilty plea and remorse, reduced to a 5 week ban.
- Ashley-Cooper lifted and driven back, tipped beyond horizontal and brought to ground on his back, being dropped in the tackle by Poki. No penalty for Poki.
Click to view full size.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
You call that a spear tackle? This is a spear tackle:
Torn Hammy
Johnnie Wallace (23)
The controversy over this tackle is a reflection of poor direction, administration and follow up by the IRB.
Us punters wonder how the inconsistent decisions by referees and judiciaries can be tolerated, but the answer is simple. These days nearly all top positions in major sports bodies are taken by very politically savvy individuals. Look at soccer, cricket and the olympics. These guys have all been to the Sepp Blatter School of Sports Management where the mantra of "do nothing and you piss off no-one" is drummed into them. When money, glory or trophies are to be handed out these guys will fight for centre stage, but they will always hide in their ensuites when their kahunas are required.
Directing, administrating and following up is easy. You just have to want to do it.
Us punters wonder how the inconsistent decisions by referees and judiciaries can be tolerated, but the answer is simple. These days nearly all top positions in major sports bodies are taken by very politically savvy individuals. Look at soccer, cricket and the olympics. These guys have all been to the Sepp Blatter School of Sports Management where the mantra of "do nothing and you piss off no-one" is drummed into them. When money, glory or trophies are to be handed out these guys will fight for centre stage, but they will always hide in their ensuites when their kahunas are required.
Directing, administrating and following up is easy. You just have to want to do it.
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
The big problem with the game currently is that it is seen as a professional sport. This is only partially true, players and coaches at the top level are professional and to a lesser extent so are refs.
But those on these panel, in the IRB and in national associations still have the amateur mind set. Paying someone to do something doesn't automatically make them professional especially if they continue to do things the same old way as before they were paid. There needs to be a second wave of professionalism in our sport, but this time off the field.
But those on these panel, in the IRB and in national associations still have the amateur mind set. Paying someone to do something doesn't automatically make them professional especially if they continue to do things the same old way as before they were paid. There needs to be a second wave of professionalism in our sport, but this time off the field.
L
Linebacker_41
Guest
I know I have been critical earlier in the week on another thread.
After seeing the Laulala tackles there is one consistency and comes from what was the common coaching techniques a few years back. I know I was taught to scoop the leg.
If you look at Diggers elbow it points towards the sky on both the past tackle (Laulala) and the latest tackle (Coetzee). When you add leg drive as all rugby players are taught in combination with scooping of the leg the elbow goes skyward the person is tipped past the horizontal and we have the result that we have.
I still hate this rule by the iRB, I understand the intention and there have been some good posts on here to make me soften my initial comments in that we need to use the elite game to drive the results we want at the bottom end of the sport.
After seeing the Laulala tackles there is one consistency and comes from what was the common coaching techniques a few years back. I know I was taught to scoop the leg.
If you look at Diggers elbow it points towards the sky on both the past tackle (Laulala) and the latest tackle (Coetzee). When you add leg drive as all rugby players are taught in combination with scooping of the leg the elbow goes skyward the person is tipped past the horizontal and we have the result that we have.
I still hate this rule by the iRB, I understand the intention and there have been some good posts on here to make me soften my initial comments in that we need to use the elite game to drive the results we want at the bottom end of the sport.
- Status