Disable your oppo!

[Slim 293]

Not long enough...

 

[MrTimms]

The part of the report that deals with HOW the judicial officer came up with the 32 weeks.

Sanction
12. I undertook an assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct.
a. The offending was intentional. The Player clearly intended to pull Hawkins’ arm backwards after the whistle had been blown so that the ball became available and his side could play the ball quickly. I accept that he did not intend to harm Hawkins or cause him injury. I come to that conclusion because the Player is not known as one who commits foul play, and by the way he presented and expressed himself at the hearing. He is not a thug and presented as a genuine young man who was prepared to, and accepted, responsibility for his actions and their consequences.
b. There was no provocation. The act was designed to remove an opponent from the ball.
c. The effect of the Player’s action on the victim were considerable. He caused him significant pain and fractured his elbow. This injury required surgery, will keep the victim out of the game for three months and may have long term effects (residual stiffness and degenerative arthritis).
d. Hawkins was very vulnerable – he was trapped beneath another body and was unable to anticipate the Player’s actions nor take any action to avoid the pain and subsequent injury.
e. The incident took about 2 seconds and there was no premeditation
f. There was no effect on the game.
g. The incident occurred after the referee had stopped play, and the Player knew that to be the case. He then applied force against an opponent so that his side could gain quick advantage. Taking this action after the whistle was blown is a pertinent feature of the Player’s conduct which constitutes the offending which makes it more serious, because it was not something that occurred during play when opponents might have been competing for the ball.
8. In those circumstances I assessed that this offence was high on the scale of seriousness, not least because the Player intentionally bent a vulnerable opponent’s arm backwards causing a very severe injury, and he did so after the referee had blown his whistle to stop play. In assessing it as serious I would like to stress that I accept that the Player is not malicious and did not intend to cause serious injury. Although he did intend to pull Hawkins’ arm backwards he did so in an attempt to move Hawkins away from the ball in his eagerness to maintain his side’s momentum. Nevertheless he was reckless in not taking greater care to avoid causing serious injury. This is a unique set of circumstances and so it would be meaningless to attempt to set Low End, Mid Range or Top End entry points – it is enough to say this is a serious matter. There is no guidance in the Recommended Sanctions for this offence and in those circumstances the appropriate sanction to be imposed is at the discretion of the Judicial Officer.
9. In exercising that discretion to determine the appropriate sanction I have considered the rationale behind the sanctioning process. On field discipline is based on at least three principles or tenets:
a. the protection of victim players from injury;
b. the protection of offending players from prosecution in the criminal courts (on the basis that provided a sport’s sanctions are sufficient the courts are less likely to intervene); and
c. the protection of the image of the Game.
10. In this case:
a. there has been a serious injury, and any sanction must demonstrate that players who commit foul play – particularly interference with an opponent after the referee has blown his whistle to stop play - which leads to significant injury will be punished severely
b. police intervention is unlikely as the Player did not have the requisite mens rea to have committed a criminal offence; and finally
c. this act looked dreadful and it had the potential to damage the image of the Game and undermine the core values of discipline, respect and sportsmanship.
11. In considering an entry point I have searched for precedents from the RFU and other jurisdictions to see if they can render any assistance. I was unable to find any. In those circumstances, the sanction is at large. Had there been any evidence that the Player intended to hurt an opponent (even if he did not mean to injure him) the appropriate entry point would have been in the order of five years’ suspension1. That is not the case here, so the entry point can be considerably lower. However, I do not agree with Mr Smith’s submission that the sanction should equate to the period of Hawkins injury. In my view that approach would be inadequate because it would not reflect the serious matters noted above. The Player must be suspended for a good deal longer than Hawkins is absent from the game to reflect the seriousness of the offending.
12. To a certain extent the entry point depends on my view of the offending and its effect on the Game, based on my rugby experience. It is certainly worse than the worst sort of punch which might attract a maximum suspension of 52 weeks, so it must be longer than that period. In calculating the entry point I have therefore taken that figure and added to it the length of time Hawkins is likely to be absent through injury – that is 12 weeks. In those circumstances I have determined that the entry point should be 64 weeks. This formula seems appropriate to reflect the importance of preserving the image of the game, acknowledging the injury and discomfort caused to Hawkins and the other factors noted which make this so serious, whilst taking account of all that has been said by the Player and on his behalf.
13. There are no aggravating features and all of the standard mitigating factors are present. The Player is genuinely contrite, he realises the damage done to an individual and to the wider image of the Game, he admitted culpability at the earliest opportunity and he undoubtedly wishes to make reparation for his offending. He is, therefore, entitled to 50% discount from that entry point which leads me to conclude that the appropriate sanction is a suspension of 32 weeks. Since this is a long sanction it will run continuously through the summer vacation without a break.
14. The Player is therefore suspended for 32 weeks from 22 March to 1 November 2012. He may play again on 2 November 2012.

 

[qwerty51]

wtf do these judicial officers not do any research?

I come to that conclusion because the Player is not known as one who commits foul play

 

[Slim 293]

Clark is an absolute disgrace...

The Saints should tear up his contract...

 

[Schadenfreude]

Clark is an absolute disgrace...

So is the judicial officer.

13. There are no aggravating features and all of the standard mitigating factors are present. The Player is genuinely contrite, he realises the damage done to an individual and to the wider image of the Game, he admitted culpability at the earliest opportunity and he undoubtedly wishes to make reparation for his offending. He is, therefore, entitled to 50% discount from that entry point

32 weeks off his ban for realising he couldn't get away with it and being sorry?

 

[Slim 293]

To quote the English commentary from the U20's video...

"What a disgrace"

 

[The Red Baron]

I'm all for players having a hard edge, but for fuck's sake, there is a boundary. When you purposely go out and attempt to maim someone in the most despicable of manners, then you do not deserve to be on the pitch.

That video from the under 20's was disgusting to watch. The incident in which he finally got carded was ugly. Purposely headbutting a player in the jaw, what a fucking coward. What makes it worse is that he looked totally confused as to why he got carded.

32 weeks is well and truly not enough time on the sidelines for this prick.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Quite agree. There is being hard and there is being filthy. This cretin is the latter. I remember once Peter Stirling said in commentary during a league game words to the effect of: "when you are a genuinely hard man, you don't have to go the dirt".

 

[AngrySeahorse]

He should not return as long as the person he hurt is still injured, & then I'd add a season off on to that. He should get help for his self control issues & if he still resorts to these arm locks, etc on return then he has learnt nothing & should be out of the game permanently.

I can forgive someone having a brain snap once in a while, I'm a bit of a hot head myself. We all get a rush of blood at times & do things we wish we hadn't - on the Rugby field its no different. However, putting a person in an arm bar or whatever its called seems like a whole other level of aggression to me. I don't see it as being on quite the same level as a punch up, pushes, mean words, etc between two people who have been niggling each other all game.

 

[Ash]

Don't have time to post now, but that explanation from the judiciary is all over the place - again.

 

[suckerforred]

This is discusting. One thing I will say - I hope we don't have to wait until someone has a broken neck for the 'head wrestle' to be banned out of the game. Can just see it coming. If (when) it does I am hoping that the words 'life ban' are used and no reduction for 'contrition' is considered.

 

[BPC]

I don't have too much trouble with the reasoning (I read worse every day) except for the 50% discount for mitigating features. Remorse and so on are pretty weak. A lot of people feel remorseful when caught. The main part of the discount seems to be for the early plea. I dislike this in theory although I understand the broader rationale in practice. But 50% (mainly) for an early plea is fair too generous. I think maybe 10% rising to 20% for genuine first time offenders would be enough.

Given Clark's past behaviour, and I notice he never squares up to a player but always attacks someone who is trapped and can't retaliate, 10% would have been enough giving him a suspension of 58 weeks.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I reckon if this blokes does make it back to the top level after suspension he's going to be a marked man. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him get his jaw broken the first time he even looks sideways at an opposition player.

 

[suckerforred]

I reckon if this blokes does make it back to the top level after suspension he's going to be a marked man. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him get his jaw broken the first time he even looks sideways at an opposition player.

Wonder if the judicary have ever banned a player for a length of time because they know the punishment that his opposition would hand out next meeting would be worse then anything they would come up with? Or is it just a quiet suggestion that he should not be selected?

 

[Schadenfreude]

Wonder if the judicary have ever banned a player for a length of time because they know the punishment that his opposition would hand out next meeting would be worse then anything they would come up with? Or is it just a quiet suggestion that he should not be selected?

That would make an equivelent amount of sense as their current methods.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Couldn't you just contract a judo master for one game, runs on, breaks an elbow banned (for not very long) but who cares?

Every team could hire one... just for the week he's going to play.

 

[Cave Dweller]

What happened to the old days of grabbing each other swing a few apples, shake hands and have a beer afterwards? Those days things like biting, pinching gouching, pulling hair and all those girly bathroom fighting techniques were not even seen in games. One of these days someone is going to stab another in the bottom of a ruck

 

[Thomond78]

The really fun part is this: Clark was born on the 10th of June, 1989. The U-20 RWC final in 2008 was on the 22nd of June, 2008. When he was sent off in the U-20 RWC final, he was 19.

Through his QC (Quade Cooper), he told the JO, Judge Jeff Blackett, that offence happened when he was 17, so it shouldn't count on his record.

The judge accepted that. And gave him 50% off the initial sentence, based largely on his having a clean record post-18.

He therefore got the benefit from a statement to the hearing made on his behalf and - one presumes - on his instructions which he knew or ought to have known was just not true.

I did it up - with some clips - here. http://rugbylaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/calum-clark-citing-decision.html

Make what you will of it: but I happen to be of the opinion that misleading a hearing like that is a rather serious state of affairs.

 

[Nusadan]

Can see from your post that your legal expertise is showing!

By the way, good to see you back here, T78...was wondering how you were after we met up at that Munster match before Xmas!

 

[Thomond78]

Can see from your post that your legal expertise is showing!

By the way, good to see you back here, T78...was wondering how you were after we met up at that Munster match before Xmas!

Yeah, well, what with the due date I couldn't tell you about then being in four weeks time, things have been a bit busy. And unlikely to get any less so any time soon...