• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Mealamu headbutt

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thomond78

Thomond78

Colin Windon (37)
Slightly more important, in the wider scheme is this.

Lorne Crerar, chief of the disciplinary system in Europe?

Well, yet again, the people he appoints don't know the fucking disciplinary regulations

IRB statement said:
The judicial officer (JO) appointed by the IRB, Professor Lorne D Crerar, upheld the citing complaint against player Keven Mealamu, the New Zealand hooker, namely that the player struck an opponent, England No 7 Lewis Moody, with his head, contrary to Law 10.4a. The JO determined that it was an intentional act of foul play.

The JO further determined a mid-range entry point in the IRB list of sanctions, namely eight weeks, but in the absence of aggravating factors together with compelling mitigating factors including the player's conduct at the hearing and his exemplary disciplinary record, reduced the suspension to four weeks. The player is accordingly suspended up to and including Saturday, 4 December, 2010. The player has the right of appeal.
Click to expand...

IRB Regulation 17.36.13 (b) said:
In cases involving offending that has been classified pursuant to Regulation 17.36.11 as lower end offending, where there are compelling on-field and/or off-field mitigating features and a complete absence of on-field and/or off-field aggravating features, Disciplinary Committees and Judicial Officers may apply sanctions less than the lower end entry sanctions specified in Appendix 1 and in this respect only, the lower end sanctions set out in Appendix 1 are not minimum sanctions.
Click to expand...

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17090730_8711.pdf

In other words; you can't reduce a sentence below the minimum if it's a mid-range offence. But they just did.

The IRB doesn't know its own regulations. The system is now, definitively, and provably, broken.
 
Scarfman

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
It would be folly to argue with a lawyer, but on the basis that I'll argue with any cnut, I'll say that I read those rules and I reckon the MINIMUM is 4 weeks, which is what he has got. 17.36.13 (b) says that you can go below absolute minimum (in this case, 4 weeks) if an only if it is initially assessed as a lower end offence. It wasn't, so they couldn't go lower than 4 weeks, which they didn't.

Your go.
 
Thomond78

Thomond78

Colin Windon (37)
Scarfman said:
It would be folly to argue with a lawyer, but on the basis that I'll argue with any cnut, I'll say that I read those rules and I reckon the MINIMUM is 4 weeks, which is what he has got. 17.36.13 (b) says that you can go below absolute minimum (in this case, 4 weeks) if an only if it is initially assessed as a lower end offence. It wasn't, so they couldn't go lower than 4 weeks, which they didn't.

Your go.
Click to expand...

Appendix 1, Scarfie, 10 (4) (a), mid-range entry for striking with the head is eight weeks.

And the only ones where they say you can go below the entry level as a minimum is in those cases of lower-end offences.

Meaning, as written, that if it's not lower end, then the entry level IS a minimum (inclusion unius, given that they're not trying to justify making up laws with retrospective effect in the NH and then sticking statutory interpretation terms in).

Which means eight weeks.

But they gave him four.

Something wrong.
 
Bullrush

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
I'd agree with Scarfman.

Seems to me that if there's a lower-end offense then the ban can be lower than the minimum of 4 weeks if the Judicial Officers decide as such.

If it's a mid-range than the minimum is 8 weeks UNLESS there are "compelling on-field and/or off-field mitigating features and a complete absence of on-field and/or off-field aggravating features". Then the Judicial Officers can hand out a lower ban BUT no lower than the minimum for a lower-end offence = 4 weeks.

Otherwise, if the minimum is 8 weeks regardless of the other factors, what's the point of bringing up the 'mitigating features' etc at all? It's 8 weeks regardless.
 
whatty

whatty

Bob Loudon (25)
I am fuming the way this ban is been reported in the kiwi media and some of the justification on "certain" one eyed forums in kiwiland as to he is such a good guy how dare you ban him for four weeks.

Other than the Stuff article apparently repeated in the SMH some acceptance has been forth coming to the ban but other than that the attitude of how dare you ban a AB nice guy we are the best in the world attitude he was just putting his chin in when tackling is just plane ridiculous.

Amongst this is the disgust that some have posted in reference to certain recent NH media articles written about the haka, not changing jerseys by the AB's at the end of the game and various other articles challanging the AB nice guy attitude as been just badly written and obviously unjustified and inaccurate journalisim.

Dam its hard living in this mostly fantastic country especially when the pointy chip on the shoulder of kiwi next to me keeps poking me in the eye.
 
stoff

stoff

Trevor Allan (34)
Not a lawyer but I do spend half my time reading contracts and I read that clause the same as T78. Can the penalty be increased during the ABs appeal?
 
barbarian

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
To be fair Whatty most of the Kiwis on the Fern think 4 weeks was a fair call. It is hard to argue otherwise after seeing the footage, which makes what the AB coaching staff are spouting all the more ridiculous.
 
disco

disco

Chilla Wilson (44)
barbarian said:
To be fair Whatty most of the Kiwis on the Fern think 4 weeks was a fair call. It is hard to argue otherwise after seeing the footage, which makes what the AB coaching staff are spouting all the more ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Hansen is a dick always has been always will be.
 
whatty

whatty

Bob Loudon (25)
barbarian said:
To be fair Whatty most of the Kiwis on the Fern think 4 weeks was a fair call. It is hard to argue otherwise after seeing the footage, which makes what the AB coaching staff are spouting all the more ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yea fair call.
 
H

Hodgy

Guest
funny isn't it, the Kiwi management are held up as the parragons of stiff upper lips and protectors of the game's image by never criticising refs etc when winning and everything is going for them, a loss to the aussies, a relatively poor performance against England, left without a decent hooker for the next game on tour and they come out with whingy crap like the rest of us. Hansen suggesting that 'but but Mealamu's a nice bloke' has rings of 'but Bakkies a Christian' to it.

I hope they extend the ban just because the appeal is frivolous and insulting to anyone with two eyes.
 
Scarfman

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Sorry T78, I don't believe that entry level and minumum level are the same thing. I'l stand my ground there. Not that I would ever want to argue that the iRB are competent.
 
JJJ

JJJ

Vay Wilson (31)
His suspension was reduced to 2 weeks. Crazy stuff. Saffers are gonna go apeshit.

The New Zealand hooker Keven Mealamu has had his four-week ban for striking the England captain, Lewis Moody, with his head reduced to two weeks on appeal.

Mealamu was given the four-week ban at a disciplinary hearing in Glasgow on Tuesday night.

The All Blacks' forwards coach, Steve Hansen, said Mealamu was "not a dirty player, he never has been" and added: "This is a case we'll go to the death on."

An International Rugby Board appeal committee chaired by South Africa's Peter Ingwersen met in Edinburgh today and determined that the incident had not been intentional. Mealamu will be able to return to action on Monday 22 November.

The 31-year-old, who has won 82 caps, will now miss tomorrow's match against Scotland at Murrayfield and the following weekend's fixture against Ireland at the Aviva Stadium. He will be available for the last match of the All Blacks' attempted grand slam tour, against Wales at the Millennium Stadium on 28 November.

The uncapped Hawke's Bay hooker Hika Elliott is now set to start against Scotland with the experienced Andrew Hore, from Taranaki, on the bench.

The All Blacks' head coach, Graham Henry, had selected Mealamu to face the Scots, regardless of his original ban. He said: "He's a very important part of our team. He's a top man, he's got very high personal standards – he sees himself as a role model for young people. He's a bit destroyed about what's happened."
Click to expand...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/nov/12/keven-mealamu-new-zealand-headbutt
 
Sandpit Fan

Sandpit Fan

Nev Cottrell (35)
Un-fucking-believable. It's now official, the All Blacks are above the laws of the game.

So now it seems that you can't yellow card them, penalise them, or give them the proper suspension for a gutless headbutt. Let's see, anything else standing in the way of a WC win? Pity they don't have enough confidence in their ability to play rugby, I'll have zero respect for them if they do win the WC after this effort.

SARU will be howling, and rightly so. What a joke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top