Rebels v Drua

[LeCheese]

Curious as to whether the mitigating factors come out. No doubt his clean (I think?) record helped, but I do wonder if they were successful in arguing that the outcome wasn't the intent - to me it still looks like there's a chance Lomani was instinctively trying to break what he thought was Canham's bind, hence why his forearm hits Canham's back/shoulder. Doesn't change the end result, of course...

 

[Braveheart81]

Well any time there is a red card, you have normally heard the result by Tuesday lunch time. Not saying it might not have happened, but it does seem unusual.

Do we actually know that it was resolved on Monday night or did it get carried over to Tuesday?

I agree that it is highly unusual that if the matter was resolved on Monday night as usual that a media release wouldn't have come out yesterday.

I also think if it was decided on Monday night it would be very unlikely that things could have gone an entire day without it being leaked.

 

[Rebel man]

Curious as to whether the mitigating factors come out. No doubt his clean (I think?) record helped, but I do wonder if they were successful in arguing that the outcome wasn't the intent - to me it still looks like there's a chance Lomani was instinctively trying to break what he thought was Canham's bind, hence why his forearm hits Canham's back/shoulder. Doesn't change the end result, of course...

There should be no mitigation

 

[KevinO]

I am disappointed with 6 weeks, it goes against all the talk about player safety and well fare when you reduce punishments by nearly half the penalty.

 

[Braveheart81]

There should be no mitigation

The mitigation is pleading guilty, showing remorse and having a clean record.

I am disappointed with 6 weeks, it goes against all the talk about player safety and well fare when you reduce punishments by nearly half the penalty.

The system is set up to run that way.

It's all detailed in World Rugby Regulation 17.

Regulations | World Rugby

Information about the game's laws and regulations, including the World Rugby Laws app

www.world.rugby

If the penalty was going to be the final penalty then they would reduce the number of weeks at each level so I don't think the outcome changes.

 

[Tex]

Reckon 8 weeks is probably a reasonable reduction based on early guilty plea (bizarre carry-over from judicial systems where not guilty = much greater expense and use of resources, but that's an aside) and good behaviour.

The headbutt feels like a slap on the wrist, particularly when poor technique in tackles and cleanouts are routinely penalised strictly.

 

[Braveheart81]

The headbutt feels like a slap on the wrist, particularly when poor technique in tackles and cleanouts are routinely penalised strictly.

It was because it didn't connect.

I think the explanation for it was pretty reasonable.

“The FPRC deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point of 6 weeks primarily given that the Player and victim player were “head to head” prior to the incident, and that the Player’s head appears to have made limited contact with the head of the victim player and rather made contact with the chest area of the victim player. There was also no injury to the victim player.”

“The Foul Play Review Committed emphasised that had there been more forceful head contact made, the entry point may well have been higher than low-end.”

“The entry point for the offence is 6 weeks.”

“The Foul Play Review Committee applied a discount of 3 weeks for entering an early guilty plea (and other relevant mitigating factors including the Player’s otherwise unblemished disciplinary record), reducing the suspension from 6 weeks to 3 weeks.

Further, where a matter is determined to be low-end offending, there are off-field mitigating factors, and the sanction would be wholly disproportionate to the level and type of offending involved, a sanction below 50% of the sanction may apply. To that end, the Foul Play Review Committee considered a sanction of 3 weeks would have been wholly disproportionate to the level and type of offending involved, and applied a further reduction of 1 week to the sanction, resulting in a total sanction of 2 weeks.”

 

[Tex]

Yeah we're going to get stuck on the intent vs impact debate again.

I believe intent should be considered, and in this case, penalised more harshly.

 

[Braveheart81]

I believe intent should be considered, and in this case, penalised more harshly.

It is considered but it's only one of twelve factors included under 17.18 Assessment of seriousness of the Foul Play

 

[Rebel man]

The mitigation is pleading guilty, showing remorse and having a clean record.



The system is set up to run that way.

It's all detailed in World Rugby Regulation 17.

Regulations | World Rugby

Information about the game's laws and regulations, including the World Rugby Laws app

www.world.rugby

If the penalty was going to be the final penalty then they would reduce the number of weeks at each level so I don't think the outcome changes.

There should be no mitigation for intentional non rugby actions.

If it’s a tackle gone wrong and you get them high than sure

 

[Braveheart81]

There should be no mitigation for intentional non rugby actions.

If it’s a tackle gone wrong and you get them high than sure

Take it up with World Rugby.

The SANZAAR judiciary seems to have fairly reasonably applied the guidelines in the regulation.

Intent is one of twelve factors which goes to seriousness. If you use one aspect to say that the seriousness should be greater and then also use that factor to say that mitigation should not be available then you've applied that same criteria twice to increase the punishment.

Likewise you could also argue that the foul play sanctions for these deliberate actions are already considering the fact that they are intentional.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'd say both players were lucky to not have bigger bans

 

[Rebel man]

Take it up with World Rugby.

The SANZAAR judiciary seems to have fairly reasonably applied the guidelines in the regulation.

Intent is one of twelve factors which goes to seriousness. If you use one aspect to say that the seriousness should be greater and then also use that factor to say that mitigation should not be available then you've applied that same criteria twice to increase the punishment.

Likewise you could also argue that the foul play sanctions for these deliberate actions are already considering the fact that they are intentional.

It shows how poor the system is

 

[Slim 293]

Meh, seems fair under the guidelines...

 

[Braveheart81]

My broad take is that these sort of incidents are so rare in professional rugby that there is little onus for World Rugby to do a rewrite of the guidelines to change it.

There's no real need to try and change player behaviour by implementing harsher sanctions in relation to incidents this rare.

 

[Tex]

I see your logic but don't share it.

Quite the opposite: those acts of violence are so far removed from the norms of player behaviour that they warrant specific punitive penalties in and of themselves, not as some sort of collective disincentive to others.

Would like some more info on the “other relevant mitigating factors" that accompanied the early guilty plea.

 

[Slim 293]

I'm with LeCheese on this one regarding Lomani's intent...

Six weeks seems adequate when factoring in mitigation, and that's his season mostly done.

 

[Tex]

I've only read Christy's piece on The Roar and apart from an early plea, I haven't seen what mitigated it from 10 weeks to 6.

 

[Braveheart81]

Would like some more info on the “other relevant mitigating factors" that accompanied the early guilty plea.

Acknowledgement of committing the foul play, remorse and a good disciplinary record.

 

[Proud Pig]

This is really disappointing.
I don't care about the headbutt it was stupid but not particularly dangerous, 2 to 3 weeks for that seems fine.
Lomani on the other hand intentionally delivered the point of an elbow to the back of someone's head who was not in a position to defend himself. How you get away with 6 weeks for a non-Rugby violent act of this nature is simply beyond me.
You can get 6 weeks for a careless head high tackle and they have now aligned actions like this with someone tackling with poor technique.
In my opinion the rules of the judiciary need to change, intentional non-rugby acts should have no mitigation in the eyes of the judiciary and no leniency for an early guilty plea.