Round 14: Brumbies v Rebels Fri 24th 7.35PM @ GIO STADIUM

[Strewthcobber]

I thought he's had the opposite - he used to charge in like that all the time at the Reds & it used to shit me.

So unnecessary and lazy technique

Only "good" in the sense that he hasn't been suspended for it

 

[Strewthcobber]

Tupou gets away with a warning from the Foul Play Review committee

Rebels prop Taniela Tupou cleared to face Drua after dangerous cleanout citing

Melbourne Rebels prop Taniela Tupou has escaped with a red card warning after his dangerous cleanout during their defeat to the Brumbies.

www.rugby.com.au

"Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and additional evidence, including from the player and submissions from his legal representative, Harry Forrester, the Foul Play Review Committee found the foul play did not reach the Red Card threshold," they ruled.

"With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a Warning as it was close to, but did not reach the Red Card threshold.

“Fortunately, no head contact or significant injury resulted from the incident. Had there been head contact and/or a more severe injury, the outcome may well have been a different one for the Player.

It's good to see warnings being handed out by the process - there should be a lot more of them.

 

[Dctarget]

It'll be funny to see him rested for this match that he would have definitely 'played' if he were banned for a week thus counting towards his ban.

 

[blindsideflanker92]

Have been a Wright skeptic but liked what I saw tonight.

I was impressed aswell

 

[Slim 293]

It's funny, because I think Tupou got away with a similar cleanout on Jahrome Brown a couple of years ago... initially suspended but the Reds appealed and won.

 

[Highlander35]

So they've come away with an off-field yellow essentially?

I think that's fair enough, so long as the next incident has no allowances made.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Probably the right decision, but there seems to be a deficiency in the process. On most (I reckon every) occasion previously, the Judiciary has also obtained evidence from the "victim". That appears to not be the case here. I wonder how they assessed the level of injury to Swain?

 

[LeCheese]

On most (I reckon every) occasion previously, the Judiciary has also obtained evidence from the "victim". That appears to not be the case here. I wonder how they assessed the level of injury to Swain?

Do they? Genuine question as I don’t recall any that have mentioned they actively sought input from the person on the receiving end. I don’t even recall clearly objective injuries (eg Swain on Tupaea; concussions) getting a mention.

If we go down that path, we’re flying a bit close to adjudicating the outcome not the action imo.

 

[Wilson]

Do they? Genuine question as I don’t recall any that have mentioned they actively sought input from the person on the receiving end. I don’t even recall clearly objective injuries (eg Swain on Tupaea; concussions) getting a mention.

If we go down that path, we’re flying a bit close to adjudicating the outcome not the action imo.

It does happen, but I think more for actions like eye gouges where the video may not be as clear and there is a direct accusation being made.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Do they? Genuine question as I don’t recall any that have mentioned they actively sought input from the person on the receiving end. I don’t even recall clearly objective injuries (eg Swain on Tupaea; concussions) getting a mention.

If we go down that path, we’re flying a bit close to adjudicating the outcome not the action imo.

It looks to have gone that way already Cheese. I agree that outcome was not a consideration in past years but this year it seems to be an important consideration in all judiciary decisions.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It does happen, but I think more for actions like eye gouges where the video may not be as clear and there is a direct accusation being made.

Nah, many times the decision has made mention of supportive evidence by the fouled player being part of the mitigation against applying the maximum or higher level of sanction. It is not uncommon.

My concern in this case is that part of the mitigating circumstances quoted by the judiciary was the lack of severe injury sustained by Swain. If they didn't think to take evidence from Swain or perhaps a Brumbies medical official, how did they arrive at that conclusion.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Nah, many times the decision has made mention of supportive evidence by the fouled player being part of the mitigation against applying the maximum or higher level of sanction. It is not uncommon.

My concern in this case is that part of the mitigating circumstances quoted by the judiciary was the lack of severe injury sustained by Swain. If they didn't think to take evidence from Swain or perhaps a Brumbies medical official, how did they arrive at that conclusion.

Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence BR. We don't know what questions were asked of anybody.

Technically no mitigation was applied at all, at least "mitigation" as it applies to reducing suspension lengths