Bledisloe 1
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
-
@taniwharugby said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo happened in aus so you'd think it would be under Aus jurisdiction and i am pretty sure ACC doesn't usually cover you for injury outside nz.
Plus, they probably arent covered by acc anyway and have private insurance for these guys...but you'd wonder if the insurers start looking at incidents like this and the right to attempt recovery when clearly goes beyond accidental.
Thanjs Taniwha. I did wonder, but also wondered if he may come under ACC as was working for a NZ employer.
Thinking further. If hypothetically an incident happens and the injured party does sue, does the employing sporting body cover the party being sued as an employee? should players have their own insurance? Would party be covered if party has been determined to have acted illegally?
I know this is conjecture ...
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
If hypothetically an incident happens and the injured party does sue, does the employing sporting body cover the party being sued as an employee?
Would suggest contract rules this out in one of the many and varied clauses i.e. if you lose income because you did stuff contrary to the Laws of the game, you're on your own.
-
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agreed. I don't think one can bring in the career-ending criterion, season-ending might be enough (or more than enough). Above all there needs to be a way to demonstrate consistency internationally.
-
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
If hypothetically an incident happens and the injured party does sue, does the employing sporting body cover the party being sued as an employee?
Would suggest contract rules this out in one of the many and varied clauses i.e. if you lose income because you did stuff contrary to the Laws of the game, you're on your own.
-
@mikedogz said in Bledisloe 1:
If Tupaea's injury was career ending, could he take Swain to court? I remember reading about a couple of ex league players in court.
This thought had occurred. It is to my mind seriously career threatening.
Wonder if he is hamstrung by ACC laws in NZ? Could he sue in another country?
P.S. am not an advocate for matching the ban to the time out. Just can't really work like that.
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
@mikedogz said in Bledisloe 1:
If Tupaea's injury was career ending, could he take Swain to court? I remember reading about a couple of ex league players in court.
This thought had occurred. It is to my mind seriously career threatening.
Wonder if he is hamstrung by ACC laws in NZ? Could he sue in another country?
P.S. am not an advocate for matching the ban to the time out. Just can't really work like that.
NZ Players are covered under the RPA contract which I assume has backup insurance. I don't think there is a 'career ending' payout, I think it is something like ACC in that you receive a % of salary for up to 2 years. (I could look it up but can't be bothered)
Probably not worth insurers chasing as they are likely to be chasing themselves in Australasia I think. -
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
@mikedogz said in Bledisloe 1:
If Tupaea's injury was career ending, could he take Swain to court? I remember reading about a couple of ex league players in court.
This thought had occurred. It is to my mind seriously career threatening.
Wonder if he is hamstrung by ACC laws in NZ? Could he sue in another country?
P.S. am not an advocate for matching the ban to the time out. Just can't really work like that.
NZ Players are covered under the RPA contract which I assume has backup insurance. I don't think there is a 'career ending' payout, I think it is something like ACC in that you receive a % of salary for up to 2 years. (I could look it up but can't be bothered)
Probably not worth insurers chasing as they are likely to be chasing themselves in Australasia I think.@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
Probably not worth insurers chasing as they are likely to be chasing themselves in Australasia I think.
they still do it though.
-
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agree that there are too many variables but injuries sustained should be an aggravating factor to the ban IMO.
My gripe is when a player injures another, gets a yellow and then returns after 10. IMO if you invalidate a player from the game then you should also have to sit it out. -
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agree that there are too many variables but injuries sustained should be an aggravating factor to the ban IMO.
My gripe is when a player injures another, gets a yellow and then returns after 10. IMO if you invalidate a player from the game then you should also have to sit it out.@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agree that there are too many variables but injuries sustained should be an aggravating factor to the ban IMO.
My gripe is when a player injures another, gets a yellow and then returns after 10. IMO if you invalidate a player from the game then you should also have to sit it out.You can injure people in perfectly legitimate tackles. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agree that there are too many variables but injuries sustained should be an aggravating factor to the ban IMO.
My gripe is when a player injures another, gets a yellow and then returns after 10. IMO if you invalidate a player from the game then you should also have to sit it out.You can injure people in perfectly legitimate tackles. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
@antipodean said in Bledisloe 1:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agree that there are too many variables but injuries sustained should be an aggravating factor to the ban IMO.
My gripe is when a player injures another, gets a yellow and then returns after 10. IMO if you invalidate a player from the game then you should also have to sit it out.You can injure people in perfectly legitimate tackles. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'm only talking about foul play.
-
@antipodean said in Bledisloe 1:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agree that there are too many variables but injuries sustained should be an aggravating factor to the ban IMO.
My gripe is when a player injures another, gets a yellow and then returns after 10. IMO if you invalidate a player from the game then you should also have to sit it out.You can injure people in perfectly legitimate tackles. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'm only talking about foul play.
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe 1:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agree that there are too many variables but injuries sustained should be an aggravating factor to the ban IMO.
My gripe is when a player injures another, gets a yellow and then returns after 10. IMO if you invalidate a player from the game then you should also have to sit it out.You can injure people in perfectly legitimate tackles. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'm only talking about foul play.
Again, if for example the injury sustained is a twisted ankle from an action that only merits a YC, why should the player be removed from the game? Next thing you know players are being "substituted due to injury" as a sneaky underhanded tactical ploy.
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agreed. I don't think one can bring in the career-ending criterion, season-ending might be enough (or more than enough). Above all there needs to be a way to demonstrate consistency internationally.
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
Above all there needs to be a way to demonstrate consistency internationally.
-
@NTA outside the laws of the game is likely to be looked at slightly differently if it made it to a real court, not SANZAR/IRBs Kangaroo court
@taniwharugby said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA outside the laws of the game is likely to be looked at slightly differently if it made it to a real court, not SANZAR/IRBs Kangaroo court
I meant in terms of whether the governing union would protect a player who had done something particularly egregious. How is the employment stipulated in that contract in the event of them e.g. punching a match official?
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agreed. I don't think one can bring in the career-ending criterion, season-ending might be enough (or more than enough). Above all there needs to be a way to demonstrate consistency internationally.
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agreed. I don't think one can bring in the career-ending criterion, season-ending might be enough (or more than enough). Above all there needs to be a way to demonstrate consistency internationally.
Unless it’s the same panel doing the adjudicating across the world then you simply are not going to get it. Consistency is sort of like the unicorn in sport. The way I see it, no two incidents are the same no matter how much fans and commentators might want to say they are. Then you add on legal argument, history of offending and you will get different outcomes for what seems like similar incidents.
And if you are league supporter, just be sure to remember that whatever sanction a judiciary spits out there is a premium on top of that for any Warriors and Kiwi players
-
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@nostrildamus said in Bledisloe 1:
@NTA said in Bledisloe 1:
@booboo said in Bledisloe 1:
But let's think about the real victim here
Poor old Darcy misses two tests ...Have seen a few reactionary posts on the socials calling for a Swain to be banned for 9 months
Regardless of the punishment in this case being too short, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean any red cards where a player is not out of the game injured means no ban?
(Yes I'm being facetious)
I hope you are being facetious because the logic is flawed.
Indeed - there would still need to be a minimum sanction handed out, which is why the judiciaries have a big table of entry points... which they henceforth ignore because Good Bloke Showed Remorse With No Priors Or If There Are Priors Get A Letter From The Victim You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours clause.
Let's say this involved a player with a pre-existing injury or area of concern e.g. they'd had a reco on that knee two years before. Are we then going to have a process where it goes full legal eagles to sort out attribution?
If the player recovers early, do we let the offender back on the park?
If it is career ending because of poor rehab or a player who was nearing retirement anyway, do we rub out the offender as well? For how long?
It needs more thought than just the heat of this moment. I come back to the fact this should be more about intent than outcome.
It was a shit move by Swain and he shouldn't be playing again this year IMHO. He had the prior from a few months ago and therefore the judiciary should have thrown the book at him and gone for high-end as a minimum, to get other players to stop this sort of behaviour.
Agreed. I don't think one can bring in the career-ending criterion, season-ending might be enough (or more than enough). Above all there needs to be a way to demonstrate consistency internationally.
Unless it’s the same panel doing the adjudicating across the world then you simply are not going to get it. Consistency is sort of like the unicorn in sport. The way I see it, no two incidents are the same no matter how much fans and commentators might want to say they are. Then you add on legal argument, history of offending and you will get different outcomes for what seems like similar incidents.
And if you are league supporter, just be sure to remember that whatever sanction a judiciary spits out there is a premium on top of that for any Warriors and Kiwi players
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe 1:
And if you are league supporter, just be sure to remember that whatever sanction a judiciary spits out there is a premium on top of that for any Warriors
Using the WE CAN'T PUNISH FANS AT FINALS TIME clause, because... well.....
