So according to World Rugby Regulations, when it comes to disciplinary hearings the standard of proof is based on the balance of probabilities which is a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt. In effect it mean's the player under investigation has to prove he's not guilty.
That’s simple - I never grabbed his balls sir and there is no video evidence to prove I did - there is just evidence of an Irish twat crying foul, much like Curry vs Bongi and the white cunt
I'll concede that there could be something that I'm not aware of about that approach that makes it better suited to this type of adjudication.
But damn, it fails the sniff test. EG;
Johnny Mc Plaintiff "Hey Ref, Eben said he is going to eat my children and shag my wife on my grave?"
Ref "When did he say that?"
Johnny Mc Plaintiff "Just now, over there, not on camera and I don't believe there were any microphones or witnesses present."
WR "Hey Eben, prove you didn't threaten Johnny's family."
Eben "I can't."
Doh!
This article shows the still images used to find him guilty. As we mentioned during the live thread, it looked like he had a fiddly diddly. He could also have been trying to push the player off him and got his hand in an unfortunate spot. It's a strange position for his arm to be in however you look at it.
Well based on the balance of probabilities, Wessels probably was guilty.
As far as I'm aware neither player has a history of being dirty, cheating or violent reactions nor was their history between the players or the clubs in particularly.
Players don't tend to react like Murphy did unless there was something untoward going on. I mean if is a deliberate attempt by Murphy to get Wessels sent off it was the dumbest way of going about it, striking the player in the back of the head, getting himself sent off and leaving his team down a player for 20 minutes in a tight winnable match.
So the disciplinary panel took Murphy's account and the video footage into consideration. They concluded from the video footage that Wessels arm was in an unnatural position.
Now you could still argue that there was contact in the groin area but it was accidental and Murphy overreacted and subsequently lied or exaggerated what happened to avoid further sanction himself.
Bur Wessels representative claimed that Wessels hand was pushing down on a leg to relieve pressure on his on his own knee and free his own leg. He accepted based on his position that he could of touched the groin area of the Connacht player but said he did not.
In the end I think that's might be where the panel thought Wessels wasn't being truthful because he might have been able to argue that yes he had pressed on Murphy's groin accidentally but denying there was any contact at all seems unplausible.
Tis a very slippery slope.
The referees aren't dealt with to this same standard. They'll say things like "Refs have to make so many decisions in a game that one can't hold them to a perfect standard."
As though Wessels action in that ruck was the only decision he had to make in the entire game...with the added pressure of risk of personal injury.
IE Take perfect action in the heat of the moment or we will "assume" the worst.
Not saying that Wessels is innocent - just that I don't like the method of adjudication because it appears obviously flawed.
Strav your take leans towards the victim, my take could quite easily lean towards the accused
Far too many if’s and but’s to draw any conclusions and on that basis the sanction is far too high
The lack of material evidence and the reliance on players versions of the facts leaves very little to merit such a harsh sanction
Everything about this process smacks of incompetence on the part of the executioners
Everything about this process smacks of incompetence on the part of the executioners
Don't see how you can call it incompetence, if the standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities which under World Rugby rules it is, then they are permitted to rule the way they did.
Totally incompetent sanctioning him for 9 matches on the strength of hearsay
Well wouldn't it be odd if they are allowed to rule against a player using the balance of probabilities as the standard but the sentencing was dictated by a higher standard.
For me, you don't adjudicate that way because of exactly this type of situation.
There are cameras everywhere. It's super rare that you won't actually see what occurred. And so to compensate for the exception you totally screw up the rule.
Nah, I can't get on board with that.
If there is no evidence, despite a million cameras around, then you do what courts do...say there is no evidence and you can't punish on a "feeling".
Once you start handing out bans on hearsay and “balance of probabilities,” you open the door to pure subjectivity.
No video evidence, no clear proof, just opinions dressed up as justice. That’s not discipline; that’s dictatorship.
If WR can punish players on nothing but claims, the game loses every shred of integrity.
Next thing you know, careers get wrecked over accusations that can’t even be verified. Dangerous precedent! Rugby runs on laws, not feelings.
No video evidence, no clear proof, just opinions dressed up as justice. That’s not discipline; that’s dictatorship.
This isn't Mike's Gripes forum...leave Donald Tru....oh wait never mind I see your point.
:)
Let’s look at this balance of probabilities. Wessels was a certainty for Springboks YE tour. How probable is it that he would jeopardize that a week before the tour starts?
This is an arbitrary decision, with not a shred of evidence to support it, other than the reactions of Murphy. And anybody who has watched batsmen, certain they never touched a cricket ball ……should know intuition is often wrong.
This is a permanent mark on Wessels career and the committee gives it the authority of a legal judgement. But nobody would be found guilty in a court of law based on this evidence.
I'm very disappointed by how meekly we've all responded to this.
We should take Beeno's lead, join a terrorist organisation and swear an oath to the flag of Vengeance!!!
WR must die!
It's on par with Emperor Donald J Trump murdering alleged drug smugglers in the Pacific Ocean.
No proof, no evidence....no justice.
I see he has lost his appeal but had his sentenced reduced by a week
Wankers
"It's on par with Emperor Donald J Trump murdering alleged drug smugglers in the Pacific Ocean.
No proof, no evidence....no justice."
Nonsense...there's still rule of law, you just don't like it being apllied for a change...