Mike please could you rise above your roots and show a bit more decorum and self control.
How long was the session. Couldnt have been much to talk about re the incident. Possibly wanted to find Etzebeth gulity but were afraid of the fallout. They must have had something to talk about? (thank goodness for these video clips that let the public see the incidents. We are the third silent umpires !! So well done to all who stood firm with Etzebeth and those others can enjoy the huge dollips of egg Bwahahahahahahahaha)
lets put it that way the dirty underhanded tactics that the poms are willing to go to to unsettle the boks knows no bounds. they had a group of video anaylists try to find something to pin eben on but to no luck you buggers. maybe they will try to con the boks just before the game. maybe they photoshopped some footage of eben speeding of something. there is no limits to the lows that poms would go to
You really are all incredibly rude.
Let me explain something to you. If there is any suggestion of hands near any players eyes during a match ( that includes Premiership matches and Internationals ) the citing officers in charge are duty bound to flag up and review the situation. The citing officers are rotated on a weekly basis and, with regards an International, they will be nationals not from either side on the field of play.
I could be asking why your SA touch judge wrongly sent Danny Care to the Sin Bin for 10 mins against Samoa for a " tip tackle " that never was, couldn't I ? But I didn't and I have certainly never mentioned the gifts of watches and leather jackets Louis Luyt used to provide to Welsh Refs during the RWC final that you so happened to have won....and jolly glad I was you won too.
But comments like these, and those earlier, really show how pathetic some of you can be.
Becs please forgive my rude compatriots who have overstepped the mark here in a fit of hysteria. I do hope they recover their humour soon.
Please understand its been a long and trying season for them as Meyer has tried their understanding and patience to their very limits. I scarcely know if they will survive the England game and remain sane. If we lose we could lose them to a sanatoruim!
Hahahhahahahahaha
Becs
Sorry - I apologize if I upset you. I agree with you match officials should reiew issues - but they should only take action if they have thoroughly investigated matters. Those should include getting testimony from the affected player as well. This apparently was not done - hence the negative outlook of many South Africans on this particular issue..
Well said Becs, it's the old persecution complex me thinks once again. Ha!!
Hahahahahahahahaha Mike flees for cover as the two ladies run him out of town!! Teach mike to so misbehave!!! Scandalous stuff from Mike!
At the end of the day we can be relieved that Eztbeth is off the hook, and that Flouw never got cited. I have never seen anyone pat someone else in the back with their boot. It would be hard to cite someone for just tapping an opposition player without the ball using the boot- looks like a crazy momement.
clevermike
Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 2279 RE: Lowlife POM bastardi Unseccessful - Etzebeth not guilty
November 21, 2012, 13:54:20
Becs
Sorry - I apologize if I upset you. I agree with you match officials should reiew issues - but they should only take action if they have thoroughly investigated matters. Those should include getting testimony from the affected player as well. This apparently was not done - hence the negative outlook of many South Africans on this particular issue..
Now isn't that the purpose of the hearing? To thoroughly investigate matters and to give the player the opportunity to state his case? If there has indeed been a hearing, it is not accurate to say that "This apparently was not done............." I would say that jumping to conclusions, making assumptions and lashing out in a rude way was more wrong than the citing itself.
Ceradyne
Please don't show your ignoirance so blatantly. Before any charge is laid the matter should be THROUGHLY INVESTIGATED. It is not the obbjective of the hearing to unearth or investigate potential new facrs. The hearing aims at the evaluation of the charge and evaluation of already estblished facts - as well as evidence to be provided by the accused person and establish the potential basement for a finding - whether it is guiulty or not. A hearing is not a "fishing expedition"
Only an absolute idiot would say that the hearing should try and cover areas not covered by the person who laid the charge - and if evidence cannot be found after a COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION - a charge should not be laid. That is standard procedure in a court of law - or in any cases of this nature
How many rugby disciplinary hearings have you been involved in Ou Mikey?
I have a few to my credit from when I was a rygby club Vice-Chairman. You have the referee's report, or the Citing Commissioner's in this case. He may be called for evidence if need be, and then all the evidence is analysed. The player is then afforded the opportunity to state his case. He is then either found guilty or not. If found guilty he and/or his representative can put forward evidence in mitigation, and that is considered before a sanction is passed. We had one were a brawl broke out and players from the side joined in as well. One of the players, who was cited for joining in in tha brawl was lucky. A spectator made a video of the match and he brought that along. We applied for the video to be allowed as evidence and our request was granted. We got three of our players' cases dismissed.
I think the underlying concern is that the IRB is an international governing body.
The circumstance that the citing commisioner is from the very country that a touring team is scheduled to play at the weekend of the citing which does raise questions of protocol.
Trasparceny and therefore accountabilty of the citing process is causing emotional responses.
-Was the citing raised by the opposition team?
-Can one match citing commisioner raise a citing, or does it have to be approved by the citing body before it can be formally issued to a player?
How many active citing commisioners per match?
Was this particular individual one of the citing officials of the Scotland match, or did he just randomly cite the incident.
How many counties are all the match citing officials from, does this vary per match and national venue?
-Does it make sense to have a citing commisioner from a country which just so happens to be from the next weeks opposition country?
What people are looking for is tranparency and consistent process. Citings and suspensions are very inconsistent because players commit the same offence and get different punishments.
It is this that is throwing the game into disrepute. FIFA Football is a corrupt body and when process is not transparent and consistent is raises questions about whether the game is being brought into disrepute by the very body governing the game.
Do the citing commisioners understand precedent-"
1n common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained."
Given that inconsistent citing processes and sanctions it does raise questions about corruption and incompetence of the IRB body.
More Poor and inconsistent citings- at least the IRB has stated that they have made a mistake. Or at least their process/citing commisioner has made a mistake
Adam Thomson © Gallo Images IRB to appeal 'unduly lenient' Thomson ban 21 November 2012, 20:40
The International Rugby Board (IRB) said on Wednesday it would appeal against the "unduly lenient" one-week ban handed down to New Zealand's Adam Thomson for stamping on Scotland's Alasdair Strokosch.
Thomson, yellow-carded during the world champions' 51-22 win over Scotland at Murrayfield on November 11, was subsequently cited for stamping on Strokosch.
But despite independent IRB judicial officer Jean-Noel Couraud finding him guilty of an offence at a hearing in London last Wednesday, the Frenchman imposed a ban of just one week.
However, the global governing body can initiate an appeal under a revised regulation in its own rule-book which took effect on June 1.
An IRB statement issued on Wednesday said: "The International Rugby Board has confirmed that it will appeal what it strongly believes to be an unduly lenient sanction handed down to New Zealand forward Adam Thomson for stamping or trampling on the head of an opponent.
"As custodians of rugby worldwide, the IRB has a duty to protect its image, values and integrity together with the welfare of players at all levels in order that the sport can continue its unprecedented growth and welcome more men, women and children to the rugby family.
"The IRB strongly believes that the sanction of one week is unduly lenient for this particular act of foul play and not aligned with the sanctions handed down in similar cases."
The global governing body's statement added: "The IRB firmly believes it is in the best interests of the Game and its integrity to exercise its ability to appeal the Thomson decision."
As for the timing of the appeal tribunal, the IRB said: "The logistical arrangements for the hearing will be announced shortly."
Scotland coach Andy Robinson suggested after the match that Thomson had been fortunate to escape a red card.
Thomson's ban meant he missed last Saturday's 42-10 win over Italy in Rome. However, as things stand, he id available for this Saturday's test against Wales in Cardiff.
New Zealand coach Steve Hansen is due to announce his side to play Wales on Thursday, with the All Blacks concluding their tour against England at Twickenham on December 1.
Former England hooker Brian Moore, in language not far removed from the IRB's own words this Wednesday (November 21), reacted to Thomson's suspension by labelling it "ludicrously lenient".
And the punishment was in marked contrast to the eight-week ban handed out the same day to Australia lock Rob Simmons for a "tip tackle" on France flanker Yannick Nyanga during the Wallabies 33-6 defeat in Paris on November 10.
As pundits and Twitter commentators reacted against Couraud's ruling last Wednesday, IRB chief executive Brett Gosper reacted by using the social networking site to say: "The IRB will review this case as it is a match under our jurisdiction.
"If we decide to take action we will make it public," the Australian, who took up his post in June, added.
Samoa centre Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu slammed the Thomson verdict and compared it with the three-week ban he received from England's Rugby Football Union last year for tweets about Owen Farrell.
"I got 3 weeks for sarcastic tweets. So had I just rucked Farrells head I would have got only a week? Its just so comical these days," Fuimaono-Sapolu said.
Etzebeth got 2 weeks for mimicking a headbutt .......... how can Thomson get less for putting his boot on some poor fella's head ? The head is sacrosanct .... don't go there .
Ceradine
You have excatly summed up what is to happen procedurally - but unfoirtuntely miss the whole point I was making completely. I said the citing commissioner must submit his report - which must include all pertinent information when he lays a charge. That includes all the statements of individuals involved - whether it is a referee or the player - or players involved. The Citing Commissioner can call wirnesses to suport his charge - but cannot use the hearing as a fishing expedition to find new evidence that could support his charge - all perrinenet information mustbe available when he lays the charge. The defender then make his plea and the defence can then submit their legal response and call witnesses to support their contention.
If the citing coimmissioner in this case did not consult the player involved - he has not done a proper job and the lawyers actring for the accused would pull his case apart. Incidentally how many times did players have lawyers representing them in cases you were involved? Was the hearings in England or local? The proceduire followed must comply with legal norms - otherwise it may end up in court - especially if the accused player is financially dertimentally affected and due process was not followed. That is why on higher level - the player is always legally represented by a lawyer.
In the Etzebeth case - it was really weird. The player did not complain and the referee saw nothing wrong The Citing Commissioner acted on his own and the player involved also did not lodge a complaint. Thar effectively means that the Citing Commissioner had to use evidence from the video recording of the game and he did not even bother to substantiate his case by getting evidence from the referee and player involved. That is why the Citing Commissioner laid a charge without all the required supporting evidence and that in itself raise serious reservarions about the issue of the original charge.
There has been serious reservarions whether this charge did not hasve an ulteriro objective - hence theuproar of the SA Public and media.
Well said Mike and I hope ou windpomp now understands the process better. I can only imagine how his citing commision went - on and on and on around in circles. The last person awake won the case! Hahahahahahahaha
Well Mike it seems you are safe now from the brolley waving ladies brigade today as they have disappeared. As you were saying these B poms were shown up badly! Hahahahahahahaha cant say too much as you never know when the ladies will reappear and give it to us poor rugby fans just having some good natured fun!
Mike, I ask you again:"How many rugby disciplinary hearings were you involved in". It is not the responsibilty of the Citing Commissioner to get any form of statement from the player who has been cited. He is responsible to decide if there are reasons for an incident to be investigated (by disciplinery hearing) and sanctioned (by disciplinery hearing) if needed. That is why it is called "citing". The citing commissioner basically lay a complaint against the player and the burden of proof is on him. The player has to state his case and if found guilty present evidence in mitigation, if he chooses to do so.
This from the IRB:
REGULATION 20. MISCONDUCT AND CODE OF CONDUCT
20.8 Misconduct Complaint
20.8.1 Subject to Regulations 20.6.1 and 20.7.2 any Misconduct complaint by the designated
disciplinary officer shall be sent in writing to the Union of the Player, Person or body
against whom the Misconduct complaint is made (or other applicable body). The
Misconduct complaint should contain the following information:
(a) date and place of the alleged Misconduct;
(b) the name of the Player, Person or other party in respect of whom the complaint is
made and (where applicable) his/their Rugby Body or Union; and
(c) details of the alleged Misconduct (including brief details of the evidence to be relied
upon).
The highlighted part explains what has to be included. There is no mention of any investigations, etc. The Citing Commissioner decides whether there was an incident and he informs all concerned that he has reported an incident together with HIS supporting evidence.
The next step is to determine whether there will be a hearing or not.
20.8.3 A Union, Tournament Organiser, Player or Person may refer an allegation of Misconduct
to the designated disciplinary officer appointed by the Host Union or Tournament
Organiser having jurisdiction. The designated disciplinary officer shall consider the matter
and determine whether to bring a Misconduct complaint or not as a result of a referral
subject always to the provisions of this Regulation.
It is not even the Citing Commissioner who decides whether there should even be a hearing. His jobs is in principle to report and incident. The Judicial Committee has the responsibilty to consider the matter. Nowhere is there any burden on the Citing Commissioner to do any "investigations" other than what I have quoted above. This is the procedures as set out by the IRB:
20.9 Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer – Power to regulate its/his Own Procedures
20.9.1 The general procedures relating to hearings before Judicial Committees and Judicial
Officers contained in Regulation 18, Appendix 1 shall apply to any matter arising under
this Regulation. In this regard disciplinary proceedings shall include for the avoidance of
doubt Misconduct proceedings.
20.9.2 The Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer shall deal with cases involving alleged
Misconduct as soon as practicable and at a convenient location for the Union, Player or
Person subject to the Misconduct proceedings. This location does not have to be in the
country in which the alleged Misconduct took place and shall be determined by the
Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer in consultation with the Host Union or Tournament
Organiser or the IRB (as appropriate).
20.9.3 The Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer may at its or his discretion impose a
provisional suspension on a Player or Person subject to a Misconduct complaint pending
the resolution of the case.
20.9.4 At any hearing of a Misconduct complaint, the designated disciplinary officer (or his
nominee) shall be in attendance to explain the basis of the Misconduct complaint and
present the Misconduct complaint and he may be assisted by a legal advisor.
20.9.5 The designated disciplinary officer shall have the burden of proving, on the balance of
probabilities, that an act or acts of Misconduct have been committed. The Player, Person
or other party subject to the Misconduct complaint shall be asked if he accepts that he has
committed an act of Misconduct. The Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer shall
determine its/his factual findings and whether it/he is satisfied on the balance of
probabilities that an act or acts of Misconduct has been committed by the Player, Person or
other party concerned.
