Sanzaar Judicial Process insofar as handling of misconduct b plaayers are concerned

The following from News24 insofar as Franks is concerned:-

"The SANZAAR Foul Play Review committee has accepted a guilty plea from Owen Franks of the Crusaders for contravening Law 9.12: Striking a player with the arm, after he was cited during a Super Rugby match at the weekend.

Franks has been suspended from all forms of the game for 2 weeks, up to and including Saturday, June 2 2018.

The incident occurred in the 36th minute of the match between the Blues and Crusaders played at Eden Park in Auckland on Saturday.

The SANZAAR Foul Play Review committee of Nigel Hampton QC (Chairman), Stefan Terblanche and John Langford assessed the case.

In his finding, Foul Play Review committee Chairman Nigel Hampton QC ruled the following: 

"Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles, and a statement from the player and submissions from his legal representative, Aaron Lloyd, the Foul Play Review committee upheld the citing under Law 9.12." 

"With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid-range entry point of 4 weeks. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the players good record over an extensive playing history which includes only one previous judicial sanction, his expressed remorse and apology to the other player, and the player's guilty plea at the first available opportunity, the Foul Play Review committee reduced the suspension to 2 weeks."

"The player is therefore suspended for 2 weeks, up to and including Saturday, June 2 2018.”

All SANZAAR disciplinary matters are in the first instance referred to the Foul Play Review committee to provide the option of expediting the judicial process.

For a matter to be dispensed with at this hearing, the person appearing must plead guilty and accept the penalty offered by the Foul Play Review committee."

The above again confirms that there are one set of rules on banning for NZ players and another set for every other team  players.   They normally get a reduction by half for transgressions - other players are bloody lucky to get a one week deduction.    

That approach is ridiculous and in fact sickening - if a crime is committed previous good conduct means nothing - the crime is dealt with objectively.   This never happens in the case of NZ players - they literally get away with murder on the field of play and then there is often enough no red or yellow card - and not even a penalty given if the teams play in NZ.     

"That approach is ridiculous and in fact sickening - if a crime is committed previous good conduct means nothing - the crime is dealt with objectively."

No Mike, that's just not how it works. Neither under common or constitutional law.

Sorry

If somebody commit murder of assault to cause grievous bodily harm - all the good conduct of he past is not a reason for reduce sentence.   And as pointed out by you that in fact is what happens in the case of NZ players jumping for the ball,

It is too obvious - the BZ players  were all  angels throughout their playing careers and get their sentences always reduced by half - while other players may get a week off or nothing at all.  .    .  

I am interested to see what the Karate Kid gets for his suspension. 

Prior conduct is always considered in law Mike.

Always at trial and if possible then also in sentencing.

Some legal systems even prescribe sentencing around prior convictions.

NZ are the golden boys right now, like OZ was in the days of Waugh, McGrath and Warne.

It's good for business to keep them smiling and successful.

They'll get a raw deal at the WC though. 

You heard it here first :)