waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^^^ kinda poses the question of what you've gotta do to get fully whacked, dunnit?
Round 14 - Waratahs v Highlanders @ SFS - Saturday 19 May
- Thread starter Braveheart81
- Start date
- Status
A mutterer
Chilla Wilson (44)
Yeah 6 weeks is probably fair.
His kick was pissweak and lacking when compared to thw GOAT.
Eric Cantona v fan.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^^^^^ agree with discounting say 25% for pleading guilty & not wasting everyone's time but that's all. Remorse? Who cares if he's truly, deeply sorry & pinky-promises not to do it again. Clean record? So what - add weeks for previous form but if you're gunna take weeks off then the clean record needs to be measurable in years not weeks (third match at this level, I believe).
I guess it comes down to how long you think people should be suspended.
Should Nabura have got 8 or 12 weeks? He deserved a long suspension but 6 weeks is a pretty long suspension. That's more than a third of the Super Rugby season and 20-25% of the games he might play in a given year.
The suspensions in the regulation are pretty long in my view if you aren't given some sort of reduction off them. I tend to think the way it works now is more practical. If you ramped up suspensions I think you'd go back towards the old ways where everything but the most heinous actions escaped suspension.
Should Nabura have got 8 or 12 weeks? He deserved a long suspension but 6 weeks is a pretty long suspension. That's more than a third of the Super Rugby season and 20-25% of the games he might play in a given year.
The suspensions in the regulation are pretty long in my view if you aren't given some sort of reduction off them. I tend to think the way it works now is more practical. If you ramped up suspensions I think you'd go back towards the old ways where everything but the most heinous actions escaped suspension.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^^^^^^ in the case of low- and mid-range offences maybe the discount for a guilty plea could be upped to 1/3 but if we're serious about getting rid of high-range stuff like kicking someone in the face (or forearming them in the throats for that matter) I think 50% is way too much esp as it's at least partly given for reasons that aren't relevant.
I think a big part of the issue with Moody for example is that the penalties for that aren't harsh enough.
2 for low end, 4 for mid and 6 for high aren't enough, especially considering dangerous high tackles have longer suspensions.
It wasn't a high end offence (let's assume that is when someone king hits someone else).
My take is a mid range offence for striking should be at least as high as a dangerous tackle and possibly higher. It is very clear that any mid range and higher striking offence is going to be a deliberate action.
Most people are going to look at the Moody example and the Arnold one and suggest that Moody deserves a longer suspension but the guidelines have it as only being 2/3 as bad.
2 for low end, 4 for mid and 6 for high aren't enough, especially considering dangerous high tackles have longer suspensions.
It wasn't a high end offence (let's assume that is when someone king hits someone else).
My take is a mid range offence for striking should be at least as high as a dangerous tackle and possibly higher. It is very clear that any mid range and higher striking offence is going to be a deliberate action.
Most people are going to look at the Moody example and the Arnold one and suggest that Moody deserves a longer suspension but the guidelines have it as only being 2/3 as bad.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^^ Agree with all of the above.
- Status