Byrnes gets 10 Weeks

[Gagger]

It's pretty apt that this has happened in a thread that Adam Byrnes - serial pest - is involved with.

If you're a serial niggle merchant around the site, don't be surprised the mod judiciary goes trigger finger on you. No apologies for that.

Remember, there is a 'no dickhead' clause on G&GR. Not knowing where you stand in relation to that, probably makes you one.

 

[Scotty]

Burger looked straight at Pocock, cocked the fingers and then raked straight across his face. Burger doesn't even get cited.

Byrnes isn't even looking, but has his hands in the area of Carters face when it appears he accidently scratched him and gets 10 weeks.

Based on the information we are getting, it appears that if Pocock and the Wallaby doc gave evidence or complained about Burger, then Burger may well have got some time. Is this really the way the system should work - the opponent has a hand in determining the suspension? Ridiculous.

 

[Bruce Ross]

I wonder what Harris will get for the eye gouge in the reds force game.


Http://www.youtube.com/shiggins316

If Harris gets done on the basis of that video he should definitely appeal.

 

[sonny crockett]

There once was an unwritten code of conduct, that eyes, and rucking heads were out of bounds. Played with and against some terribly tough guys over the years, and they could, would and did hurt people pretty severely at times, but always maintained that eyes were sacrosanct, and while the use of boots was fully condoned and encouraged, the head was to be left alone. The game has changed markedly, and at times back in time, outright violence substituted for a lack of skill. Has professionalism taken away any scruples from some players. Eyes should never, ever be touched, intentionally, carelessly or recklessly. There is nothing that can justify it happening.

 

[fatprop]

Burger looked straight at Pocock, cocked the fingers and then raked straight across his face. Burger doesn't even get cited.

Byrnes isn't even looking, but has his hands in the area of Carters face when it appears he accidently scratched him and gets 10 weeks.

Based on the information we are getting, it appears that if Pocock and the Wallaby doc gave evidence or complained about Burger, then Burger may well have got some time. Is this really the way the system should work - the opponent has a hand in determining the suspension? Ridiculous.

I have no problem with Byrnes getting the time, he attacked the face and that is simply not acceptable.

I see the consistancy as the issue and would hope we steal the system used by the NRL.

Have a clear and documented series (with video examples) of those penalties, give a discount for pleading guilty and ensure the same system is used by all three countries.

 

[mudskipper]

10 weeks is fine for eye gouging, what were you thinking Byrnes? Just cannot have that especially at the start of a season, good message sent early to the players…

 

[Sully]

It would help if we saw what the judiciary watched. Agreed that if the evidence stood up that 10 weeks is fine and thinking he was lucky to get only that.


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

 

[mark_s]

Byrnes to appeal

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...bels-to-appeal-byrnes-ban-20120304-1ub6b.html

 

[Moses]

They usually halve the suspension on appeal, lets see how this goes..

 

[Scoey]

Is there any requirement in the laws of the game for the judicial process to be more transparent? Or is this a ridiculous idea?

I just find it curious that someone can get rubbed out for 10 weeks when all the published footage of the incident is inconclusive at best. So clearly - there has to be more and perhaps it would help the public to have more confidence in the system if they were allowed access to the evidence relied upon?

 

[HKTiger]

Bemused by the tone of this thread and have a similar line to Scotty with a small difference. The Burger thread was pretty unanimous that
a) Schalk should have been cited, and
b) eye-gouging has no place in rugby.

The process flaw over a) is different in Super Rugby and is, to an extent, being addressed by the white card. (A positive imho).

I don't get the he niggles/she niggles part of the discussion. That to me is irrelevant. The video that I saw (Setanta feed of Foxtel in Singapore) clearly showed Byrnes hand across the upper part of Carter's face. TC has a definite scratch around his eye.

I would argue that you've got enough sensitivity in your fingers to know if you have someone's face in your hands. The onus is then on you to release. Any raking/scratching/injury at that stage I believe then leaves you with a potential eye-gouge. Thus I believe it is Byrne's onus and resposnibility to ensure he releases TC with no injury. (Note: There does not appear to be any movement by TC to wrench his face free from the video I saw, which may have contributed to an injury.) I believe that Byrnes deserves a suspension, even if nothing more than to keep highlighting that the face and eyes are sacrosanct.

 

[qwerty51]

So I just heard Byrnes was suppose to get 12 weeks but got 10 for a good record? Huh? The guy is serial offender, he had a biting allegation in 2010 on Will Caldwell.

 

[daz]

So I just heard Byrnes was suppose to get 12 weeks but got 10 for a good record? Huh? The guy is serial offender, he had a biting allegation in 2010 on Will Caldwell.

But did he get found guilty and suspended?

I'm sure that multiple accusations probably does mean there might be a bit of fire around the smoke, but to say he is a serial offender when there are no actual recorded instances of guilty also means we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is a clean-skin.

Anyone know what his judiciary record looks like?

 

[qwerty51]

His Super rugby one might be ok, but I'm sure he's also had incidents in Shute Shield, they probably don't look at that but maybe they should because to say he has a good record just doesn't sound right.

 

[daz]

His Super rugby one might be ok, but I'm sure he's also had incidents in Shute Shield, they probably don't look at that but maybe they should because to say he has a good record just doesn't sound right.

Yes, but then we are full circle again, and potentially slagging off on a bloke just because his record "doesn't feel right".

What actually is his record?

I'm just playing devils advocate here....

 

[Gnostic]

Bemused by the tone of this thread and have a similar line to Scotty with a small difference. The Burger thread was pretty unanimous that
a) Schalk should have been cited, and
b) eye-gouging has no place in rugby.

The process flaw over a) is different in Super Rugby and is, to an extent, being addressed by the white card. (A positive imho).

I don't get the he niggles/she niggles part of the discussion. That to me is irrelevant. The video that I saw (Setanta feed of Foxtel in Singapore) clearly showed Byrnes hand across the upper part of Carter's face. TC has a definite scratch around his eye.

I would argue that you've got enough sensitivity in your fingers to know if you have someone's face in your hands. The onus is then on you to release. Any raking/scratching/injury at that stage I believe then leaves you with a potential eye-gouge. Thus I believe it is Byrne's onus and resposnibility to ensure he releases TC with no injury. (Note: There does not appear to be any movement by TC to wrench his face free from the video I saw, which may have contributed to an injury.) I believe that Byrnes deserves a suspension, even if nothing more than to keep highlighting that the face and eyes are sacrosanct.

I agree fully but for a couple of points.
1. How many times do wee see a player "tackled/grappled" around the head in a maul/ruck situation. Now how often is that penalised? If this is the new standard I expect it to be applied consistently (and there is a big part of the problem) across the board for any contact above the shoulders.

2. The point that so many have made regarding sending a message, he is a niggle merchant, good riddance etc etc just outright ignores the rules of evidence that any judicial process must follow. We have to assume that said rules were followed and sufficient evidence exists to convict Byrnes of this offence. If not I expect his appeal will be upheld and further loss of respect/confidence in the judiciary will result.

 

[HKTiger]

I agree fully but for a couple of points.
1. How many times do wee see a player "tackled/grappled" around the head in a maul/ruck situation. Now how often is that penalised? If this is the new standard I expect it to be applied consistently (and there is a big part of the problem) across the board for any contact above the shoulders.

2. The point that so many have made regarding sending a message, he is a niggle merchant, good riddance etc etc just outright ignores the rules of evidence that any judicial process must follow. We have to assume that said rules were followed and sufficient evidence exists to convict Byrnes of this offence. If not I expect his appeal will be upheld and further loss of respect/confidence in the judiciary will result.

On point 1, interesting to see that both Lawrence's (Bryce and Mark) penalised players for tackling/grappling around the head. I think there is a difference in a tackle (i.e. in play) where the forearm/bicep comes across the face/head and a not in play incident (the ball was clear in the TC/Byrnes incident) where it is the fingers from a standing player across the face of a player on the ground. So yes, penalties should be applied and to be fair to the refs were on the weeknd for the head high tackle and grapple. The suspension is for the act (suspicion) of raking the fingers. On a side note: Hougaard got a red card and a week for a tip tackle that was more accidental than malicious.

On point 2, I don't get the niggle part of the discussion. I may be naive, but I see hands on face, a scratch. The scratch, shown directly after TC makes the complaint, appears to have come from the hand on face incident. So the point, I believe remains, It was Byrnes onus to leave TC's face alone. And I stand by the point, you know what your fingers are feeling/are in contact with.

 

[terry j]

looked pretty 'tame' to me tbh. all these vids are in slo mo too, can't help but think that makes it look worse? It was such a fleeting contact even in slo mo, normal speed you'd be hard pressed to think he had time to gouge.

I think it pretty harsh to use as evidence he 'is always niggling'. He either gouged or did not, being a PITA has nothing to do with it.

 

[ChargerWA]

Nobody should post "I haven't seen the footage, but......" The citing commissioner and the judiciary have seen the footage, whatever it is like, and have formed a conclusion. It is legitimate to argue "I have seen all the footage and I disagree with the outcome of the citing because....." But to say "I haven't seen the incident but I suspect they are covering their arses", which is the thrust of the post, is just libellous and mean-spirited.

Last year I argued that several decisions by the judiciary were inconsistent and unnecessarily lenient. In my opinion the citing process was terribly unjust and risked someone being seriously injured by failing to clamp down where it was appropriate. But I did so after viewing the games in question at the time and in replay.

This is G&GR, not some forum where people can post whatever abuse they feel like just because they are on a keyboard.

End of rant.

When did you become the internet police? No judge in any democratic country would find I have any charge to answer in regard to being libellous. Your paraphrasing of my post above is completely off the mark and I never was suggesting any sort of arse covering. I merely suggested that due to a change in the judicial process they may be aware of the increased public scrutiny which could result in an altered outcome. It has happened 100 times before in all sorts of circumstances and the Rugby judiciary (who are inconsistent by your own terms) are just human beings too and capable of being influenced by increased scrutiny.

And how would me having seen the footage have any impact on my statement? Seeing the footage or not has no bearing on the judiciarys decision behind closed doors, which I was specifically commenting on.

 

[cyclopath]

It will be interesting to see how the appeal goes. I have no issue with an appeal - none of us have seen the actual judicial process, so are only guessing upon what they based their decision. Any gouging, or possible gouging ought to be taken seriously, but there is a process to follow. I think it has been appropriate; something occurred, a player thought they had been at least raked near the eyes, they alert their captain and ref, white card, citation etc. The appeal is the next step. If that's upheld, so be it. It would worse if a gouge / raking was just ignored.
All in my opinion, of course.
Consistency from the judiciary is a whole other can of worms.