Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

This may also change the way entry point is calculated going forward - if the committees were (incorrectly) assuming intent and nature of offense were to be applied both as part of entry point and in determining mitigation they may have come to lower entry point conclusions then they otherwise would have.

Section 17.19 of the World Rugby regulations pretty clearly calls them

relevant off-field mitigating factors

Mitigating factors include the following:

(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of the commission of foul play by the offending Player;

(b) the Player’s disciplinary record;

(c) the youth and/or inexperience of the Player;

(d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing

(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his/her conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and

(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.

Hopefully the FPRC gets properly trained and don't make that error in judgement again

The FPRC, chaired by Brenda Heather-Latu (Samoa), joined by Ofisa Tonu’u (New Zealand) and Valeriu Toma (Romania), reviewed the cases and proposed a 12-match sanction for Berthoumieu

 

[liquor box]

Axelle Berthoumieu (French backrower) has her biting ban reduced from 12 weeks to 9 on appeal. The reasoning behind this change seems to set a pretty problematic precedent that can be applied elsewhere:

Independent disciplinary process update: Axelle Berthoumieu and Manae Feleu (France) | World Rugby

France’s Axelle Berthoumieu and Manae Feleu have been suspended for nine and three (reduced to two on completion of the coaching intervention programme) matches respectively, after an independent Disciplinary Committee heard their appeals against sanctions for offences under Law 9.12 (biting)...

www.world.rugby

Reading regulation 17 the appeals committee appear to be correct in ignoring intent and the nature of the offense when determining mitigation, but it's really difficult to see how a 50% reduction for such a serious offense can be justified, particularly for a 25 year old player with years of test match experience (youth and inexperience are mitigating factors).

The flow on effect from this decision seems to be that players with an otherwise clean record can expect full 50% mitigation on any offense by admission of guilt and an apology alone. This is perhaps not anything too new with 50% discounts being more or less the norm for tackle offenses, but they are almost always seen as unintentional or reckless accidents. This may also change the way entry point is calculated going forward - if the committees were (incorrectly) assuming intent and nature of offense were to be applied both as part of entry point and in determining mitigation they may have come to lower entry point conclusions then they otherwise would have.

I haven't been a fan of the sanctioning process and the way mitigation is applied for some time, but this clarification makes it look much worse than I thought it was, particularly for the more serious offenses.

I have always opposed mitigation, instead of reducing a penalty, maybe a circumstance of aggravation should be applied.

Eg, biting gets 12 weeks, if you draw blood, is on the genitals or other factors that add to the severity then you add 3 extra weeks per factor.

It seems like World Rugby are intent on reducing the penalties by any way they can.

 

[Wilson]

I have always opposed mitigation, instead of reducing a penalty, maybe a circumstance of aggravation should be applied.

Eg, biting gets 12 weeks, if you draw blood, is on the genitals or other factors that add to the severity then you add 3 extra weeks per factor.

It seems like World Rugby are intent on reducing the penalties by any way they can.

Circumstances related to the act apply to the entry point, off field aggravating factors (lack of remorse, previous record, deterrence, etc.) can already be applied after mitigation under the current regulations.

In a general sense I don't think applying aggravating factors afterwards is any better than applying mitigation. I do generally believe in mitigation being applied, but the scale and nature of it has felt out step with reality for a while now. Potentially the specific issue here is the 3 step model of low/medium/high entry points with a 50% reduction always available. I'd argue that some offences probably shouldn't ever be eligible for a full 50% reduction, but realistically I believe the whole system needs to be redesigned, not just tinkered with around the edges.