Head Contact & Red Cards

[assfly]

Something needs to be done. We're seeing shitloads of red cards and head injuries, meaning that the former is having no impact on the latter.

The balancing act between maintaining the physical integrity of the game and protecting players' heads is not being achieved.

I can't see anything other than a serious change in the laws.

My suggestions:

1. Tackles to be waist height, to be enforced by coaches and referees. Players can't attack the ball anymore, which is often chest-height at contact.
2. During a jackle, the person clearing out can only make contact with the player's waist and below.

[Kawazaki]

About the most pathetic OP I think I've ever read.

[assfly]

About the most pathetic OP I think I've ever read.

What do you think should be done?

[Tichtheid]

Something needs to be done. We're seeing shitloads of red cards and head injuries, meaning that the former is having no impact on the latter.

The balancing act between maintaining the physical integrity of the game and protecting players' heads is not being achieved.

I can't see anything other than a serious change in the laws.

My suggestions:

1. Tackles to be waist height, to be enforced by coaches and referees. Players can't attack the ball anymore, which is often chest-height at contact.
2. During a jackle, the person clearing out can only make contact with the player's waist and below.

Something really needs to be done, but I wouldn't mind if they started by enforcing the laws as they stand and apply the correct procedure at the disciplinary hearings - not after the World Cup, not next season, not after whatever imaginary good date, now.

[Margin__Walker]

Something needs to be done. We're seeing shitloads of red cards and head injuries, meaning that the former is having no impact on the latter.

The balancing act between maintaining the physical integrity of the game and protecting players' heads is not being achieved.

I can't see anything other than a serious change in the laws.

My suggestions:

1. Tackles to be waist height, to be enforced by coaches and referees. Players can't attack the ball anymore, which is often chest-height at contact.
2. During a jackle, the person clearing out can only make contact with the player's waist and below.

Things clearly aren't working, but there are unintended consequences. On the jackle point, you'll have to alter the law there as well, because in its current form ,how on earth would you get someone off the ball without coming in from the side if you couldn't touch their chest or shoulders.

On the tackle, how do you defend the pick and go when the ball carrier bends and doesn't give their waist as an option from front on?

[assfly]

On the jackle point, you'll have to alter the law there as well, because in its current form ,how on earth would you get someone off the ball without coming in from the side if you couldn't touch their chest or shoulders.

On the tackle, how do you defend the pick and go when the ball carrier bends and doesn't give their waist as an option from front on?

On the jackle, I don't know what else can be done to protect the player. But I feel like some of those reckless cleanouts are going to lead to a serious injury at some point.

On the tackle, I think defenders will have more options. If a player is going in so low to make the waist tackle harder, then defenders can choose to take our their feet or pull the player to the ground as they will naturally be off-balance by leaning forward.

[Kawazaki]

You make the jackal illegal or you mandate that a player can only jackal for the ball if they have placed one leg beyond the ball first. This is how rugby was played and officiated years ago. Just doing this would simultaneously make the game a far better spectacle and magnitudes safer.

[Tichtheid]

On the jackle point, you'll have to alter the law there as well, because in its current form ,how on earth would you get someone off the ball without coming in from the side if you couldn't touch their chest or shoulders.

On the tackle, how do you defend the pick and go when the ball carrier bends and doesn't give their waist as an option from front on?

On the jackle, I don't know what else can be done to protect the player. But I feel like some of those reckless cleanouts are going to lead to a serious injury at some point.

On the tackle, I think defenders will have more options. If a player is going in so low to make the waist tackle harder, then defenders can choose to take our their feet or pull the player to the ground as they will naturally be off-balance by leaning forward.

It illegal to join a ruck recklessly - from World Rugby Laws;

Joining a ruck


An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.

A player may join alongside but not in front of the hindmost player.

A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
Players must join the ruck or retire behind their offside line immediately.

Players who have previously been part of the ruck may rejoin the ruck, provided they do so from an onside position.
Sanction: Penalty.

If they applied the laws on binding they'd cut way way down on poor contact and get rid of the 125kg Exocet entirely

[assfly]

You make the jackal illegal or you mandate that a player can only jackal for the ball if they have placed one leg beyond the ball first. This is how rugby was played and officiated years ago. Just doing this would simultaneously make the game a far better spectacle and magnitudes safer.

That's actually quite a good idea.

[assfly]

If they applied the laws on binding they'd cut way way down on poor contact and get rid of the 125kg Exocet entirely

But they are applying the laws, seen by the huge amount of red cards we see every weekend. The problem is that they're not deterring players from entering rucks in recklessly.

[Tichtheid]

If they applied the laws on binding they'd cut way way down on poor contact and get rid of the 125kg Exocet entirely

But they are applying the laws, seen by the huge amount of red cards we see every weekend. The problem is that they're not deterring players from entering rucks in recklessly.

Red cards come with a ban, the bans have to get longer if they are not deterring players from acting dangerously.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Something needs to be done. We're seeing shitloads of red cards and head injuries, meaning that the former is having no impact on the latter.

The balancing act between maintaining the physical integrity of the game and protecting players' heads is not being achieved.

I can't see anything other than a serious change in the laws.

My suggestions:

1. Tackles to be waist height, to be enforced by coaches and referees. Players can't attack the ball anymore, which is often chest-height at contact.
2. During a jackle, the person clearing out can only make contact with the player's waist and below.

Something really needs to be done, but I wouldn't mind if they started by enforcing the laws as they stand and apply the correct procedure at the disciplinary hearings - not after the World Cup, not next season, not after whatever imaginary good date, now.

I'd certainly back enforcing laws as they stand, binding before rucking, not taking the ruck to ground and so on.

Not sure what's meant by starting to enforce correct procedure at disciplinary hearings. They take some interesting stances I'm sure for some of us, but they do tend to follow procedure even if starting at a different entry point to where some of us might

[sockwithaticket]

If they applied the laws on binding they'd cut way way down on poor contact and get rid of the 125kg Exocet entirely

But they are applying the laws, seen by the huge amount of red cards we see every weekend. The problem is that they're not deterring players from entering rucks in recklessly.

They only apply the ruck laws to particularly egregious examples. Almost every single ruck in a game violates the laws as written.

[Tichtheid]

Not sure what's meant by starting to enforce correct procedure at disciplinary hearings. They take some interesting stances I'm sure for some of us, but they do tend to follow procedure even if starting at a different entry point to where some of us might

I've outlined where I am with this on the Farrell thread.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the panel in his case decided that there was no need for a deterrent to shoulder shots to the head, and therefore mitigated his ban down, even though he was flagged as a repeat offender without a clean record.
From out here it looks like the panels look for ways to shorten bans any way they can. They are not taking head injuries seriously.

That case has gained a lot of publicity because he is such a high profile player and just because that is the most-talked about it does not mean the other cases are being excused or ignored, they are not, it's just that when it involves the (likely) England captain it will generate a lot of chat, which I think can be applied to others too.

[Lobby]

The other issue is commentators and coaches (and to an extent WR with the introduction of the mitigation protocols) in invariably regarding red cards as a refereeing problem, rather than a player/coach problem.

I get fed up with the number of times commentators claim that referees need to be more 'sympathetic' to what they regard as accidental head clashes or 'rugby incidents', rather than recognising that if players tackled lower, and didn't recklessly charge into rucks shoulder first, then they wouldn't place themselves in situations where they could receive a red card. The same goes for coaches who claim not to understand why a player has been penalised.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Not sure what's meant by starting to enforce correct procedure at disciplinary hearings. They take some interesting stances I'm sure for some of us, but they do tend to follow procedure even if starting at a different entry point to where some of us might

I've outlined where I am with this on the Farrell thread.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the panel in his case decided that there was no need for a deterrent to shoulder shots to the head, and therefore mitigated his ban down, even though he was flagged as a repeat offender without a clean record.
From out here it looks like the panels look for ways to shorten bans any way they can. They are not taking head injuries seriously.

That case has gained a lot of publicity because he is such a high profile player and just because that is the most-talked about it does not mean the other cases are being excused or ignored, they are not, it's just that when it involves the (likely) England captain it will generate a lot of chat, which I think can be applied to others too.

Ah. It's a fair point based on use of language, but it's not actually how the hearings look at it, basically they don't use the word repeat as you might expect.

So if I look at the Owen Farell ruling when it comes to aggravating factors they say

'The Player has only one relevant matter on his record from September 2020. Predominantly due to its age the Panel consider it appropriate to disregard a matter from 2016.'

and

'The Player has one previous matter on record from September 2020 for which he served a 5
match ban for dangerous tackling and another old matter which occurred in 2016. Given the date
of the first matter the Panel conclude the Player is not a repeat offender who’s status warrants an
increase in sanction for this reason.'

What that means to them given they discount the matter from 2016 is they're looking at the current incident and one previous one from 2020, and that does not give them 'repeat' offences, it gives them the current incident and one more, and they don't wrap up previous incidents and the current one because that would be punishing someone twice for the same incident, namely the current one being considered. Basically you need two or more live previous incidents to qualify for the repeat offender added time under aggravating factors.

So what Owen Farrell gets for the one live previous incident on his file is no additional time when it comes to aggravating factors, but there is he doesn't get mitigation that would have reduced his ban by another week because he has the live pervious incident on file.

I tend to think Owen is a lucky boy he's escaped some other incidents being looked into as red cards/citings, but the panel don't get to consider those, they are following procedure, and they are following it correctly, just what they mean by repeat isn't how we might use it in the everyday. And we might think rugby needs to revisit how it protects heads, but one panel can't suddenly decide to do that, that really would be an abandonment of procedure

[Paddington Bear]

The other side to this is rugby needs to crack down on players holding their heads like they’ve had half of it blown off by an MG42. Go down holding your head and you go off for an HIA, no exceptions IMO

[Slick]

The other issue is commentators and coaches (and to an extent WR with the introduction of the mitigation protocols) in invariably regarding red cards as a refereeing problem, rather than a player/coach problem.

I get fed up with the number of times commentators claim that referees need to be more 'sympathetic' to what they regard as accidental head clashes or 'rugby incidents', rather than recognising that if players tackled lower, and didn't recklessly charge into rucks shoulder first, then they wouldn't place themselves in situations where they could receive a red card. The same goes for coaches who claim not to understand why a player has been penalised.

Doesn't help when you have players like Luke Cowan-Dickie going on social media literally saying "the game has gone soft"...

[Slick]

On the jackle point, you'll have to alter the law there as well, because in its current form ,how on earth would you get someone off the ball without coming in from the side if you couldn't touch their chest or shoulders.

On the tackle, how do you defend the pick and go when the ball carrier bends and doesn't give their waist as an option from front on?

On the jackle, I don't know what else can be done to protect the player. But I feel like some of those reckless cleanouts are going to lead to a serious injury at some point.

On the tackle, I think defenders will have more options. If a player is going in so low to make the waist tackle harder, then defenders can choose to take our their feet or pull the player to the ground as they will naturally be off-balance by leaning forward.

It illegal to join a ruck recklessly - from World Rugby Laws;

Joining a ruck


An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.

A player may join alongside but not in front of the hindmost player.

A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
Players must join the ruck or retire behind their offside line immediately.

Players who have previously been part of the ruck may rejoin the ruck, provided they do so from an onside position.
Sanction: Penalty.

If they applied the laws on binding they'd cut way way down on poor contact and get rid of the 125kg Exocet entirely

100% this. Is the word jackling even in the rugby laws? Ball on the floor = no hands and bind up

[Tichtheid]

Not sure what's meant by starting to enforce correct procedure at disciplinary hearings. They take some interesting stances I'm sure for some of us, but they do tend to follow procedure even if starting at a different entry point to where some of us might

I've outlined where I am with this on the Farrell thread.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the panel in his case decided that there was no need for a deterrent to shoulder shots to the head, and therefore mitigated his ban down, even though he was flagged as a repeat offender without a clean record.
From out here it looks like the panels look for ways to shorten bans any way they can. They are not taking head injuries seriously.

That case has gained a lot of publicity because he is such a high profile player and just because that is the most-talked about it does not mean the other cases are being excused or ignored, they are not, it's just that when it involves the (likely) England captain it will generate a lot of chat, which I think can be applied to others too.

Ah. It's a fair point based on use of language, but it's not actually how the hearings look at it, basically they don't use the word repeat as you might expect.

So if I look at the Owen Farell ruling when it comes to aggravating factors they say

'The Player has only one relevant matter on his record from September 2020. Predominantly due to its age the Panel consider it appropriate to disregard a matter from 2016.'

and

'The Player has one previous matter on record from September 2020 for which he served a 5
match ban for dangerous tackling and another old matter which occurred in 2016. Given the date
of the first matter the Panel conclude the Player is not a repeat offender who’s status warrants an
increase in sanction for this reason.'

What that means to them given they discount the matter from 2016 is they're looking at the current incident and one previous one from 2020, and that does not give them 'repeat' offences, it gives them the current incident and one more, and they don't wrap up previous incidents and the current one because that would be punishing someone twice for the same incident, namely the current one being considered. Basically you need two or more live previous incidents to qualify for the repeat offender added time under aggravating factors.

So what Owen Farrell gets for the one live previous incident on his file is no additional time when it comes to aggravating factors, but there is he doesn't get mitigation that would have reduced his ban by another week because he has the live pervious incident on file.

I tend to think Owen is a lucky boy he's escaped some other incidents being looked into as red cards/citings, but the panel don't get to consider those, they are following procedure, and they are following it correctly, just what they mean by repeat isn't how we might use it in the everyday. And we might think rugby needs to revisit how it protects heads, but one panel can't suddenly decide to do that, that really would be an abandonment of procedure

If you look at the pic in sock's post here

Farrell has been ticked in the repeat offender category.

The incident, to repeat, a foul play of shoulder to the head, is also flagged as not needing a deterrent.

Someone, at some point, is going to have to make a stand, either we don't give a flying fuck about head injuries or we as a game to something about it.
It can start with a fraction of a picometer on forums which might lead to a groundswell of popular opinion which will finally force the hand of authorities, because they don't look particularly interested in player safety, it's all lip service.

[ASMO]

I think first of all enforce the existing laws more rigorously and apply much longer sanctions for those who still transgress, once you do that, then and only then see if the laws need tweaking. Referees and coaches also have a huge role to play here and they themselves should face sanctions either if they fail to apply the law, or they coach a team to continue to transgress. If rugby is genuinely wanting to make the game safer, they need to do more than just pay lip service to that ambition.

[Yr Alban]

I can see the argument for ‘direct impact to the head = red card’, but it has to be applied consistently, and this is nowhere close to happening. I think this is why the incidents aren’t decreasing.

We see shots to the head in almost every game. Some get red cards, some yellow, some just a penalty. There seems to be little relation between the severity of the offence and the punishment. I can recall several red cards where the head contact was almost certainly not the player’s intention. Contrast that with Farrell’s most recent offence, which was a clearly intentional shoulder directly to the head, and he didn’t even get a yellow. Too much is down to interpretation. We need to change something, but I don’t know what.

[Paddington Bear]

I can see the argument for ‘direct impact to the head = red card’, but it has to be applied consistently, and this is nowhere close to happening. I think this is why the incidents aren’t decreasing.

We see shots to the head in almost every game. Some get red cards, some yellow, some just a penalty. There seems to be little relation between the severity of the offence and the punishment. I can recall several red cards where the head contact was almost certainly not the player’s intention. Contrast that with Farrell’s most recent offence, which was a clearly intentional shoulder directly to the head, and he didn’t even get a yellow. Too much is down to interpretation. We need to change something, but I don’t know what.

Feel this is but for hopefully the last time: Faz’s one wasn’t misinterpreted, Dickson refused to even look because him and the TMO had a bizarre miscommunication and he’s a dogshit ref. There was no ‘interpretation’ or it being talked down from a red - TMO called foul play and had Dickson actually taken a look he’d have got a red. You can’t eliminate human fuck ups from the sport, albeit they are exacerbated by a cadre of refs who are out of their depth.

[Tichtheid]

Faz’s one wasn’t misinterpreted, Dickson refused to even look because him and the TMO had a bizarre miscommunication and he’s a dogshit ref. There was no ‘interpretation’ or it being talked down from a red - TMO called foul play and had Dickson actually taken a look he’d have got a red. You can’t eliminate human fuck ups from the sport, albeit they are exacerbated by a cadre of refs who are out of their depth.

That was a particularly bad situation where Dixon and the TMO were using the same phrase to mean two different things, that is something that can be sorted now, today, if there was the will for it - a phase of play being between rucks and something else to mean the point between one restart and another.

I'd also add that for me foul play should be able to be referred back further than a restart

[Rhubarb & Custard]

If you look at the pic in sock's post here

Farrell has been ticked in the repeat offender category.

The incident, to repeat, a foul play of shoulder to the head, is also flagged as not needing a deterrent.

Someone, at some point, is going to have to make a stand, either we don't give a flying fuck about head injuries or we as a game to something about it.
It can start with a fraction of a picometer on forums which might lead to a groundswell of popular opinion which will finally force the hand of authorities, because they don't look particularly interested in player safety, it's all lip service.

I'm just saying they didn't do anything unusual or untoward when it came to Farrell's hearing. Not sure what the tickbox is about, but for sure he's not in their world an actual repeat offender given they discard the 2016 incident as being not being relevant based on its age.

In board terms we likely agree on a lot, but the push for change can't come with one panel arbitrarily electing to take a stand.

I'm not sure it's fair to say they don't care, they had seen change and indeed an improvement when it come to high shots. But now progress has stalled, if at times only stalled as people consider what could come next. I certainly hope they push again before they're forced to by various lawsuits

[Paddington Bear]

Faz’s one wasn’t misinterpreted, Dickson refused to even look because him and the TMO had a bizarre miscommunication and he’s a dogshit ref. There was no ‘interpretation’ or it being talked down from a red - TMO called foul play and had Dickson actually taken a look he’d have got a red. You can’t eliminate human fuck ups from the sport, albeit they are exacerbated by a cadre of refs who are out of their depth.

Agree on the first point - a bizarre miscommunication. I think there does need to be a cut off for the continuity of the game on referring back. If the game has restarted the job turns over to the citing commissioner IMO

That was a particularly bad situation where Dixon and the TMO were using the same phrase to mean two different things, that is something that can be sorted now, today, if there was the will for it - a phase of play being between rucks and something else to mean the point between one restart and another.

I'd also add that for me foul play should be able to be referred back further than a restart

[PornDog]

This fucking idea that so long as you don't call the presiding panel a bunch of cunts and have helped an old lady cross the road a few times, that your sanction gets reduced needs to go. The tackle school thing should be a prerequisite before you are allowed to play professional rugby, not a means to reduce bans.

I also like the idea of punishing sides if their players amass a certain number of bans within a period of time. Fines at the very least, maybe even points if it is workable.

World Rugby should also be allowed to appeal a decision if they feel there are shenanigans going on at the league/union level undermining the process (ie lenient bans coinciding with players becoming available for big games). I don't expect that to ever come into play, but having the option there will add to the integrity of the process.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

This fucking idea that so long as you don't call the presiding panel a bunch of cunts and have helped an old lady cross the road a few times, that your sanction gets reduced needs to go. The tackle school thing should be a prerequisite before you are allowed to play professional rugby, not a means to reduce bans.

I also like the idea of punishing sides if their players amass a certain number of bans within a period of time. Fines at the very least, maybe even points if it is workable.

World Rugby should also be allowed to appeal a decision if they feel there are shenanigans going on at the league/union level undermining the process (ie lenient bans coinciding with players becoming available for big games). I don't expect that to ever come into play, but having the option there will add to the integrity of the process.

There are positives to encouraging those called before a panel to concede guilt and act with decorum. And if not WR then the organisers of a given comp can appeal a ruling they don't like, tbh I doubt the IRB would even want all of that put on them, and they'd probably note we don't have 'shenanigans'

[PornDog]

There are positives to encouraging those called before a panel to concede guilt and act with decorum.

It should be an add on for acting the cunt, not time off for being a good boy!

Right now the optics are that the power that be are paying lip service to player safety. Their doing enough to make sure they are seen doing something, while at the same time making sure that star players aren't missing too many games for acting the cunt!

It completely undermines the whole point of the exercise.

[GogLais]

This fucking idea that so long as you don't call the presiding panel a bunch of cunts and have helped an old lady cross the road a few times, that your sanction gets reduced needs to go. The tackle school thing should be a prerequisite before you are allowed to play professional rugby, not a means to reduce bans.

I also like the idea of punishing sides if their players amass a certain number of bans within a period of time. Fines at the very least, maybe even points if it is workable.

World Rugby should also be allowed to appeal a decision if they feel there are shenanigans going on at the league/union level undermining the process (ie lenient bans coinciding with players becoming available for big games). I don't expect that to ever come into play, but having the option there will add to the integrity of the process.

There are positives to encouraging those called before a panel to concede guilt and act with decorum.

Crazy imo, as others have said, certainly where the decorum bit is concerned. Good behaviour should be a given. A cynic might think it’s just a mechanism to deal out lesser punishments.

[Sandstorm]

There are positives to encouraging those called before a panel to concede guilt and act with decorum.

It should be an add on for acting the cunt, not time off for being a good boy!

Right now the optics are that the power that be are paying lip service to player safety. Their doing enough to make sure they are seen doing something, while at the same time making sure that star players aren't missing too many games for acting the cunt!

It completely undermines the whole point of the exercise.

Agreed. It doesn't help that players turn up to these things with lawyers and the whole thing gets down to a negotiation as to "how much we can chop off the standard sanction" to appease everyone in the room.

[Mahoney]

It's a bit Tomayto Tomahto isn't it?

Base of 2 weeks plus 1 week extra for being an arsehole is exactly the same as base of 3 weeks with 1 week off for not being an arsehole.

Arseholes get 3 weeks, non-arseholes get 2 weeks either way.

[PornDog]

It's a bit Tomayto Tomahto isn't it?

Base of 2 weeks plus 1 week extra for being an arsehole is exactly the same as base of 3 weeks with 1 week off for not being an arsehole.

Arseholes get 3 weeks, non-arseholes get 2 weeks either way.

Why would you change the base entry point for a ban? Again that would defeat the entire purpose!!!

[sockwithaticket]

It's a bit Tomayto Tomahto isn't it?

Base of 2 weeks plus 1 week extra for being an arsehole is exactly the same as base of 3 weeks with 1 week off for not being an arsehole.

Arseholes get 3 weeks, non-arseholes get 2 weeks either way.

The base bans aren't that close together.

For dangerous tackles low end is 2 weeks, mid 6 and top 10+.

Not deducting weeks for good conduct in the hearing, showing contrition, generally being a very good boy, etc. would have a significant impact on ban length.

[GogLais]

It's a bit Tomayto Tomahto isn't it?

Base of 2 weeks plus 1 week extra for being an arsehole is exactly the same as base of 3 weeks with 1 week off for not being an arsehole.

Arseholes get 3 weeks, non-arseholes get 2 weeks either way.

Players who behave themselves shouldn’t get any credit for it, those who don’t should get additional punishment is my simple way of looking at it.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

This fucking idea that so long as you don't call the presiding panel a bunch of cunts and have helped an old lady cross the road a few times, that your sanction gets reduced needs to go. The tackle school thing should be a prerequisite before you are allowed to play professional rugby, not a means to reduce bans.

I also like the idea of punishing sides if their players amass a certain number of bans within a period of time. Fines at the very least, maybe even points if it is workable.

World Rugby should also be allowed to appeal a decision if they feel there are shenanigans going on at the league/union level undermining the process (ie lenient bans coinciding with players becoming available for big games). I don't expect that to ever come into play, but having the option there will add to the integrity of the process.

There are positives to encouraging those called before a panel to concede guilt and act with decorum.

Crazy imo, as others have said, certainly where the decorum bit is concerned. Good behaviour should be a given. A cynic might think it’s just a mechanism to deal out lesser punishments.

It's a very normal piece of thinking in the legal world and oddly this process is dominated by legal types. Yes for those wanting punishment it can seem to be missing the point, but that you start not wanting to sanction isn't in all ways bad thinking, there's a lot to admire about it.

It could of course be changed if that's deemed appropriate, just as is what's happened with Farrell doesn't represent any failing in the process

[GogLais]

There are positives to encouraging those called before a panel to concede guilt and act with decorum.

Crazy imo, as others have said, certainly where the decorum bit is concerned. Good behaviour should be a given. A cynic might think it’s just a mechanism to deal out lesser punishments.

It's a very normal piece of thinking in the legal world and oddly this process is dominated by legal types. Yes for those wanting punishment it can seem to be missing the point, but that you start not wanting to sanction isn't in all ways bad thinking, there's a lot to admire about it.

It could of course be changed if that's deemed appropriate, just as is what's happened with Farrell doesn't represent any failing in the process

Depends what one means by in effect better than average behaviour I guess. I’m not sure what sort of good behaviour at a hearing would be so exceptionally good as to justify reducing a sentence.

[Sandstorm]

Crazy imo, as others have said, certainly where the decorum bit is concerned. Good behaviour should be a given. A cynic might think it’s just a mechanism to deal out lesser punishments.

It's a very normal piece of thinking in the legal world and oddly this process is dominated by legal types. Yes for those wanting punishment it can seem to be missing the point, but that you start not wanting to sanction isn't in all ways bad thinking, there's a lot to admire about it.

It could of course be changed if that's deemed appropriate, just as is what's happened with Farrell doesn't represent any failing in the process

Depends what one means by in effect better than average behaviour I guess. I’m not sure what sort of good behaviour at a hearing would be so exceptionally good as to justify reducing a sentence.

It's just padding for the press release. They waffle about him being a nice, polite chap, does charity work, didn't call the committee a cnut-show, etc.....

"Good morning. We decided to reduce it to 3 weeks. Goodbye".......isn't enough.

[GogLais]

It's a very normal piece of thinking in the legal world and oddly this process is dominated by legal types. Yes for those wanting punishment it can seem to be missing the point, but that you start not wanting to sanction isn't in all ways bad thinking, there's a lot to admire about it.

It could of course be changed if that's deemed appropriate, just as is what's happened with Farrell doesn't represent any failing in the process

Depends what one means by in effect better than average behaviour I guess. I’m not sure what sort of good behaviour at a hearing would be so exceptionally good as to justify reducing a sentence.

It's just padding for the press release. They waffle about him being a nice, polite chap, does charity work, didn't call the committee a cnut-show, etc.....

"Good morning. We decided to reduce it to 3 weeks. Goodbye".......isn't enough.

I did wonder.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

If you take all of the good behaviour out you remove the incentive for the accused to cooperate, they might as well argue every aspect they possibly can citing as many precedents as they can think of, making the whole lengthier, more expensive, and perhaps with the player less likely to feel they need to change. That is a way one could choose to go, it's not an alternative without issue, you just need to pick which issue you're wanting/willing to accept. Myself considering what it is they're trying to do, improve behaviours not punish, I don't mind they've got the mitigation they do in place, I do however think the sanctions themselves need to be escalated because we've reached a point wherein it doesn't seem players are continuing to improve safety in the tackle sufficiently