NPR

ASMO wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 7:02 am Anyone know the outcome of the hearing?

Ymx wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:09 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:02 pm Who said it was an accident? Was it Rodney? I bet it was Rodney.

Rodney wrote: in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently),

JM2K6 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:16 am

Kawazaki wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:01 am

JM2K6 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 7:58 am Jesus fuck

Seriously, do you guys not understand that I am talking about a) the various ways the defence will attempt to mitigate it and b) what the commission may or may not do? I can guarantee you they're not going to go in there and scream "you dirty bastard" at him. Why do you think I covered the various things that the panel looks at when determining the sanction? I am literally just pointing out the ways in which the ban can be reduced and people are behaving like I've launched into a full throated defence of him

Whinging about Wasps having the temerity to look after their player was the real cherry on top to be honest.

Yes, that was a little jab at Wasps for bandaging up a player who didn't have a cut. Tiny bit of shithousery on my part (and also on theirs, tbf). But also making the point that the level of force seemed pretty minimal as it was a step rather than a full blooded stomp and didn't do any visible damage we could see when the bandage was off (which is part of the whole 'step/stomp' discussion).

Again, panels look for reasons to reduce the sanction. It's not a defence of Mike Brown to point out the ways in which the panel may well cut down the ban. It's also not saying it's not ban-worthy. But because it's me, and because it's Mike Brown, a player who many of you dislike for your own reasons, the red mist descends whenever I post about him so you think I'm saying one thing when I'm saying another.

Here's some more context:

Morgan Allen, guilty of stamping on an opponent's head, 3 week ban (reduced from six weeks due to clean record, guilty plea, expression of remorse)
Connacht prop Robertson-McCoy, same offence, 6 weeks down from 12 for stamping on the head of van der Flier
Tom Wood, who walked into a ruck looking at his opponent and stepped straight on his face, banned for 6 weeks (and he has a much worse record than Brown)

Just saying, you guys who think this is top-end and it'll be a long ban are likely to be surprised when the final judgment comes in. There's plenty of reasons why a panel might cut this down and they usually don't hesitate to do so.

ASMO wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:13 am Either way, last game for Quins, a really sad way to end his career there.

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 7:54 am

Ymx wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:09 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:02 pm Who said it was an accident? Was it Rodney? I bet it was Rodney.

Rodney wrote: in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently),

Not that bright, are you?

Ymx wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:48 am

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 7:54 am

Ymx wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:09 pm

Not that bright, are you?

Just poking fun. Yes of course it was clearly directed at you, and you knew.

You can let yourself get a little wound up JM.

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 10:11 am
Gosh, it's almost like I know what I'm talking about

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:22 am They accepted it wasn't intentional,

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 12:39 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 10:11 am
Gosh, it's almost like I know what I'm talking about

[/Jake mode]

Not a good look tbh.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 12:40 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:22 am They accepted it wasn't intentional,

Ridiculous IMHO and in a court of law, that would have been laughed out. But it's rugby and we do discipline and consistency a la mode Keystone Cops.

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:32 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 12:39 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 10:11 am
Gosh, it's almost like I know what I'm talking about

[/Jake mode]

Not a good look tbh.

Nah fuck that, if people are going to deliberately misread and misinterpret my posts, they deserve the shit that comes their way when I'm proven right.

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:53 am

Ymx wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:48 am

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 7:54 am

Not that bright, are you?

Just poking fun. Yes of course it was clearly directed at you, and you knew.

You can let yourself get a little wound up JM.

Of course I knew, my post about Rodney was dripping with it. All you did was the dumb obvious thing to troll me, and still fucked it up by quoting the bit where I said the opposite of what you were trying to make out I said.

But hey, I said people expecting a long ban were likely to be disappointed, that there were various reasons why the panel would cut it down, and that there was a possibility the realtime view would make it seem largely unintentional. And so it proved. The only bit I got wrong was injury related.

Ymx wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 3:39 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:53 am

Ymx wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:48 am
Just poking fun. Yes of course it was clearly directed at you, and you knew.

You can let yourself get a little wound up JM.

Of course I knew, my post about Rodney was dripping with it. All you did was the dumb obvious thing to troll me, and still fucked it up by quoting the bit where I said the opposite of what you were trying to make out I said.

But hey, I said people expecting a long ban were likely to be disappointed, that there were various reasons why the panel would cut it down, and that there was a possibility the realtime view would make it seem largely unintentional. And so it proved. The only bit I got wrong was injury related.

Well, you actually said in your opinion it was not quite 100% purely accidental. Whilst pitched in a certain way, logically and quite clearly means you suggest a large component of accidental.

But

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:32 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 12:39 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 10:11 am
Gosh, it's almost like I know what I'm talking about

[/Jake mode]

Not a good look tbh.

Nah fuck that, if people are going to deliberately misread and misinterpret my posts, they deserve the shit that comes their way when I'm proven right.

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:18 pm

Ymx wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 3:39 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 11:53 am

Of course I knew, my post about Rodney was dripping with it. All you did was the dumb obvious thing to troll me, and still fucked it up by quoting the bit where I said the opposite of what you were trying to make out I said.

But hey, I said people expecting a long ban were likely to be disappointed, that there were various reasons why the panel would cut it down, and that there was a possibility the realtime view would make it seem largely unintentional. And so it proved. The only bit I got wrong was injury related.

Well, you actually said in your opinion it was not quite 100% purely accidental. Whilst pitched in a certain way, logically and quite clearly means you suggest a large component of accidental.

But

No, dickhead, you can't read. I said this: "reasonable case could be made that in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently)". That is me saying that if the panel was being charitable, in realtime it could be interpreted as being much less of an offence, and me giving my opinion that it's still not enough for it to be just an accident; i.e. that Brown was still culpable, that even with that charitable reading it was still likely a deliberate act and that single angle and replay was in my opinion not enough to exonerate him. Whilst talking in the context of the ways in which the offence might be bartered down. There were, of course, other angles and replays that looked much worse, which is part of the point being made. You moron.

Ymx wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 6:12 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:18 pm

Ymx wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 3:39 pm

Well, you actually said in your opinion it was not quite 100% purely accidental. Whilst pitched in a certain way, logically and quite clearly means you suggest a large component of accidental.

But

No, dickhead, you can't read. I said this: "reasonable case could be made that in realtime it looks like he just loses balance (not enough for it to be purely accidental IMO, but they may see it differently)". That is me saying that if the panel was being charitable, in realtime it could be interpreted as being much less of an offence, and me giving my opinion that it's still not enough for it to be just an accident; i.e. that Brown was still culpable, that even with that charitable reading it was still likely a deliberate act and that single angle and replay was in my opinion not enough to exonerate him. Whilst talking in the context of the ways in which the offence might be bartered down. There were, of course, other angles and replays that looked much worse, which is part of the point being made. You moron.

Forgetting you are talking about the "a case could be made ... " disaccociation from you, the rest is then _your_ opinion of how it looked ... which has a clear message of a clear accidental look to it, but not 100%.

Really charming to top and tail your post with the un-necessary nasty abuse, along with the other stuff. Take that stuff back to PR with you.

(Reuters) - Former England fullback Mike Brown’s 16-year stint at Harlequins has come to an end after an independent disciplinary panel on Thursday dismissed an appeal over his six-match ban for stamping on an opponent, ruling him out of the rest of the season.

Brown was handed the suspension by the Rugby Football Union (RFU) on May 12 after he was shown a red card in Harlequins’ 48-46 win over the Wasps.

Brown trampled on the head of Wasps hooker Tommy Taylor, who had held him in a ruck.

“The appeal was dismissed,” the independent panel statement said.

“The Appeal Panel did not accept the submissions that the Disciplinary Panel had come to a decision to which no reasonable body could have come, particularly bearing in mind that the burden is on the player to establish on the balance of probabilities that no reasonable Disciplinary Panel could have come to the same conclusion.”

It means Brown, who missed their 35-29 defeat by Leicester Tigers, will miss games against Bath, Sale Sharks and Newcastle Falcons, as well as two additional fixtures, including the Premiership final if Harlequins qualify.

Harlequins are fourth and in contention for a playoff spot.
Brown, who won 72 England caps between 2007-18, is Harlequins’ record appearance holder, having played over 350 games since his debut in 2005, winning the Premiership in 2011–12.

He will leave the club this summer to join the Falcons.

JM2K6 wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 10:20 am Why lucky? They had reasonable grounds for appeal.

I very much doubt Brown wasn't talking to Deano, and I suspect Deano would have been happy to have risked a game or two to keep Brown happy with the opportunity for one last game for Quins.

JM2K6 wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 10:20 am Why lucky? They had reasonable grounds for appeal.

I very much doubt Brown wasn't talking to Deano, and I suspect Deano would have been happy to have risked a game or two to keep Brown happy with the opportunity for one last game for Quins.

Ymx wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 12:43 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 10:20 am Why lucky? They had reasonable grounds for appeal.

I very much doubt Brown wasn't talking to Deano, and I suspect Deano would have been happy to have risked a game or two to keep Brown happy with the opportunity for one last game for Quins.

I’ve seen a large number of these appeals result in larger bans, and sometimes being an argumentative sod doesn’t pay off

Brazil wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 10:37 am

JM2K6 wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 10:20 am Why lucky? They had reasonable grounds for appeal.

I very much doubt Brown wasn't talking to Deano, and I suspect Deano would have been happy to have risked a game or two to keep Brown happy with the opportunity for one last game for Quins.

I presume because the way these appeals usually work is that they take an even dimmer view of the incident, then you eat a biscuit inappropriately and suddenly your career's over and the panel are selling off your organs to shady foreign interests.

Ymx wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 10:30 am https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... l-23294487

Was quite a tough watch.

What happened this time? I don’t follow the EPL. Form, cost, fall-out?

ASMO wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 10:40 am

Ymx wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 10:30 am https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... l-23294487

Was quite a tough watch.

What happened this time? I don’t follow the EPL. Form, cost, fall-out?

I suspect age + cost, he is what 36? 37? Its definately brutal and was a painful watch that interview, i do worry though if he is just hanging on as long as he can because he has no fallback? I know he is doing a masters in sports management or something similar, but that wont pay the bills if he has no income.

I wonder if a Championship side might grab him to help bring on their youngsters.

Uncle fester wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 1:23 pm Would he have the people skills for mentoring/coaching?

inactionman wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 2:17 pm

Uncle fester wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 1:23 pm Would he have the people skills for mentoring/coaching?

Not that I know him personally, but general consensus seems to be he's a decent bloke that gets on well with teammates.

Just deeply competitive on the pitch.

I see no reason why he couldn't be a decent coach, just on that basis. Besides, being a grumpy twat never stopped Cockerill.