Champions Cup; and the other one if someone wants to comment

First topic message reminder :

Couldn't see another thread on a quick look so sorry if I've missed it.

This weeks fixtures as follows (lifted from the beeb):

Friday
POOL 1
Connacht v Bordeaux Bègles
20:00

POOL 3
Glasgow Warriors v Northampton Saints
20:00

EUROPEAN CHALLENGE CUP
POOL 3
ASM Clermont Auvergne v Edinburgh
20:00

....Guernsey vs Bury St Edmonds as well which is a biggy

Saturday
POOL 1
Bulls v Saracens
17:30

Bristol v Lyon
20:00

POOL 2
Bath v Ulster
15:15

Toulouse v Cardiff Rugby
15:15

POOL 3
Toulon v Exeter Chiefs
13:00

Munster v Bayonne
17:30

EUROPEAN CHALLENGE CUP
POOL 1
Zebre v Cheetahs
13:00

Sharks v Pau
15:15

Dragons v Oyonnax
20:00

POOL 2
Ospreys v Benetton
17:30

POOL 3
Black Lion v Gloucester
13:00

Castres v Scarlets
15:15

Sunday
POOL 2
Racing 92 v Harlequins
17:30

POOL 4
Sale v Stade Francais
13:00

La Rochelle v Leinster
15:15

Leicester Tigers v Stormers
15:15

EUROPEAN CHALLENGE CUP
POOL 2
Perpignan v Lions
13:00

Newcastle Falcons vMontpellier
15:15

Heaf wrote:Tigers a bit fortunate with that Quins pass that went astray - looked like H-C touched it as it went over his head and was caught by the Tigers player in front ....

Not a European Game. Looked like OHC pulled his hands out the way as he was worried about touching it. Ben Youngs in behind reading it and intercepting if that's the one you mean.

Quite a scrappy game, ref seemed to miss a few bits and bobs for both sides but generally got the big things right like the disallowed try.

Ooops my bad ... bit disappointed Evans missed the last (easy) conversion as that would have given me max points on Superbru

They should've let the other Evans take it. The kid was on fire all match. It's nice seeing Will fit and excelling again. He's such a fun player to watch. As a Tigers fan, it was a gut shot when he left the season after Thacker moved on. One of those players who always seems to do positive things when he's on the pitch.

https://www.bristolbearsrugby.com/bristol-bears-men/epcr-to-appeal-josh-caulfield-red-card-verdict/

EPCR is appealing the Caulfield verdict.

Usually, appeals like these are to decide whether the laws have been properly administered, and not to relitigate the original act.

Not sure where the full Caulfield judgement is published, however a reddit thread claims this is part of the panel's finding:

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1adw5dt/epcr_to_appeal_josh_caulfield_red_card_verdict/

On a couple of run throughs of the video footage, it is very easy to see why the referee and TMO thought it was an intentional act, justifying a red card. Having heard the player’s explanation, and had the benefit of several more angles, we considered that it was more likely than not that the act was not intentional.

We accepted the player’s account that his intention was to put his foot over the prone player’s head in order to enter the ruck through the gate. We did not accept that any push/ contact from Bristol 7 contributed to his movement, but did accept that he lifted his leg in order to clear the Connacht 3 on the ground. In doing so he lost his balance from a combination of the prone player moving and the realisation that his own face was about to be struck by Bristol 3’s foot protruding from the ruck, thus causing his foot to come into accidental contact with Mr Bealham.

He carried out a similar action successfully during the same passage of play. We considered there was sufficient recklessness to merit a red card but with mitigating factors from the circumstances to justify a downgrade to a yellow.

As a general description of what happened, many would probably agree, aside from Connacht fans on the42.ie, calling Caulfield a thug, and wanting him banned for a year.

However, if that is the real text, then you can see why the EPCR would appeal. The panel seems to have accepted that it was an accident (not intentional) but was nevertheless reckless, and so constituted foul play. Once you are there, then you can't mitigate down.

The judgement seems to hold Bealham slighly liable for the outcome because of the way he was moving (east to west, rather than north to south), to get out the way. That also makes no sense, because World Rugby guidance says tacklers ought to move east to west to clear the area.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/15/detail/

Surely if successful then it has a significant impact on how the game is played. The only 'recklessness' there is is stepping over a prone player...so are they really trying to say that that is a red card offence?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Surely if successful then it has a significant impact on how the game is played.

The way the laws are written, a red card would be the right result, given the findings of fact. It could also have been ruled as an unintentional, unavoidable, non-reckless accident, which would carry no penalty. The panel chose not to do that. Any other outcome needs differently written, or interpreted, laws.

I don't think the appeal can reassess findings of fact, so the main purpose of the EPCR appeal is to make sure the judgement is consistent with what World Rugby has been telling referees to do.

Josh Caulfield has been banned for four weeks.

Once the first disciplinary panel decided his boot in Bealham's face constituted foul play, then that was the only outcome consistent with current laws and guidance.

The next step should be to work out why the members of the original panel - Paul Thomas (Wales), Marcello D’Orey (Portugal) and Stefan Terblanche (South Africa) - didn't know that. There's no point in World Rugby spending time telling referees how to officiate, if they don't also tell members of disciplinary committees the same message.

And given the finding that stepping over someone is reckless any instance of this should be a red card now.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And given the finding that stepping over someone is reckless any instance of this should be a red card now.

You are under the impression this result has created a new law or interpretation. It hasn't. It is only reaffirming existing laws and interpretations.

It was open to the referee, or the disciplinary panel to say Caulfield's action wasn't foul play, and merited no penalty. As soon as the panel agreed with the referee that it was foul play, then they should have upheld the red card. Instead, they went off piste, and tried to have the best of both worlds.

If someone steps, and catches an opponent in the face, then it won't be a red card if the referee or disciplinary panel judges decides it wasn't intentional, reckless, or unavoidable.

That's what happened when James Horwill caught Alun Wyn Jones during the Lions series:



While Horwill was cleared by a disciplinary panel, the decision was also appealed.  However, the appeal panel cannot relitigate the original case, it can only decide if the laws and guidance were followed. In Horwill's case, the orginal disciplinary panel decided Horwill's action wasn't foul play, so deserved no punishment. The appeal panel found no fault with that logic.

In Caulfield's case, the appeal panel faulted the logic behind his decision because you can't say a boot in the face is foul play (reckless), then apply mitigation because it wasn't intentional.

Yes get the point that the panels wording was probably wrong, but seeing as the original panel and presumably a different one are seeing as stepping over a player as reckless then we should see anyone stepping over someone being more harshly treated. I mean it obviously won't and they've just massive messed up yet again with the processes but it should be.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes get the point that the panels wording was probably wrong, but seeing as the original panel and presumably a different one are seeing as stepping over a player as reckless then we should see anyone stepping over someone being more harshly treated. I mean it obviously won't and they've just massive messed up yet again with the processes but it should be.

You've misunderstood the scope of the appeal panel. As outlined above, appeal panels cannot relitigate the original incident. They had no opinion on whether Caulfield's action was intentional, reckless, or avoidable. Their role was to make sure the first disciplinary panel followed their own logic. As that original panel had called it foul play, then the appeal panel just reaffirmed that they were actually agreeing with the onfield referee.

It is still open to referees, or future disciplinary panels, to rule an action like that to be accidental. As happened with James Horwill.

Well they ruled this accidental too. But as no one, including WR are appealing that the action of stepping over someone is reckless then anyone doing so is being reckless.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes get the point that the panels wording was probably wrong, but seeing as the original panel and presumably a different one are seeing as stepping over a player as reckless then we should see anyone stepping over someone being more harshly treated. I mean it obviously won't and they've just massive messed up yet again with the processes but it should be.

You've misunderstood the scope of the appeal panel. As outlined above, appeal panels cannot relitigate the original incident. They had no opinion on whether Caulfield's action was intentional, reckless, or avoidable. Their role was to make sure the first disciplinary panel followed their own logic. As that original panel had called it foul play, then the appeal panel just reaffirmed that they were actually agreeing with the onfield referee.

It is still open to referees, or future disciplinary panels, to rule an action like that to be accidental. As happened with James Horwill.

The ref clearly said that the stamp was intentional.

I'd be surprised if the panel agreed with that and only gave him 4 weeks for an intentional stamp to the head.

Margin_Walker wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes get the point that the panels wording was probably wrong, but seeing as the original panel and presumably a different one are seeing as stepping over a player as reckless then we should see anyone stepping over someone being more harshly treated. I mean it obviously won't and they've just massive messed up yet again with the processes but it should be.

You've misunderstood the scope of the appeal panel. As outlined above, appeal panels cannot relitigate the original incident. They had no opinion on whether Caulfield's action was intentional, reckless, or avoidable. Their role was to make sure the first disciplinary panel followed their own logic. As that original panel had called it foul play, then the appeal panel just reaffirmed that they were actually agreeing with the onfield referee.

It is still open to referees, or future disciplinary panels, to rule an action like that to be accidental. As happened with James Horwill.

The ref clearly said that the stamp was intentional.

I'd be surprised if the panel agreed with that and only gave him 4 weeks for an intentional stamp to the head.

No he didn't. He thought it was reckless, which is the same conclusion the first disciplinary panel reached.

The appeal panel had no opinion on the original onfield decision. Their role was only to decide if the disciplinary panel had followed the laws.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well they ruled this accidental too. But as no one, including WR are appealing that the action of stepping over someone is reckless then anyone doing so is being reckless.

There's been no mention of "accidental", so no one has ruled that. The three conditions for foul play are intentional, reckless or avoidable. If one of those conditions is met, then the action is ruled foul play.

If an action is not intentional, reckless or avoidable, then it is not foul play. When something on a rugby field is not foul play, then we typically call it "accidental".

It's in this terminology that the first Caulfield disciplinary panel went wrong. They thought Caulfield was reckless but didn't intend to stand on Bealham's face. However "intention" is one of the three conditions for foul play. Once the panel said Caulfield was reckless, it didn't matter what he intended. However, the panel wanted to go back to intention for mitigation, which they couldn't do.

It is still open for any referee or disciplinary panel to decide that putting a foot into someone's face is not reckless.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes get the point that the panels wording was probably wrong, but seeing as the original panel and presumably a different one are seeing as stepping over a player as reckless then we should see anyone stepping over someone being more harshly treated. I mean it obviously won't and they've just massive messed up yet again with the processes but it should be.

You've misunderstood the scope of the appeal panel. As outlined above, appeal panels cannot relitigate the original incident. They had no opinion on whether Caulfield's action was intentional, reckless, or avoidable. Their role was to make sure the first disciplinary panel followed their own logic. As that original panel had called it foul play, then the appeal panel just reaffirmed that they were actually agreeing with the onfield referee.

It is still open to referees, or future disciplinary panels, to rule an action like that to be accidental. As happened with James Horwill.

The ref clearly said that the stamp was intentional.

I'd be surprised if the panel agreed with that and only gave him 4 weeks for an intentional stamp to the head.

No he didn't. He thought it was reckless, which is the same conclusion the first disciplinary panel reached.

The appeal panel had no opinion on the original onfield decision. Their role was only to decide if the disciplinary panel had followed the laws.

Yes he did

'It's an intentional act of foul play. It's a red card' @ 1.40

https://twitter.com/rugbyontnt/status/1748441555377996158

And as recorded in the original decision

'On a couple of run throughs of the video footage, it is very easy to see why the referee and TMO thought it was an intentional act'

https://media-cdn.incrowdsports.com/614066bc-8a80-47c1-9ae3-8c511674f2b4.pdf

Margin_Walker wrote:No he didn't

'It's an intentional act of foul play. It's a red card' @ 1.40

https://twitter.com/rugbyontnt/status/1748441555377996158

That's the point. The referee then wrote it up as reckless, which would have produced the same result. This is likely why the disciplinary panel got itself into a muddle over reckless and intentional.

It was wide open for the disciplinary panel to decide the action wasn't reckless, intentional or avoidable and so wasn't foul play. They didn't go that route.

I'm sure I read the panels decision and they said it was accidental, can't find it now as the searches are just bringing back this news.

Then I read this 'They thought Caulfield was reckless but didn't intend to stand on Bealham's face.' so that's accidental.

For sake of consistency stepping over someone is reckless, as above I said it won't be seen as that; but it should.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:No he didn't

'It's an intentional act of foul play. It's a red card' @ 1.40

https://twitter.com/rugbyontnt/status/1748441555377996158

That's the point. The referee then wrote it up as reckless, which would have produced the same result. This is likely why the disciplinary panel got itself into a muddle over reckless and intentional.

It was wide open for the disciplinary panel to decide the action wasn't reckless, intentional or avoidable and so wasn't foul play. They didn't go that route.

You just said he didn't say it's intentional though. The original judgement then refers to the ref and TMO having it as intentional and makes no mention of the ref's report changing their view to reckless.

Now that may have happened, but I've not seen the report from the ref. Do you have a link for that?

Margin_Walker wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:No he didn't

'It's an intentional act of foul play. It's a red card' @ 1.40

https://twitter.com/rugbyontnt/status/1748441555377996158

That's the point. The referee then wrote it up as reckless, which would have produced the same result. This is likely why the disciplinary panel got itself into a muddle over reckless and intentional.

It was wide open for the disciplinary panel to decide the action wasn't reckless, intentional or avoidable and so wasn't foul play. They didn't go that route.

You just said he didn't say it's intentional though. The original judgement then refers to the ref and TMO having it as intentional and makes no mention of the ref's report changing their view to reckless.

Now that may have happened, but I've not seen the report from the ref. Do you have a link for that?

I don't have a link. The referee's report is one of the submissions to the panel, which Bristol brought up. The thing is, it's virtually standard practice for referees to submit reports citing recklessness as the reason for foul play. Especially referees, like Brousset, operating in a second language. Whatever you think in the heat of the moment, intention is a psychological judgement call, and avoidable is a physics lesson, so it's just plain easier for referees who think something is foul play to cite recklessness.

The disciplinary panel should not have got sucked into choosing between intentional vs reckless because either was enough to be foul play, which meant red.

The disciplinary panel make absolutely no reference of the team of officials on the day reporting it as anything other than intentional. If their view had changed or if it had been recorded in the report as reckless instead, I'd expect that key fact to have been picked out of the ref/TMO report by the panel.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm sure I read the panels decision and they said it was accidental, can't find it now as the searches are just bringing back this news.

Then I read this 'They thought Caulfield was reckless but didn't intend to stand on Bealham's face.' so that's accidental.

For sake of consistency stepping over someone is reckless, as above I said it won't be seen as that; but it should.

Accidental is your word, not theirs. You are mixing up intentional and accidental, when the first has a specific legal meaning.

Under the current guidance, if an act is intentional, reckless or avoidable then it is foul play. Foul play is not an accident.

If an act is not intentional, reckless or avoidable, then it not foul play. You might call that an accident.

Margin_Walker wrote:The disciplinary panel make absolutely no reference of the team of officials on the day reporting it as anything other than intentional. If their view had changed or if it had been recorded in the report as recklessinstead, I'd expect that key fact to have been picked out of the ref/TMO report by the panel.

It was picked out by Bristol, to support their claim that it was an accident.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:The disciplinary panel make absolutely no reference of the team of officials on the day reporting it as anything other than intentional. If their view had changed or if it had been recorded in the report as recklessinstead, I'd expect that key fact to have been picked out  of the ref/TMO report by the panel.

It was picked out by Bristol, to support their claim that it was an accident.

I can't see Bristol calling that out anywhere in their press releases on the matter. Is there a link for that, as I may have missed it?

Margin_Walker wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:The disciplinary panel make absolutely no reference of the team of officials on the day reporting it as anything other than intentional. If their view had changed or if it had been recorded in the report as recklessinstead, I'd expect that key fact to have been picked out  of the ref/TMO report by the panel.

It was picked out by Bristol, to support their claim that it was an accident.

I can't see Bristol calling that out anywhere in their press releases on the matter. Is there a link for that, as I may have missed it?

I haven't seen any press releases from the club. While none of this has been spoken about out of turn, Bristol's sports lawyers are well-known, and they were quick to share their experiences after the initial win.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:The disciplinary panel make absolutely no reference of the team of officials on the day reporting it as anything other than intentional. If their view had changed or if it had been recorded in the report as recklessinstead, I'd expect that key fact to have been picked out  of the ref/TMO report by the panel.

It was picked out by Bristol, to support their claim that it was an accident.

I can't see Bristol calling that out anywhere in their press releases on the matter. Is there a link for that, as I may have missed it?

I haven't seen any press releases from the club. While none of this has been spoken about out of turn, Bristol's sports lawyers are well-known, and they were quick to share their experiences after the initial win.

Righto, forget it. It's a 'trust me bro' thing.

I'm out

Margin_Walker wrote:Righto, forget it. It's a 'trust me bro' thing.

I'm out

When the panel decided it was reckless, and foul play, it didn't matter what the referee said onfield and in his report.

I brought that difference up as a possible reason why the panel got so confused.

If you aren't interested in that, then ignore it. It didn't affect the appeal panel's decision.

You seemed to have circled back to foul play = automatic red, which it isn't as mitigation can be applied unless it's intentional or 'always illegal'?  

The officials decided it was intentional on the day so red would have been correct for what they thought.  

The panel seemed to decide it wasn't intentional but was reckless and applied mitigation, as reckless doesn't automatically = red.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm sure I read the panels decision and they said it was accidental, can't find it now as the searches are just bringing back this news.

Then I read this 'They thought Caulfield was reckless but didn't intend to stand on Bealham's face.' so that's accidental.

For sake of consistency stepping over someone is reckless, as above I said it won't be seen as that; but it should.

Accidental is your word, not theirs. You are mixing up intentional and accidental, when the first has a specific legal meaning.

Under the current guidance, if an act is intentional, reckless or avoidable then it is foul play. Foul play is not an accident.

If an act is not intentional, reckless or avoidable, then it not foul play. You might call that an accident.

You can be reckless and an incident avoidable and it can be an accident.

Heaf wrote:You seemed to have circled back to foul play = automatic red, which it isn't as mitigation can be applied unless it's intentional or 'always illegal'?  

The officials decided it was intentional on the day so red would have been correct for what they thought.  

The panel seemed to decide it wasn't intentional but was reckless and applied mitigation, as reckless doesn't automatically = red.

I've never said foul play = automatic red.

I have said an always illegal act of foul play gets no mitigation. (Earlier in the thread, I gave you an example of an act of foul play which does get mitigation, to draw the distinction.)

So, if the foul play involves an always illegal act, which starts at a red card, then it stays at a red card. That's what happened in this case.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm sure I read the panels decision and they said it was accidental, can't find it now as the searches are just bringing back this news.

Then I read this 'They thought Caulfield was reckless but didn't intend to stand on Bealham's face.' so that's accidental.

For sake of consistency stepping over someone is reckless, as above I said it won't be seen as that; but it should.

Accidental is your word, not theirs. You are mixing up intentional and accidental, when the first has a specific legal meaning.

Under the current guidance, if an act is intentional, reckless or avoidable then it is foul play. Foul play is not an accident.

If an act is not intentional, reckless or avoidable, then it not foul play. You might call that an accident.

You can be reckless and an incident avoidable and it can be an accident.

You've left out "foul play", so you are mixing legal terms in rugby, and common language.

If you are reckless, and your action is avoidable, then your action constitutes foul play. Foul play is not an accident.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Heaf wrote:You seemed to have circled back to foul play = automatic red, which it isn't as mitigation can be applied unless it's intentional or 'always illegal'?  

The officials decided it was intentional on the day so red would have been correct for what they thought.  

The panel seemed to decide it wasn't intentional but was reckless and applied mitigation, as reckless doesn't automatically = red.

I've never said foul play = automatic red.  

I have said an always illegal act of foul play gets no mitigation. (Earlier in the thread, I gave you an example of an act of foul play which does get mitigation, to draw the distinction.)

So, if the foul play involves an always illegal act, which starts at a red card, then it stays at a red card. That's what happened in this case.

So you're saying trying to step over a prone player is always illegal?    

The only way I see a boot in the face being 'always illegal' is if it's intentional - which the officials thought it was so red card was correct judgement on that basis.

However the panel say they didn't think it was intentional (and presumably not always illegal) so applied mitigation.