Leonardo Ghiraldini banned for 15 weeks

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2057297.html#leonardo+ghiraldini+banned+weeks

Player admits contact but claims it was not a deliberate gouge. The hearing disagree deeming it a top end offence with bans starting at 24 weeks. To act as a deterrant they add 6 weeks - then because of good behaviour halve it.

What is the point of minimum sentences?

15 weeks? Jeebs thats pretty lenient for a blatabntly deliberate gouge

Thug, there is absolutely no place for this in professional sport, it is a disgrace.

Sorry just had to get that in.

biltongbek wrote:Thug, there is absolutely no place for this in professional sport, it is a disgrace.

Sorry just had to get that in.

Black armbands for the next Italy game?

Perhaps, but it would be a while before then won't it, they may have forgotten about it by then.

biltongbek wrote:Perhaps, but it would be a while before then won't it, they may have forgotten about it by then.

True how long is it till the 6 nations, about 15 weeks or so?

LondonTiger wrote:http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2057297.html#leonardo+ghiraldini+banned+weeks

Player admits contact but claims it was not a deliberate gouge. The hearing disagree deeming it a top end offence with bans starting at 24 weeks. To act as a deterrant they add 6 weeks - then because of good behaviour halve it.

What is the point of minimum sentences?

24 weeks isn't a minimum sentence, it's an entry point. The eventual number of weeks is increased for aggravating factors and decreased for mitigating factors.

Ghiraldini is incredibly lucky that his mitigating factors have been seen to carry a lot of weight. But his 'good conduct' mitigation is a card you can only play once.

Shouldn't his ban be double as its the RWC

Have I read that right...the Judicial Officer agrees that it's a top end offence with a recommended ban starting at 24 weeks, reduces it anyway despite acknowledging that there should be an increase for deterrent purposes? Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Was it ever thus Cari. It's not the first time, just look at Cuetos 9 week wrist slap.

To be honest, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt re intention, having seen it several times, he wasn't looking for the eye and as soon as he did it you could seem him adjust his position to stop doing it.

It happened, but nothing like other gouging incidents. More along the lines of Quinny and Cullen. I'd have given him the 12-15 weeks straight out, rather than 30 and halving it. Mixed message there if it had been deliberate. Oh, you've a good record otherwise, so blinding a guy isn't so bad.

For me, previous conduct should only mitigate to make a sentance harsher. Especially in the case of gouging. But as I said, this was recklessness not a concerted attempt to gouge, and there is a difference.

debaters1 wrote:To be honest, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt re intention, having seen it several times, he wasn't looking for the eye and as soon as he did it you could seem him adjust his position to stop doing it.

It happened, but nothing like other gouging incidents. More along the lines of Quinny and Cullen. I'd have given him the 12-15 weeks straight out, rather than 30 and halving it. Mixed message there if it had been deliberate. Oh, you've a good record otherwise, so blinding a guy isn't so bad.

For me, previous conduct should only mitigate to make a sentance harsher. Especially in the case of gouging. But as I said, this was recklessness not a concerted attempt to gouge, and there is a difference.

Absolute rubbish. This was comepeltly differnet to the quinlan incident which was a hand raking the guys face when trying to tackle him legally, both players in motion.
In this case the players head was trapped and stationary, the offender then brings his other hand under, turns it up and grabs at the face. He pinched into the eyes then does it again. Healy gets his head free and punches him.
Quite what he was doing if he wasnt trying to gouge him im not sure, theres no way he couldnt have knwon it has Healys face he was grabbing at and there was no need for him to be grabbing the face, taking him under the shoulder woulve given him more control.
It was as clear a deliberate gouge as you will get, and if it wasnt for a lucky camera angle he wouldve gotten away with it.

anybody know which club Ghiraldini plays for - 15 weeks means he's going to miss four HC games and about 10 league games in whichever league his club is in - Top 14, Rabo12 - not sure which one. His club coach certainly ain't going to be very pleased.

On the 15 week sentence - half the original. I'd maybe have knocked 6 weeks off the original 30-week ban for previous good conduct.

Brenno - Treviso.

brennomac wrote:anybody know which club Ghiraldini plays for - 15 weeks means he's going to miss four HC games and about 10 league games in whichever league his club is in - Top 14, Rabo12 - not sure which one. His club coach certainly ain't going to be very pleased.

On the 15 week sentence - half the original. I'd maybe have knocked 6 weeks off the original 30-week ban for previous good conduct.

Halving bans for previous good behaviour is the norm though, its what enraged so many people about Lawes' sentence.

Given Attoub got nbanned for 52 weeks for a gouge and since they they are suppossed ot have had a crackdown this is a very light ban for one deemed to be deliberate, although the lack of any actual damage may have contributed to that.
Healy is lucky to have escaped censure for his retribution, although most people woulkd see it as justice he wasnt cited for the punching. I thought teh ref handled it well at the time speaking to him and accepting he had been riled, warning the capatins and saying he could only punish what he saw.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Healy is lucky to have escaped censure for his retribution, although most people woulkd see it as justice he wasnt cited for the punching. I thought teh ref handled it well at the time speaking to him and accepting he had been riled, warning the capatins and saying he could only punish what he saw.

Healy swung and missed. If he had connected he'd probably have been in hot water. But the citing commissioner didn't seem interested in citings for punching, if he did both Healy and Bergamasco would have been in trouble.

I love how being rubbish at punching is seen as an excuse! Sheridan vs White springs to mind....
Just as well Healy doenst punch like Williams facepalms

I don't think it's an excuse, just that swinging and connecting is a red card offense, but a swing and a miss is probably a penalty, but no more.

Why would anyone really mind what Healy did to the guy who had just gouged him?

The Italians were awarded a penalty at the time and considering what had happened I think Healy's transgression was very minor.

Much more concerning is the fairly light sentence for a clear gouge.

MrsP wrote:Why would anyone really mind what Healy did to the guy who had just gouged him?

I think we need to be careful of going down the 'two wrongs don't make a right, unless it suits our sense of righteousness' route. Or at least refs doing that.

I wouldn't have minded Healy connecting with Ghiraldini, but in saying that I absolutely know that in a legal sense, at least, I'm not in the right.

greybeard
Why though should an inability to land the punch make any difference to the sanction? The intent is still the same.

As for this suspension, I think the biggest issue is that the reduction in time is based on a proportion of the sentence rather than being a specific number of weeks. I'd much rather see the disciplinary board have the option to discount up to say 4 weeks from a long suspension based on previous good conduct rather than half of the time overall. SO Ghiraldini would have had 24 + 6 for deterrant - 4 for mitigation, giving a total of 26 weeks, and effectively ruling him out of the rest of the international season

dummy_half wrote:greybeard
Why though should an inability to land the punch make any difference to the sanction? The intent is still the same.

I think (not sure, but I think) that there is a distinction in the laws of the game, but I'm willing to believe I'm wrong. But if there are levels of seriousness, then not actually connecting would be the least serious, therefore deserving of a penalty, but not a card, whereas a landed punch deserves a card, the colour depending on the severity of the punches landed. I think intent and severity have to both be ascertained.

LondonTiger wrote:http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2057297.html#leonardo+ghiraldini+banned+weeks

Player admits contact but claims it was not a deliberate gouge. The hearing disagree deeming it a top end offence with bans starting at 24 weeks. To act as a deterrant they add 6 weeks - then because of good behaviour halve it.

What is the point of minimum sentences?

There should be no reduction if they deem it to be intentional. Fair enough if it was accidental contact then by all means take into account past conduct however they clearly thought it was a deliberate act and i think there should definitely not be any reduction in that case.

dummy_half wrote:greybeard
Why though should an inability to land the punch make any difference to the sanction? The intent is still the same.

If they could extend that principle to try scoring then Scotland might be world champs