Clark/Hawkins incident from todays LV cup final

First topic message reminder :

Have a look at the youtube video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d_5Vlsyekio

After the whistle has gone, When Clark gets up he bends Hawkins right arm the wrong way. It's being reported that it dislocated his arm. What are your thoughts on it, should Clark be cited and banned?

In my mind it looks deliberate and therefore should see a fairly long ban. What do you guys think?

Hmmmmm!

Very disappointed with the Saint's statement.

Could there be any legal difficulties for the disciplinary panel if they were to say that the incident was intentional? I am guessing here, but surely the burden of evidence in such disciplinary hearings is not the same as in criminal courts and so perhaps they couldn't say it was intentional without implying a serious criminal offence had been committed for which there was insufficient evidence?

LondonTiger,

I think they can use the extent of any injury that did occur when deciding how long a ban should be but not whether the player was guilty. So, having decided a reckless act had occured, the fact that it resulted in a serious injury would lead to a longer ban.

Guessing again, but the fact that the incident was well after the whistle and without any (apparent) provocation, along with Clarks previous record, will be the factors which have produced that length of ban.

Really think Saints should have kept their mouths shut about it.

LondonTiger wrote:


Would i have put out such a statement, hell no, but as the injury has effectively been deemed an accident I understand where they are coming from.

LT, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The statement is fine in line with the official blurb and they need to be seen to be supporting their player, but the reality of the situation makes the statement very ill-advised. I feel a far better statement would have been to talk about Clark's regret, how he's spoken with Hawkins (if he has), wish him a speedy recovery and then say that's that.

So 32 weeks and indefinitely banned by his club. Pretty much and expected ban to be honest but i feel it could have been alot more.

thing is though, if it was deemed unintentional, how come Clark pleaded guilty?

I don't understand that.

I an completely understand where Saints are coming from.

From their point of view, the panel has agreed that their player didnt intentionally do this. Nonetheless he has been banned from playing for 8 months AFTER mitigation. So the original punishment was probably closer to a year suspesion.

Why such a long ban if not guilty? Dreamer I suspect he may have pleaded guilty to breaking his arm in a reckless manner but not doing it intentionally.

Ok that’s the rugby ban done with, what about criminal charges?

red_stag wrote:I an completely understand where Saints are coming from.

From their point of view, the panel has agreed that their player didnt intentionally do this. Nonetheless he has been banned from playing for 8 months AFTER mitigation. So the original punishment was probably closer to a year suspesion.

Why such a long ban if not guilty? Dreamer I suspect he may have pleaded guilty to breaking his arm in a reckless manner but not doing it intentionally.

I don't think he broke the arm intentionally, but he certainly twisted the arm intentionally and in such a way that injury was unavoidable.

This is a farcical decision by the governing body, I'm sorry, it's decisions like this that are undermining our game, and the fact that Saints are considering appealing I find actually quite disgusting.

Will be interested to see if the report changes my mind in anyway but I really can't see that happening. Only 32 weeks, described as being unintentional, and Saints considering appealing....it's a sad day for our sport.

Clark may not have intended to break Hawkins' arm, but he certainly twisted it in an attempt to hurt him, and must have known serious injury could ensue. For Saints to say "Calum Clark had not intended to injure Rob Hawkins in the course of moving his arm" is pretty ridiculous.

Eustace H Plimsoll wrote:Clark may not have intended to break Hawkins' arm, but he certainly twisted it in an attempt to hurt him, and must have known serious injury could ensue. For Saints to say "Calum Clark had not intended to injure Rob Hawkins in the course of moving his arm" is pretty ridiculous.

Nice line that Plimsoll

Joking apart, I agree with you.

rugbydreamer wrote:

red_stag wrote:I an completely understand where Saints are coming from.

From their point of view, the panel has agreed that their player didnt intentionally do this. Nonetheless he has been banned from playing for 8 months AFTER mitigation. So the original punishment was probably closer to a year suspesion.

Why such a long ban if not guilty? Dreamer I suspect he may have pleaded guilty to breaking his arm in a reckless manner but not doing it intentionally.

I don't think he broke the arm intentionally, but he certainly twisted the arm intentionally and in such a way that injury was unavoidable.

This is a farcical decision by the governing body, I'm sorry, it's decisions like this that are undermining our game, and the fact that Saints are considering appealing I find actually quite disgusting.

Will be interested to see if the report changes my mind in anyway but I really can't see that happening. Only 32 weeks, described as being unintentional, and Saints considering appealing....it's a sad day for our sport.

Dreamer, I agree with you that it appears a completely intentional and horrible act by Clark.

However were I in Northamptons position I would certainly appeal it.

In deciding whether to appeal or not,would they not take into consideration the possibility that the length of the suspension could be increased? I would.

that's what I was thinking laurie.

Stag - I would have hoped that a club of Saints' standing would have looked at this incident for what it is, and done the honourable thing of accepting this ban, which is lenient enough as it is. The fact that they are appealing it, quite frankly makes me lose a lot of respect for them. The sort of act Clark committed should not be condoned anywhere, and by appealing the ban, that is effectively what they are doing.

IMO if the governing body have deemed this to be unintentional Clark stands a very good chance of having the suspension length reduced.

But on appeal that may not be the same finding,or another outcome on appeal is that the matter could be referred back to be determined on the basis that intent has nothing to do with it.

I'll be interested to see how on earth they came to that conclusion, Stag. It's an appalling decision when you actually look at the incident, and does our sport no favours at all.

I would be too Dreamer. It appears off the wall when you review the footage.

However Saints would be very stupid not to appeal. The suspension length appears at odds with the judgement.

I think they are stupid to even think of appealing Stag. Everyone can see the act for what it is. I'd accept the ban and be grateful it's only 32 weeks. Like I said, appealing it, only makes the Saints look bad in this.

I disagree. A decision was reached whereby Clark was found guilty of being reckless and causing injury.

I fail to see that a governing body can make that call and then issue an 8 month ban. It doesnt add up and Saints should appeal.

Saints dont look bad in this. They look like a professional team. I would expect Munster to do the same for one of our players.

That being said I do agree that it looked intentional and he was lucky that it was deemed unintentional.

If Scarlets did the same for one of our players after they'd committed such an act of thuggery, I'd be just as disgusted with them. Saints do not look good in this.

I think you have hit the crux of the problem. If it wasn't inentional, why give 32 weeks? Surely they must have seen something in it to dish out 32 weeks, and if it was that bad, then surely the ban should have been longer?

It's the whole citing/review/disciplinary process that is the problem. Our sport is being run and judged by amatures, it's actually beyond farcical when you think of it.

The disciplinary process has been a mess for absolute years, and this case does nothing more really then to highlight it and how incompetent the people in charge are.

I recall seeing Clark playing the Scarlets at Llanelli in the return Heineken Cup fixture this season. Whilst he didn't indulge in any arm breaking or head butting activities during the game, his confrontational antics caught my attention and I made a note of him as a potential t*at.
I also think that 32 weeks is light and assuming the ban isn't lengthened on appeal, I hope that both he and his coach have sufficient time to reflect on his attitude and make the necessary corrections.
He will be a marked man, both by players and match officials in future.

Wait and see what they actually said , rather than the Saints spin on it.

I suspect the report will state much the same as what Cockerill himself said, that Clark (who has no doubt been at pains to state) did not intend to cause serious injury with his action but that it was illegal, highly dangerous and did cause a severe injury so they went in at the upper end.

rugbydreamer wrote:If Scarlets did the same for one of our players after they'd committed such an act of thuggery, I'd be just as disgusted with them. Saints do not look good in this.

I think you have hit the crux of the problem. If it wasn't inentional, why give 32 weeks? Surely they must have seen something in it to dish out 32 weeks, and if it was that bad, then surely the ban should have been longer?

It's the whole citing/review/disciplinary process that is the problem. Our sport is being run and judged by amatures, it's actually beyond farcical when you think of it.

The disciplinary process has been a mess for absolute years, and this case does nothing more really then to highlight it and how incompetent the people in charge are.

Exactly

It will indeed be interesting to see how they arrived at 32 weeks.

My guess is that they decided it was a Top end entry point. They can then set this anywhere between 11 and 52 weeks. the fact that a serious injury occured and there has been widespread condemnation in the press will have pushed that entry point up significantly. (The media interest alone could have put it up by a sixth!)

Not much mitigation really except a guilty plea.

If the finding is that the injury was unintentional but the act was reckless then I understand why saints are considering appealing.

In a way what you have is simply a case where somebodies arm was pulled back which Accidently ended in injury.

32 weeks is a very long time for that.

However realistically we have a broken elbow from an incident which occurred once the whistle had been blown.

What saints need to consider is how much rugby Clarke will miss which is on all honesty not as much as it could have been, and maybe take that one on the chin

Jeez talk about getting out of jail free! 32 weeks and that includes the off season. With a possible appeal pending. That really is very light considering what he's done.

Bit of a side point, I really think it's stupid that bans run over the off season. It's a much worse punishment to get a 32 week ban in September than it is to get one now. Once again, the disciplinary process ends in farce.

Agreed. I would rather see bans being X first team games rather then X weeks

report:

http://www.rfu.com/News/2012/March/NewsArticles/~/media/Files/2012/DISCIPLINE/Judgements/LONDON/120330_-_Calum_Clark.ashx


The judge has been fooled, imo. 64 weeks was about right, can't believed he halved it.

His explanation doesn't match with the video evidence for me either.

Well the disciplinary guys took a very dim view of the incident.

http://www.rfu.com/TheGame/Discipline/Judgements/Judgments2011-12/JudgmentsbyOffence/~/media/Files/2012/DISCIPLINE/Judgements/LONDON/120330_-_Calum_Clark.ashx

My summary.

They said Clark had not intended to harm Hawkins. He was apparently just trying to make the ball available quickly!
He was reckless.
A serious injury resulted.
It was after the whistle and unprovoked.

They said the incident is unprecedented and so the entry point was at their discretion.
If he had acted intentionally the entry point would have been 5 years!

As it was they went for the maximum 52 weeks that would apply to a severe punch and added Hawkins predicted recovery time = 64 weeks.

He was given the full 50% reduction because his "previous" was as an U18.

MrsP - I can't believe they halved the sentence, I really can't. Baffling. The judge had it right to begin with.

I suppose the fact that they can't use his record as an U18 meant they had to Dreamer.

He pleaded guilty and has apparently been distraught and tried to contact Hawkins. I have to say he didn't look too distraught walking away from the screaming Hawkins.

I think he has been a very very lucky boy.

he's also lied in the report imo.

He says the result of the match was insignificant to him. Why then did he post on twitter after the match about "another runners up medal. In the bin". Looks to me like the result mattered to him. (will post a link up when at home, can't access twitter right now).

I dunno, his explanation of what happened doesn't tie in with the video footage for me either.

Considering he's already had the ban halved, it makes it even more baffling that Saints are considering appealing. Completely mental.

I am guessing that they might use the fact that there is no precedent?

No idea really but I think he should take his ban and run.

Agree with that MrsP, agree with you that he's been v lucky too.

The RFU have totally bottled it.
64 weeks was the right call, send out a clear strong message that disgusting acts of foul play are not tolerated.
As it stands, a 50% reduction??? Sheer lunacy

Agree entirely! Wow the RFU bottled that proceeding.

Actually,

Does anyone know when his red card for head butting was?

I think it was in 2008 in which case it is not 5 years ago nor was he Under 18 at the time?

MrsP here is a clip of it in June 2008

http://www.rugbydump.com/2008/06/582/young-calum-clark-red-carded-for-a-head-butt-jwc

The English commentators are very critical of him.

His headbutt was from the U20s tournament, but I think he was 18 at the time.

Dead right mrs P

It was 22/06/2008, making him 19 at the time - great detective skills you are surely Ulsters answer to Poirot, just without the moustache - I assume

He pleaded guilty and has apparently been distraught and tried to contact Hawkins. I have to say he didn't look too distraught walking away from the screaming Hawkins

He does say in the report that he tried to apologise to Hawkins off the field after the game and that this was "not well received", I took that to mean Hawkins told him where to shove his apology and several of the Tigers squad added to these comments. After that reception I would imagine that going to visit Hawkins or give him a call would have only met with more abuse and so he hasn't tried again.

I think 64 weeks is about right. He's lucky to have it halved for good behaviour but them is the rules and it applies to everyone so there you go. The head butt is really a mixture of a young mans frustration combined with some awful mauling technique, not sure if he meant it but it was moronic. Worryingly what he did to Hawkins he also didn't mean but that was also moronic. Strikes me as a young man who isn't very bright and who doesn't think his actions through very well.

Is there a possibility of his ban being reduced further though? This is getting a bit ridiculous..

I don't understand how the fact that he only 18 when he headbutted and punched in that game gets his ban reduced? You know that is wrong whatever age you are, that shouldn't be mitigation. He is getting the same reduction as someone has has never has any issues whatsoever, how is that fair?

I would happily seem him banned for 64 weeks. And then I would welcome him back as he has served his ban, but a 32 week ban is joke, especially over the summer as most of it is.

Having read the report I am lost for words.

So we all get writing to:

Rugby Football Union
Rugby House
Twickenham Stadium
200 Whitton Road
Twickenham
Middlesex
TW2 7BA

Expressing our disappointment.

email sent already Stag!

To what email did you send it?

Is it going to make any difference complaining to them? I would like to, but it seems pointless at the same time.

I'v never read such tosh in my life.

MrsP wrote:Actually,

Does anyone know when his red card for head butting was?

I think it was in 2008 in which case it is not 5 years ago nor was he Under 18 at the time?

Good work. Although it's very concerning that no one at the RFU panel knew this, or thought to check. Especially since they chose not to take his red card into consideration on the assumption he was under 18 at the time.

Mr Smith submitted that the one previous incident of foul play could be ignored because it was five years old and committed when the Player was under 18 and that he could be treated as a man of good character.

I sent it to,

media@therfu.com

Not sure if that is the best one but it seemed the only option.

I pointed out the apparent discrepancy.