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?

Lucky Barsteward

It was the NZ-England match in the U20s, and he was certainly 18 or over. That is a pretty ridiculous mistake they have made.

Christ, this is all a farce. The more I read it and the more I think on it, the more ridiculous it seems!

Am definitely going to write a letter/e-mail of complaint.

Well spotted on noting he wasn't under 18 as well MrsP.

Man, I still don't understand how they halved it?!

It shouldn't be shown on TV any more as far as i'm concerned as at my clubs junior training last night we had a 10 year old try and he was instantly dismissed from the training session and told he wouldn't play the rest of the season.

Disgusting

I could just about accept the 32 weeks if it didn't include the off season. Surely the ban period could have been in two parts - up to Saints last competitive game this season and then restarting from the date of their first competitive game next season. As it is the 32 weeks is in reality less than 20 weeks with no rugby of any consequence in second half of May, June, July and August

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNgWg8kGMWk

Look, when he is sent off, it shows his stats (height/weight) and his age. 19 at the time. This incident was 3 years ago.

There is a real problem with how the authorities dole out punishment. What I believe they need to do is to start bringing in tariffs for punishment with minimum terms of suspension rather than 'entry points'. For example, Bradley Davies in the Six Nations committed an offence that according to the citing panel, was at the 'top end' and 'to find this offending merited a mid-range entry point would, in our judgment, would be a dereliction of our duty and responsibility for the wider interests of the game [I added my own emphasis here in bold, see point 18 in the citing commissioners report http://press.rbs6nations.com/6_nations_DC_BRADLEY_DAVIES_8_2_12.pdf]

Now, the citing commissioners set the entry point at 10 weeks and then added two for the seriousness of the offence. However, in considering the mitigating circumstances they then cut the ban to 7 weeks. My problem is not with the use of a players record or mitigation, and the report actually is of interesting reading for the statements from Ryan and Davies on their characters and of rugby players more general. My problem is that a 'high-end' offence is punished with a 'mid-range' punishment once these migrating factors are taken into account. How on earth is that equitable?

With this current case, as with all offences, perhaps a minimum tariff, or range of tariffs should be sent whereby the punishments fight the crime. Personally I think this decision with Clark is a disgrace and a pox on rugby and on the RFU itself. Without the full report it might be premature to judge the evidence, but the video suggests that he purposefully attempted to cause serious injury (which he did) to an opposing player. That was a vicious assault in my eyes upon a fellow professional that could have cost him his career. There can be no place in any sport for people such as Calum Clark.

I've sent an email anyway expressing my concern.

I'll be doing the same Stag.

it seems that with every new case, the disciplinary process is getting even more farcical.

it was ridiculous Bradley got away with just 7 weeks, but this one just beggars belief. Especially now we've all noticed that they've got their facts wrong with concerning his disciplinary record! unbe-Flip-lievable.

MrsP wrote: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.

Sorry, but fundamentally disagree with the part in bold based on what I've seen. Why else do you bend someone's arm like that? He goes down after the referee blows his whistle. I know there's a risk of not taking into account adrenaline and how it affects the thought process but I think his testimony is pure BS.

This was much more severe than a punch. I'm incredibly disappointed at the outcome.

I just indicated that the information in the report is incorrect as stated, that a 50% reduction due to mitigating circumstances seems massively excessive and this verdict has greatly harmed the game of rugby in my opinion.

I'd think a minimum of a year out is necessary for the violence, pointlessness and degree of harm caused by the act and the lack of remorse seen at the time

been pointed out on another forum that either

Blackett can't work out that someone playing in 08 and born in 1989 is actually 19 when red carded

Or,

he was lied to and told that Clark was 17 at the time.

Either way, it shows how incompetent the people who run our sport, and if it's the latter, then Clark's ban needs to be increased dramatically (much more than the 64 weeks)

I'm...well I'm flabergasted.

Notch - agree with you I think his testimony is complete BS. What he says does not match the video evidence at all in my eyes.

There's also a spelling mistake or two and the game is listed as having been played at Welford Road. Whoever, is in charge of writing these reports should be sent on a course as that was a bit shoddy.

The judgment states that the QC tells Blackett that the incident was 5 years ago and that he was under 18.

I guess Blackett took his word for it. I don't think a QC lying to a judge is something he would consider.

I noticed that Sam

am guessing that QC could find themselves in a lot of trouble? deliberatley misleading/outright lying??

It all comes down to whether you think he was deliberately trying to injure Hawkins. If not then 32 weeks is pretty long but fair given the injury. IF deliberate then very lenient. If Hawkins wasn't trapped his arm wouldn't have broken. Did Clark know he was trapped? Don't know. How many times do we see players pulled out of a ruck with a twisting headlock? Quite often it seems and all it takes is for one of those players be trapped and it's a possible broken (or at least damaged) neck.

Blackett (who is a professional Judicial officer and was one in the Navy before at the RFU) seems to have accepted the idea that Clark wasn't deliberately trying to injure Hawkins, he's then given a large ban that matches up with what he's done before. Whether or not he's been conned or not is another matter.

The mistakes in the report (Clark could only have just turned 19 in 2008 as he was with the U20 in 2009 as well, but he certainly wasn't 17) are unforgivable. Also, I remember Clark throwing a strop after Saints conceded a penalty in the second half so he must have cared a bit about the result.

The IRB have criteria for mitigating circumstances. If he met them all they had to give the 50% didn't they? The clean record is arguable but he was still only just 19 and it was 4 years ago (nearly), and a one off event at that.

I've seen players continue to try to compete in the ruck after the whistle has gone to make the ball available. It doesn't look like what Clark did.

I don't think this is the last we will hear of Clark's violence on the field,
Hard players do not do things like that they are the actions of somebody who clearly has issues.

Also with pulling the arm, he says he was trying to get Hawkins' arm from the ball. You don't have to pull that far to do that.

And also, when you meet such resistance (as the body is not moving with the arm), you don't just continue to pull at said limb (which is now free and clearly not touching the ball), until the guy is screaming in agony.

He may not have intended to break it, but he damn well intented to inflict pain/injury imo.

His testimony just doesn't add up for me.

The big thing for me is that the only way I can see anyone being removed from a ruck by that manoever is because it is very uncomfortable having your elbow hyper-extended.

If you want to remove them bodily you don't do it by huggibg their arm and rolling. The only way I can see for that to be effective is if it causes pain. Therefore there was intent to harm even though probably not to injure IMHO.

MrsP wrote:The big thing for me is that the only way I can see anyone being removed from a ruck by that manoever is because it is very uncomfortable having your elbow hyper-extended.

If you want to remove them bodily you don't do it by huggibg their arm and rolling. The only way I can see for that to be effective is if it causes pain. Therefore there was intent to harm even though probably not to injure IMHO.

It is for this reason that it IRB will never be able to "bring back rucking".

Don't think this has been posted before but its a news clip with the alternative angle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PkmMK76xARo

If anything it looks worse from this angle!!

It is complete cowpat isn't it? I'm actually really disappointed by Blackett falling for it. However it's not really a failing of the discipline procedure. Intent is a very difficult think to prove. However they gave a life ban to someone for a hand off to the face that left someone blind. That wasn't considered deliberate (that I'm aware of).

Should have been (IMO based on the videos I've seen) given as a deliberate act to hurt (or at least discomfort) a player which resulted in a serious injury. Level of ban, I've no idea.

The citings and bannings commission is a farce. 7 weeks for Bradley Davies was light given the gravity of the tackle. Hartley's biting ban was somewhat worse - given he has form in the dirty play department with eye gouging and the MINIMUM sentence for biting is supposed to be 12 weeks. I would like to see the written testimony to explain that. I know it was only a finger he bit - but its the principle. Minimum sentence surely means the lowest it can be if he's guilty - and if you're not convinced he's guilty - don't ban him at all! We can't have a situation where people are banned - "just in case" they're guilty.

As for Clark - this really is a disgrace - he needed a season long ban for this. He could have ended Hawkins' career - he may well have done at the top level as to my knowledge, Cockerill hasn't extended Hawkins' contract yet (I know he's rumoured to be giving him an extra year, please correct me if this is signed). It was callous, dirty play - and given over 12 weeks of his "ban" cover his summer holiday it is criminally lenient.

Before Thunor explodes.

The Minimum isn't actually the minimum ban but rather the lowest starting point from which to begin working out a ban. There will usually be aggrevating and mitigating factors.

Just watched the second video, looks even worse from that angle.

And how hard is it to double check facts like players ages? Especially when you're going to base your judgement on them!

In which case, they shouldn't call it a "minimum". Rename it and change the way its approached. Minimum sentence should be understood by the citings commission literally, not liberally.

have just sent my e-mail off to them. Will be interesting to see if I get any sort of response!

Message sent for Blackett's attention using the contact form

When will the transcripts be released?

rugbydreamer wrote:have just sent my e-mail off to them. Will be interesting to see if I get any sort of response!

Half five on Friday RD?

You'll be Lucky as well as a Dreamer.

Portnoy, you do make me laugh

Portnoy, I did not allude to today, I meant any response in general

Monday Morning's Inbox

<delete>

<delete>

<delete>

<delete>

<delete>

<delete>
...

ha!

I've saved a copy Portnoy, I shall simply re-send it. Tempted to send it to the Bar Council as well. Mr Smith has a few uncomfortable questions to answer it would appear.

rugbydreamer wrote:ha!

I've saved a copy Portnoy, I shall simply re-send it. Tempted to send it to the Bar Council as well. Mr Smith has a few uncomfortable questions to answer it would appear.

<file> <options> <block sender> / <send to junk> 'rugbydreamer'
<enter>

eirebilly wrote:When will the transcripts be released?

Eireb,

Do you mean the Clark one?

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

oxring wrote:In which case, they shouldn't call it a "minimum". Rename it and change the way its approached. Minimum sentence should be understood by the citings commission literally, not liberally.

THEY don't. Posters and some media outlets do. If you actually look at the official recommendations they don't have any minimums (only maximums). The RFU and ERC use a 50% maximum reduction so you could say that the minimum is half the lowest entry point.

Portnoy wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:ha!

I've saved a copy Portnoy, I shall simply re-send it. Tempted to send it to the Bar Council as well. Mr Smith has a few uncomfortable questions to answer it would appear.

<file> <options> <block sender> / <send to junk> 'rugbydreamer'
<enter>

You work at the RFU?

Doctor's summary
"Hawkins subsequently had an X-Ray and CT scan on his right elbow, which, according to an email from Puresportsmed dated 19 March, showed a comminuted undisplaced fracture of the coronoid process. There were too many fragments for surgical reconstruction but it should heal. It suggested that Hawkins would be out of rugby for 8 – 10 weeks. A further medical report was submitted by Andrew Wallace, a consultant shoulder and elbow surgeon. It stated:
“When I took Rob to theatre on Monday, I examined his elbow under fluoroscopy. Whilst the joint was reasonably stable to varus-vagus loading in the coronal plane, it immediately subluxed at any flexion angle less than 90 degrees. When I explored the medial aspect of the joint, I incised the flexor origin to expose the underlying medial collateral ligament. Fortunately this was intact, but I split it longitudinally to remove some small intra-articular fragments of the coronoid fracture that were loose in the joint. I then repaired the ligament and flexor origin but the coronoid fracture was too comminuted for internal fixation.
Postoperatively he was placed in a backslab in 120 degrees flexion. My plan is to see him in 2 weeks and inspect the wound, and transfer him into a dynamic Mayo elbow brace. We will then gradually increase his extension range over a
further four week period, hoping to achieve close to full extension by 6 weeks. This will depend on how well the fracture and the torn anterior capsule heals. After this six week period of relative immobilisation, he can then start to regain strength over a further 4 – 6 weeks. Therefore it will be 10 – 12 weeks before he will be fit to return to competitive rugby.
There is a risk of recurrent subluxation, wound infection, residual stiffness and in the long term degenerative arthritis of the joint. Fortunately there was no nerve injury either preoperatively or postoperatively. His injury was entirely consistent with a forced hyper extension injury.”

People who complain about doctors' handwriting should cease immediately as there is no point. Even transposed into plain text, it's still impenetrable.

Hey ho.

Perfectly clear to me!

Reads to me like it was ok but the joint shifted when the elbow straightened. They couldn't reconstruct it because some of the bone had shattered. However it should heal ok. They're keeping it bend for a few weeks and then they'll keep extending it further every few weeks. Hopefully it'll heal properly and he'll get full extension.

If need be use a dictionary or google to find out what specific words mean and it's all very clear.

Come and join me then MmeF,

Portnoy
Hut 33
The Mansion
Bletchley Park
Milton Keynes
MK3 6EB

It'll be interesting to see if it's brought up at the Leicester game tonight. ESPN usually bring the winning coach into the panel at the end. Austin's already mentioned that Clark gets most of the ban in the off-season

Wow, I must be the only person who thinks 8 months is about right (I was guessing 6-12). My only complaint would be the off-season portion - suspensions should only run within the season(s).

Hope none of you are doing jury service when my case comes up (it was a fair cop, but society's to blame).

Portnoy.

He broke his elbow.

It can't be completely fixed "good as new" but they hope they will be able to get it working again.

HammerofThunor wrote:It'll be interesting to see if it's brought up at the Leicester game tonight. ESPN usually bring the winning coach into the panel at the end. Austin's already mentioned that Clark gets most of the ban in the off-season

Well at least it's on ESPN, Hammer,
Best England/Jeff coverage by an Irish country mile.