What changes would you like to see to the disciplinary process?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I dont think the parent organisation of rugby the IRB, should have a C.E.O who after discussions with the English media, then makes a decision as to which judicial decision are appealed, in accordance with aforementioned discussions.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:If a rugby player gets a test suspension and still plays club rugby and gets another ban then it should be a heavier penalty. There should be a minimum time for all players then don't add on weeks for good conduct. Not taking it off the minimum. There should never be a one week ruling. Any offence should require at least a minimum of two weeks and then judge the case and the player from there.

GunsGerms wrote:I think AB's should have to do polygraph tests in citing hearings. That way "it was an Accident" couldnt be used as a means of getting reduced bans every time an AB any player is cited.

bedfordwelsh wrote:I certainly think the 4th official should be able to advise the ref on off the ball incidents of foul play.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:My point is Hammer if the action is deemed serious enough to go to the judiciary and a player is found guilty, regardless of the offence, one week seems ridiculous. Football does many things wrong but my understanding that if you get sent off you get a 2 match ban and if you get two yellow cards in successive games you get a 1 week ban. That should be the case in rugby as well because deeming a red or yellow card punishment enough may not serve as much of a deterrent.

Let's say someone clocks somebody. A punch or a head high tackle or a swinging arm in a ruck. The ref doesn't see it and it goes unpunished. That's at the low end of the scale but should deserve 2 weeks like if the player had received a red card. Then let's say this player has done this kind of action before. Double the penalty and he gets 4 matches as opposed to 4 weeks.

Then there's the more serious stuff. Stamping, gouging, tip tackles etc. A minimum period for each incident regardless of the previous good behaviour of the player. If he can potentially take an eye out or break somebody's neck, who cares if he's been a saint before. The key is he endangered the safety of a player and that is unacceptable. His previous record is irrelevant in my view. The added penalty goes on if the victim's health has been compromised or whether the player has committed similar offences before. What I mean by a minimum is that each player can't reduce a sentence for these dangerous acts based on previous conduct.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I dont think the parent organisation of rugby the IRB, should have a C.E.O who after discussions with the English media, then makes a decision as to which judicial decision are appealed, in accordance with aforementioned discussions.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:AWOP, to make it worse every competition has its own set up. I forget the exact details but didnt the FRU refuse to recognise the ERC ban on Tincu? Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the initial decision it shows what farce the situation can lead to.
I think your suggestion is quite sensible...but so much politics and power involved.

Are you thinking of applying for the job since they turned down your application for mod here?

fa0019 wrote:I heard Hore can also use the 3 friendly matches the Highlanders are due to play before the SR season begins so if he gets 8 matches only 5 from the start of the SR season.

Happened to Greyling and his 2 match ban. Used 1 for Bulls (Currie Cup) and 1 for boks...even though we would never have been used for the bulls whilst away with the boks.

To ensure consistency and fairness in penalties awarded by the NRL Judiciary, penalties are awarded according to a pre-determined points system. Each 100 points received by a player will result in a one match suspension. For example, a penalty of 275 points will result in a player receiving a two-match suspension, with the remaining 75 points staying on the player’s record for 12 calendar months as ‘carry-over points’.

Following the end of each round, clubs and media are advised of details of charges laid by the Match Review Committee. Clubs have until noon on the following day to enter a plea on charges.

If the club and player plead guilty, no judiciary hearing is necessary. If the player and his club plead not guilty or ask that the ‘grading’ of the charge be downgraded, he will be required to put his case to the judiciary.

If a player has played grade football for seven years or more and has not been convicted of an offence in the seven years preceding the charge, the player is entitled to a reduction equivalent to 25 per cent of the base penalty.

...

If the player enters an early plea to the offence and accepts the grading, the player is entitled to a reduction of 25 per cent of the base penalty and also a similar reduction in any increases due to other previous offences. A player can enter an early plea up until midday on the day following the charge.

...

Alternatively, the player may prefer to have the charge heard by the panel by either entering a not guilty plea or a guilty plea but dispute the grading. If found guilty at the subsequent hearing, the player receives no reduction unless the panel reduces the grading. If the player pleads guilty but disputes the grading and the panel does reduce the grading, the player also receives the benefit of the early plea discount.

...

If the player has been convicted of the same or similar offence in the two-year period immediately preceding the incident, the player is liable to an increase equivalent to 50 per cent of the base penalty for each previous offence. The exception to this rule is Grade 1 offences where the player will only carry the loading for a 12-month period.

...

Further, if the player has been previously convicted of an offence other than the same offence in the two-year period immediately preceding the incident, the player is liable to an increase equivalent to 20 per cent of the base penalty for each previous offence. If the player has been convicted of the same or similar offence in the two-year period immediately preceding the incident, the player is liable to an increase equivalent to 50 per cent of the base penalty for each previous offence. The exception to this rule is Grade 1 offences where the player will only carry the loading for a 12-month period.

...

Note when reading the charge sheet, the carry-over points are always added to the penalty points to determine the penalty to be served. i.e. John White’s early plea result would be 286 + 62 = 348. A player’s carryover points will be progressively reduced by five points for each match he competes in without further charge.

...

In the event a player is sent from the field for misconduct, the player will receive a discount from any resulting charge for that incident. The player will have one point deducted from the charge for each minute of the match he misses due to the send off.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Pete...as pointed out above matches is just as flawed a system.

Fringe player gets banned second game of the 6 nations. His club has a match the next day, and midweek A team fixture. The following weekend is a rest weekend, but his club has a league fixture. His team mate is also banned, but his club is in France so he definately would have had to have been released for the rest weekend.
Or over the summer... he has signed a new contract with an Aussie club. Do we count their games or the international sides summer matches which he may have got slected for or may not? Its the Lions summer...do we count midweek and weekend games?
His contract runs out during the ban and is not renewed, does that mean hes unable to play ever again?
Or using the RAbeni example of a game he wasnt allowed to comepete in do we count chairty fun fixtures? Like the Shane Williams retirement match?
Theres a Barabrians fixture that he had been contracted to play in ....

yadda yadda