Sale player in trouble

Apparently a Sale player has been leaking tactics and was overheard boasting by another coach. I believe it was against Bristol.

Only info is coming from a reporter, so I'm not sure how true it is.

Hearing about a major issue surrounding Bristol vs Sale over Christmas and a player leaking information to opponents. 1/2

Premier Rugby and RFU have been informed and the player faces a disciplinary hearing tomorrow. I won't name the player until then. 2/2

Yikes. So who was playing on December but has been dropped quickly in the new year?

Forgot to add it's from Nigel Fissler from TRP

https://twitter.com/neilfissler/status/821072781232246784

Not saying it's them but don't the arscott brothers with a player on each side?

I was thinking maybe McGinty what with him having connections to the future head coach of Brizzle but that's a bit tenuous.

nathan wrote:Not saying it's them but don't the arscott brothers with a player on each side?

Bristol post claim Tom Arscott, whatever 'understood to be' means.

http://m.bristolpost.co.uk/sale-sharks-player-investigated-over-leaking-information-to-bristol-rugby-player-ahead-of-clash/story-30062448-detail/story.html?123

The Guardian Website wrote:A spokesman for the RFU confirmed that the governing body was investigating the accusation, but no other details were given.

The spokesman said: “The RFU are investigating a complaint made by Sale Sharks in relation to the passing of information to the opposition team ahead of the match against Bristol earlier this month.”

Who are they complaining about? Surely they are responsible for their own player's conduct. Is it Bristol's fault if one of Sale's players has a big mouth.

Exiledinborders wrote:

The Guardian Website wrote:A spokesman for the RFU confirmed that the governing body was investigating the accusation, but no other details were given.

The spokesman said: “The RFU are investigating a complaint made by Sale Sharks in relation to the passing of information to the opposition team ahead of the match against Bristol earlier this month.”

Who are they complaining about? Surely they are responsible for their own player's conduct. Is it Bristol's fault if one of Sale's players has a big mouth.

It's in the same class as match-fixing. Everyone has a stake in the integrity of the league.

its on th beeb too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38645622

Sale seem very bitter that they lost to an improving Bristol team. Man up and move on.

TightHEAD wrote:Sale seem very bitter that they lost to an improving Bristol team. Man up and move on.

Bang on! Like all the bath fans listing us as Neandethals and the worst fans in the league for Ford getting a few boos...sour grapes!!

As you say...take the defeat like a man and move on!

Oh come on. Imagine the fuss if it was found they tried to keep it under wraps.

Aye Scott...all the politically correct pain in the backsides!

GeordieFalcon wrote:Aye Scott...all the politically correct pain in the backsides!

What has PC got to do with it? It's in the same class as match-fixing. As soon as Sale knew something might be up, they had an obligation to act.

The biggest issue for me would be the trust between brothers if its been a discussion on the Christmas table and the other one has gone back and told his team.

We don't actually know what it is that has happened officially yet.

To be honest what could they say that would affect the result? - Dare I say it most teams do the same moves/tactics week in week out.

If Arscott did something that amounts to a crime, how stupid is he talking about it to someone within the club as well as within earshot of the coaches?

Though it depends on what he did, if its a case of casually talking about something with family and mentioning that his brother thought gave an opinion on it would be petty from Sale.

Unless specific lineout calls or backs move codes were divulged then there isn't much of substance!

Bristol are going to come out guns blazing because they really need the win! Not exactly a secret...

Sale won every lineout (10/10) so if Bristol knew their calls they didn't take advantage very well.

Can they be stripped of the win though if they did know calls?

marty2086 wrote:Can they be stripped of the win though if they did know calls?

If it is found that they received information that was confidential and acted on it, then they could be docked points, fined money or see the match result cancelled as part of the RFU Anti-Corruption policy.

Scottrf wrote:Sale won every lineout (10/10) so if Bristol knew their calls they didn't take advantage very well.

I have no idea what, if any, info was passed on, but there is more to knowing how a team will play than line out calls. As a player though it should be common sense not to meet up with an opposing player the night before, even if he is your brother.

Breaking News - Sale Sharks have confirmed they are looking in to reporting two members of the Toulon coaching staff to the 'powers that be' as they believe they have recently been in charge of Premiership teams that have played against them, therefore knew their game plan and tactics.

The two coaches involved were seen discussing tactics during a meal and a bottle of wine in the South of France before a European Cup game.

englishborn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Sale won every lineout (10/10) so if Bristol knew their calls they didn't take advantage very well.

I have no idea what, if any, info was passed on, but there is more to knowing how a team will play than line out calls. As a player though it should be common sense not to meet up with an opposing player the night before, even if he is your brother.

Calls was just what had been mentioned, so thought I'd have a look to see if that had a positive effect.

Disagree that you shouldn't be able to spend time with your brother. People in all walks of live have sensitive information that would have huge business impact if they revealed it. I know I do, yet can go for a drink with someone from a rival company. Have to trust people to behave ethically.

Maybe it wouldn't be the best timing but I don't really think that's the issue.

(wasn't me that downvoted your post btw, I find the concept a bit silly.)

I thought the specific example used was that on a certain line-out call the entire Sale back line join the maul to rumble it over. I guess if they know this then Bristol could also all pile in, not worrying about the ball coming out.

My understanding is that in the players bar after the game some Bristol players boasted that they knew what Sale were going to be doing towards the end of the game and were able to stop them. Senior Sale players reported this to their coaches and we have the current investigation. Going to be very hard to prove anything - and quite probably it is a case of Sale putting one and one together and coming up with three.

LondonTiger wrote:I thought the specific example used was that on a certain line-out call the entire Sale back line join the maul to rumble it over. I guess if they know this then Bristol could also all pile in, not worrying about the ball coming out.

My understanding is that in the players bar after the game some Bristol players boasted that they knew what Sale were going to be doing towards the end of the game and were able to stop them. Senior Sale players reported this to their coaches and we have the current investigation. Going to be very hard to prove anything - and quite probably it is a case of Sale putting one and one together and coming up with three.

If that's what it was, it seems more a case of loose lips than intended sabotage.

LondonTiger wrote:I thought the specific example used was that on a certain line-out call the entire Sale back line join the maul to rumble it over. I guess if they know this then Bristol could also all pile in, not worrying about the ball coming out.

My understanding is that in the players bar after the game some Bristol players boasted that they knew what Sale were going to be doing towards the end of the game and were able to stop them. Senior Sale players reported this to their coaches and we have the current investigation. Going to be very hard to prove anything - and quite probably it is a case of Sale putting one and one together and coming up with three.

Isn't it a case that if Sale want to launch and investigation of this type that they have to tell the RFU. As soon as they suspended Arscott they had to inform the authorities. The RFU might decide that Bristol have done nothing wrong, that's what we all expect to happen. They are unlikely to exonerate Arscott though and Sale will then sack him in all likelihood.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I thought the specific example used was that on a certain line-out call the entire Sale back line join the maul to rumble it over. I guess if they know this then Bristol could also all pile in, not worrying about the ball coming out.

My understanding is that in the players bar after the game some Bristol players boasted that they knew what Sale were going to be doing towards the end of the game and were able to stop them. Senior Sale players reported this to their coaches and we have the current investigation. Going to be very hard to prove anything - and quite probably it is a case of Sale putting one and one together and coming up with three.

Isn't it a case that if Sale want to launch and investigation of this type that they have to tell the RFU. As soon as they suspended Arscott they had to inform the authorities. The RFU might decide that Bristol have done nothing wrong, that's what we all expect to happen. They are unlikely to exonerate Arscott though and Sale will then sack him in all likelihood.

How do you come to that conclusion? Knowing that Bristol knew the calls, knowing that Arscott passed them to Bristol is different. You cant just sack someone because you THINK they did something wrong, you have to prove it and Im pretty sure you also have to prove intent too.

marty2086 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I thought the specific example used was that on a certain line-out call the entire Sale back line join the maul to rumble it over. I guess if they know this then Bristol could also all pile in, not worrying about the ball coming out.

My understanding is that in the players bar after the game some Bristol players boasted that they knew what Sale were going to be doing towards the end of the game and were able to stop them. Senior Sale players reported this to their coaches and we have the current investigation. Going to be very hard to prove anything - and quite probably it is a case of Sale putting one and one together and coming up with three.

Isn't it a case that if Sale want to launch and investigation of this type that they have to tell the RFU. As soon as they suspended Arscott they had to inform the authorities. The RFU might decide that Bristol have done nothing wrong, that's what we all expect to happen. They are unlikely to exonerate Arscott though and Sale will then sack him in all likelihood.

How do you come to that conclusion? Knowing that Bristol knew the calls, knowing that Arscott passed them to Bristol is different. You cant just sack someone because you THINK they did something wrong, you have to prove it and Im pretty sure you also have to prove intent too.

There's no way Sale and their lawyers would suspend Arscott and report the incident to the RFU without evidence. They might not be able to/or want to implement Bristol but I'd put money on them being able to prove breach of contract by Arscott.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I thought the specific example used was that on a certain line-out call the entire Sale back line join the maul to rumble it over. I guess if they know this then Bristol could also all pile in, not worrying about the ball coming out.

My understanding is that in the players bar after the game some Bristol players boasted that they knew what Sale were going to be doing towards the end of the game and were able to stop them. Senior Sale players reported this to their coaches and we have the current investigation. Going to be very hard to prove anything - and quite probably it is a case of Sale putting one and one together and coming up with three.

Isn't it a case that if Sale want to launch and investigation of this type that they have to tell the RFU. As soon as they suspended Arscott they had to inform the authorities. The RFU might decide that Bristol have done nothing wrong, that's what we all expect to happen. They are unlikely to exonerate Arscott though and Sale will then sack him in all likelihood.

How do you come to that conclusion? Knowing that Bristol knew the calls, knowing that Arscott passed them to Bristol is different. You cant just sack someone because you THINK they did something wrong, you have to prove it and Im pretty sure you also have to prove intent too.

There's no way Sale and their lawyers would suspend Arscott and report the incident to the RFU without evidence. They might not be able to/or want to implement Bristol but I'd put money on them being able to prove breach of contract by Arscott.

Theres a reason they suspended him because they have to investigate, they may have evidence of him doing something but its a whole other matter for it to be at a level to be able to sack him. Even then he could still sue them.

He could still sue them now if they don't have grounds for suspending him as it's unlikely any club will touch him given his reputation at the minute. Hence why I suspect he is significantly implicated and the extent and intent is what is being investigated.

Sacked according to the BBC

Might as well retire.

BBC state:

"Sale winger Tom Arscott has been sacked after he allegedly leaked confidential team information to Bristol before their Premiership game on 1 January"

So they must have some evince of wrong doing or they leave themselves open to breach of contract. If they have that much, Bristol could be in serious trouble as they have admitted that something took place although they claim it "wasn't anything of sporting value."

That is a term that could be very contentious in that what is of sporting value, the Sale team sheet could be of sporting value if it showed a change of probable tactics and gave them more time to prepare.

Sale are going to court for the wrongful sacking of Arscott, based on evidence after a game over a drink.

TightHEAD wrote:Sale are going to court for the wrongful sacking of Arscott, based on evidence after a game over a drink.

It was also based on him meeting his brother the night before the match, what information could be so big that it could cost a game and doesn't need proper preparation?

There's a great article in the Bristol Post about this.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-rugby-blog/story-30071562-detail/story.html

You can certainly tell it's the Bristol press writing it. The meaningful bits of the article are towards the bottom where it mentions that Diamond doesn't believe Bristol were interested in attempting to obtain information on Sale.

This is really between Arscott and Sale. Sale's lawyers are going to be ace at employment law between this and the Salemona case.

formerly known as Sam wrote:You can certainly tell it's the Bristol press writing it. The meaningful bits of the article are towards the bottom where it mentions that Diamond doesn't believe Bristol were interested in attempting to obtain information on Sale.

This is really between Arscott and Sale. Sale's lawyers are going to be ace at employment law between this and the Salemona case.

We should lobby for lawyers salary to be included in the cap

Slightly late but RFU find Arscott guilty of passing on information.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38958503

nathan wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:You can certainly tell it's the Bristol press writing it. The meaningful bits of the article are towards the bottom where it mentions that Diamond doesn't believe Bristol were interested in attempting to obtain information on Sale.

This is really between Arscott and Sale. Sale's lawyers are going to be ace at employment law between this and the Salemona case.

We should lobby for lawyers salary to be included in the cap

But then Saracens and Bath would be over the cap. Oh wait ..

englishborn wrote:Slightly late but RFU find Arscott guilty of passing on information.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38958503

The whole thing smells dodgy, two Bristol coaches were aware of the information and didn't report it yet were not found to have failed to comply with the reporting requirements?

Perhaps there are no reporting requirements.

Scottrf wrote:Perhaps there are no reporting requirements.

So they were found to not have failed to comply with reporting requirements that do not exist? Really?

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Perhaps there are no reporting requirements.

So they were found to not have failed to comply with reporting requirements that do not exist? Really?

"No sanction was applied to Bristol with the RFU also determining that the club “did not fail to comply with the relevant reporting requirements in relation to the inside information received”"

Due to the low end nature of the information, perhaps they don't have to report it? or we could go with a cover up that you are wanting to go with.

Lets go with a cover up, it is more interesting

nathan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Perhaps there are no reporting requirements.

So they were found to not have failed to comply with reporting requirements that do not exist? Really?

"No sanction was applied to Bristol with the RFU also determining that the club “did not fail to comply with the relevant reporting requirements in relation to the inside information received”"

Due to the low end nature of the information, perhaps they don't have to report it? or we could go with a cover up that you are wanting to go with.

Who said anything about a cover up?

Now you are just being stupid

It obviously wasn't low end since Arscott was found guilty, which is in fact the offence not the level of information.

What Im pointing to is the disparity in results of the findings

marty2086 wrote:

nathan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Perhaps there are no reporting requirements.

So they were found to not have failed to comply with reporting requirements that do not exist? Really?

"No sanction was applied to Bristol with the RFU also determining that the club “did not fail to comply with the relevant reporting requirements in relation to the inside information received”"

Due to the low end nature of the information, perhaps they don't have to report it? or we could go with a cover up that you are wanting to go with.

Who said anything about a cover up?

Now you are just being stupid

It obviously wasn't low end since Arscott was found guilty, which is in fact the offence not the level of information.

What Im pointing to is the disparity in results of the findings

Ugh?

So you are implying that a player who was caught on a low end sanction wouldn't be guilty?

It's simple, they look to see if any information has been passed on. Then they look at what information it was and if it was used by the other teams. They then use the Insider Information policy to determine punishment and if it should be reported.

Regarding the cover up comment, i just get fed up of mainly Irish folks on here looking for something when it isn't there.

nathan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

nathan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Perhaps there are no reporting requirements.

So they were found to not have failed to comply with reporting requirements that do not exist? Really?

"No sanction was applied to Bristol with the RFU also determining that the club “did not fail to comply with the relevant reporting requirements in relation to the inside information received”"

Due to the low end nature of the information, perhaps they don't have to report it? or we could go with a cover up that you are wanting to go with.

Who said anything about a cover up?

Now you are just being stupid

It obviously wasn't low end since Arscott was found guilty, which is in fact the offence not the level of information.

What Im pointing to is the disparity in results of the findings

Ugh?

So you are implying that a player who was caught on a low end sanction wouldn't be guilty?

It's simple, they look to see if any information has been passed on. Then they look at what information it was and if it was used by the other teams. They then use the Insider Information policy to determine punishment and if it should be reported.

Regarding the cover up comment, i just get fed up of mainly Irish folks on here looking for something when it isn't there.

Is reading that difficult for you?

I think its clear what I have said

Arscott is guilty, he passed information and the coaches knew about it, they had a duty to report it. The fact that the RFU admit they knew but aren't guilty and didn't report it is flawed logic