posted Sep 24, 2008

>>> Doesn't look like the ref assessor has had a chance to do his job does it? <<<

You would never know. Referee assessments are not made public.

The assessor would have done his job well before the disciplinary hearing was ever convened.

We'll never know, but I would be curious what he made of the management of the incident.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 24, 2008

>>> If I understand the facts it seems that.
1. Haskell admits deliberately striking an opponent with his head.
2, The minimum penalty for this offence is a six week suspension. <<<


You don't understand the facts, then.

Haskell did not plead guilty to deliberately striking an opponent with his head.

Read the judgement that is available on the RFU website.

http://www.rfu.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/RFUHome.News_Detail/StoryID/20747

Para 1 under the heading Preliminary Matters is the one that you need to read.

Paras 9-12 reveal the thinking behind the sanction.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 24, 2008

if a welsh player did this then they would be looking at a much longer ban...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 24, 2008

So it all started with someone trying to knock lumps out of Vickery but the "indiscretion" was missed/ignored by the officials.

Something similar happened in the opening game of the season when an Irish forward landed 5 good solid hits on Vickery (again)with a closed fist in full view of both the ref and assistant - both within 5 metres of the action - result: penalty to Irish.

Is there a school of thought among officials that perhaps the Wasps prop deserves a good whacking at least once per match?

At least the arbiters had the benefit of reviewing all the action in the Haskell case and their judgement is a damning indictment of the standard of refereeing. Perhaps the officials were too busy trying to remember the law changes to spot the mayhem going on around them

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 25, 2008

After reading the reports on sky and bbc, it seems that Nothants started all this and that the ref failed to control the match from the word go. Is this ocrrect?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 25, 2008

A breath of freshair. The game can only improve if both player and officials conduct is scrutinised. Look what has happend in puffball, referees are so protected when poor descisions are given they have lost the respect of players, managers and supporters.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 25, 2008

Best should get a one week ban (if found guilty). Bet he doesnt!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 26, 2008

>>> Best should get a one week ban (if found guilty). <<<

Just like Seru Rabeni and Dylan Hartley, who were cited for the same offence.

Gouging (contact with the eye area) is considered a more serious offence than headbutting (contact with the head) or Dangerous play at a ruck, which is what Haskell was eventually charged with.

The two cases are entirely different.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 26, 2008

I didn't realise he's been charged with gouging, or did you see your point in the Daily Socialist, erm, Mirror?

So far as I'm aware, it's "alleged illegal contact with the eye area".

That could be nothing more then a hand-off using the palm of the hand into the forehead.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 26, 2008

To be fair, I think anyone who plays the sport and has read about the whole process would actually think that this is a pretty fair outcome, and that although there have been mistakes, there can't (and haven't) be too many complaints.

Haskell did use his head to clear out which is illegal, but, under the circumstances, he was protecting a team mate. I know that when I play, I have been guilty of doing more than "clearing out" with my head if a team mate is under attack.

In previous years, I have been guilty of thinking that the citing process and the English disciplinary panel are hugely biased , especially before international tests (see some Welsh and Irish suspensions compared to English ones between 2006 - 08). But I really don't think that this is the case with Haskell. I honestly believe that although other players were more in the wrong in this match, that to the credit of the panel, and to Haskell himself not pointing the finger and "grassing up" fellow players, he has conducted himself well and kept to the spirit of rugby.

It is a physical game, frustration spills over, and there is bound to be times when this oversteps the mark. But I ask anyone who has played, would you really remove this from the game? With the exception of a few teams up on the Wirral I have played who can take intimidation and violence too far, there IS a place for it in rugby. To try and remove this completely would be to ruin one of the few reprieves from ridiculous political correctness and safety - it will soon be a method statement before every scrum, a lineout will require all players to have completed a working safely at heights course, and to be involved in a ruck you will need a manual handling certificate!!

Everybody who plays rugby knows the risks, and while I am all in favour of not playing in standing water, and making sure front row are trained properly to remove serious injuries, half the reason everyone pulls on a jersey every Saturday is to go out there with your mates and "fairly" rough up the other team.

Bit of a rant but from the 2 line article that started this off:

"What were the circumstances that meant that headbutting some one was ok?"

...I really felt like coming out with it all!! Sorry

add comment | complain about this comment