I agree with you that normally a headbutt should get more than 2 weeks.

However, the mitigation was not specified in the decision of the Judicial committee made known through the press.

The normal mitigating factors are pleading guilty, exhibitions of remorse, like apologising to the player upon whom foul play had been committed and a good playing record.

There is a catch all that the judiciary can take into account any off-field matters it considers appropriate. what that might have been I don’t know.

That’s why I think it is an aberration.

The headbutt decision was an aberation on the low side but mitigation came in to play. 10 reduced to six was soft, but in range, for the elbow to the head. 12 to 8 sounded better to me.

However, the Queensland decisions are spot on though. Certainly in range. Swinging arm with a clenched fist deserves time for stupidity let alone violence. Then the always upright head contact. Aim for the legs and a ball carrier head collision is taken out of play.

The coaches of both teams should be ropeable that such ill discipline occurred and from such senior players.

Perhaps the players have the message now. Hope so.

It is so…not maybe.

Have a read of the Disciplinary Rules on the RUGBY AU website and you can get a perspective of what World Rugby requires of Judiciaries. It is quite a complicated process.

The head is sacrosanct, as you say. That’s why a mid range penalty was invoked for the headbutt of 6 weeks. As you correctly say, tacklers who get it wrong get 6 weeks as an entry point for contacting the head. So did the headbutt.

However it does not end there. There are 3 aggravating factors which might increase the sanction and another 6 mitigating factors which might lower it.

Foote said that whether the headbutt hit or not is irrelevant. He is simply wrong. It is relevant.

Further he said that that if you get hit on the head it will be a “ top, top, top suspension”. That too is wrong because it is too simplistic and is not in Line with the Disciplinary Rules. My thoughts are he should read the Disciplinary rules before he muddies the waters with incorrect statements about what the sanctioning process actually entails.

The thing is there were two acts of thuggery against players from his side. He is justifiably annoyed at that. He should however make informed comment about the result not misstate things. He just becomes a whinging Cheika like object otherwise – not a good look.

We can disagree on what results should come from a Judiciary. After all there are as many senses of justice as there are people. But at least we should be able to get the principle of sentencing out to the public so they can understand what the Judiciary actually did to arrive at the sanction given.

One of the factors in determining entry point sanction for foul play and the effect it has on the player struck. By entry point on noon low end mid range or high. Mid range starts at six weeks.

Consequently, the rebels coach is not correct when he says whether they head butt lands is irrelevant. If it doesn’t land it does not have an effect upon the player. If it does the player series damage the entry point increases.

That is just one of 13 considerations that must be taken into account when determining the entry point. to just raise this one thing is to take it out of context.

In fairness to the judicial committee, the Disciplinary Rules read like the Criminal Code. Like all decisions, there is a balancing act that needs to happen.

Having said that, I would’ve thought a head butt really needs to be taken out of the game by a high-level entry point. That is because of the possibility of damage to the player on the receiving end.

“…violence inherent in the system…”. Do I detect a Monty Python fan? 😂

😂

Lomani deserved a gobful from the crowd for what he did. No doubt he will be punished appropriately by the Judicial Committee.
On the other hand, racial abuse is simply not to be tolerated. It speaks much more of lack of character of the abuser than anything about the person abused. The Code of Conduct has been set up to deal with exactly this sort of abhorrent behaviour.
Once a complaint is made, it can be investigated. If the necessary evidence comes to light, the spectator can be required to appear before the Code of Conduct Committee to determine guilt or innocence.
If guilty, the Committee has the power to prevent entry to grounds, suspend membership of rugby organisations and/or suspend a person from being involved in rugby activities. Those activities are such things as playing, officiating coaching or administering.
They are the most relevant sanctions but not all. If proven, I would like to think the spectator would get a combination of those.

No

I just watched a replay. The thing that stood out for me was the Force jerseys. They look like West Tigers Sydney League. Appalling. Get rid of the Leaugie V for heaven’s sake.

I’m revisiting old issues but … that he was dropped for RWC was a travesty. All the best to him in 7s.

Generally speaking, if a company trades insolvently and then is put in to liquidation, directors can be ordered to pay the debts of the company. That is so because the directors had the running of the company and have an obligation to ensure it can pay its debts at all times.

If the company can’t pay, the directors should put the company into administration as soon as they know the debts can’t be paid. That was not done and. It would seem, the company continued to trade while insolvent.

There is a lot of money at stake for the directors. The Rebels debts are a lot to pay from directors personal funds. Few people can take that sort of financial hit.

When I was a young man I was taught that the winners can laugh and the losers can do what they bloody well like, except complain about the ref. A good motto to abide by I think.

That could be right Aiden. He was a fine direct rugby player. Shame he is not always that way as a speaker. But, no-one is perfect.

Poor old Phil does not know what retrospective means. He and McLennan either knew of the excess spending at the time it was spent or they found out later. There is nothing retrospective about either the spending or the knowledge of it.

If they did not know of it, why? They should have. If they found out later when did they find out and how. Who approved the spending?

I am becoming less entranced the more I see and read.

The whole précis of the report and Waugh’s comments are PR weasel words unfortunately.

I am a foundation member of the Rebels. Victoria is not my State but I became a member to support the spread of Rugby in Australia. I flew interstate to attend the Rebels firsts game.
When the ARU decided to remove a team from Super Rugby, the Rebels threatened to sue its own governing body if the Rebels were removed. As soon as that happened I resigned my membership and have never renewed it.
Rugby people threatening legal proceedings against other Rugby people regarding administrative matters, is not the Rugby I played, administered and refereed. I find it an anathema to our sport. That is why I resigned my membership.
Rugby should be about fellowship, camaraderie, and enjoyment. It never used to be about money. Now it is. I am utterly saddened by the current debacle and bitterly disappointed that the source of the dispute is financial. I’m not interested in the legalities. It should never have come to this.

Hear hear!

😂

Hard to believe that someone at RA would make such an obviously horrendous decision faced with what Twiggy had to offer. Then again….

“Smith’s undisguised disgust at the pitch’s role in his dismissal added to his growing list of petulant displays after being dismissed.” Well said!
That about sums up this great batsman. His batting can be sublime but when he gets out, there is always something about which he gets snakey as he leaves the paddock. Not a good look.
He gives off a childish, petulant hard done by air to what is, after all, the vagaries of cricket. Vagaries happen around us all. Accept them, act in a gentlemanly fashion and get on with it.
Warner is another example of this churlish behaviour after dismissal. Take his extreme anger when he was walking off in the first innings in the current test.
Each should act like a sportsman, accept their fate and welcome, with grace, the crowds’ applause for the way they batted and stride proudly off. Not waving arms around and kicking the pitch with a face deserving of a mother’s backhand in years gone by, slumping off with shoulders down. Then finally acknowledging the adulation with a languid wave of the bat and a truculent air.
Once they cool down, they seem again in control when interviewed . Then they are generally good ambassadors of the sport despite earlier transgressions. But please, cut out the childish tantrums on dismissal.

The Umpire was standing in front of to where the bowler was running. There was no doubt as to any potential conflict. There was a clear conflict.

For generations an umpire has stood or placed his arm extended over the bowling crease to indicate that a bowler should not run there.

The umpire had no need to handle the situation better. The player had simply to obey the umpires clear direction.

I am with you Brendan. I do not consider Farrell a dirty player. I think he has bad tackle technique. I felt sympathy for him when the judiciary made an incorrect decision corrected on appeal. That must have been a very difficult time for him.

I accept that referees should not talk as much as they do. Make a decision, explain it once and move on.

They should never use the first names of players. On the paddock, the man with the whistle is the ref of the player, not his mate. Apply should be addressed by his number or, if he is the captain, as captain.

However, none of those points, change my view of Farrell or Sexton as a captain. They recalcitrant dissenters. as for Hartley, Barnes sent him off. There was no citing.

I’m not aware of any player who has been cited post-match for dissent. I’d be interested to hear of them if you can refer me to articles about that.
The only reference to a captain being allowed to talk to a referee is in Law 7.2 (d). A referee may allow a captain to choose between advantage sanctions in the event advantage played to the first results in a second. Otherwise the laws say nothing.
However it has always been the tradition to allow captains to asks why a decision was made.
Rather than what is allowed, another pertinent question is “What is not allowed?” That is what captains like Farrell and Sexton persist in. It is not just them, of course. But they are good examples of captains who do not always respect the authority of the ref and frequently dispute decisions (Law 9.28 Foul Play).
Perhaps, you are right. Maybe that is why they were chosen to be captain. If they get away with dissent and lack of respect, why not?

Agreed Dusty. Well put.

I add though that referees must take some blame for his continued abysmal behaviour. He would not have played as many tests if he had been marched 10, carded and sent off more for his repeated dissent.

That would have resulted in more coaches saying “Mate, you are a liability. Change your ways or be dropped.” And then dropping him.

Not to take action regarding dissent and disrespect is to condone it. I do wish that ref coaches and appointment boards would change their messaging to refs. For them not to exacerbates attitudes like Farrell and Sexton.

Haha. No irony in that comment 😂

“The tail wagging the dog”!!!! The arrogance of the man.
An EGM will not put an end to the matter if McLennan does not go. If he stays it will perpetuate the division.
He suggests that if he is not removed then the leaders of the state unions should go. He forgets that he has no say in that whatsoever. RA is to represent the states/territories and other affiliates. He has no control over who the states/territories want to represent them and neither should he.
As for the suggestion that the EGM should be a referendum about centralisation, what a spin doctor twist that is! EGMs decide what is on the agenda for the EGM – his removal. They do not decide on an idea RA is attempting to foist upon those who do not want it.
The more I see and hear of this bloke the less I want him administering our game.