Pocock pleads guilty, banned for three weeks for neck grab

I think he is far from a one trick pony but he does not have the rounded #7 skills that have been displayed over recent years such as by McCaw and George Smith who I rate really highly. That being said I will still pick him ahead of Hooper as he has much more influence on the game.

The bye

That is typically modest of you

I think you are 100% correct

Regarding your first question I will give you a couple of examples. Francois Steyn in March last year – “The Committee determined that the relevant sanction was four matches. After taking into consideration the Sharks' bye in Round 11, Steyn was suspended from all forms of the game up to and including 3 May 2015. Jean Deysel in April last year – "A discount was applied due to these mitigating factors. I took into account that the Sharks have a bye in Round 11, in effect making this a six-match sanction. Therefore, the player is suspended from all forms of rugby up to and including Saturday 23 May 2015." Your second question – I doubt very much that has ever occurred , well certainly not in the present professional era.

Yes the base sanction is a deterrent but as I have explained the flexibility to impose a sanction as further deterrent is needed where particular offences become a pattern in the game (e.g. lifting tackles) From Reg 17 “Aggravating factors include – the need for a deterrent to combat a pattern of offending in the Game.” If a particular incident is not an offence that has become a pattern in the game then there would be no need to impose further sanction for this factor. Seems perfectly fair, reasonable and transparent to me. I will leave it there.

forget wrt to the point i was making. clearly a jump from 2 weeks to 6 is not reasonable. so the variation would happen within a range. hence we can forget the other ranges. wouldnt say its a big problem. just seems particularly silly adding weeks for added deterrent when the suspension is a deterrent in the first place.

For the people askimg where his tweets or commentary on this whole mess was: http://www.davidpocock.com/davidpocock/2016/4/6/apology

We shouldn't forget the ranges because this is the actual basis of the process. It is, after all, those ranges that you think should have the deterrent sanction added to or removed from. Quite honestly I don't see where the problem is. The offences and sanctions are clearly set down. The Judiciary must be given flexibility regards aggravating/mitigating factors because there may be any number of things to evaluate which might increase or decrease the final sanction arrived at. Regards aggravating factors the Judiciary can identify any off-field issue it considers relevant. Each case is treated on its merits. Deterrence is obviously one. Others might include the player’s status as an offender generally. This can include all rugby, other sports, and any misconduct issues. As I said, anything considered relevant.

ok i take ur word for it , since i have no effing idea of the regulations and sanction process. however i have 2 questions (further) for u 1. u say ' The suspension of any player will be for a certain period and extended to cover bye weeks as is the case with Pocock. This is common practice " so according u this is a precedent whereby players with bye-weeks are banned for a number of games. what are the previous cases to back this? meaning a free weekend being taken into account in a ban. 2. if it is so have there been previous cases where players have been banned but have served nothing becoz they had a bye weekend? aside from above , if i was a lawyer , i would challenge the above ruling (based on the statement only ) , becoz no where does it mention a bye week end and the dates do not match with the period. imo , the judgement is not very clear and does not present all prima-facie facts :) but then brums are happy to get away with that one so....

forget the actual ranges. i dont know them and shouldnt have used them as an example. like i said. i dont think anyone would blink at the inconsistency over that timeframe if a week was added to the base charge or removed later. i dont know of any other aggravating factors that come up but interested to know some if you do.

A few emotive comments on here around Pocock, his intentions & his character. My belief is that Pocock is not a grub or a dirty player. His record over the past 10 years has not been one of a player looking to injure others. This act, which he has pleaded guilty to, was dirty. I call it that because it has no place in the game. It was not an action that has any 'rugby intent' about it at all. A high tackle while dangerous at least has a rugby action involved. I have noticed some acts that Pocock has been involved in on the field lately that perhaps point to a level of frustration in being nullified at what he does best. Nothing serious that makes me change my mind about the fairness he normally displays but a few niggles here & there. Maybe this act was a culmination of that frustration. Pocock has admitted his wrong doing, taken his ban & hopefully will realise that those kinds of things are not his game. He obviously wants to use his fame to make a positive impact outside of rugby & geting an ugly reputation won't help achieve the goals he has. A mini break now might be what he needs to refocus his game & look for other ways to make an impact.

The statement says the sanction is two weeks. This is line with Regulation 17 where sanctions are set down as weeks not games. The suspension of any player will be for a certain period and extended to cover bye weeks as is the case with Pocock. This is common practice. Bottom line - he is suspended for 2 games. If Marler did not have a game this weekend but the next two then his suspension would be extended to cover those later two weekends.

certainly you bind onto whatever you can in a maul. It is the standing up part that shows intent there. To defend a maul you get lower to push back, you don't stand yourself right up. The only reason to do that is to apply pressure to the choke. Pocock copped to the offence, and they haven't tried to claim he was going to turn out for a club side or the like, so the punishment fits the crime.

and about time

I suggest it is you that is the one that should "settle down". I have done no more than criticise the foul play of a certain player in a certain match for a certain incident through replies to other posters. I have also been critical of foul play from other players in other matches from last weekend. And I don't believe my criticism is out of proportion to the offence. I would dearly love you to point out where I have implied or named David Pocock as a "habitual dirty player". Please could you do that since you have alleged that I have done so?

Me thinks there is a little bit of tall poppy syndrome sprinkled among some of these comments. Who hasn't done something regretful in the heat of the battle? As it says in the good book, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

@ ClarkeG : just for arguement sake (becoz nothing we say here has any impact on the proceedings ) where exactly does the man say he has been banned for two games?? on the other hand i suggest u read this judgement on Joe Marler , who has also been banned for 2 games for his racist comment. now that is a very clear explicit judgement , where as in this ur just inferring :) http://www.planetrugby.com/news/world-rugby-fine-and-suspend-marler/ World Rugby fine and suspend Marler " In respect of the sanction, pursuant to Regulation 20.10.1 (c), the committee determined the breach was serious and imposed a two-match suspension, and pursuant to Regulation 20.10.1 (b) that Marler pay a fine in the form of a donation of £20,000 to a suitable equality charity in the UK. "

Yes it's not going to change from week to week but it's quite conceivable that it will change over extended periods depending on the regularity of any particular offence within the game and that's why it remains open otherwise WR would need to amend its Sanctions for Foul Play every time there was a change. Keep in mind that deterrence is but one factor that a Judiciary might consider when evaluating potential aggravating factors. Each case is treated on it's merits. If Pocock's offence was say considered med-grade then he would have been sanctioned from the base of mid range which would have been 6 weeks.

Shane, Played for a lot longer than I should and never have I considered what Poey did to be remotely acceptable. Just weird how others playing past is questioned or they are called a hater due to differing opinions. Anyway you hit the nail on the head by stating all Poey had to do was bind legally. Pretty simple really and he obviously agreed with hindsight.