Did Nigel make his mind up too quickly ?

[Snipe Watson]

Given the magnitude of the decisions being taken by these disciplinary panels I would hope that representation is taken more seriously than "sure Davy'll do that".

[rumncoke]

Firstly every Union will at all times support the authority of a referee and in the interests of the game it is essential that they are seen to do so .

At the same time there are areas or parts of the game were the Laws of the game no longer reflect the way the game has developed and the influence that a referees decision can influence a result . Similarly there is a common approach to refereeing which is detrimental to a defending team , that referees are more aware and more inclined to penalise the defending team with the only recognised offence of an attacking team being to fail to release a ball after a tackle while their team mates take out players off the ball and beyond the breakdown etc
Again scrum halfs are virtually immune at the ruck while the ball is visibly playable but the the back line are facing a packed defence whereas at the set scrum the back line has more space to attack but lacks proper service because the scrum half is being harassed by his opposite number .
But those things may be sorted out after the World Cup

If the panel have any sense of fairness I think a 1 match ban would support the referees decision and reflect the stupidity of Henderson's action and lack of intention to commit foul play while engaging in a highly physical competitive game .
.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scrum5]

Snipe would it honestly surprise you if that's exactly how Ulster Rugby approach it, we might not like Nigel Wray but sometimes his method of diplomacy is correct.

[Rooster]

Totally agree, are they allowed legal representation or is it just Davy Millar( yes I know he's a lawyer but he doesn't appear to be doing a very good job on previous performances) and a fingers cross approach.

I would not put the blame on Davy as he can only help put forward some defence or explanation and when the panels in the past have totally disregarded both the TMO and Referees reports there is not a heck of a lot anyone can do

[Snipe Watson]

Firstly every Union will at all times support the authority of a referee and in the interests of the game it is essential that they are seen to do so .

That is total horse manure Rumn. The game is best served by the laws of the game and those of common sense being upheld without fear or favour. We are not talking about the authority of the referee, we are talking about the infalibility of the referee. If the referee made a mistake his mistake should not be compounded by some misguided notion that a referee's position is weakened by having made the wrong call.

[scrum5]

Do the panels not have to give an explanation for their findings though and if found to be inaccurate or false, are they not then leaving themselves open for litigation or is it a case of it doesn't matter that you're innocent, we say you're guilty, so tough

[scrum5]

Firstly every Union will at all times support the authority of a referee and in the interests of the game it is essential that they are seen to do so .

That is total horse manure Rumn. The game is best served by the laws of the game and those of common sense being upheld without fear or favour. We are not talking about the authority of the referee, we are talking about the infalibility of the referee. If the referee made a mistake his mistake should not be compounded by some misguided notion that a referee's position is weakened by having made the wrong call.

Snipe that's the 2nd post in as many minutes that I agree with you, you must be a cantankerous aul fart as well

[Rooster]

Do the panels not have to give an explanation for their findings though and if found to be inaccurate or false, are they not then leaving themselves open for litigation or is it a case of it doesn't matter that you're innocent, we say you're guilty, so tough

It's not a legal process as such, just a disciplinary panel and yes such things happen like advice not to appeal or else, tis really a sort of kangaroo court where someone always gets punished

[Snipe Watson]

Firstly every Union will at all times support the authority of a referee and in the interests of the game it is essential that they are seen to do so .

That is total horse manure Rumn. The game is best served by the laws of the game and those of common sense being upheld without fear or favour. We are not talking about the authority of the referee, we are talking about the infalibility of the referee. If the referee made a mistake his mistake should not be compounded by some misguided notion that a referee's position is weakened by having made the wrong call.

Snipe that's the 2nd post in as many minutes that I agree with you, you must be a cantankerous aul fart as well

"Curmudgeon" is the correct term for me I believe. Although I was described today as the "cynic in residence" which rang true for a lot of my colleagues.

[scrum5]

Do the panels not have to give an explanation for their findings though and if found to be inaccurate or false, are they not then leaving themselves open for litigation or is it a case of it doesn't matter that you're innocent, we say you're guilty, so tough

It's not a legal process as such, just a disciplinary panel and yes such things happen like advice not to appeal or else, tis really a sort of kangaroo court where someone always gets punished

Well it needs dragged into the 21st century then, by all means punish a player if he's wrong but if not then he should be absolved.

[Snipe Watson]

Do the panels not have to give an explanation for their findings though and if found to be inaccurate or false, are they not then leaving themselves open for litigation or is it a case of it doesn't matter that you're innocent, we say you're guilty, so tough

It's not a legal process as such, just a disciplinary panel and yes such things happen like advice not to appeal or else, tis really a sort of kangaroo court where someone always gets punished

Time to wheel out the big guns then Rooster

[scrum5]

Firstly every Union will at all times support the authority of a referee and in the interests of the game it is essential that they are seen to do so .

That is total horse manure Rumn. The game is best served by the laws of the game and those of common sense being upheld without fear or favour. We are not talking about the authority of the referee, we are talking about the infalibility of the referee. If the referee made a mistake his mistake should not be compounded by some misguided notion that a referee's position is weakened by having made the wrong call.

Snipe that's the 2nd post in as many minutes that I agree with you, you must be a cantankerous aul fart as well

"Curmudgeon" is the correct term for me I believe. Although I was described today as the "cynic in residence" which rang true for a lot of my colleagues.

Will you be attending the AGM on Monday then to offer advice to Doakball

[Rooster]

Do the panels not have to give an explanation for their findings though and if found to be inaccurate or false, are they not then leaving themselves open for litigation or is it a case of it doesn't matter that you're innocent, we say you're guilty, so tough

It's not a legal process as such, just a disciplinary panel and yes such things happen like advice not to appeal or else, tis really a sort of kangaroo court where someone always gets punished

Well it needs dragged into the 21st century then, by all means punish a player if he's wrong but if not then he should be absolved.

Probably around another 150 years before the Scottish get into the 20th century never mind the 21st

[Deraless]

Wow that Strauss one was way worse than Hendy's. One could almost describe it as a flying headbutt.

[Snipe Watson]

Will you be attending the AGM on Monday then to offer advice to Doakball

I have yet to finalise my busy schedule for Monday, but there is a fair chance I will be in attendance.