Hughes is banned/not banned (delete as appropriate)

[Puja]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... ugby-union

Nathan Hughes went to his hearing for punching Ludlow, was there for 4 hours, upon which the whole thing was deferred for a week and this baffling statement issued:

“The independent panel appointed to deal with this case will reconvene within seven days in order to deal with an issue that arose during the evening,” independent panel chair Gareth Graham said. “No judgment will be issued by the panel in this period and the panel direct that the player, Wasps Rugby and the RFU are to make no further comment until the case has concluded. The player remains suspended until the conclusion of the matter.”

So, he's not been found guilty. But he's still banned. And no-one's allowed to talk about it. Weird as shit.

Discuss (although {modhat} make sure any speculation stays away from anything defamatory {/modhat}).

Puja

[Puja]

Deleted shortly after posting this evening, apparently.

Puja

[Oakboy]

The disciplinary process is arguably not fit for purpose. The implication of Hughes's position is that the panel WILL find him guilty based on available evidence. How else can banning him in the meantime be anything other than an illegal restraint of trade?

[fivepointer]

The Wasps No 8 spent four hours in front of an independent three-man panel on Wednesday night only for the case to be halted after it was decided a delay was necessary “in order to deal with an issue that arose during the evening”.

Its very mysterious. What could the issue have been that prevented the panel from making a judgment on the case in front of them? The video evidence seems clear cut and i'm sure Hughes would have pleaded guilty, albeit with a defence around provocation.
Yet again, the process leaves a lot to be desired.

[Stom]

Do you think he may have said that something was said to him and the panel have sought other testimonial...Has Ludlow's (separate) disciplinary taken place?

[Gloskarlos]

Ludlow's was supposed to be before Hughes' review - but was then delayed until after apparently. Not yet heard the fallout.

[Timbo]

Trust the RFU to make something that should be pretty simple into something mysterious and complex.

[Gloskarlos]

10:30 pm Ludlow was scheduled to start - how ridiculous!!

[Raggs]

Illness from a panel member?

If Hughes is somehow found not guilty, this will be the second time a panel will have caused him to miss a massive euro game for no reason.

[Stom]

10:30 pm Ludlow was scheduled to start - how ridiculous!!

Well, then, perhaps - and this is pure speculation - Hughes alleged that Ludlow made an -ist comment to Hughes and they delayed the two to look at the footage again and get independent witnesses before making a judgement, which seems fair enough to me.

[Raggs]

Thing is, it looks like Ludlow leaps on Hughes after the ruck is finished.

[Gloskarlos]

So Ludlow got 4 weeks

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/2018-2 ... is-ludlow/

i'm not sure I agree completely with the rationale, any part of the game COULD be dangerous in a dynamic situation.

[Raggs]

Perhaps, but he did a very large stride, and landed square on Daly's head, and looked to be there for quite a while (it didn't look like he had any control to be able to lift his foot back up).

It's dynamic, that means you have to be careful with where you put your feet, and be in control of your body to be able to lift them back up if you land on something squidgy.

[Gloskarlos]

true - you also need to be able to keep your balance to stop yourself and other players from being injured.....

[Peej]

Ludlow stepped round the side of a ruck, played the 9, and all with an aggressive and reckless use of the boot. It was stupid, but I'm not sure it deserves four weeks.

I just don't understand the Hughes thing. If they couldn't come to an unanimous decision, how can he be banned?

[Oakboy]

Reading it again, " . . . The player remains suspended until the conclusion of the matter . . ", the word 'remains' is odd. Are players before the panel automatically suspended pending a judgement? Or, does it mean that a guilty judgement HAS been passed and it's just a matter of the length of suspension.

[Gloskarlos]

just inconsistency frustrations yet again. Ludlow was stupid - playing the 9 was daft, there was zero intent in his step though, 4 weeks ban. Basteraud gets a 1 week ban for a forearm intentional smash to a prone player.

[Gloskarlos]

Seems Hughes tweeted the joke message midway through the hearing....... he may live to regret that.

[Digby]

What does the panel will not issue a judgement mean? For him to be suspended I assume they'd have to have found him guilty, so is the not issuing just a public matter?

[Puja]

Seems Hughes tweeted the joke message midway through the hearing....... he may live to regret that.

Wow. I just don't get what the sense of that even is. What does one gain from sharing that?

If he was sending a message to a mate, that'd be bad enough. Nothing says penitence like getting your phone out mid-disciplinary, and then to compound it by using the phone to post on open social media? What a prat.

Puja

[Shiny]

I suspect the "What a joke" tweet that was sent at 20:37 during the hearing is the issue. I doubt the panel would be impressed that he was tweeting at all during the hearing especially such a negative tweet.

If this is the case the man is a clown and despite his personal views probably needs to wind his neck in around grown ups that can potentially mess with his career.

[Digby]

I suspect the panel had stopped for drinks and Nathan was merely taken aback by the poor selection of biscuits on offer

[Mellsblue]

Ha. Turns out the Chair is a friend from my school days. He was head boy, straight A student and 1st XV capt, plus first team cricket and Sevens - nickname was Golden Graham. I haven’t spoken to him for years but during his school days he was quite laid back until it came to rules and regs, for which he was an absolute stickler. Just Hughes messing with his phone would really piss him off. The content of the tweet will, rightly, make things a whole lot worse.

[Mellsblue]

I suspect the panel had stopped for drinks and Nathan was merely taken aback by the poor selection of biscuits on offer

If hadn’t supplied his own, homemade selection he was doomed from the start.

[twitchy]

Is this the same panel that let george smith off completely?

Four hours? Just get on with it and make a decision. This isn't a murder trial. Sounds like a joke to me. Self important tits.