RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:4 weeks.

Reduced from 6 - for pleading "Not Guilty" and... erm... other reasons yet to be released.

Mybe they thought he was drunk when he said it?

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:4 weeks.

Reduced from 6 - for pleading "Not Guilty" and... erm... other reasons yet to be released.

Mybe they thought he was drunk when he said it?

I had assumed that he'd plead guilty, given that it's a lowish ban and there's no suggestion of any evidence apart from Shillcock's word, but it seems not.

Sound like the usual RFU disciplinary bodge job to me - find him guilty because we want to show that we don't like this kind of thing, but a lower sentence because they're not 100% sure that he actually is.

Puja

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/sharks ... ary-panel/

“The panel found that the player used language that was verbally abusive on more than one occasion in quick succession," said panel chair Samantha Hillas.

“The comments were offensive and have no place on the rugby field. However, the Panel accepted that they were said in the heat of the moment rather than premeditated.

“For these reasons, the panel deemed it was a low end entry point which carries a six week suspension as a starting point. The player did not accept the charge but all other mitigating features were present. The panel therefore reduced the sanction to four weeks.”

We'll have to see how this compares to Folau's ban

Digby wrote:We'll have to see how this compares to Folau's ban

The two offences are barely comparable.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:We'll have to see how this compares to Folau's ban

The two offences are barely comparable.

The Folau one being much worse and having clear and obvious evidence?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:We'll have to see how this compares to Folau's ban

The two offences are barely comparable.

The Folau one being much worse and having clear and obvious evidence?

The Folau one being much worse, praise be to god. For Solomona, there's no evidence required given that he pleaded guilty.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The two offences are barely comparable.

The Folau one being much worse and having clear and obvious evidence?

The Folau one being much worse, praise be to god. For Solomona, there's no evidence required given that he pleaded guilty.

Ah. I only saw WT's querying post above that he got 6 weeks down to 4 for pleading not guilty

Mellsblue wrote: The Folau one being much worse, praise be to god. For Solomona, there's no evidence required given that he pleaded guilty.

You might to tell the RFU - I'm sure it would have saved a lot of hassle.
They claim that "the player denied the charge"

ETA: Althought the charge was for disrepute; which means that either Denny thinks it's okay to throw homophobic slurs (which would surely increase the sentence, not decrease it) or that he denies saying them.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The Folau one being much worse, praise be to god. For Solomona, there's no evidence required given that he pleaded guilty.

You might to tell the RFU - I'm sure it would have saved a lot of hassle.
They claim that "the player denied the charge"

ETA: Althought the charge was for disrepute; which means that either Denny thinks it's okay to throw homophobic slurs (which would surely increase the sentence, not decrease it) or that he denies saying them.

Ha. I read it had been reduced and just assumed he’d plead guilty. I forgot the golden rule of rugby disciplinary panels - common sense is left at the door.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
The Folau one being much worse and having clear and obvious evidence?

The Folau one being much worse, praise be to god. For Solomona, there's no evidence required given that he pleaded guilty.

Ah. I only saw WT's querying post above that he got 6 weeks down to 4 for pleading not guilty

Ha, as above, I forgot the golden rule.

I'm sure I read something about Solomona and Shillcock making up at the end of the game but I can't recall if it used the word "apology" or not. That would surely make a big difference if he is claiming he didn't say anything.

And if Solomona said nothing at all you'd think he would be mighty pissed at Shillcock. I would be.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:We'll have to see how this compares to Folau's ban

The two offences are barely comparable.

The Folau one being much worse and having clear and obvious evidence?

No, Folau's not being an offence in that he expressed an opinion (not one I like) but did not abuse anyone.

Cameo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The two offences are barely comparable.

The Folau one being much worse and having clear and obvious evidence?

No, Folau's not being an offence in that he expressed an opinion (not one I like) but did not abuse anyone.

It's a take

For me the Folau issue is many times more complicated than a Solomona type incident (assuming he said what is being reported etc etc)

Folau was stating what he believes God's plan for homosexuals is, based on his (built up) interpretation of the religion he follows.

He didn't actually say that he had an issue with them being homosexual, or that they aren't to be treated with respect by fellow people (just not necessarily by God)

For me, the issue here is religion, interpretations of ancient texts, and a lack of awareness to realise that posting this online was a stupid thing to do.


Solomona (or Basteraud) on the other hand, used a word with many negative connotations, to offend/insult (in some manner) someone else, which is a double edged thing in that not only is he using that word, he's using it as a negative too.


Either way, I've no qualms with bans being handed out for this sort of thing, because I'd rather it be removed from our society! (Just looking at Youtube comments of the Shillock / Solomona incident shows how rife and awful it is)

Folau is just wired wrong. A lost cause. People like him think they are devout and in the moral right, but really they are championing the opinion of homophobic bigots.

Qantas are on the case

Judgement in full is out - though I won't have a chance to actually read the thing until this evening:
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document ... nglish.pdf

Which Tyler wrote:Judgement in full is out - though I won't have a chance to actually read the thing until this evening:
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document ... nglish.pdf

That is basically as expected - no evidence one way or the other, but Shillcock's account is deemed to be more credible, probably because the RFU want to look like they're against that sort of thing.

I do believe Solomona did it, basically because I don't see Shillcock lying, but that is awfully flimsy evidence to ban someone on.

Puja

It's more evidence than Tom Williams got banned on, though it did turn out Quins did it too

I've got no sympathy for Solomona as an individual but I've got loads for Sale, especially after the weekend. If this went to a civil court, I just don't see how such a lack of evidence could not lead to reversal and compensation (for their loss). The process is a joke, IMO.

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Judgement in full is out - though I won't have a chance to actually read the thing until this evening:
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document ... nglish.pdf

That is basically as expected - no evidence one way or the other, but Shillcock's account is deemed to be more credible, probably because the RFU want to look like they're against that sort of thing.

I do believe Solomona did it, basically because I don't see Shillcock lying, but that is awfully flimsy evidence to ban someone on.

Puja

Wouldn't Solomona have a defamation case if he didn't say it?

Numbers wrote:

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Judgement in full is out - though I won't have a chance to actually read the thing until this evening:
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document ... nglish.pdf

That is basically as expected - no evidence one way or the other, but Shillcock's account is deemed to be more credible, probably because the RFU want to look like they're against that sort of thing.

I do believe Solomona did it, basically because I don't see Shillcock lying, but that is awfully flimsy evidence to ban someone on.

Puja

Wouldn't Solomona have a defamation case if he didn't say it?

Interesting one that, cause with defamation, the burden of proof lies on the defendant. So Shillcock would need to prove that he hadn't made a false statement. Mind, I suspect that Solomona not appealing his ban is probably the evidence we need that he probably did it.

I think the whole case is exceedingly flimsy though - the fact that Solomona's testimony is seen as less credible because he claims Shillcock apologised first after the game (thinking it was about the fight), whereas Shillcock says he went to Solomona to say that he wouldn't take it further and "No hard feelings" whereupon Solomona apologised? Maybe someone better versed than I can correct me, but I though"No hard feelings" was synonymous with "Sorry" in Antipodean speech. You can see why confusion would occur.

Puja

Statement in the Telegraph from Dimes....

Sale Sharks director of rugby Steve Diamond has accused the RFU of mounting a moral crusade to get wing Denny Solomona banned for making an alleged homophobic slur towards Worcester’s Jamie Shillock.

Diamond has decided not to appeal the four-week suspension, despite being convinced of Solomona’s innocence, and the independent panel describing its own sanction as an “inherent contradiction”.

The two-cap England wing was last week found guilty of calling Shillcock a “f------ @#$%&” during Sale’s 58-25 victory against Worcester on March 24. Solomona claims that he called the Worcester fly-half a “f—wit” and the panel found no corroborating evidence, whether through witnesses or audio recordings, in support of Shillcock’s allegation.

The panel even dismissed the RFU’s claim that video footage provided compelling proof of Shillcock’s version of events. However, it still found Solomona guilty on the balance of probabilities, which Diamond believes sets a dangerous precedent for other players to be convicted on the basis of the word of a single opposing player.

However, he reserves his strongest condemnation for the governing body bringing the disrepute case after Shillcock had declared he did not want to take the matter further.
Steve Diamond is furious with the RFU's decision

“I think the RFU’s moral compass is so high at the moment,” Diamond told The Daily Telegraph. “Absolutely, they wanted to make an example out of Denny regardless.

“As was stated in the judgement, there was no evidence apart from the allegation from Jamie Shillcock. There was nothing to back that up. The RFU accused Denny of mouthing it and said it was clearly seen on their video, which the panel rejected. The RFU wanted 12 weeks because they alleged what he said was three times, so they wanted three times four weeks and we got it down to four weeks. We were happy with that but we were not happy with the result.

“Every time you go to a disciplinary hearing what is thrown down your throat are the values of the game. The values of the game are why people play the game at every level, which are what goes on the field, stays on the field. You shake hands. Clap each other off and it all ends. That’s gone. The RFU has taken that away from us now.”

Sixth-place Sale would rise into the top four should they beat Newcastle Falcons on Friday night and Solomona would be available again for the play-offs. In the meantime, the 24 year-old is adhering to a training plan sent to Sale by the England coaches ahead of the summer tour to South Africa.

Solomona, meanwhile, has engaged in community coaching at Manchester Village Spartans, a gay team, whose members Diamond claims offered to provide character witness statements.

However, Diamond has decided not to press the matter further. “To jump through hurdles and the costs of an appeal won’t do Denny, the club or the RFU any good.”

Diamond also rejected tabloid reports that the New Zealand born star’s visa status was in jeopardy after a supposed “split” with his British wife, Jess Impiazzi.

“It’s made up,” Diamond said. “Absolute nonsense. All the correct channels of pertaining visas have been done. Jess and Denny are in a marriage and she was in here this morning.”



As for Denny.....I believe him...as do the players.

"The panel even dismissed the RFU’s claim that video footage provided compelling proof of Shillcock’s version of events. However, it still found Solomona guilty on the balance of probabilities, which Diamond believes sets a dangerous precedent for other players to be convicted on the basis of the word of a single opposing player"

Dimes has a point. The evidence against Solomona is Shillcock's testimony. That cannot be discounted but if you are going to find against a player and ban him for 4 weeks, i'd suggest you need some independent corroboration.
And should panels really be deciding on the basis of balance of probabilities?
Whole thing seems very unsatisfactory to me.