Hughes is banned/not banned (delete as appropriate)

[Digby]

Who is to say the update to social media relates to the hearing?

Unless it's so confirmed by Hughes perhaps he was merely commending a friend on an amusing bon mot

[twitchy]

What can you possibly discuss for four hours and then not even make a decision? Bumbling old fucks smelling their own farts.

[Mellsblue]

If you can’t see how behaviour like that undermines the whole process then, well, I don’t know. That the panels regular undermine the process themselves with their decisions should be noted when making this argument.

[Digby]

What can you possibly discuss for four hours and then not even make a decision? Bumbling old fucks smelling their own farts.

Brexit, Trump, Robshaw, Wade, whether NZ ever get onside...

[twitchy]

Min 1 - "Let's look at the video evidence".
Min 2 - "Ok from a different angle".
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

Min 240 - "I think we need more time on this incredibly complex issue".

[Puja]

Who is to say the update to social media relates to the hearing?

Unless it's so confirmed by Hughes perhaps he was merely commending a friend on an amusing bon mot

One could argue that he shouldn't be doing it during a disciplinary hearing. Leave your social media meme approval until after your tribunal.

I think Shiny's probably got the right of it - they've decided that he's guilty and they're going to reconvene to see what extra punishment to hit him with for being a tw*t. Don't know why they couldn't just say that rather than being cryptic.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Plus representations from both sides and biscuit tasting, and the panel coming to agreement. Hughes could be banned for 15%ish of the season. It’s important, if unlikely, they make the correct call. When the tweet came to light I’m sure they would want to refer to procedural rules.

[Digby]

Who is to say the update to social media relates to the hearing?

Unless it's so confirmed by Hughes perhaps he was merely commending a friend on an amusing bon mot

One could argue that he shouldn't be doing it during a disciplinary hearing. Leave your social media meme approval until after your tribunal.

I think Shiny's probably got the right of it - they've decided that he's guilty and they're going to reconvene to see what extra punishment to hit him with for being a tw*t. Don't know why they couldn't just say that rather than being cryptic.

Puja

But if they want to ban him for it I'd hope they'd have to show it was commentary on the judicial process

[Puja]

Who is to say the update to social media relates to the hearing?

Unless it's so confirmed by Hughes perhaps he was merely commending a friend on an amusing bon mot

One could argue that he shouldn't be doing it during a disciplinary hearing. Leave your social media meme approval until after your tribunal.

I think Shiny's probably got the right of it - they've decided that he's guilty and they're going to reconvene to see what extra punishment to hit him with for being a tw*t. Don't know why they couldn't just say that rather than being cryptic.

Puja

But if they want to ban him for it I'd hope they'd have to show it was commentary on the judicial process

Not necessarily. It's clearly contempt for the judicial process even if he argues that he'd decided he'd rather faff about on social media than participate.

It's irrelevant anyway, as it's a disciplinary hearing and not a court. They don't need to prove beyond a doubt, just balance of probabilities.

Puja

[twitchy]

How exactly should he be "participating" in a four hour charade? What possible things could he even add after minute three? Do you think it's like this or some thing:

[Raggs]

I'm sure there'd be tea and biscuit breaks too.

[Digby]

One could argue that he shouldn't be doing it during a disciplinary hearing. Leave your social media meme approval until after your tribunal.

I think Shiny's probably got the right of it - they've decided that he's guilty and they're going to reconvene to see what extra punishment to hit him with for being a tw*t. Don't know why they couldn't just say that rather than being cryptic.

Puja

But if they want to ban him for it I'd hope they'd have to show it was commentary on the judicial process

Not necessarily. It's clearly contempt for the judicial process even if he argues that he'd decided he'd rather faff about on social media than participate.

It's irrelevant anyway, as it's a disciplinary hearing and not a court. They don't need to prove beyond a doubt, just balance of probabilities.

Puja

Balance of probability is the standard, what I don't know is if he says the comment was nothing to do with the hearing does that change anything? Mind if he's stupid enough to comment in such fashion he's stupid enough to fess up

Btw, I'm wrong to worry they can't suspend him prior to a ruling. If a citing comes from a club the player is free to play until found guilty and issued a ban, but if a player is up for a hearing following a red card or citing by independent commissioner they're presumed suspended until and unless they're cleared

[Puja]

How exactly should he be "participating" in a four hour charade? What possible things could he even add after minute three? Do you think it's like this or some thing:

You mean it's not?!

Puja

[Digby]

Interesting what comes next given many players will only be more derisory about hearings if he gets an increased ban

Some consistency in decision making and not reducing bans for frivolous appeals would help more

For England I tend to think having to look more at Mercer is only a good thing

[Digby]

How exactly should he be "participating" in a four hour charade? What possible things could he even add after minute three? Do you think it's like this or some thing:

You mean it's not?!

Puja

Depends if Brendon Venter is giving testimony

[Peej]

The tweet was bloody stupid and should get him some kind of sanction, but the whole wording is very strange given that it seems like Hughes was guilty as soon as he was cited.

[Oakboy]

The tweet was bloody stupid and should get him some kind of sanction, but the whole wording is very strange given that it seems like Hughes was guilty as soon as he was cited.

Agreed. Mind you, it is hard to argue with the tweet from a factual viewpoint.

[fivepointer]

Min 1 - "Let's look at the video evidence".
Min 2 - "Ok from a different angle".
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

Min 240 - "I think we need more time on this incredibly complex issue".

I've been wondering just what can take hours to determine when so often the facts are pretty clear cut.
Hughes must have accepted the charge, pleaded guilty, but made point that he was provoked by actions of opposition player.
Panel could have nodded their heads sagely and concluded, yep the Glos player was being a twat but you still clocked him so you're out of action for 3 weeks.
How hard can it be?
On the tweet, it was plainly dumb and terribly ill judged. The panel rightly took offence but they still could have discharged the issue at hand.
Something else that bugs me with these hearings are the panelists, who seem to be selected on a whim and based on just who is around at the time. How about a core of around 10 dedicated people who deal with all these hearings? They build up experience and consistency as they sit most weeks.

[Tom Moore]

What's the tariff for really badly timed and idiotic social media posts?

I suspect whatever it is, I'm banned sine die.

[Oakboy]

The press are now claiming that the delays relate entirely to the tweet. Could it be that some of the panellists have to have it explained to them? Why else can't they reach an immediate decision on punishment taking the tweet into account? The panel and the whole disciplinary process are surely bringing disrepute to the game.

[Digby]

I assume the panel want to sound others out on what the sanction should entail, and as Hughes is suspended anyway it makes no difference

[Mellsblue]

They had to deal with Ludlow as well, so couldn’t just spend all night deliberating over Hughes acting like a child. I’d rather they adjourn and deal with the case correctly than rush a decision and get it wrong. Getting it wrong does more harm to the process than an adjournment. I think we’re all getting a bit over excited about a minor, one-off incident. Of course, if Hughes hadn’t acted like a petulant tennager we wouldn’t have this problem.

[Gloskarlos]

New hearing set for Wednesday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45839300

Nothing like striking whilst the iron is hot is there..

[twitchy]

New hearing set for Wednesday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45839300

Nothing like striking whilst the iron is hot is there..

What a fucking joke.

[Mellsblue]

The guy is an idiot. I hope they throw the book at him.