RugbyRebels

I hope they stretch this out over the next 4 months. With a team of 10 lawyers on each side. The tarquins can have a tube linked directly from their arse to their nose to savour every last particle.

This is like the good old days. Nobody has called anyone a Tarquin on RR since the mass strop on the WMB.

So, total ban of 8 weeks (20th November) which would mean he would potentially be available for the last AI game…

Initially given 4 week after a guilty plea (6 weeks, reduced to 4 for the plea)
He tweeted “What a joke” as he had probably expected the maximum reduction down to 3 weeks (eligible for all AIs then)

The tweet happened after his legal rep had left the building so they decided to reconvene the following week (the tweet breached lots of rules)

On hearing evidence at follow up, he said he didn't think he was guilty, and was frustrated by their decision, hence the tweet.

But, as he said he didn't feel he was guilty, they got rid of the mitigation and made it 6 weeks for original infringement.

They then chucked an extra 2 weeks on for the tweet / behaviour…

Renniks wrote:So, total ban of 8 weeks (20th November) which would mean he would potentially be available for the last AI game…

Initially given 4 week after a guilty plea (6 weeks, reduced to 4 for the plea)
He tweeted “What a joke” as he had probably expected the maximum reduction down to 3 weeks (eligible for all AIs then)

The tweet happened after his legal rep had left the building so they decided to reconvene the following week (the tweet breached lots of rules)

On hearing evidence at follow up, he said he didn't think he was guilty, and was frustrated by their decision, hence the tweet.

But, as he said he didn't feel he was guilty, they got rid of the mitigation and made it 6 weeks for original infringement.

They then chucked an extra 2 weeks on for the tweet / behaviour…

This is gold!

Quite apart from anything else, how do you not feel you were guilty Nathan? You punched him - it's clearly and obviously visible. You might feel that you've got really good reasons, but the punch definitely happened. The legal rep must've had his head in his hands - can you take the 5th for stupidity reasons?

Puja

Ha. What an idiot. Seems like he only has himself to blame for all of this - ban and delay.

A week longer than this got. Definitely not a joke and completely consistent. Bastareaud could have given some one brain damage but at least he didn't make an innocuous tweet.

Basteraud should’ve got longer but that’s not an argument that Hughes should’ve got less. There’s also that they are completely different disciplinary system, so you are comparing apples with oranges.

Mellsblue wrote:Basteraud should’ve got longer but that’s not an argument that Hughes should’ve got less. There’s also that they are completely different disciplinary system, so you are comparing apples with oranges.

Honestly if WR is serious about welfare and fairness etc then I think disciplinary process needs to be under one united system.

Tigersman wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Basteraud should’ve got longer but that’s not an argument that Hughes should’ve got less. There’s also that they are completely different disciplinary system, so you are comparing apples with oranges.

Honestly if WR is serious about welfare and fairness etc then I think disciplinary process needs to be under one united system.

Agreed. Though, there’s as much inconsistency within systems as there is across them. The whole thing needs an overhaul.
The first change should be the automatic reduction on a guilty plea.

I've never understood the 'retaliation is the greater offence' principle. Hughes was stupid to tweet the truth but the disciplinary process needs work.

Mellsblue wrote:

Tigersman wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Basteraud should’ve got longer but that’s not an argument that Hughes should’ve got less. There’s also that they are completely different disciplinary system, so you are comparing apples with oranges.

Honestly if WR is serious about welfare and fairness etc then I think disciplinary process needs to be under one united system.

Agreed. Though, there’s as much inconsistency within systems as there is across them. The whole thing needs an overhaul.
The first change should be the automatic reduction on a guilty plea.

Yes, as it stands the process, by encouraging, 'I plead guilty but I'm innocent', is peddling dishonesty by definition.

Inevitable that he would get an extra ban for the tweet. He's only got himself to blame for that.

Smashing a downed guy in the head isn't that dangerous in france because gravity and air pressure is different. Also george smith got away with a tut tut and a ruffle of the hair the cheeky little scamp because he did some brown nosing. The system works.

Looks like the tweet ban is running parallel with the punch ban.

Puja

"Taking into account the proportionality of the total sanction, this period of 2 weeks is to run concurrent to the 6 week sanction for the punching of an opponent.”

So, after all the hullabaloo about the postponement it seems there were entirely sensible reasons for it, all parties agreed to it and it made no material difference to the outcome.

If the "I'm not guilty but I plead guilty to get a shorter ban, and then told everyone that's what I did" theme is accurate then he absolutely deserves it. What a fucking moron. The fact Basteraud should have received a 1 year ban doesn't seem awfully relevant.

Whether or not this process is being done fairly/consistently at the moment shouldn't mean that they have to accept someone publicly undermining it.

I'm obviously biased because he plays for a horrendous club, but everything Hughes does carries this raging entitlement and this pretty much fits the bill.

Why did he say he didn't think his actions warranted such a harsh ban given mitigation rather than that he wasn't guilty?

Separately with a nod to the wider themes of justice Hughes is essentially getting a harsher judgement because he's thick, and is it justice to additionally penalise the stupidest?

Still feel this is good news for England but it's certainly a mess

Digby wrote:Why did he say he didn't think his actions warranted such a harsh ban given mitigation rather than that he wasn't guilty?

Separately with a nod to the wider themes of justice Hughes is essentially getting a harsher judgement because he's thick, and is it justice to additionally penalise the stupidest?

Still feel this is good news for England but it's certainly a mess

If your stupid enough to do something worth penalising then yes.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:Why did he say he didn't think his actions warranted such a harsh ban given mitigation rather than that he wasn't guilty?

Separately with a nod to the wider themes of justice Hughes is essentially getting a harsher judgement because he's thick, and is it justice to additionally penalise the stupidest?

Still feel this is good news for England but it's certainly a mess

If your stupid enough to do something worth penalising then yes.

It's not as though others as a norm actually accept their culpability, so there's no obvious alternative, but it is a worry that the justice system most penalises the least amongst us

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:Why did he say he didn't think his actions warranted such a harsh ban given mitigation rather than that he wasn't guilty?

Separately with a nod to the wider themes of justice Hughes is essentially getting a harsher judgement because he's thick, and is it justice to additionally penalise the stupidest?

Still feel this is good news for England but it's certainly a mess

If your stupid enough to do something worth penalising then yes.

It's not as though others as a norm actually accept their culpability, so there's no obvious alternative, but it is a worry that the justice system most penalises the least amongst us

What is the alternative? Have an IQ threshold for stupid acts?
Hang on a minute .....I smell a rat ...JC give Diggers his laptop back.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: If your stupid enough to do something worth penalising then yes.

It's not as though others as a norm actually accept their culpability, so there's no obvious alternative, but it is a worry that the justice system most penalises the least amongst us

What is the alternative? Have an IQ threshold for stupid acts?
Hang on a minute .....I smell a rat ...JC give Diggers his laptop back.

JC?

And I don't know what the alternative is, nor is it merely a rugby issue, but justice is harder on stupid people, and that doesn't have the sense of justice

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
It's not as though others as a norm actually accept their culpability, so there's no obvious alternative, but it is a worry that the justice system most penalises the least amongst us

What is the alternative? Have an IQ threshold for stupid acts?
Hang on a minute .....I smell a rat ...JC give Diggers his laptop back.

JC?

And I don't know what the alternative is, nor is it merely a rugby issue, but justice is harder on stupid people, and that doesn't have the sense of justice

Oooooooohhhhhh Jeremy Cooooorrrrbyn

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: What is the alternative? Have an IQ threshold for stupid acts?
Hang on a minute .....I smell a rat ...JC give Diggers his laptop back.

JC?

And I don't know what the alternative is, nor is it merely a rugby issue, but justice is harder on stupid people, and that doesn't have the sense of justice

Oooooooohhhhhh Jeremy Cooooorrrrbyn

Harsh, very harsh comrade

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
JC?

And I don't know what the alternative is, nor is it merely a rugby issue, but justice is harder on stupid people, and that doesn't have the sense of justice

Oooooooohhhhhh Jeremy Cooooorrrrbyn

Harsh, very harsh comrade

Sorry. I’ll get Lady Chakrabati to lead an inquiry in to my behaviour.