RugbyRebels

Yet a week less than what Ashton got for grabbing someone while making a tackle...

Well, you can't have everything.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I've long held that 50% mitigation should the exception, not the rule.

I'd have something like 10% reduction for each of
Mitigating factors on-pitch
Immediate apology / remorse on pitch
Guilty plea with apology and remorse (this only counts at all if apology / remorse was shown at the time)
Clean record
Obviously accidental

Equally the opposite of these factors should all increase the sentence by 15%
I also regularly suggest that if any appeal is lodged, then all sentence reductions shold be removed; and only the additions allowed (if unsuccessful in appeal)


On this specific incident, I haven't actually seen it, so I can't judge; but if it was as deliberate as it sounds (here and elsewhere) then it should absolutely be a high-end entry point

I'm not convinced a failure to plead guilty should be an aggravating factor, but certainly I think they could revise some of the entry points and some of the aggravating/mitigating factors

In the days before multiple angles of TV at the top end, you can see why admitting guilt would be looked at favourably, but fir anything where there's more than a couple of angles it seems a bit ridiculous.

"here's incontrovertible proof you did it, now would you like 50% off for free?"

You do want some deduction for people who are willing to plead guilty. Whether you want it to be as high as it is I don't know. Not sure about saying we don't need to offer it where there's clear proof, because the idea is to work with the players to produce better outcomes not just screw them to the wall and be done with it.

When do players submit a guilty plea? Because it seems that happens at the hearing, we could save a lot of expense if we could avoid the need to convene a hearing in the first place, and that would add value to giving a bigger discount

Digby wrote:You do want some deduction for people who are willing to plead guilty. Whether you want it to be as high as it is I don't know. Not sure about saying we don't need to offer it where there's clear proof, because the idea is to work with the players to produce better outcomes not just screw them to the wall and be done with it.

When do players submit a guilty plea? Because it seems that happens at the hearing, we could save a lot of expense if we could avoid the need to convene a hearing in the first place, and that would add value to giving a bigger discount

But if you don't have the hearing you can't screw over people you don't like for eating biscuits in the wrong way.

16th man wrote:

Digby wrote:You do want some deduction for people who are willing to plead guilty. Whether you want it to be as high as it is I don't know. Not sure about saying we don't need to offer it where there's clear proof, because the idea is to work with the players to produce better outcomes not just screw them to the wall and be done with it.

When do players submit a guilty plea? Because it seems that happens at the hearing, we could save a lot of expense if we could avoid the need to convene a hearing in the first place, and that would add value to giving a bigger discount

But if you don't have the hearing you can't screw over people you don't like for eating biscuits in the wrong way.

If left to me I'd shoot anyone dead who dunked biscuits in their tea, really you could just shoot people who even eat biscuits. What kind of addle minded fool eats those little lumps of sugary fat rather than just wait for their next proper meal? (It would be worth noting I do not apply such thinking to people who drink too much)

Digby wrote:

16th man wrote:

Digby wrote:You do want some deduction for people who are willing to plead guilty. Whether you want it to be as high as it is I don't know. Not sure about saying we don't need to offer it where there's clear proof, because the idea is to work with the players to produce better outcomes not just screw them to the wall and be done with it.

When do players submit a guilty plea? Because it seems that happens at the hearing, we could save a lot of expense if we could avoid the need to convene a hearing in the first place, and that would add value to giving a bigger discount

But if you don't have the hearing you can't screw over people you don't like for eating biscuits in the wrong way.

If left to me I'd shoot anyone dead who dunked biscuits in their tea, really you could just shoot people who even eat biscuits. What kind of addle minded fool eats those little lumps of sugary fat rather than just wait for their next proper meal?

You, sir, are a philistine.

Pleading guilty doesn't get 50% off. It allows for upto 50% off, and helps it along a bit, but it's not the only thing by a long way. You can plead not guilty and get 40% off, just not quite the whole hog.

For me though, the fact he says it was intentional, and admits to that, means I'd be looking at the max entry level (24 weeks I think), which then can reduce down to 12.

16th man wrote:

Digby wrote:

16th man wrote:
But if you don't have the hearing you can't screw over people you don't like for eating biscuits in the wrong way.

If left to me I'd shoot anyone dead who dunked biscuits in their tea, really you could just shoot people who even eat biscuits. What kind of addle minded fool eats those little lumps of sugary fat rather than just wait for their next proper meal?

You, sir, are a philistine.

Possibly. Left to my own devices it would simply never occur to me to buy things like biscuits, crisps, chocolate, pop. Unless counting biscuits one can pair with cheese, because that would be important