URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
  HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 66597--------------------------------------------------
       Re:  brown 
   DIR By: Brown Bottle
       Date: May 21, 2021, 3:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Neil Quinnock link ---
       >
       > I guess they waited to decide whether or not to appeal until
       after last weekend's results ? There would have been no point in
       risking an appeal if Quins were doubtful for the playoffs, but
       with an 11-point gap and 3 games to go, it's worth trying if he
       can be available for a couple of games.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Yeah, I wondered about that. In any case I think it's highly
       unlikely they'll increase the sanction.
       #Post#: 66602--------------------------------------------------
       Re:  brown 
   DIR By: Bolly-Quin
       Date: May 21, 2021, 4:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Brown Bottle link ---
       >
       > Yeah, I wondered about that. In any case I think it's highly
       unlikely they'll increase the sanction.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Yeah, I wondered about that. In any case I think it's highly
       unlikely they'll decrease the sanction.
       #Post#: 66609--------------------------------------------------
       Re:  brown 
   DIR By: Banstead Quin
       Date: May 21, 2021, 5:03 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I can see this being "Yes we agree the entry point should have
       been midrange, however, we feel the ban length was appropriate.
       So we got one bit wrong, sorry, but the other bit right".
       Let's hope that a reduction may happen and we get to the final
       and both he and Ester can influence it.
       #Post#: 66610--------------------------------------------------
       Re:  brown 
   DIR By: poorfour
       Date: May 21, 2021, 5:29 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Banstead Quin link ---
       >
       > I can see this being "Yes we agree the entry point should have
       been midrange, however, we feel the ban length was appropriate.
       So we got one bit wrong, sorry, but the other bit right".
       >
       > Let's hope that a reduction may happen and we get to the final
       and both he and Ester can influence it.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       That's not how the process works, though - the mitigation factor
       is a checklist, as is the entry point. Brown's argument will be
       along the lines that the entry point being high didn't reflect
       the accidental nature of the contact (which the committee
       admitted) or the limited nature of the injury (a cut that would
       have been unremarkable had it happened in almost any other way).
       They'll either accept it or not, I imagine. I'd be very
       surprised if they go "ah yes, but appealing isn't very contrite
       or remorseful, so nah"
       #Post#: 66613--------------------------------------------------
       Re:  brown 
   DIR By: Brown Bottle
       Date: May 21, 2021, 6:03 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: poorfour link ---
       >
       > That's not how the process works, though - the mitigation
       factor is a checklist, as is the entry point. Brown's argument
       will be along the lines that the entry point being high didn't
       reflect the accidental nature of the contact (which the
       committee admitted) or the limited nature of the injury (a cut
       that would have been unremarkable had it happened in almost any
       other way). They'll either accept it or not, I imagine. I'd be
       very surprised if they go "ah yes, but appealing isn't very
       contrite or remorseful, so nah"
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I agree about the process but 'accidental' downplays it a bit.
       They agreed it was reckless, but not deliberate.
       Accidental makes it sound like Mike put his foot down just
       before Taylor put his head there.
       #Post#: 66623--------------------------------------------------
       Re:  brown 
   DIR By: noah_jo
       Date: May 21, 2021, 7:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The actual write up of their report basically blames it all on
       him being off balance rather than reckless so ig there's room
       for negotiation there
       #Post#: 66641--------------------------------------------------
       Re:  brown 
   DIR By: poorfour
       Date: May 21, 2021, 9:17 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: noah_jo link ---
       >
       > The actual write up of their report basically blames it all on
       him being off balance rather than reckless so ig there's room
       for negotiation there
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Quite. The panel accepted that he was off balance, and that the
       reason he was off balance was that Taylor had been pulling on
       his leg until immediately before he tried to stand up... and
       then concluded that it was reckless to put his foot down.
       I don't know if any of the panel have ever stood on one leg and
       tried to put their feet down while off balance, but it appears
       they haven't. Your foot instinctively goes to the place where it
       will balance your weight, and where that is a function of where
       your other foot is and what the forces acting to unbalance you
       are.
       The panel basically set an expectation that Brown should have
       been able to break the Laws of Physics before the Laws of Rugby.
       They also accepted that Taylor contributed to Brown's loss of
       balance but didn't take that into account in setting the entry
       point.
       #Post#: 66645--------------------------------------------------
       Re:  brown 
   DIR By: Teddington Taff
       Date: May 21, 2021, 9:29 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       They also said it was an inadvertent stamp.  Then they say the
       injuries were not consistent  with a deliberate stamp.  As he
       tumbled backwards to avoid pressing down (when he realised where
       his foot was) - surely - it couldn't be regarded as a stamp.
       And if it was accepted that it was not deliberate - again surely
       - that makes it accidental?  Sounds like confusion and
       contradiction to make the point that any contact with the face
       constitutes a penaly of some sort.  Then it comes back to
       severity and punishment appropriate to the crime!
       #Post#: 66651--------------------------------------------------
       Re:  brown 
   DIR By: noah_jo
       Date: May 21, 2021, 9:45 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I reckon they take the 2 weeks off for lack of injury and the
       recklessness and he's back for the Newcastle game
       #Post#: 66653--------------------------------------------------
       Re:  brown 
   DIR By: JammyGit
       Date: May 21, 2021, 9:53 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I don't think they'll change their mind if they said an injury
       was caused first time round.
       *****************************************************
       Page 11 of 16
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page