3 games for Elia

[petros]

"Whilst the offence was reckless rather than intentional, it was nevertheless clearly dangerous and, as the referee correctly noted, the fact that Wasps nine had broken the fall with his arm did not mitigate the offence to bring it below the red card threshold," an independent disciplinary panel statement read.

Contrary to some of the comments made on the game

[DGP Wasp]

Seems about right to me.

Has there been a change in how these are viewed?  Not so long ago, I'm sure these incidents were judged on outcome rather than action, so a reckless tackle like Elia's where only the tackled player's actions prevented him from landing on his head or neck would have been viewed more favourably than if the tackled player didn't manage to break his fall with an arm.  Same offence IMO should be treated the same, taking into account intent, but regardless of outcome.  Refs used to be told to consider outcome.  If that's now changed, then I welcome that, but don't remember it being announced as such.

[backdoc]

It makes no sense to deliver the verdict based on outcome.

Do you ban a player for life if an injury causes paralysis? There are just too many other factors.

[Old Geezer]

If I go into a supermarket and spray the place with a sub machine gun and kill 20 people there is one punishment.  If, however, every bullet misses everyone and no one is hurt, that is pure chance.  My action is the same even tho the outcome is, by pure chance, different.  i have always believed that it is the action which should be punished according to its likely outcome. That would enable disproportionate consequences of a minor act (such as a gentle push which causes someone to trip and hit their head and die) to be punished in a different way to unlikely consequences of a major act (like shooting a gun off).

[Bloke in North Dorset]

I think you'd be charged with different offence, but the punishment would likely be the same - life in prison.

I've just watched it again and the commentators didn't show any surprise that he the ref didn't consider the arm breaking the fall a mitigating circumstance, so it does look like the refs have decided on a new interpretation, or possibly that is what was intended in the first place and it has been pointed out to them.

[BG]

Outcome hasn't been a factor for quite a few seasons.. which irritates one eyed supporters when they see their player make a clear head tackle with force, gets a red card, a 4 week ban but point to the fact the receiving player got up and carried on playing, inferring that tackle wasn't that bad.

The refs used to operate to the same thought process but now take into consideration "mitigating factors"