Lee's 'struggle' with officials missing Mateo Carreras eye-contact inciden

[DGP Wasp]

Verdict reached last night on the weekend's red cards (Banahan and van Wyk both banned).  No word on Carreras either way, so would appear some element of that investigation is still ongoing.

The evidence is pretty compelling, and a deliberate eye gouge carries a very long ban, so assumption would be that the panel need time to determine just how long a ban he should get.  3/4 week bans for dangerous tackles (Banahan and van Wyk respectively) are pretty routine now, so can churn those out quickly. 

[hookender]

Verdict reached last night on the weekend's red cards (Banahan and van Wyk both banned).  No word on Carreras either way, so would appear some element of that investigation is still ongoing.

The evidence is pretty compelling, and a deliberate eye gouge carries a very long ban, so assumption would be that the panel need time to determine just how long a ban he should get.  3/4 week bans for dangerous tackles (Banahan and van Wyk respectively) are pretty routine now, so can churn those out quickly.

I think announcement of these was before Carreras meeting had started.

[Neils]

Verdict reached last night on the weekend's red cards (Banahan and van Wyk both banned).  No word on Carreras either way, so would appear some element of that investigation is still ongoing.

The evidence is pretty compelling, and a deliberate eye gouge carries a very long ban, so assumption would be that the panel need time to determine just how long a ban he should get.  3/4 week bans for dangerous tackles (Banahan and van Wyk respectively) are pretty routine now, so can churn those out quickly.

Carreras was on Wednesday night the others were on Tuesday night (so released Wednesday).

[Neils]

Lucky to just get a 9 week ban (18 weeks reduced for good record and guilty plea ) being reported but can't see anything official yet

[Neils]

https://mobile.twitter.com/EnglandRugby/status/1375040094399258627

The new way of providing info.

[Rifleman Harris]

Interesting that they don't see a need to deter eye gouging.  I also wonder what the 'Other' under mitigation was - bringing his own biscuits, saving next door's cat, not tweeting during the hearing?

[jamestaylor002]

Can someone explain the background to the biscuit reference when talking about RFU hearings please?

Also, what do people think about certain offences (like gouging) being exempt from reduction in bans - if found to be intentional?

[matelot22]

Can someone explain the background to the biscuit reference when talking about RFU hearings please?

Also, what do people think about certain offences (like gouging) being exempt from reduction in bans - if found to be intentional?

The biscuit reference is purely jest I assume.

Re your second point, I think the difficulty here would be in proving "intentional", could make citing hearing very messy affairs.

[MarleyWasp]

Brendan Venter once upset a disciplinary panel by helping himself to their biscuits and eating loudly during a hearing.

[hookender]

Brendan Venter once upset a disciplinary panel by helping himself to their biscuits and eating loudly during a hearing.

Was that intentional or reckless behaviour?

[Rifleman Harris]

Can someone explain the background to the biscuit reference when talking about RFU hearings please?

Also, what do people think about certain offences (like gouging) being exempt from reduction in bans - if found to be intentional?

It's a reference to an incident during a hearing which involved Brendan Ventner, some biscuits and the disciplinary panel.  Basically, the story goes, he took one without asking and then proceeded to eat it in front of the panel resulting in an increased ban. Hence, taking your own biscuits / leaving them alone resulting in mitigation from the original offence.

[Rifleman Harris]

Brendan Venter once upset a disciplinary panel by helping himself to their biscuits and eating loudly during a hearing.

Was that intentional or reckless behaviour?

Depends who you talk to!!

[jamestaylor002]

Can someone explain the background to the biscuit reference when talking about RFU hearings please?

Also, what do people think about certain offences (like gouging) being exempt from reduction in bans - if found to be intentional?

The biscuit reference is purely jest I assume.

Re your second point, I think the difficulty here would be in proving "intentional", could make citing hearing very messy affairs.

I think there would be difficulty, yes, however for incidents like this I think this could apply as I would find it difficult to accept any argument as to why Carreras needed to put his hand back into the lump of bodies after the tackle.

[jamestaylor002]

Can someone explain the background to the biscuit reference when talking about RFU hearings please?

Also, what do people think about certain offences (like gouging) being exempt from reduction in bans - if found to be intentional?

It's a reference to an incident during a hearing which involved Brendan Ventner, some biscuits and the disciplinary panel.  Basically, the story goes, he took one without asking and then proceeded to eat it in front of the panel resulting in an increased ban. Hence, taking your own biscuits / leaving them alone resulting in mitigation from the original offence.

Thank you!

[Peej]

Ridiculously lenient punishment for a premeditated assault after the whistle had gone and play had stopped. Inexcusable.