Sent off players immediate ban

Simon Thomas

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#41
Not my problem, it is down to CBs to sort out and I am sure clubs will put presure on them to do so, if they are likely to have players not available due to a Discipline Committee not sitting frequently enough.

Also let's put this in context - in senior adult Hampshire rugby last season out of 48 clubs, 2,000 or so players, and 1,600 or so matches 36 RC's were awarded.
Similar breakdown to OB's Glos ones. Only 4 cases were contested, all others pleaded guilty by post.

Simple solution of course - clubs to make sure there players are not red carded through discipline (no punching, biting, gouging, stamping, or diussent/abuse etc).
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#42
Not my problem, it is down to CBs to sort out and I am sure clubs will put presure on them to do so, if they are likely to have players not available due to a Discipline Committee not sitting frequently enough.

Also let's put this in context - in senior adult Hampshire rugby last season out of 48 clubs, 2,000 or so players, and 1,600 or so matches 36 RC's were awarded.
Similar breakdown to OB's Glos ones. Only 4 cases were contested, all others pleaded guilty by post.

Simple solution of course - clubs to make sure there players are not red carded through discipline (no punching, biting, gouging, stamping, or diussent/abuse etc).
Do you feel compelled to take the party line?
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#43
Also let's put this in context - in senior adult Hampshire rugby last season out of 48 clubs, 2,000 or so players, and 1,600 or so matches 36 RC's were awarded.

Similar breakdown to OB's Glos ones. Only 4 cases were contested, all others pleaded guilty by post.
Simple enough then for the hearings for the 4 players concerned to be held using Skype or some other suitable video conferencing arrangement, on the Monday night after the matches on which the players' concerned were carded?

► No travel required
► Minimum delay in proceedings allows the memories of those involved to be fresh
► Swift and fair justice

I cannot see a down side
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#44
Put another way... of Glos held only 4 weekly meetings (as it appears some CBs do) 55 out of 65 bans would have been for longer than would have been handed down.

didds
I think everybody has got that point. I merely wanted to put a factual basis under some of the theorising. In Glos we expect to be able to hold hearings slightly more often. As Simon Thomas says, most cases are GBL anyway.

Simple enough then for the hearings for the 4 players concerned to be held using Skype or some other suitable video conferencing arrangement, on the Monday night after the matches on which the players' concerned were carded?

► No travel required
► Minimum delay in proceedings allows the memories of those involved to be fresh
► Swift and fair justice

I cannot see a down side
Currently referees have to submit their reports within 48 hours. Both clubs involved have to receive copies. Given that this is an amateur game, people may not be able to respond immediately etc. Not everybody has video conferencing equipment. One local club has until recently had no officers with email. I think such a demanding timetable would fail too often for comfort, and I don't see it as necessary.
 

TigerCraig

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#45
We have to have ours in my midday Monday, but Sunday evening is preferred. Judiciary meet every Wednesday
 

Account Deleted

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/wales.png
#46
Not my problem, it is down to CBs to sort out and I am sure clubs will put presure on them to do so, if they are likely to have players not available due to a Discipline Committee not sitting frequently enough.

Also let's put this in context - in senior adult Hampshire rugby last season out of 48 clubs, 2,000 or so players, and 1,600 or so matches 36 RC's were awarded.
Similar breakdown to OB's Glos ones. Only 4 cases were contested, all others pleaded guilty by post.

Simple solution of course - clubs to make sure there players are not red carded through discipline (no punching, biting, gouging, stamping, or diussent/abuse etc).
PARAGRAPH 1
So it's not your problem. That does not changes whether it is right or wrong. All it means is your not interested in it. So WHY POST?

PARAGRAPH 2
Any unfair result that is avoidable worth avoiding 1 case or 100 so what? The RFU can sort it fairly so why not do so?

PARAGRAPH 3
Sorry but that's the sort of posts that gives many fans their view that we are jumped up little billy no mates with a power complex. Sending offs will happen in particular the 2 YC variety. These things happen always have and always will. Whether or not players should or should not "go bad" is not the point. The point is if the IRB give a tariff of 2 weeks the player should not serve 4 because of the "system".
 

Simon Thomas

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#47
Do you feel compelled to take the party line?
Dickie - there is no party line involved.

As a referee and Society Committee member I have no remit, responsibility, or interest in the CB's Disciplinary Committee frequency of sitting or how they conduct their meetings, unless it impacts on a referee giving evidence.

Our Society Committee remit is to make sure our referees submit a full and correctly completed report, with relevant evidence within 48 hours, and if necesasary appear at a contested / abuse hearing. With a 48 hour report submission process, the earliest a hearing could be held is Wednesday to allow for Colts League and Sunday County Cup matches.

Personally I agree that a online system (email, Skype, etc) could be useful - and I am sure our CB will consider it, as they were early adopters of the use of phone conferences when RFU introduced it.

If CB are sanctioning in line with IRB regs, working with us to reduce abuse etc (both of which my CB do well) we as Society are happy.
 

crammond1964

Rugby Club Member
#48
problem will occur in december when there could be a 6 week delay ........... especially if player is innocent . Most prepared clubs will automatically ban the player after conference with the ref afterwards . Therefore adopting a referee at your rugby club is a very intelligent idea ! Most clubs have done this .
 

Lee Lifeson-Peart

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#54
LLP -crammond1964 has an ongoing issue with the London Society, he has started a blog which highlights all of this.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/entry.php?41-termination-of-a-referee
Gotcha!

I have read the blog - but moving on.

Yorkshire stats from 2012-13 are as follows in terms of sanctions dished out (ie numbers v duration of ban)

SOS = 7
1 week = 4
2 weeks = 39
3 weeks = 13
4 weeks = 23
5 weeks = 4
6 weeks = 5
7 weeks = 1
8 weeks = 5
9 weeks = 1
10 weeks = 1
12 weeks = 1
20 weeks = 1
24 weeks = 1

This was from monthly meetings Sept to May (2 in March)

The final three columns of the spread sheet show:-

Banned from / Banned to/ Recommence playing

These dates are "random" and seem to suggest that some imposed ban by the club is factored in when the Recommence play date is filled in.

In some cases the ban commences from the day after the hearing whereas sometimes the ban period and recommencement date are all between the sending off and the hearing date.

I'm afraid I'm guessing at the logic behind the dates but in a nut shell it appears to read club bans are taken into account whereas if you tough it out the ban starts after the hearing - others may know how it really works.

Vast majority >80% are 4 weeks or less ie shorter than the period between hearings.
 
Last edited:

OB..

, Advises in England
#55
Vast majority >80% are 4 weeks or less ie shorter than the period between hearings.
Just to get the impact understood, we need to remember that offences occur at different times between hearings. It is only the earlier ones that may suffer under the new regime, and I have already suggested an exception procedure is needed to deal with those few where the sending off is contested or relatively minor. GBL is easy, so the only difficulty would be contested RCs, which might need a special hearing. These are rare.

If LLP is right that some clubs allow players to play on until the hearing, then I think this new approach is a step in the right direction, but agree it needs tweaking to be fair to a small number of cases. It would certainly make sense for all CBs to plan on fortnightly hearings, though I suspect many of these would become mere paper exercises.
 

Simon Thomas

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#56
Answers to Lee Lifeson-Peart

These dates are "random" and seem to suggest that some imposed ban by the club is factored in when the Recommence play date is filled in. Yes it is and clubs in my CB are encouraged to do so - if a PGL then start the ban straight away maybe for 2 weeks and if no hearing by them then let him play until the hearing.

In some cases the ban commences from the day after the hearing whereas sometimes the ban period and recommencement date are all between the sending off and the hearing date.

I'm afraid I'm guessing at the logic behind the dates but in a nut shell it appears to read club bans are taken into account whereas if you tough it out the ban starts after the hearing - others may know how it really works. YES all correct - sometimes a club will feel a contested RC will end up as case not found so no ban. Or they prefer the player to be on pitch for a crucial top of table league match and then have ban for hte wekes when playing bottom two in league.

Vast majority >80% are 4 weeks or less ie shorter than the period between hearings in which case RFU and CBs need to address that time-lag

but as I repeatedly say, it is a clubs and CB problem to fix the process. It is something the Society has no input into, except getting good clear reports in within 48 hours
 

Blackberry

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#57
If most meetings are about setting the length of suspension for uncontested sendings off, here is a very workable model.

The committee holds conference call meetings each week to handle the uncontested sending offs.

The committee only then meets in person to handle the much rarer contested sending offs.
 

Phil E

, Referees/Trains Referees in England
#58
In Warwickshire we have been told that because of this new approach, referees must be vigilant in getting their report in within the stipulated 48 hours. So as not to hold anything up from our end.

One referee pointed out that we are volunteers and a such cannot be made to comply with the 48 hour directive.

Personally I always submit mine within 48 hours anyway, so I have no issue with it.
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#60
In Warwickshire we have been told that because of this new approach, referees must be vigilant in getting their report in within the stipulated 48 hours. So as not to hold anything up from our end.

One referee pointed out that we are volunteers and a such cannot be made to comply with the 48 hour directive.

Personally I always submit mine within 48 hours anyway, so I have no issue with it.
I always used to write up any send-off or sin-bin reports ASAP after the game (either in the car or when I got home) while everything was still fresh in my mind, and then post them off next morning.