Jennings Appeal Denied

Paulw

I see from the ERC press release that the Jennings appeal has been denied and his original ban until Jan 2010 will stand.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/12_13415.php

walshb

Well, finally the rugby authorities don't cave in to these appeals.

However, the ban should then have been increased to send out a strong
message, that this will not be tolerated and that if you think you can simply
"appeal" and have your term lessened, then you may suffer more.

That is how it should work.

RugbyFanatic

So Hayes gets his appeal lowered for what was a vicious head stamp and Jennings cant even get one week off what is a long ban?

Otacon

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

So Hayes gets his appeal lowered for what was a vicious head stamp and Jennings cant even get one week off what is a long ban?

Why are you comparing two different offenses in two different competitions?

Compare it to Quinlan's appeal. [He didn't get a reduction either!]
http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/2009/0520/quinlana.html

premierstone

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

So Hayes gets his appeal lowered for what was a vicious head stamp and Jennings cant even get one week off what is a long ban?

Why are you continiously comparing two seperate incidents, although I have a fair idea:rolleyes:

They both committed completely different offences, in different competitions and were dealt with by different boards.

Personally I think Hayes ban was lenient, Jennings is a little harsh 8 weeks would have been about right but why you continually link the two is just redic, was that Jennings case to the appeal board '' ah come on lads bull only got 5 weeks'' hardly suprising the appeal wasnt successfull so.

Crash

walshb wrote: »

Well, finally the rugby authorities don't cave in to these appeals.

However, the ban should then have been increased to send out a strong
message, that this will not be tolerated and that if you think you can simply
"appeal" and have your term lessened, then you may suffer more.

That is how it should work.

Not really. Thats how it should work if there's a strong case that the original ban was overly lenient, but to penalise someone simply for appealing is over the top. For instance, say you get a bank charge for not paying your mortgage on time. you appeal to the bank to rescind it, they decide not to and add an extra 200 euro on top, because they didn't feel that you were right.

Players have a right to appeal, they shouldnt be unnecessarily punished simply for appealing.

walshb

Yes, they do have the right to appeal, but to make them think twice about any old silly appeal, which does happen a hell of a lot in the sporting world and the justice world, then they should be made realise that if this appeal fails, I could be facing a stiffer sentence. This is not uncommon. Appeals cost time and money, and someone has to pay.

Duffalo Soldier

Can't imagine the brazenness of putting him in the squad to face Ulster this weekend would have helped his case!

Brewster

Unfortunately this ban is all about unfortunate circumstances. Jennings was the first player to be cited for this offence since the IRB dictate that a 3 month ban must be served for making contact with the eye area. He has been made an example of. It is a disgraceful decision, missing 3 months of rugby for touching Kennedy's face is basically what it is. I have not seen any footage that shows Jennings trying to stick his fingers in the eyes of Kennedy. Where will this end? If a player goes to hand off an opposition player and makes contact with eye area accidently, is this going to be a citable offence? Im all for banning individuals like Burger who deliberataly perpetrated this henious offence, however, I just can't see how Jennings can be seen to be guilty.

zenmonk

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

So Hayes gets his appeal lowered for what was a vicious head stamp and Jennings cant even get one week off what is a long ban?

Fair play RF, dragged into the gutter of Munster/Leinster nonsense again. FFS

AdeT

walshb wrote: »

Yes, they do have the right to appeal, but to make them think twice about any old silly appeal, which does happen a hell of a lot in the sporting world and the justice world, then they should be made realise that if this appeal fails, I could be facing a stiffer sentence. This is not uncommon. Appeals cost time and money, and someone has to pay.

I don't think this was a silly appeal - he has received 12 weeks which rules him out of ml, hc and ai; I'd certainly appeal if I thought I had a case. He may have thought that what he has been charged for isn't how it happened so wanted to fight it. Unfortunately he (i presume) hasn't been able to provide enough adequate evidence to support his appeal so he has failed.

I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent, just that he most certainly has the right to appeal and the notion that it should be lengthened simply because his appeal failed is a bit extreme

Apologies for going OT but has anything come of the O'Driscoll incident with Goode at Brive where it looked as if someones hand was precariuosly close to his eyes?

AdeT

Duffalo Soldier wrote: »

Can't imagine the brazenness of putting him in the squad to face Ulster this weekend would have helped his case!

I agree, it did look a bit brazen. But, if his appeal was successful they probably would have wanted him to play immediately as he missed last weeks game too.

I'd like to think it wouldn't come into the minds of the appeals board but they're only human...

Kristopherus

Brewster wrote: »

Unfortunately this ban is all about unfortunate circumstances. Jennings was the first player to be cited for this offence since the IRB dictate that a 3 month ban must be served for making contact with the eye area. He has been made an example of. It is a disgraceful decision, missing 3 months of rugby for touching Kennedy's face is basically what it is. I have not seen any footage that shows Jennings trying to stick his fingers in the eyes of Kennedy. Where will this end? If a player goes to hand off an opposition player and makes contact with eye area accidently, is this going to be a citable offence? Im all for banning individuals like Burger who deliberataly perpetrated this henious offence, however, I just can't see how Jennings can be seen to be guilty.

+1

Podge_irl

Duffalo Soldier wrote: »

Can't imagine the brazenness of putting him in the squad to face Ulster this weekend would have helped his case!

That's pretty common practice. It wouldn't have affected anything.

Well, finally the rugby authorities don't cave in to these appeals.

However, the ban should then have been increased to send out a strong
message, that this will not be tolerated and that if you think you can simply
"appeal" and have your term lessened, then you may suffer more.

That is how it should work.

But it wasn't a silly appeal. A citing commission can't complain about players appealing every verdict when they give such variable punishments (though I think the ERC board are actually pretty good). They've only themselves to blame for the constant appeals. A ban should only be increased if the original ban was considered too lenient.

RugbyFanatic

premierstone wrote: »

Why are you continiously comparing two seperate incidents, although I have a fair idea:rolleyes:

Point out a post where I linked the two inciddents to one point, thanks.

They both committed completely different offences, in different competitions and were dealt with by different boards.

Hence why I was pointing out the inconsistencies of the rugby governing bodies :rolleyes:

RugbyFanatic

zenmonk wrote: »

Fair play RF, dragged into the gutter of Munster/Leinster nonsense again. FFS

Excuse me monk I am simply pointing out in consistencies, all bodies should have one policy. Reckless behaviour is reckless behaviour.

zenmonk

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

Excuse me monk I am simply pointing out in consistencies, all bodies should have one policy. Reckless behaviour is reckless behaviour.

You are simply stirring ****. How can 2 bodies have consistency for 2 different offences? Why don't you just discuss the Jennings case instead of dragging up the Hayes case again?

RugbyFanatic

zenmonk wrote: »

You are simply stirring ****. How can 2 bodies have consistency for 2 different offences? Why don't you just discuss the Jennings case instead of dragging up the Hayes case again?

Well thats the problem monk, they should. The IRB should enforce a one rule for all. Reckless behaviour such as stamping and eye gouging should be a mandotory ban for a set number of weeks. Thats my point.

zenmonk

So you agree with the length of Jennings ban?

RugbyFanatic

zenmonk wrote: »

So you agree with the length of Jennings ban?

No because I don't feel Jennings was reckless with his hand from what I can see. If he was though I'd agree with it.

murphym7

Crash wrote: »

Not really. Thats how it should work if there's a strong case that the original ban was overly lenient, but to penalise someone simply for appealing is over the top. For instance, say you get a bank charge for not paying your mortgage on time. you appeal to the bank to rescind it, they decide not to and add an extra 200 euro on top, because they didn't feel that you were right.

Players have a right to appeal, they shouldnt be unnecessarily punished simply for appealing.

2 points for speeding - 4 if you take it to court and lose. It discourages people from taking case's to court that they know they can't win.

I have to admit though that 12 weeks was a long ban but there was no basis of appeal IMO.

premierstone

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

No because I don't feel Jennings was reckless with his hand from what I can see. If he was though I'd agree with it.

Well in fairness harsh and all as I feel 12 weeks was do you really think that the panel didnt have a different angle that showed more than the footage available to us, or are you suggesting that it was a vendetta against Jennings and that Nick Kennedy is a liar??

RugbyFanatic

premierstone wrote: »

Well in fairness harsh and all as I feel 12 weeks was do you really think that the panel didnt have a different angle that showed more than the footage available to us, or are you suggesting that it was a vendetta against Jennings and that Nick Kennedy is a liar??

Personally I feel they were making an example out of Jennings.

And Bob Casey did come out and say that Kennedy admitted to him that he had completely overreacted.

zenmonk

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

No because I don't feel Jennings was reckless with his hand from what I can see. If he was though I'd agree with it.

This is where you and me differ. In a pm you accused me of putting my head in the sand. Read your comment again and see who's head is in the sand. He stuck his fingers in Kennedy's eyes end of story.
I am the first to admit that Hayes, Quinlan, Flannery should have been banned for their offences.
My original post is why you had to bring Hayes into this? Now you see no wrong in what Jennings did, so how on earth can anyone argue or debate with you. You are biased and unmoveable in your bias.
Who gives a damn what Bob Casey said after the fact, what Kennedy said at the time was more pertinent.

Chucky the tree

spot on decision in my opinion. Good to see the ERC sending out a clear message.

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

Personally I feel they were making an example out of Jennings.

And Bob Casey did come out and say that Kennedy admitted to him that he had completely overreacted.

He never said completely overreacted, he said he overreacted.

toomevara

Rein it in gentlemen or bannings will ensue

RugbyFanatic

zenmonk wrote: »

He stuck his fingers in Kennedy's eyes end of story.

From the angle we have you can't see where his fingers are. It's completely inconclusive and you know it.

My original post is why you had to bring Hayes into this?

As I have (repeatedly) answered I was making the point that I feel there should be a one rule for all by the IRB to stamp out these inconcistencies.

Now you see no wrong in what Jennings did, so how on earth can anyone argue or debate with you.

I can't see conclusively Jennings fingers in Kennedy's eyes or even around the eye socket, can you?

Who gives a damn what Bob Casey said after the fact, what Kennedy said at the time was more pertinent.

Kennedy's motives were more than likely trying to get Jennings sent off. The fact that Kennedy said he overreacted means the inciddent was probably a non event if Jennings did gouge Kennedy I doubt he'd say such a thing as unlike Cullen with Quinlan they have no shared international ties.

zenmonk

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

From the angle we have you can't see where his fingers are. It's completely inconclusive and you know it.



As I have (repeatedly) answered I was making the point that I feel there should be a one rule for all by the IRB to stamp out these inconcistencies.

But if Jennings was innocent surely your argument is he shouldn't have been banned at all? How can you look for consistency if you are sure he is innocent?




I can't see conclusively Jennings fingers in Kennedy's eyes or even around the eye socket, can you?

Actually the footage to me was damning from the start, I said straight out that Jennings is in trouble here, of course you see it differently, fair enough





Kennedy's motives were more than likely trying to get Jennings sent off. The fact that Kennedy said he overreacted means the inciddent was probably a non event if Jennings did gouge Kennedy I doubt he'd say such a thing as unlike Cullen with Quinlan they have no shared international ties.

Bob Casey does, and I never heard Kennedy say it , did you?

RugbyFanatic

zenmonk wrote: »

Bob Casey does, and I never heard Kennedy say it , did you?

Unfortunately toomevra asked awhile back to not further discuss this matter. I will abide by the rules

toomevara

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

Unfortunately toomevara asked awhile back to not further discuss this matter. I will abide by the rules

FYP.

Not quite true now is it? What you were infracted and warned for was for the kind of Leinster/Munster nonsense which is absolutely poisonous on here and to which I am adopting a zero tolerance policy on this thread. Discuss the Jennings appeal by all means, but do not attempt to reduce it to some sort of petty Leinster/Munster spat.

Any further crap in this vein on this thread and its ban-time for those involved.

RugbyFanatic

toomevara wrote: »

FYP.

Not quite true now is it? What you were infracted and warned for was for the kind of Leinster/Munster nonsense which is absolutely poisonous on here and to which I am adopting a zero tolerance policy on this thread. Discuss the Jennings appeal by all means, but do not attempt to reduce it to some sort of petty Leinster/Munster spat.

Any further crap in this vein on this thread and its ban-time for those involved.

Sorry toomevara I was referring to this post

Rein it in gentlemen or bannings will ensue

Which I thought to mean that the discussion between myself and monk was to end

Ciaran-Irl

Call me paranoid, but I wonder if Jenning's getting away with a ban last year on a technicality influenced their decision? I know it was a different crowd and all, but I can imagine that it pissed off a few people that he didn't just take the ban and get on with it.

Unlikely I know, but just a thought.

RugbyFanatic

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

Call me paranoid, but I wonder if Jenning's getting away with a ban last year on a technicality influenced their decision? I know it was a different crowd and all, but I can imagine that it pissed off a few people that he didn't just take the ban and get on with it.

Unlikely I know, but just a thought.

I would hope they are more professional than that though with the ML officiating bodies you really dont know!

MG

Unsurprising....IRB are clamping down hard and tbh it's great to see a firm, consistent line on disciplinary matters.....let's hope disciplinary bodies keep it up

RugbyFanatic

MG wrote: »

Unsurprising....IRB are clamping down hard and tbh it's great to see a firm, consistent line on disciplinary matters.....let's hope disciplinary bodies keep it up

Not in this case imo.

From the footage you can't see conclusively where Jennings fingers are. Jennings has been made an example of.

Chucky the tree

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

Not in this case imo.

From the footage you can't see conclusively where Jennings fingers are. Jennings has been made an example of.

Enough evidence to hammered him without needing to see clear video footage of a finger in the eye. I suppose like a court case you don't actually need to phyiscally see someone kill someone else to convict them.

Brewster

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

Not in this case imo.

From the footage you can't see conclusively where Jennings fingers are. Jennings has been made an example of.

I think the ERC should release the footage that they have used to ban Jennings. The footage in public domain does not at any point show where Jennings' fingers are. Rugby Fanatic is spot on. This is the reality of the situation, how anyone can come to a different conclusion is mind boggling. I honestly don't believe the ERC have anymore footage. They rely on the TV companies to provide pictures. Do they have secret cameras? I doubt it very much.

little173

Brewster wrote: »

I think the ERC should release the footage that they have used to ban Jennings. The footage in public domain does not at any point show where Jennings' fingers are. Rugby Fanatic is spot on. This is the reality of the situation, how anyone can come to a different conclusion is mind boggling. I honestly don't believe the ERC have anymore footage. They rely on the TV companies to provide pictures. Do they have secret cameras? I doubt it very much.

Agreed. Looks very harsh to me indeed, especially as Kennedy is reported to have said that he didnt feel it was intentional. It looks from the pictures as if he pushed him in the face, gripping your fingers in someones eye and pulling is surely the offence they are trying to eliminate here. The TV footage is totally inconclusive here unless there are other angles that the media are not privvy to.

chupacabra

zenmonk wrote: »

He stuck his fingers in Kennedy's eyes end of story.

I don't think thats fair on Jennings. There is absolutely no evidence that he "stuck his fingers" into Kennedy's eyes, all camera angles publicly available are totally inconclusive. Unless there is another angle that we haven't seen yet then i think this is a totally unforgivable mistake by the authorities. He does not deserve 12 weeks.

Sandwich

Fricking scandalous. Rugby officialdom really needs to get grip quickly on how they regulate. Berger, Jennings. Risking becoming as rotten a sport as cycling or athletics.

danthefan

zenmonk wrote: »

Bob Casey does, and I never heard Kennedy say it , did you?

Kennedy testified at the hearing.


As for Jennings having his fingers in Kennedy's eyes, there is absolutely no evidence this is the case. Do you have some evidence that everyone else does't? Could you share it please?

phog

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

So Hayes gets his appeal lowered for what was a vicious head stamp and Jennings cant even get one week off what is a long ban?

How can you reduce a minimum ban? It was either throw out the ban completey, leave as is or increase it and the first choice was never going to be an option, that's why I thougt it very foolish for Leinster to appeal.

danthefan

From the IT. Cheika most unhappy.

Leinster 'mystified' by Jennings decision

Michael Cheika claims the decision to by the ERC to reject Shane Jennings’s appeal against his 12-week ban, has left everyone within the Leinster Set-up “mystified”. The flanker this morning failed to overturn the suspension he received for making contact with the eye/eye area of London Irish lock Nick Kennedy in Leinster’s opening Heineken Cup game on October 9th.
Leinster have maintained throughout the process that there was no evidence to even support the citing of the Ireland international let alone ban him
“To be cited in the first instance,” said Cheika today, “it requires the incident to warrant a red card, but it didn't even merit a penalty, never mind a red card.
"Unfortunately the disciplinary officer wanted to pursue the matter even though there was verbal and written testimony from the London Irish player (Kennedy) stating that he “overreacted”. We are at a loss to understand why this decision has been made.
"We're more concerned at this stage with the player as both his career and his reputation have now been tarnished. We will be standing by Shane during this difficult time and I know that he will emerge stronger from this disappointing judgment."
Jennings will not be available to either Leinster or Ireland until January 7th next year, meaning his chances of adding to his five international caps during the Six Nations championship have been severely dented.

Podge_irl

phog wrote: »

How can you reduce a minimum ban? It was either throw out the ban completey, leave as is or increase it and the first choice was never going to be an option, that's why I thougt it very foolish for Leinster to appeal.

The minimum ban is before any mitigating factors are taken into account. You quite often see people receive the minimum but then have it cut in half due to prior disciplinary record etc.

PhatPiggins

Podge_irl wrote: »

The minimum ban is before any mitigating factors are taken into account. You quite often see people receive the minimum but then have it cut in half due to prior disciplinary record etc.

How can you cut a minimum ban in half? Would you be able to give us a few examples because I cant think of any.

danthefan

PhatPiggins wrote: »

How can you cut a minimum ban in half? Would you be able to give us a few examples because I cant think of any.

Burger and Parisse, 8 weeks. Think minumum sentences in court, life doesn't mean life, etc.

PhatPiggins

danthefan wrote: »

Burger and Parisse, 8 weeks. Think minumum sentences in court, life doesn't mean life, etc.

And they both did the eight weeks. The suggested mimimum for gouging in the SH is 8 weeks.

danthefan

PhatPiggins wrote: »

And they both did the eight weeks. The suggested mimimum for gouging in the SH is 8 weeks.

Nope, under IRB regulation 17 the lower end minimum ban is 12 weeks, mid level is 18 and high level is 24+ with a maximum of 156 weeks.

PhatPiggins

danthefan wrote: »

Nope, under IRB regulation 17 the lower end minimum ban is 12 weeks, mid level is 18 and high level is 24+ with a maximum of 156 weeks.

I stand corrected.

Reading some of the punishment guidelines you'd have to say Mujati is fecked(wrong thread I know)

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation17a4_874.pdf

Scroll to the appendix at the end.

phog

danthefan wrote: »

Burger and Parisse, 8 weeks. Think minumum sentences in court, life doesn't mean life, etc.

Is that not why the IRB issued an instruction that minimum bans mean minimum bans.

I still think it was risky in appealing as he was one of the first to be cited for eye contact since the Burger incident and after the new instructions he was on a hiding to nothing.

Do citing hearings and bans follow normal court hearings?

MG

RugbyFanatic wrote: »

Not in this case imo.

From the footage you can't see conclusively where Jennings fingers are. Jennings has been made an example of.

I disagree. I've posted this before - the Quinlan case set new precedents for offences around "contact with the eye area", namely

1. There need not be any contact with the eye
2. There need not be any intent
3. Mitigating evidence from the victim can be disregarded
4. Lack of injury is not a major factor in the ruling
5. The burden of proof on the commission is very light and does not need to be explained

Given this set of principles, I don't see why the Leinster Branch are so surprised and upset.

Basicly, the IRB and ERC have drawn line in the sand....hands on face = ban.
Whether they continue to stick to it is the real test.