Slaters hearing
Re: Slaters hearing
Three was 3 minute gap between du Preez's 'tackle' and Harris going off for a HIA, with several phases of play in those 3 minutes.
It looks more likely the 'doc' requested a HIA test after seeing, like everybody else apart from the TMO, the collision on repeat whilst play continued, rather than there being any 'erring on the side of caution' by the TMO or whoever at the time of the 'tackle'
It looks more likely the 'doc' requested a HIA test after seeing, like everybody else apart from the TMO, the collision on repeat whilst play continued, rather than there being any 'erring on the side of caution' by the TMO or whoever at the time of the 'tackle'
Re: Slaters hearing
There’s a different bar to be cleared about contact to the head if you’re a doctor deciding to call for an HIA or a disciplinary panel trying to prove that head contact was made. Both should err in different directions. As they have.
Had Gloucester given evidence of where the impact took place their may have been a different outcome.
On balance I’ve got no complaints about Slater’s ban (including the part about being banned from games that are actually being played). We need to eliminate those interventions from the game.
I personally thought DP’s was to the head and deserved a longer ban.
Had Gloucester given evidence of where the impact took place their may have been a different outcome.
On balance I’ve got no complaints about Slater’s ban (including the part about being banned from games that are actually being played). We need to eliminate those interventions from the game.
I personally thought DP’s was to the head and deserved a longer ban.
Formerly Sky blue
Re: Slaters hearing
Having viewed the incidents a number of times + read the official Judgement - and ignored the myopic and vivid comments of some sensationalists on SW - it's hard to deny the decisions.
Personally I would have had both as 4 week bans BUT Slater's past 2017 demeanour has gone against him + GRFC's rather odd absence of giving evidence in the DPP case + the legal intricacies of having to prove a citing have meant a difference of one week.
The TMO (and officials generally) come out of this with no credit.
Plus I hope that RFU have had a very stern word with Sale v the "unsporting" involvement of their staff-member. And that GRFC have advised all their players to "keep their heads" - who knows whether we might have created an opportunity if BTT hadn't erred as he stupidly did.
Personally I would have had both as 4 week bans BUT Slater's past 2017 demeanour has gone against him + GRFC's rather odd absence of giving evidence in the DPP case + the legal intricacies of having to prove a citing have meant a difference of one week.
The TMO (and officials generally) come out of this with no credit.
Plus I hope that RFU have had a very stern word with Sale v the "unsporting" involvement of their staff-member. And that GRFC have advised all their players to "keep their heads" - who knows whether we might have created an opportunity if BTT hadn't erred as he stupidly did.
Nothing wrong with free speech or having an opinion - as long as it matches mine !!
Re: Slaters hearing
Thanks for sorting that one for us Mutey. 
I’ve only ever been wrong once; l thought l was wrong, but l was wrong!
Re: Slaters hearing
So, with EPCR putting European competition on hold how does this affect Slater's ban?
'He sent his men all over England' - William I Gloucester 1086
Re: Slaters hearing
GlawsyD wrote:So, with EPCR putting European competition on hold how does this affect Slater's ban?
Ban is number of games not weeks, so it just get's postponed and he misses the next league games instead.