Slaters hearing

I suspect the relationship between Gloucester and Sale is very negative at present. Maybe this is lingering from the Van Rensberg affair.

How many games did Marler miss for touching AWJ's crotch? 12 week ban was it not, served when rugby stopped for covid so managed to get away with it? Does seem to be a lack of consistency, though I did have issues with Marler not serving his ban properly so I can't complain about this really

Players welfare & eradicating cheap shots is a must but not sure 4 weeks for Slater & only 3 for Du Preez gives the system any sense of credibility at all.
Not sure what the solution is but somethings wrong.

Slater had previous that was taken into account, Du Prez didn't have any.

That doesn't get a mention at all, or have I missed it.

You've missed it KPB.

What does DuPreez's punishment report say ?

I understand it says something like this
- panel agreed no evidence of contact to the head
- panel accept that he wrapped and attempted to make a legit tackle

Incredible if correct.

englandrugby.com

Sorry if this has already been posted.

Follow the “Governance” link to get to the details.

You've missed it KPB.

What does DuPreez's punishment report say ?

I understand it says something like this
- panel agreed no evidence of contact to the head
- panel accept that he wrapped and attempted to make a legit tackle

Incredible if correct.

Only one word comes to mind......corrupt. Absolutely no sane, sensible person could view that footage and come up with that conclusion. This is the RFU. I await the RFU apologist explaining how they got it so right and, as always, it’s PRL who are at fault!

Findings of Fact

The Panel reminded itself that this was a citing and that it was for the RFU to prove the charge on
the balance of probabilities.
The Panel noted that it had heard live evidence from Mr Du Preez and that it had not received any
evidence (documentary or live) from the Gloucester Player.
The Panel made the following brief findings of fact, on the balance of probabilities:-
1. The Player approached the Gloucester Player, who was being held up in a tackle.
2. The Gloucester Player had his back turned towards the Player and was in a highly vulnerable
position. The Gloucester Player started falling towards the ground as Mr Du Preez approached.
3. The Player attempted to make a legitimate tackle and wrapped his right arm around the waist
of the Gloucester Player. At the time of contact, the Gloucester Player was very low to the ground.
His left knee was already on the ground, with his back upright (perpendicular to the floor).
4. The Panel noted that Mr Du Preez had based his account of the point of contact on the video
footage. The Panel also noted that it had not heard evidence from the Gloucester Player as to the
point of contact. On reviewing the footage a number of times, both at full speed and in slow
motion, the Panel could not determine with clarity as to where the point of contact was.
5. On that basis, the Panel was not in a position to find, on the balance of probabilities, that there
was contact to the Gloucester Player's head and/or neck.
6. However, regardless of the precise point of contact, the tackle was forceful and highly
dangerous, and carried a significant risk of injury to the Gloucester Player.

I too am shocked how the panel couldn't see it was contact to the neck and head but I'm also surprised that neither Harris nor the Club submitted any evidence.

Slaters hearing included statements from Sale medical staff and Van de Merwe

https://www.englandrugby.com/governance ... -decisions

You've missed it KPB.

What does DuPreez's punishment report say ?

I understand it says something like this
- panel agreed no evidence of contact to the head
- panel accept that he wrapped and attempted to make a legit tackle

Incredible if correct.

Only one word comes to mind......corrupt. Absolutely no sane, sensible person could view that footage and come up with that conclusion. This is the RFU. I await the RFU apologist explaining how they got it so right and, as always, it’s PRL who are at fault!

Ive read the hearing reports and I may well be wrong here but my interpretation is even though Ed argued that he collided shoulder to shoulder and did not contact the head/neck of the Sale2 he was found guilty on the video evidence a short statement from the Sale 2 saying his head/neck was hit and a letter from a Dr saying he (the Sale 2) had pain from that area after the event.

In DPP hearing their was no comment from Harris the Glos Dr said he wasn’t concussed and the video evidence was found to be inconclusive so he wasn’t found guilty of head/ neck collision. The section in the report says

On behalf of the Player, it was said that the contact was not to the head and/or neck. The fact that the Gloucester Player failed the HIA assessment could not necessarily be attributed to any contact to the head or neck. The Player wrapped his arm and attempted to carry out a legitimate tackle. It was accepted that this was a reckless tackle that was dangerous, but that the incident took place at speed and that the Player did not have much time to change his height.
The Panel was reminded that the medical evidence demonstrated the Gloucester Player was not

The RFU did not therefore prove that DPP made contact with head/neck of Harris so took a lesser charge of reckless play.

In fairness to the RFU panel Harris’s failed HIA could well have been the result of him stubbing his toe.

I think the evidence given, and not given, says an awful lot about Gloucester and Sale as organisations. I’m very happy about the one I support.