Springboks v British & Irish Lions III
-
Holy fucking shit, I thought the journalist misrepresented the finding, so I checked the WR website.
In short, they accept that there was bite-like injury to Mostert, the only possible source of the injury was Sinckler, but intention was not proven to their satisfaction.
Now I don't mean to suggest that the SC who chaired the hearing is a blithering incompetent, rather that he would have failed law of evidence at any competent university.
The standard (quoted in the decision) is that the cited player must show on the balance of probabilities that the citation must not be upheld.
So the bite-like injury was either intentional or not. I would suggest that a bite is more likely to be intentional than not, but even if the panel doesn't agree, there needs to be evidence, any evidence, to support the conclusion that it was not intentional. The standard they used here was the "beyond a reasonable doubt", which basically requires all reasonable alternatives explanations to be dismissed.
I don't know if Sinckler bit Mostert and I understand the panel not wanting to find a player guilty with limited evidence, but the mental gymnastics that they had to go through to justify their finding is absurd. The regulations, as written, are maybe wrong and if WR wants to maintain some credibility they should rewrite them ASAP.
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
Holy fucking shit, I thought the journalist misrepresented the finding, so I checked the WR website.
In short, they accept that there was bite-like injury to Mostert, the only possible source of the injury was Sinckler, but intention was not proven to their satisfaction.
Now I don't mean to suggest that the SC who chaired the hearing is a blithering incompetent, rather that he would have failed law of evidence at any competent university.
The standard (quoted in the decision) is that the cited player must show on the balance of probabilities that the citation must not be upheld.
So the bite-like injury was either intentional or not. I would suggest that a bite is more likely to be intentional than not, but even if the panel doesn't agree, there needs to be evidence, any evidence, to support the conclusion that it was not intentional. The standard they used here was the "beyond a reasonable doubt", which basically requires all reasonable alternatives explanations to be dismissed.
I don't know if Sinckler bit Mostert and I understand the panel not wanting to find a player guilty with limited evidence, but the mental gymnastics that they had to go through to justify their finding is absurd. The regulations, as written, are maybe wrong and if WR wants to maintain some credibility they should rewrite them ASAP.
Like you, I do not know if Sinckler did bite Mostert or not but it seems the evidence was not conclusive enough to deem it was an actual bite. The SA "expert" admitted he was not qualified to judge this issue. The BILs expert was and his evidence (shown in the wider case details) was as follows:-
"The mark demonstrates small linear elements that are consistent with superficial contact by the biting edges of human upper or lower front teeth. The mark does not demonstrate the features of the biting edges of individual upper or lower front teeth. Consequently, it is not possible to state with certainty which part of the mark was caused by a specific upper or lower front tooth.
The arrangement of the linear elements is consistent with the very slight movement of the biting edges of upper or lower front teeth on the surface of the skin.
The appearance of the mark on the right forearm of Franco Mostert supports the opinion that the mark was caused by either the very slight movement of the teeth or the very slight movement of the skin or a combination of both mechanisms. It is not possible to identify which of the three possible mechanisms of contact was responsible for the mark.
It is important to note that the mark does not demonstrate any of the features of an incisive bite mark. The appearance of the mark is consistent with a recent injury.
The degree of soft tissue injury in the mark is consistent with mild force between the biting edges of upper or lower front teeth and the skin.
Conclusions
The mark referred to in the conclusions means the mark on the right forearm of Franco Mostert.- In my opinion, the mark was caused by superficial contact with human teeth.
- In my opinion, it is not possible to identify the mechanism of contact that caused the mark.
- The mark does not demonstrate the features of an incisive bite mark.
- The appearance of the mark is consistent with a recent injury.
- The degree of soft tissue injury in the mark is consistent with mild force between the biting edges of upper
or lower front teeth and the skin."
So, it seems the panel did have some evidence to support their decision.
Edit: Like you, I am probably of the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is most likely a duck". However that is not sufficient to hang someone with.
-
Top lineout photo
-
Maro Itoje has hit 132 rucks for the Lions in 2021, more than any other player; no Lion has won more turnovers than Itoje during this year’s tour (5), including four in the BoksvLions Test series – twice as many as any other player.
-
Maro Itoje has hit 132 rucks for the Lions in 2021, more than any other player; no Lion has won more turnovers than Itoje during this year’s tour (5), including four in the BoksvLions Test series – twice as many as any other player.
@daffy-jaffy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
Maro Itoje has hit 132 rucks for the Lions in 2021, more than any other player; no Lion has won more turnovers than Itoje during this year’s tour (5), including four in the BoksvLions Test series – twice as many as any other player.
That’s pretty cool seeing it depicted like that. From the armchair view he certainly had a very good series in terms of prominent involvement in each test and those stats confirm that.
-
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
Holy fucking shit, I thought the journalist misrepresented the finding, so I checked the WR website.
In short, they accept that there was bite-like injury to Mostert, the only possible source of the injury was Sinckler, but intention was not proven to their satisfaction.
Now I don't mean to suggest that the SC who chaired the hearing is a blithering incompetent, rather that he would have failed law of evidence at any competent university.
The standard (quoted in the decision) is that the cited player must show on the balance of probabilities that the citation must not be upheld.
So the bite-like injury was either intentional or not. I would suggest that a bite is more likely to be intentional than not, but even if the panel doesn't agree, there needs to be evidence, any evidence, to support the conclusion that it was not intentional. The standard they used here was the "beyond a reasonable doubt", which basically requires all reasonable alternatives explanations to be dismissed.
I don't know if Sinckler bit Mostert and I understand the panel not wanting to find a player guilty with limited evidence, but the mental gymnastics that they had to go through to justify their finding is absurd. The regulations, as written, are maybe wrong and if WR wants to maintain some credibility they should rewrite them ASAP.
Like you, I do not know if Sinckler did bite Mostert or not but it seems the evidence was not conclusive enough to deem it was an actual bite. The SA "expert" admitted he was not qualified to judge this issue. The BILs expert was and his evidence (shown in the wider case details) was as follows:-
"The mark demonstrates small linear elements that are consistent with superficial contact by the biting edges of human upper or lower front teeth. The mark does not demonstrate the features of the biting edges of individual upper or lower front teeth. Consequently, it is not possible to state with certainty which part of the mark was caused by a specific upper or lower front tooth.
The arrangement of the linear elements is consistent with the very slight movement of the biting edges of upper or lower front teeth on the surface of the skin.
The appearance of the mark on the right forearm of Franco Mostert supports the opinion that the mark was caused by either the very slight movement of the teeth or the very slight movement of the skin or a combination of both mechanisms. It is not possible to identify which of the three possible mechanisms of contact was responsible for the mark.
It is important to note that the mark does not demonstrate any of the features of an incisive bite mark. The appearance of the mark is consistent with a recent injury.
The degree of soft tissue injury in the mark is consistent with mild force between the biting edges of upper or lower front teeth and the skin.
Conclusions
The mark referred to in the conclusions means the mark on the right forearm of Franco Mostert.- In my opinion, the mark was caused by superficial contact with human teeth.
- In my opinion, it is not possible to identify the mechanism of contact that caused the mark.
- The mark does not demonstrate the features of an incisive bite mark.
- The appearance of the mark is consistent with a recent injury.
- The degree of soft tissue injury in the mark is consistent with mild force between the biting edges of upper
or lower front teeth and the skin."
So, it seems the panel did have some evidence to support their decision.
Edit: Like you, I am probably of the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is most likely a duck". However that is not sufficient to hang someone with.
@catogrande it really depends whether you go with point two or point three of the quoted bit. Incisive is not defined in the report so it is kinda difficult interpret what is meant by point three.
Again I don't care what the outcome was and I am not saying Sinckler needed to be banned or anything, but the application of the laws are just far removed from the way they are written. This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
If the intention is that guilt must be proven, then amend the laws to actually say that instead of contorting yourself into knots to get the result you think is right.
-
Maro Itoje has hit 132 rucks for the Lions in 2021, more than any other player; no Lion has won more turnovers than Itoje during this year’s tour (5), including four in the BoksvLions Test series – twice as many as any other player.
-
@daffy-jaffy do you have a link to the full stats, I read somewhere that Itoje only made 4 tackles in the second game and I thought he was very quiet in game 2 and 3.
@sidbarret I found this info on a reddit rugby feed. Unable to find a link on google to the original data site . Sorry.
-
Been a long time since I posted here - mainly because the Boks have not been in action and, of course, we (living down here in Africa's backside) have been just too jealous of all the rugby you guys have had to enjoy.
Our local stuff has been shite . . and that's kind of the point - and why I think some of the criticism, while partially valid, needs to be seen in context.
On the back of that I sent the below to Ben Smith who writes for rugbypass.com - just to highlight a few points from our side.
Here we go
Hey there Ben, hope you are well. I read your latest dismissal of the Boks achievement in winning the Lions series (which I told you we’d win 2-1 because we have to) – and, again, while you have some valid points (of course we want to score more tries) I just want to raise the following with you.
• It’s a miracle we got up to win this series. Considering:
o the state of the local game (piss poor and nowhere near your Super Rugby or other European championships)
o the lack of game time as a team
o disrupted prep (for both sides but way more for us)• Yes, we’ve not evolved our game since the RWC, yes 100%
o we’ve not had a chance to do so and were never going to try and play any other style against the Lions
o By the way, I don’t recall the ABs playing too expansive in the last Lions series, either• For some of our players this Rugby champs is probably their swansong, with younger, faster, more exciting players in the squad that will be blood in the upcoming champs and end of year tour
o Stand by for action mate• Lastly, my bud, it takes great character to get up against the odds the boks have to win the championships we have
o As said before, a little more respect from your side of the world is probably deserved – after all – we continue to have it for you?. . .
So what you think guys? Am I being unreasonable? I think not.
Have a good one, see you in a few weeks
B -
@catogrande it really depends whether you go with point two or point three of the quoted bit. Incisive is not defined in the report so it is kinda difficult interpret what is meant by point three.
Again I don't care what the outcome was and I am not saying Sinckler needed to be banned or anything, but the application of the laws are just far removed from the way they are written. This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
If the intention is that guilt must be proven, then amend the laws to actually say that instead of contorting yourself into knots to get the result you think is right.
Yeah a bit of a buggers muddle alright. My post though was meant to show that the panel DID have some evidence to go on. Maybe if SA had brought in an actual expert to gainsay what the BIL's expert was saying we might have a had a different outcome. But having seen the expert witness report I cannot see how the panel could have gone any other way with the result given that there was nothing substantial to counter the argument.
-
Been a long time since I posted here - mainly because the Boks have not been in action and, of course, we (living down here in Africa's backside) have been just too jealous of all the rugby you guys have had to enjoy.
Our local stuff has been shite . . and that's kind of the point - and why I think some of the criticism, while partially valid, needs to be seen in context.
On the back of that I sent the below to Ben Smith who writes for rugbypass.com - just to highlight a few points from our side.
Here we go
Hey there Ben, hope you are well. I read your latest dismissal of the Boks achievement in winning the Lions series (which I told you we’d win 2-1 because we have to) – and, again, while you have some valid points (of course we want to score more tries) I just want to raise the following with you.
• It’s a miracle we got up to win this series. Considering:
o the state of the local game (piss poor and nowhere near your Super Rugby or other European championships)
o the lack of game time as a team
o disrupted prep (for both sides but way more for us)• Yes, we’ve not evolved our game since the RWC, yes 100%
o we’ve not had a chance to do so and were never going to try and play any other style against the Lions
o By the way, I don’t recall the ABs playing too expansive in the last Lions series, either• For some of our players this Rugby champs is probably their swansong, with younger, faster, more exciting players in the squad that will be blood in the upcoming champs and end of year tour
o Stand by for action mate• Lastly, my bud, it takes great character to get up against the odds the boks have to win the championships we have
o As said before, a little more respect from your side of the world is probably deserved – after all – we continue to have it for you?. . .
So what you think guys? Am I being unreasonable? I think not.
Have a good one, see you in a few weeks
B -
Been a long time since I posted here - mainly because the Boks have not been in action and, of course, we (living down here in Africa's backside) have been just too jealous of all the rugby you guys have had to enjoy.
Our local stuff has been shite . . and that's kind of the point - and why I think some of the criticism, while partially valid, needs to be seen in context.
On the back of that I sent the below to Ben Smith who writes for rugbypass.com - just to highlight a few points from our side.
Here we go
Hey there Ben, hope you are well. I read your latest dismissal of the Boks achievement in winning the Lions series (which I told you we’d win 2-1 because we have to) – and, again, while you have some valid points (of course we want to score more tries) I just want to raise the following with you.
• It’s a miracle we got up to win this series. Considering:
o the state of the local game (piss poor and nowhere near your Super Rugby or other European championships)
o the lack of game time as a team
o disrupted prep (for both sides but way more for us)• Yes, we’ve not evolved our game since the RWC, yes 100%
o we’ve not had a chance to do so and were never going to try and play any other style against the Lions
o By the way, I don’t recall the ABs playing too expansive in the last Lions series, either• For some of our players this Rugby champs is probably their swansong, with younger, faster, more exciting players in the squad that will be blood in the upcoming champs and end of year tour
o Stand by for action mate• Lastly, my bud, it takes great character to get up against the odds the boks have to win the championships we have
o As said before, a little more respect from your side of the world is probably deserved – after all – we continue to have it for you?. . .
So what you think guys? Am I being unreasonable? I think not.
Have a good one, see you in a few weeks
B@SidBarret - what's up my man?
-
@SidBarret - what's up my man?
@brandonfaber sorry, was trying quote from the Ben Smith article, failed and then gave up.
Basically what I wanted to say was that Mr Smith set up a strawman of South African supporters desperate for his approval. I can honestly say I don't give a fuck what he thinks.
-
Yeah a bit of a buggers muddle alright. My post though was meant to show that the panel DID have some evidence to go on. Maybe if SA had brought in an actual expert to gainsay what the BIL's expert was saying we might have a had a different outcome. But having seen the expert witness report I cannot see how the panel could have gone any other way with the result given that there was nothing substantial to counter the argument.
@catogrande damn you to hell, you made me read the WR relating to disciplinary hearings
.So disciplinary hearings are structured differently than what I (and you) imagined. I thought it would be structured like a trial, with someone presenting the case for the prosecution and the player then having an opportunity to defend themselves.
What actually happens is that citing commissioner lays a charge and compiles the evidence which is then presented to disciplinary committee and the player being cited. A citing is treated basically the same as a sending off in this regard.
Once a player has been cited, the onus shifts onto the cited player to convince the committee that he should not be sanctioned.
The SA team doctor in this case did not testify as an expert, but rather as a meterial witness. He testified to the existence and nature of Mostert's injury, that's it.
The regulations are written in such a way that committee can basically do as they like in terms of process (except ironically in determining the burden of proof to be applied), but it does not appear that SA are entitled to present expert testimony in this case. It is also not really practical to do so given the time frames involved and the lack of clear rules regarding discovery.
-
@catogrande damn you to hell, you made me read the WR relating to disciplinary hearings
.So disciplinary hearings are structured differently than what I (and you) imagined. I thought it would be structured like a trial, with someone presenting the case for the prosecution and the player then having an opportunity to defend themselves.
What actually happens is that citing commissioner lays a charge and compiles the evidence which is then presented to disciplinary committee and the player being cited. A citing is treated basically the same as a sending off in this regard.
Once a player has been cited, the onus shifts onto the cited player to convince the committee that he should not be sanctioned.
The SA team doctor in this case did not testify as an expert, but rather as a meterial witness. He testified to the existence and nature of Mostert's injury, that's it.
The regulations are written in such a way that committee can basically do as they like in terms of process (except ironically in determining the burden of proof to be applied), but it does not appear that SA are entitled to present expert testimony in this case. It is also not really practical to do so given the time frames involved and the lack of clear rules regarding discovery.
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@catogrande damn you to hell, you made me read the WR relating to disciplinary hearings
.My sincerest apologies.
-
@catogrande it really depends whether you go with point two or point three of the quoted bit. Incisive is not defined in the report so it is kinda difficult interpret what is meant by point three.
Again I don't care what the outcome was and I am not saying Sinckler needed to be banned or anything, but the application of the laws are just far removed from the way they are written. This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
If the intention is that guilt must be proven, then amend the laws to actually say that instead of contorting yourself into knots to get the result you think is right.
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
-
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
-
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
Should be quoi, but oui, deals.
Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
-
@catogrande said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
@sidbarret said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
This seems like such "rugby" decision. The laws says X, but in this case we are going to ignore that and rule what we think is fair.
'tis the way of Lions tours. The laws become irrelevant and deals can be made (not necessarily fair).
Deals? Que?
Should be quoi, but oui, deals.
Point was there is so much hype and off field stuff that goes on with Lions tours that all of the officials get put under immense pressure. Some of the normal laws and protocols seem to get left behind.
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
The way I read it, the forearm got pushed into a mouth in the dynamic ruck. The injury was really minor - so the argument is that it wasn't clearly a bite, and could have been incidental contact.
I have some sympathy for this position... I'd hate to be hung on someone pushing a forearm into my open mouth. And what's te point of a gentle bite that doesn't puncture the skin?
-
@snowy said in Springboks v British & Irish Lions III:
I suppose an "accidental" bite is possible but reasonable doubt would suggest otherwise.
The way I read it, the forearm got pushed into a mouth in the dynamic ruck. The injury was really minor - so the argument is that it wasn't clearly a bite, and could have been incidental contact.
I have some sympathy for this position... I'd hate to be hung on someone pushing a forearm into my open mouth. And what's te point of a gentle bite that doesn't puncture the skin?
