Author Topic: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban (Read 580 times)

never sleep · « **on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 07:36* »

6 weeks for foul play.
2 weeks for tweet.
Both bans run concurrently.

Original ban was 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks as he has pleaded guilty and shown remorse. As a result of the tweet, the reduction is removed.

Imho he is a lucky boy.

Cookie · « **Reply #1 on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 07:48* »

You say that, but I just watched the video and didn't see a punch. Just a bit of grappling on the ground.

InsertQuinsPunHere · « **Reply #2 on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 07:53* »

Why would they run concurrently not consecutively? 6 instead of 8 weeks. Makes the 2 week part of the ban superfluous...

never sleep · « **Reply #3 on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 08:38* »

Cookie- basically, once it goes to the citing commissioner and he pleads guilty, then whether he did anything wrong or not is irrelevant. If he felt he was innocent (which reading between the lines, etc) then he should have pleaded his case.
I think he is lucky that the 2 week ban is concurrent. Basically, it will still show on his record though that he has received 3 bans within a year.

Cookie · « **Reply #4 on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 09:42* »

Quote from: never sleep on Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 08:38*

Cookie- basically, once it goes to the citing commissioner and he pleads guilty, then whether he did anything wrong or not is irrelevant.

Good point, well made.

GP2110 · « **Reply #5 on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 10:40* »

""At this reconvened hearing, the Player gave evidence in respect of the context of his tweet. During the course of that evidence, he went on to describe how his guilty plea had only been entered on advice and that he did not genuinely believe that he was guilty of the offence in question which ultimately led to his frustration as expressed in the tweet.

"As a result of this new evidence, the Panel determined that they should revisit the sanction previously issued on the 10 October as it changed the basis upon which it had arrived at the original decision. The act of sending the tweet was not considered relevant to the original sanction.

"Where the Player had previously been given credit for a guilty plea, remorse and good conduct, the Panel found that that mitigation had been given on a false premise. The Panel were mindful that under the Regulations, the discount available to a Player by way of mitigation starts at 0% and goes up to 50% assuming all factors are present.

"In this case, on the basis of this new evidence, the Panel did not consider that the Player warranted any reduction by way of mitigation. There was, therefore, no reason to reduce the sanction from the mandatory entry point of 6 weeks."

Seems fair enough to me. Pretty stupid explanation from Hughes

Rocker · « **Reply #6 on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 13:49* »

Yes, yet more evidence of a lack of anything between the ears!

DOK · « **Reply #7 on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 14:08* »

Seems a bit unfair. If they're going to treat his explanation as not pleading guilty then they should have re-held the hearing on that basis.

never sleep · « **Reply #8 on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 14:58* »

I think it would be unusual to try you as not guilty after you have already pleaded guilty

GP2110 · « **Reply #9 on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 15:16* »

I thnk it is entirely fair. The ban was reduced on an impression that the player agreed that he was guilty and that he was remorseful. In evidence, he categorically confirmed that was not the case and that he was not remorseful, did not think he was guilty and that he only said that based on legal advice. Pretty stupid from Hughes all round.

Chipstead Quin · « **Reply #10 on:** Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 15:41* »

Quote from: GP2110 on Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 15:16*

I thnk it is entirely fair. The ban was reduced on an impression that the player agreed that he was guilty and that he was remorseful. In evidence, he categorically confirmed that was not the case and that he was not remorseful, did not think he was guilty and that he only said that based on legal advice. Pretty stupid from Hughes all round.

Just about covers it .. I can imagine the head shaped dents in the walls of Dai Youngs office ..

RodneyRegis · « **Reply #11 on:** Friday 19-Oct-2018, 09:25* »

I do wish they'd stop treating the process like court proceedings. It's utterly ridiculous.

Just give a ban or don't, there's really no need for a "plea". Let him give a statement by all means, and take one from other players/ref etc. The one thing they probably should take from law is precedent!

Brown Bottle · « **Reply #12 on:** Friday 19-Oct-2018, 19:35* »

Quote from: Cookie on Thursday 18-Oct-2018, 07:48*

You say that, but I just watched the video and didn't see a punch. Just a bit of grappling on the ground.

I've not seen it at all but even the most one-eyed Wasps posters appear to be in no doubt that he punched Ludlow's head.

Newcomers Start Here

Harlequins/Rugby Links

Articles

Author Topic: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban (Read 580 times)

never sleep

O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

Cookie

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

InsertQuinsPunHere

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

never sleep

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

Cookie

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

GP2110

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

Rocker

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

DOK

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

never sleep

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

GP2110

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

Chipstead Quin

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

RodneyRegis

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

Brown Bottle

Re: O/T Nathan Hughes 6 week ban

User

Site Statistics