Dan Hipkiss: Found not guilty
Bath duo Dan Hipkiss and Michael Claassens have both been found not guilty after being cited for offences during Saturday's 29-22 Aviva Premiership defeat by London Irish.
Centre Hipkiss was cleared of making a tip tackle on Exiles forward Jamie Gibson at a Rugby Football Union disciplinary hearing.
And scrum-half Claassens was found not guilty of kicking Matt Garvey at the Madejski Stadium.
"On review of the DVD the panel determined that Dan Hipkiss did not drop or drive Jamie Gibson's head and/or upper body into the ground," said Chief disciplinary officer Judge Jeff Blackett, who chaired the panel.
"Dan Hipkiss tackled Jamie Gibson such that he landed on his back, so that the elements of law 10.4.J were not made out.
"The panel determined that the contact between Michael Claassens and Matt Garvey was a clumsy collision.
"Michael Claassens' movements were defensive and he made contact with knee and arms.
"He did not kick Matt Garvey. In the circumstances, an offence under 10.4.C is not made out."
Comments
jamesliveinhope says...
@APV1 - Looks like the issue is one of (a) a complaint by the offended players club or (b) a report by the citing officer.
A citing officer has to apply the "red card test" which basically means that, in his opinion, the offence should have warranted a red card, if that test is failed then the.... you can read it if you want http://www.rfu.com/thegame/~/media/Files/TheGame/Regulations/RFU%20Regulation%2019%20Appendix%204%20(1213).ashx
What isn't clear is whether the citing officer is judging whether the offence "heading" (i.e. kicking a player in the head) requires a referral or the actual witnessed act (i.e. a collision between head and foot).
To look at the James Hanks example the contact with Borthwick's eye was adjudged to be accidental so was the citing based on the rule rather than the act?
Or were all three citings brought by the club?
Posted 14:52 26th September 2012
APV1 says...
I don't know for sure, but I think they have to investigate every incident which is reported. Whether that should end up in fron tof the Commission is a different matter. I agree, there seems to be a rather free attitude to citings now, "Don't worry about it on the pitch, the Citing officer will get it."
Ed - any input on the actual rules avaiable..?
Posted 13:35 26th September 2012
jamesliveinhope says...
@APV1 you say "Good" and I agree but what exactly is the citing officer's brief?
Pretty sure that all of the AP citings were thrown out this week with the tone of language relating to Claasens and Hipkiss almost dismissive. Surely a citing officer must have a degree of "common sense" flexibility when deciding whether a player should be in front of the beak.
I perhaps agree that, if a player is lifted off his feet in a tackle, the need to eradicate the dangerous element of that part of the game may be great enough to refer all of them to a panel BUT in the case of foul play (i.e. kicking) surely he must be able to adjudge whether a case is accidental or not?
How much do these hearings cost?, how much time is wasted by players and coaching staff having to prepare a defence or prepare a team based on the "possible" absence of players?
Posted 12:39 26th September 2012
APV1 says...
Good.
Posted 10:45 26th September 2012