Sorry, this story is unavailable
@jontheref - interesting analogy but you are in fact highlighting the difference between murder (intention to kill) and manslaughter (no intention to kill) different offences with different sentencing.
I'm pretty sure that Blackett highlighted the lack of "mens rea" (cant be bothered to read it again) - legal expression means "guilty mind" - which is the test for an act to be criminal.
Ultimately, the decision was that they play was sufficiently dangerous for a clear message to be sent to the player (and sport at large) that the act was incredibly dangerous regardless of the outcome and will be punished severely.
Posted 20:49 31st March 2012
@NHsaints - the ugliness involving Manu only ensued after the referee had failed to penalise any of the late shoulder charges on Toby Flood that Lawes and Hartley had put in during the first fifteen minutes of the game, any of which if punished correctly would at least have received a yellow card. Then to mention Murphy, who was defending a player who was TACKLED AND DRAGGED INTO TOUCH BY HIS HAIR, shows how blinkered you are.
Posted 08:45 31st March 2012
How does he get 32 weeks for this when gouging someone can blind them permanently and most gougers get away with 20-30 weeks?!!
Posted 16:56 30th March 2012
@lawynd ahem? Say what? You're seriously accusing us of playing dirty against the tigers...kings of playing dirty...lest you forget tuilagi was the one punching Ashton and Murphy was heavily involved with the most recent scrap between the clubs...despite not being sent off or cited despite throwing 4 or 5 punches...just because two of our players play dirty doesn't mean the club goes out with the intention of cheating...
Posted 16:53 30th March 2012
Aren't the saints a lovely lot!! Hartley - biting, gouging, Lawes - late hit specialist & now Clark - purposely try's to break someone's arm. Saints they are not!!
Posted 16:37 30th March 2012
Unfortunately the video evidence is pretty damning.... a forward pinned in collapsed maul with his arm deliberately being interfered with.... Do not get me wrong rugby is a contact sport but stupid on field actions need to be stamped out. Calum Clark is a half decent player, he does not need to conduct himself in this manner. He should also have more respect for his fellow professional rugby players. In short a pretty unsavory incident, that has probably sent the right message to the perpetrator. Clark will now need to clean his act up (much like Hartley had to) or he will find contracts being torn up in future.
Posted 16:19 30th March 2012
james great link.
"The offending was intentional. The Player clearly intended to pull Hawkins┐ arm backwards after the whistle had been blown so that the ball became available and his side could play the ball quickly. I accept that he did not intend to harm Hawkins or cause him injury."
OK, so you don't mean to kill someone, but do.
Doesn't that mean you have killed them?
The action was intentional, the the outcome should be looked at in the same way.
Posted 16:14 30th March 2012
@ jamesliveinhope I think after reading that my opinion has changed quite a bit. Perhaps it was more an aggressve and reckless attempt to get Hawkins off the ball to play it quickly and with Clark's size and strength added to Hawkins being trapped instead of a conscious decision to break his arm, although it is still pretty bad and a stupid thing to do but not malicious, which I, and I think many others, had assumed. I still don't know whether he's blagged us though or whether he is genuinely upset and remorseful but I think I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I still expect him to be a force for England sooner rather than later.
Posted 16:02 30th March 2012
@jamesliveinhope says...hear hear I will join that lynch mob as I filled up last night!!! Cheers Sanka69
Posted 15:16 30th March 2012
if anyone's interested, says the intention was not to injure.
Also says that the ban should be no less than the expected time for which Hawkins is expected to be off estimated at about 10 weeks.
Actually quite interesting reading.
Posted 14:28 30th March 2012
They obviously did not watch the TV recording I saw on ITV!
Botha's attck on Adam Jones has more chance of being ruled "unintentional" (and it wasn't!), than this thuggery.
Should be 12 months from all Rugby, even if it means he has to go on the dole.
Posted 14:06 30th March 2012
I don't understand the negativity towards the Saints as a club?? I accept that there has been two unfortunate episodes close together, but thats not the clubs fault. Do you honestly think the clubs tells players to play dirty and injure other players?? Don't tell me, Oswald didn't shoot JFK!
Posted 13:27 30th March 2012
@sanka69 as I said, Devil's advocate, I agree that it looked intentional BUT I presume that there was a little more evidence provided in the hearing.
Perhaps we should form a lynch mob anyway just in case. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Just at the moment I'm into my fourth hour of queueing because someone told me I should keep my fuel tank topped up and it got as low as three quarters full this morning. God forbid I'd need to go anywhere or I'd be in real trouble.
Posted 11:40 30th March 2012
@jameslivesinhope - how is bending a player's arm back like that unintentional? "I meant to hurt him a little bit, not this much!" - was that Clark's defence? It was after the whistle, Hawkins didn't have the ball and it wasn't a move intended to clear him out of the ruck; rather, Hawkins was stuck there and Clark grabbed the nearest mobile part and pulled. He also did it out of view of the referee, all of which suggests that a verdict of anything other than a deliberate attempt to injure a player is incorrect.
Furthermore, remorse isn't mitigation, that's absolute bovine excrement. Clark is remorseful that he won't be able to play; well he shouldn't have done what he did then, should he! And Saints should be ashamed of themselves for issuing such a statement, or even considering appealing. If they do appeal, I hope the disciplinary committee extend the ban and fine the club for wasting their time; frankly, I feel that the player and the club have gotten off lightly after repeated thuggish acts by their players, especially against Leicester.
Posted 11:16 30th March 2012
@jamesliveinhope No way that was an unintentional injury, how on earth did the panel came to that conclusion (if indeed that is true as we only have Saints PR form your post). Anyone got any idea if we are able to view the disciplinary report opn this incident as would surely make for very interesting reading. Also worth noting everybody on the Rugby club thought it was intentional and long after the whistle!!
Posted 10:59 30th March 2012
Devil's advocate for a moment.
Statement from Saints
"The disciplinary panel found that Calum Clark had not intended to injure Rob Hawkins in the course of moving his arm.
Accordingly the unfortunate injury suffered by Rob Hawkins was unintentional.
'In the light of that finding of the disciplinary panel, Northampton Saints is bound to express concern and disappointment at the imposition of such a long suspension, even after significant mitigation in recognition in what was accepted to be Calum Clark's genuine remorse.
'Accordingly the club is bound to consider the merits of an appeal. No further comment will be made at this time.'
Now I'm still to be convinced, BUT, the disciplinary panel will have had all sorts of evidence that we haven't, and whilst I am sure that there will be millions of forensic TV scientists venting their spleen based on one single piece of video coverage, the reaction of the commentators and Cockerill (with no track record of overreaction ;) ) I'm pretty sure that Saints won't have misquoted them.
Shouldn't also forget that Clarke is (or more likely was) in the EPS, 36 weeks will exclude him from any touring sides (full squad or Saxons) and rule him out of contention for the Autumn internationals too.
Quite a hefty penalty for an unintentional injury.
Posted 09:50 30th March 2012
What a joke; this suspension should have been a year, minimum. Hawkins may never make a full recovery (a broken elbow almost always results in a loss of movement in the joint) and could end his career. I hope he and Leicester pursue this in civil court if that ends up being the case. I also hope Lancaster sets his stall out and never includes such players in his teams.
Posted 09:35 30th March 2012
I have to agree that the length of the ban seems a bit lenient considering it covers part of the off season. Just watched the footage on RTE website. They'd just gotten the penalty and he decides to break someone's arm for the fun of it. He could have done with a years ban in my opinion.
Posted 09:23 30th March 2012
Having your arm deliberately broken is the same as biting four fingers then evidently. I know which one I'd rather have. As much as it has no place in the sport a bite on the finger is more just petulant than actually doing any damage. He'll be at home now planning his extended gym break and thinking how lucky he was that this happened on the RFUs and isn't getting done for ABH. Does anyone know how many actual games he'll miss?
@curates_egg - I don't remember saints having a culture like this previously, there must be something in the water. The whole club seems to have a real attitude problem lately though
Posted 09:13 30th March 2012
Agreee with many o0f the others here - far too lenient especially as it take sinto acocunt the summer - surely any bans should only take effect during the actual season? i.e. ban is 32 weeks plus the close season of however long that is. Absolutely disgraceful and hope this guy gets given grief by every true rugby supporter for the thug he has proved himself to be!
Posted 08:58 30th March 2012