Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

James Haskell's New Zealand punch recalled by solicitor

By Ian Cameron

The issue of player testimonies in Disciplinary Hearing is one that has been front and centre in recent months.

ADVERTISEMENT

In May Auckland Blues hooker James Parsons denied a SANZAAR statement that claimed he received an apology from Owen Franks following the incident that led to the latter’s two-week suspension.

Franks pleaded guilty to striking Parsons in the head during the Crusaders’ 32-24 win over the Blues.

All Blacks prop Franks’ four-week ban was halved due to his “good record over an extensive playing history” and because he “expressed remorse and apology to the other player”, a SANZAAR statement read. That matter was contested by Parsons.

On a recent edition of the Short Ball podcast that discussed that matter, the 2012 case of then James Haskell was recalled briefly by his then solicitor Aaron Lloyd.

In 2012, then Highlander Haskell punched the Cheetahs number 7 Justin Downey twice during a Super Rugby match.

ADVERTISEMENT

The first punch was with his right hand to Downey’s head (after being held and retaliating) and the second with a left jab in the face. The citing alleged that the second resulted in Downey going down on his haunches holding his face. The footage confirmed that, and Haskell accepted that he had punched the Cheetahs player twice.

The citing report at the time also stated that Downey received stitches for a gash on his eyebrow and that was confirmed by the medical report. You can view the video below.

The disciplinary panel report at the time noted: “Haskell has a very impressive record over a period of approximately 10 years of professional rugby. I was told that he has no previous citings and has received only a single yellow card in his professional career (which was not for foul play).”

ADVERTISEMENT

It was also noted that the Haskell was reacting to the Downey apparently grabbing him in a ‘particularly sensitive area.’

He was initially given three weeks suspension.

However 10 days later the ban was increased to 4 weeks.

The adjudicator “reduced the prescribed entry point sanction from six weeks to three weeks due to a number of mitigating factors including Haskell’s guilty plea, remorse for the act and his impressive record of no previous citings in over 10 years of professional rugby.

Haskell had however neglected to mention a previous incident.

“After issuing the decision it was brought to SANZAR’s attention that in fact Haskell had received a 1-week suspension in 2008 following a match between Wasps and Worcester.

The SANZAR report states: “Haskell explained that he had completely overlooked it (because it was such a different and unusual matter) and apologised.”

SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron concluded that: “It is vital for the proper functioning of this disciplinary system, that players and their support personnel provide accurate and complete information to the Judicial Officer. In this case I accept it was an oversight. I note for completeness that a deliberate failure to provide accurate and complete information on material matters such as previous disciplinary record, could amount to Misconduct under the SANZAR Code of Conduct.”

A lesson for us all.

Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | Full Match Replay

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 9

James Cook | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

New Zealand victorious in TENSE final | Cathay/HSBC Sevens Day Three Men's Highlights

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

F
Flankly 10 hours ago
The AI advantage: How the next two Rugby World Cups will be won

If rugby wants to remain interesting in the AI era then it will need to work on changing the rules. AI will reduce the tactical advantage of smart game plans, will neutralize primary attacking weapons, and will move rugby from a being a game of inches to a game of millimetres. It will be about sheer athleticism and technique,about avoiding mistakes, and about referees. Many fans will find that boring. The answer is to add creative degrees of freedom to the game. The 50-22 is an example. But we can have fun inventing others, like the right to add more players for X minutes per game, or the equivalent of the 2-point conversion in American football, the ability to call a 12-player scrum, etc. Not saying these are great ideas, but making the point that the more of these alternatives you allow, the less AI will be able to lock down high-probability strategies. This is not because AI does not have the compute power, but because it has more choices and has less data, or less-specific data. That will take time and debate, but big, positive and immediate impact could be in the area of ref/TMO assistance. The technology is easily good enough today to detect forward passes, not-straight lineouts, offside at breakdown/scrum/lineout, obstruction, early/late tackles, and a lot of other things. WR should be ultra aggressive in doing this, as it will really help in an area in which the game is really struggling. In the long run there needs to be substantial creativity applied to the rules. Without that AI (along with all of the pro innovations) will turn rugby into a bash fest.

24 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Nemani Nadolo: 'Now I cut grass, do gardens, cut hedges for a living' Nemani Nadolo: 'Now I cut grass, do gardens, cut hedges for a living'
Search