Nuove norme antiviolenza IRB

acquascende · Messaggio da **acquascende** » 25 ago 2005, 12:52

Cosa ne pensate delle nuove norme antiviolenza proposte dall\'IRB? sinceramente alcune mi sembrano eccessive soprattutto perchè in certi casi snaturano un pò quello che è lo spirito del gioco, mi riferisco ai possibili6mesi di squalifica per un pugno tirato ad un avversario...

acquascende · Messaggio da **acquascende** » 25 ago 2005, 12:55

scusate,fino a12 mesi per un pugno...

alessandroviola · Messaggio da **alessandroviola** » 25 ago 2005, 13:02

Non è una proposta IRB, ma della Union Inglese.
 In generale mi sembrano sanzioni decisamente sproporzionate e che potrebbeo portare risultati opposti a quelli desiderati: le provocazioni gratuite e personali per far perdere le staffe all\'avversario diventerebbero troppo \"paganti\" e si potrebbe ritrovarsi troppi \"professionisti della provocazione\", cosa che ritengo sia contraria ai principi e alla mentalità del rugby.
 Inoltre non vedo perchè un fallo professionale o un comportamento antisportivo o (orrore!) una smulazione o accentuazione di un colpo subito non dovrebbero essere puniti più di un sano cartone sul muso dato apertamente e faccia a faccia, credo che i primi siano molto più contrari allo spirito del rugby...
 se poi vogliamo andare in campo portandoci dietro gli avvocati e stando sempre attrezzati per le prove filmate...
 
 
 comunque ecco l\'articolo di planet-rugby:
 
 Rugby set for legal minefield
 
 Wednesday August 24 2005
 
 England Players\' Union concerned with new disciplinary measures
 
 
 England Players\' Union Chief Executive Damien Hopley has voiced his concern over the new disciplinary measures advocateed by the IRB.
 
 
 Under the new measures, offences such as biting and punching will carry bans twice as long as are currently imposed, meaning a punch could carry a sentence anywhere up to a year-long ban.
 
 Hopley thinks the measures are too stringent, and that they could lead to potential legal difficulties because of their severity.
 
 \"We\'ve grave concerns we\'re seeing a sledgehammer to crack a nut,\" he said to the BBC.
 
 \"We are very supportive of the fact there is no room for violent behaviour on the field but I\'m not convinced as to how these new regulations will be enforced,\" he told BBC Sport.
 
 \"I\'m sure that lawyers up and down the country will be very excited to see such swingeing disciplinary sanctions introduced.
 
 \"I think it is a very clear message that there is no room for violence and thuggery on the field and I think that\'s a very positive statement.
 
 \"But I\'m not quite sure that there was an epidemic (of violence) going on beforehand.
 
 \"We applaud the motivation behind this but in terms of the reality of what\'s actually going to be delivered, we\'ll wait to see.\"
 
 The Rugby Football Union (RFU) met with Hopley and club representatives on Tuesday to discuss the new regulations and will hold a media briefing next week.
 
 NEW DISCIPLINARY CODE
 
 Physical abuse of match officials: Life ban
 
 Threatening match officials: Three-year ban
 
 Biting: Six-month to three-year ban
 
 Punch: Three to 12-month ban
 
 Testicle grabbing, twisting and squeezing: Maximum two-year ban
 
 Gouging: Maximum two-year ban
 
 Punching, butting, stamping or trampling: Maximum one-year ban
 
 Stiff-arm tackles: Maximum six-month ban
 
 Verbal abuse of opponents, including spitting: Maximum six-month ban

Messaggio da **Cicca** » 25 ago 2005, 13:13

D\'accordissimo con te...
 Trovo equa solo quella della squalifica a vita in caso di violenza sull\'arbitro

Trovo invece troppo blanda quella inerente insulti e/o sputi verso gli avversari ... sono gesti MOLTO più gravi di un cazzotto od una strizzatina alle palle .... altro che sei mesi !!! :-Y

acquascende · Messaggio da **acquascende** » 25 ago 2005, 13:13

concordo pienamente,è la strada più breve per avvicinarci al calcio.
 comunque ho visto che i giocatori hanno già esposto il loro pensiero in proposito(ovviamente contrario). Poi per carità, alcune proposte mi sembrano più che giuste, tipo quelle che regolano i rapporti con l\'arbitro, (eccezion fatta x la squalifica a vita, secondo me un\'assurdità).

acquascende · Messaggio da **acquascende** » 25 ago 2005, 13:15

scusa cicca, nn avevo visto il tuo mex, nn intendevo assolutamente offenderti o prenderti in giro con la mia frase sull\'arbitro!!!!

Messaggio da **Cicca** » 25 ago 2005, 13:20

Ma ci mancherebbe !!!

alessandroviola · Messaggio da **alessandroviola** » 25 ago 2005, 13:22

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 25-08-2005 alle ore 13:13, Cicca wrote:
 D\'accordissimo con te...
 Trovo equa solo quella della squalifica a vita in caso di violenza sull\'arbitro

Trovo invece troppo blanda quella inerente insulti e/o sputi verso gli avversari ... sono gesti MOLTO più gravi di un cazzotto od una strizzatina alle palle .... altro che sei mesi !!! :-Y
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 sulle strizzatine di palle ci andrei calmo... ma sono sulla stessa tua linea per sputi & C. (mettiamoci anche i morsi, valà...)
 piuttosto punirei più severamente i placcaggi al volo che sono pericolosissimi (e mannaggia mannaggia mannaggia purtroppissimo lo so bene per tristissima esperienza personale... :-[ ) che vengono puniti sempre meno severamente in ambito internazionale e non mi capacito proprio del perchè...

Messaggio da **Cicca** » 25 ago 2005, 13:25

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 25-08-2005 alle ore 13:22, alessandroviola wrote:
 [CUT]
 piuttosto punirei più severamente i placcaggi al volo che sono pericolosissimi (e mannaggia mannaggia mannaggia purtroppissimo lo so bene per tristissima esperienza personale... :-[ ) che vengono puniti sempre meno severamente in ambito internazionale e non mi capacito proprio del perchè...

</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Forse perchè, in fondo, sono spettacolari...?!?

pier12345 · Messaggio da **pier12345** » 25 ago 2005, 13:53

forse e una mossa di fare fine al cariera di Grewcock!
 
 con questo nuovi regolmanti..dopo 20 minuti ...il povero Danny avrebbe gia accumalato 14 anni di sospensioni!!

billingham · Messaggio da **billingham** » 25 ago 2005, 13:58

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 25-08-2005 alle ore 13:02, alessandroviola wrote:
 Testicle grabbing, twisting and squeezing: Maximum two-year ban
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 io ne ho fatto uno al mio esordio non ufficiale...un mio compagno si è pure preso un pugno in faccia per quell\'errore (stavo cercando di placcarlo il tizio a cui ho strizzato i c*******)...devo smetter di giocare per due anni?

ma la settimana dopo ero a bologna!

Petolo · Messaggio da **Petolo** » 25 ago 2005, 15:19

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 25-08-2005 alle ore 13:02, alessandroviola wrote:
 NEW DISCIPLINARY CODE
 Physical abuse of match officials: Life ban
 Threatening match officials: Three-year ban
 Biting: Six-month to three-year ban
 Punch: Three to 12-month ban
 Testicle grabbing, twisting and squeezing: Maximum two-year ban
 Gouging: Maximum two-year ban
 Punching, butting, stamping or trampling: Maximum one-year ban
 Stiff-arm tackles: Maximum six-month ban
 Verbal abuse of opponents, including spitting: Maximum six-month ban
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Andiamoci piano, in generale si parla di pene massime. Ad esempio un pugno costerebbe una squalifica dai 3 ai 12 mesi, a seconda delle circostanze.
 
 Francamente, se un avversario colpisce un altro a gioco fermo, a sangue freddo, e senza che l\'altro abbia avuto tempo di difendersi, magari provocando danni irreparabili, un anno per me e\' troppo poco. Soprattutto paragonato a due anni per una strizzata di palle, dolorosa quanto si vuole ma meno pericolosa.
 
 Sono anche d\'accordissimo sulle squalifiche a chi tocca o minaccia gli arbitri, che devono essere sempre visti al di fuori di qualunque antagonismo o ostilita\'. Il rispetto religioso per gli arbitri, anche quelli scarsi o che prendono decisioni sbagliate che pesano sul risultato, e\' una cosa che deve restare in pianta stabile se si vuole continuare a vedere il rugby come uno sport che insegna a saper perdere e ad avere stima di se\' stessi a prescindere da cio\' che fanno gli altri.

alessandroviola · Messaggio da **alessandroviola** » 25 ago 2005, 15:23

nessuno mi sembra che stia dicendo che penalizzare questi comportamenti sia sbagliato, il problema sta nel trovere un certo equilibrio tra l\'offesa e la punizione.
 le squalifiche sono state aumentate (in media del doppio) secondo questa proposta e non mi trovo per molti versi d\'accordo con questa impostazione, questo è quanto.

alessandroviola · Messaggio da **alessandroviola** » 2 set 2005, 14:12

a quanto pare (segue articolo perso da planet-rugby.com) la proposta di inasprire moltissimo le sanzioni nel campionato inglese è passata. speriamo che abbia un impatto positivo sul gioco...
 
 
 
 
 
 GP offenders face stiffer penalties
 Friday September 02 2005
 New on-pitch disciplinary crackdown will lead to flurry of yellow and red
 The Rugby Football Union warned on Friday that a disciplinary crackdown will lead to more red cards and harsher penalties being applied by judicial committees.
 
 
 The new discipline code for the game was introduced by the International Rugby Board on January 1 but the RFU will apply it to the English domestic game from this weekend\'s first round of Guinness Premiership fixtures.
 
 The stringent new stance is aimed at cutting violence from the game in order to stop the Crown Prosecution Service policing rugby\'s on-field business.
 
 \"There is going to be a much tougher stance both in deciding who should be brought before disciplinary panels and the level of sanction applied,\" said RFU disciplinary officer Jeff Blackett.
 
 \"I shall be instructing citing officers to be much more proactive in bringing violent acts to the attention of the disciplinary process and I shall be encouraging referees to use red cards more often.
 
 \"We all want to get rid of foul play and there is a view that sometimes a yellow card has been used when a red card might have been applied.
 
 \"I have spoken to 300 people involved in discipline and it is my view that players are aware of the higher sanctions.\"
 
 The maximum punishment for striking a player has risen from 3 months to 12 months while biting carries a new sanction ranging from twelve months to three years.
 
 The CPS have insisted that sportsmen are not immune from prosecution just because they are on the field of play, but Lord Woolfe - in a Court of Appeal judgement relating to a recent case brought by an amateur footballer - stated that where sports bodies have a reasonable and proper disciplinary process the courts should hesitate to interfere.
 
 \"The only time that the CPS would want to get involved with rugby is where a player is seriously injured and reports it to the police,\" continued Blackett.
 
 \"I don\'t foresee there being any change for rugby and it is right that our system is open, easy to appeal and applies proportionate and reasonable sanctions.\"
 
 The IRB have tried to apply some \"science to the sanctioning\" and the new disciplinary structure has been introduced worldwide in a bid to improve consistency when dealing with foul play.
 
 The severity of offences will be judged as being a lower-end, mid-range or top-level offence - each of which carries an increasingly more severe \'entry-point\' penalty.
 
 From that basis a judicial panel will then assess any mitigating circumstances or aggravating factors and adjust the penalty accordingly.
 
 Two examples: Neil Back\'s punch on Joe Worsley in the Grand Final last year - for which he received a four-week ban - would be considered a mid-level offence which carries a three-month suspension.
 
 Mitigating circumstances, such as no previous, provocation etc., could see that ban reduced by up to 50 per cent, while a history of such offences could see that ban increased to six or even twelve months.
 
 Blackett has accepted that inconsistencies such as the ban handed out to Breyton Paulse, who was given a three-week ban for kicking Australian prop Al Baxter when the minimum entry-level punishment for the offence is three months, are occurring at the moment. Even if Paulse had every mitigating factor in his favour, the code states he should still have received a six-week suspension.
 
 That case prompted considerable communication between the IRB\'s judiciary officers, and Blackett stressed the IRB are working hard to ensure the structure is as accurate as possible by the 2007 World Cup.
 
 That includes the development of a merit-based system for the appointment of judicial officers which should ensure neutral appointments for Test matches, something that has been lacking in the southern hemisphere especially.
 
 \"The processes are bedding in and there will be a learning process among judicial officers as well,\" said Blackett.
 
 \"With the merit-based judiciary and these regulations bedded down and some fine tuning, players will fully understand the sanctions before the Rugby World Cup in 2007.\"
 
 RFU\'s elite referees\' officer Ed Morrison was anxious to point out there have been no rule changes in the sport, and that the crackdown was to rid the sport of violence.
 
 \"We all recognise rugby is cleaner now than ever but you still get the occasional incident that tarnishes the sport,\" said Morrison.
 
 \"Nobody condones violence and if a referee witnesses an act of violence that is unacceptable it is dealt with.
 
 \"But there are no law changes for the coming season. Rucking, for example, is an integral part of the game and it is clearly defined in the law what is acceptable and what is not.
 
 \"Rucking is to be encouraged, it is a skill and long may it continue. But let\'s not link rucking with stamping. They are two different actions.\"
 
 The idea of imposing financial penalties, rather than suspensions, at the professional end of the game was discussed by the IRB but eventually rejected on the grounds it does not act as a sufficient deterrent for violent play.