Baselayers Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I am lovely. Would never do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Oh right so after the game the police would have asked they guy who got punched if he wanted charges bought against the guy who punched him? I don't know that for a fact. There would have been a process, that's all I know. The rest is an educated guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdabush Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Why are sports people exempt from law? If you did that on a road...prison. In a sport..BAN! He's not exempt. They choose not to prosecute, you can only assume they took the opinion of the player he punched into account. If he's broken the law though, the opinion of the player is not the overriding factor. The only argument I can see against it is that it's not in the public interest and that the internal fine and suspension should be sufficient. Personally, I have to say that in this situation I don't think it's adequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 We all had a good laugh when Fergie said that RVP (I think?) could have been killed when someone booted the ball at him when he was on the ground a few years ago. In this case, getting punched in the head by a 17st rugby player whilst unconscious could have delivered a very serious injury. 13 match ban far too short for me and does not send out the right message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 17, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think imposing the longest ban in the history of the Super League sends out the perfect message. It's an absolutely unacceptable thing to do on the rugby pitch. Would 5 more games make that any clearer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 A comparison to other punishments for different crimes isn't relevant at all. Its a 13 game ban for punching an unconscious man in the head. A disgusting crime and far too lenient. As has been said before, I'd expect to do prison time if I had done that on the street. The Suarez ban for biting is a great example of a harsh penalty that makes everybody stand up and pay attention. You can't compare it to a normal ban for violent conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 17, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think imposing the longest ban in the history of the Super League sends out the perfect message. It's an absolutely unacceptable thing to do on the rugby pitch. Would 5 more games make that any clearer? No it wouldn't which is kind of the point. I personally don't think 13, 18, 23 match bans would be sufficient a punishment for what Flower did regardless of if it is the longest ban in the history of the competition. He should be facing prosecution for what he did, Duncan Ferguson went to jail for less. I don't think the punishment is even close to being enough personally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I agree a lifetime ban would have been appropriate punishment for what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Why are sports people exempt from law? If you did that on a road...prison. In a sport..BAN! He's not exempt. They choose not to prosecute, you can only assume they took the opinion of the player he punched into account. If he's broken the law though, the opinion of the player is not the overriding factor. The only argument I can see against it is that it's not in the public interest and that the internal fine and suspension should be sufficient. Personally, I have to say that in this situation I don't think it's adequate. That's fair enough. I did not say it was the overriding factor. I do not believe it is in the public interest to take this to the courts either, the sport has already served that purpose with the fine and the suspension, which will have been deemed a sufficient punishment and rehabilitation measure by the CPS. Granted it looks bad on viewing. But if they start prosecuting every rugby player who throws a couple of punches on the pitch the courts will be heaving in no time. Common sense must out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I agree a lifetime ban would have been appropriate punishment for what he did. An absurd notion. Let's not forget that the player he punched intentionally threw an elbow into his face! Flower massively overreacted and has been harshly and rightly punished for that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Its not absurd, the first punch ok but to hit the chap while he is lying prostate on the floor is deserving of a lifetime ban. You don't even get that in a boxing ring/// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Its not absurd, the first punch ok but to hit the chap while he is lying prostate on the floor is deserving of a lifetime ban. You don't even get that in a boxing ring/// He wasn't in a boxing ring, he wasn't in control. I'm not excusing his actions, it could be argued the ban was not servere enough. But lifetime? Come on man. That's mediaeval. It could also be argued he was not in the right frame of mind himself having just taken an elbow to the head. Actions = consequences. Has the other player been banned at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) If Rugby League wants a reputation as a sport for thugs then fine the punishment is appropriate. But you compare what Flowers did with what Suarez did and the penalty FIFA handed out theres no comparison. Edited October 17, 2014 by PaulC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 6 month ban is headline grabbing, in reality it is only 13 matches. Is that enough? I personally believe so yes, but no doubt others will disagree. probably, not a big RL fan but if its his 1st time then i think its a fair ban, if he hs previous then I think its too lenient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 If Rugby League wants a reputation as a sport for thugs then fine the punishment is appropriate. But you compare what Flowers did with what Suarez did and the penalty FIFA handed out theres no comparison. Suarez isnt really a fair guy to take opinion off. He has had a lot of previous, if it was his first time he probably would have got a lesser ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 If Rugby League wants a reputation as a sport for thugs then fine the punishment is appropriate. But you compare what Flowers did with what Suarez did and the penalty FIFA handed out theres no comparison. Surely it's the opposite of what you're intimating there? Suaraz bit THREE people. In not one of those cases was he physically assaulted himself first. Rugby is a rough sport. Punches and elbows and knees are thrown. All the time. Who is in doubt about that? You want him made an example of, banned FOR LIFE, for some bizarre reason that I don't think you understand yourself. Or at least you seem incapable of explaining it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Sure Rugby is a mans game and punches are thrown all the time but what he did was totally unacceptable and I think is deserving of a lifetime ban. But to be honest I don't care either way because i don't even like the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Sure Rugby is a mans game and punches are thrown all the time but what he did was totally unacceptable and I think is deserving of a lifetime ban. You realise the massive contradiction in your thinking there right? One punch "it happens all the time", two punches and you're banned for life? I know you don't care, but have you ever been elbowed/punched/kicked yourself and seen red? The question is open to anyone who thinks he should do time or be banned for much longer than he has. I saw a Torygraph headline which says that it was sociopathic, I mean come on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Its not the fact he threw two punches its the fact the second punch was while he was lying on the ground. If he had seriously hurt the other player should the penalty have been more severe? I think a doing time or being prosecuted would create a dangerous precedent in sport so I'm not for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 In answer to your question - yes. That is how the law works outside of sport and I think that is fair and just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts