Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 9th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Top-flight clubs set to demand changes to SRU disciplinary system



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 April 2008
SCOTTISH rugby's disciplinary procedures are set to be challenged at a meeting of Premiership Division One clubs in the Capital tonight.
Also on the agenda is a further attempt by leading outfits, believed to include champions Boroughmuir, Watsonians and Currie, to allow Scottish clubs to participate in the second tier of European competition.

Disciplinary matters seem likely to do
minate discussions following the three weeks allowed to elapse between a hearing to investigate the citing by Boroughmuir of Melrose pair Kieran Cooney and John Dalziel, which resulted in suspensions of six and three weeks respectively, and an appeal confirming the verdicts.

During the interim both players remained eligible to play, turning out in two further Scottish Cup ties. Today, Capital presidents Morris Duncan (Watsonians) and Stan Watt (Boroughmuir) joined forces to condemn the arrangement and the approach of the authorities. Watt said: "The entire disciplinary system operated by Murrayfield is open to question.

"Regarding the Melrose players being banned yet allowed to play on until the appeal, there is no question that their club played the system.

"A bigger concern should be why the case took three weeks to resolve because now they miss only a game, albeit a Cup Final.

" The standard ban once a player receives three yellow cards is one week but, if his team don't have a game the following Saturday, he avoids any punishment."

Watt and Duncan both claim there is anecdotal evidence of players deliberately incurring a yellow card for a technical offence to dispel a suspension during a week when their club would be inactive anyway.

Added Duncan: "Firstly, Melrose beat us fair and square in last Saturday's semi-final, although I can't help wondering how things might have turned out if John Dalziel hadn't been allowed to play through starting his ban straight away. He was very influential in our defeat. If any player is suspended he should start serving the punishment until the appeals process comes up.

"Things are the wrong way round when a player is found guilty and can then play on. A properly organised disciplinary procedure would see all the witnesses brought together at the start of proceedings and, if players are found guilty, they start their bans to be served in terms of games rather than weeks."

An SRU spokesman explained the reasoning behind the three-week delay in coming to a decision. "The players were suspended following the hearing in front of the Discipline Panel on April 1 Melrose lodged an appeal against the decision, the grounds of which were sufficient to stay the suspensions. During the appeal, which was arranged as quickly as practicable for all sides, the appeal committee determined that further evidence was required and the appeal was therefore adjourned."

As to the procedure of a suspension that last weeks rather being measured in matches, the spokesman said: "The suspension of players for weeks instead of matches is a decision taken by the board of Scottish Rugby recognising current IRB procedures."

Meanwhile, Duncan appears resigned to any attempts to remove the restrictions on clubs having cross-border ambitions being resisted. He said: "The SRU will again tell us we are not good enough but I'm sure the matter should at least be debated.

And calls for clubs to be allowed access to European competition finds an echo in Wales. There, Neath boss Rowland Phillips is claiming the top five finishers in the Welsh club championship should be allowed into the European Challenge Cup.

"We'd like the extra incentive of the European Challenge Cup and experience of playing abroad.

"The frustrating thing is that you achieve your goals, maintain and improve your standards. But you can't go anywhere because there's nowhere to go. They (traditional clubs] could go to places like Romania, France and Italy, which to me is part of that development as well."

Also on the Premiership clubs' schedule is a move by Stirling County to allow those with floodlights to kick-off at 3pm without the opposition having veto.


UNPLEASANT CASE THAT SHOCKED THE GAME
AN incident which prompted the double citing by Boroughmuir occurred when they lost a Scottish Hydro Electric National Cup tie at Melrose on March 15.

Boroughmuir captain Rory Couper required plastic surgery to repair a torn ear although the eventual disciplinary findings were that no evidence existed to show the damage was caused by Kieran Cooney or John Dalziel, neither of whom were sent off.

An April 1 hearing subsequently banned the pair – for six weeks in the case of Cooney for deliberately stamping on Couper's head and three weeks in the case of Dalziel for reckless use of the boot.

The original appeal was extended pending further evidence as the players continued to turn out against Hawick and Watsonians in the Cup but both will now be unavailable for the May 3 Final against Heriot's.






The full article contains 820 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 April 2008 10:17 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

bigbadbroon,

big smoke 23/04/2008 13:04:36
A shocking case indeed...but of complete green cheese on behalf of Boroughmuir and Watsonians, compounded by a farcical process at SRU.

Of course Melrose played the system - EVERY club would have done exactly the same if they believed the players to be innocent of the charges...so enough of the sanctimonious crap from the so called injured parties.

Watsonians should be turning their own attention to the digraceful conduct of their coach during the game on Saturday and afterwards in his comments about the referee. Prefacing every statement with "Melrose beat us fair and square" does not hide the fact that Duncan and Mather thought getting to the final was a done deal (they didn't even start with Skeen who is head and shoulders their best player)nor does it hide the fact they are crying like babies over the result and everyone knows it (Perhaps home advantage at Myreside would have helped but this was scuppered by the Watsonians idiots who set fire to the school rectors table at the club dinner hardly endearing themselves to the plea to let them have their posts back - ha ha!)

Re. Boroughmuir - nobody is denying Couper got a bad one (although stitches are not plastic surgery)and any deliberate stamp on the head should be punished...but the finding on Monday night agreed that the injury was not caused by either JD or KC...but banned them anyway as they were rucking in the vicinity ...so the SRU admit it was not them, the referee states it was not them and that the unidentified boot that hit Couper was probably reckless but accidental...but the innocent players get banned anyway!!!!If they can't identify the culprit (deliberate or accidental) you can't punish others for it - it just smacks of sheer vindictivess on behalf of the panel as Melrose made them look like fools as their system is so inadequate.

Roll on finals day and Melrose for the Cup!
2

dazed n confused,

23/04/2008 13:27:23
The Melrose guys were banned for stamping and reckless use of the boot, just because their stamping/recklessness didn't cause the injury doesn't mean they didn't commit the offences they were accused of.
3

sorryfortherefs,

wondering 23/04/2008 13:48:34
just wondering ? if the player had moved away from the tackle .would this whole debackle have ever happened !!
but stitches especially to the head is a bad thing plastic surgery or not .

just wondering ? are the citing officials totally independant of each other or can they be connected in any way

just wondering ? does this mean that even if the ref sees the incident and says everthing was ok and players are still found guilty . can you now cite players even when they have penalised as the refs word and judgement doesn't count



4

J.A.,

23/04/2008 16:07:57
Muir president accuses Melrose of playing the system. Which system were they playing when they sighted two Melrose players?
5

Deacon Brodie,

23/04/2008 17:02:19
After all I have read in the last couple of weeks it sounds like justice has been done at last.
It was more than a little scatch or the player would not have been taken to St Johns.
6

sorryfortherefs,

onthemove 23/04/2008 20:09:34
how is it justice if the players that were banned are not the player that caused the injury no matter how serious or not the injury was to the b/muir player
7

J.A.,

23/04/2008 20:26:47
Is it at all possible that the player was hurt accidentally? It is not always possible to have someone to blame no matter how ugly the injury. Let’s face it, each and every time a player hits the deck or goes into contact, there is a chance of serious injury; it’s the nature of the game.
Put faith in our top referees like David Changleng to adjudicate on what is and isn’t within the laws. If video evidence is not conclusive, it should be dismissed as evidence.
8

dazed n confused,

24/04/2008 09:38:04
#6 because they were banned for stamping and reckless use of the boot (a lovely phrase), both of which are offences, not for injuring Rory Couper, to use an analogy if 3 people punch you in the face and one of them breaks your nose, should the other two not be punished even if they didn't cause the injury?
9

Border Man,

hawick 24/04/2008 14:50:29
Bill Lothian who is this idiot????????????
How many times does this clown need to be told that what he is reporting is totaly un true????

This section below is outrageous and a total lie!!!!

Tell me Bill what plastic surgery did Rory cooper get??? Are stitches plastic surgery now?? St john's also has a mental health department did he get treated for that too??? Get your facts right before writing this rubbish!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What chance do the public have off finding out the truth if its reported as badly as this???

UNPLEASANT CASE THAT SHOCKED THE GAME
AN incident which prompted the double citing by Boroughmuir occurred when they lost a Scottish Hydro Electric National Cup tie at Melrose on March 15.

Boroughmuir captain Rory Couper required plastic surgery to repair a torn ear although the eventual disciplinary findings were that no evidence existed to show the damage was caused by Kieran Cooney or John Dalziel, neither of whom were sent off.

An April 1 hearing subsequently banned the pair – for six weeks in the case of Cooney for deliberately stamping on Couper's head and three weeks in the case of Dalziel for reckless use of the boot.

The original appeal was extended pending further evidence as the players continued to turn out against Hawick and Watsonians in the Cup but both will now be unavailable for the May 3 Final against Heriot's.
10

sorryfortherefs,

movedagain 25/04/2008 08:33:53
he may have wee chip on shoulder about melrose props did his son not play at melrose but didn,t quite make the mark that Coony has ( no i don,t mean Coopers head or ear as he was quite correctly cleared of causing the injury ???)

still can,t help thinking if Cooper had moved away from the tackle his injury would not have happened
11

dazed n confused,

25/04/2008 13:37:08
Blaming the injured party for it is a little rich #10, assuming you've played the game you know that sometimes you just can't get out of the way in time, becuase you're pinned in the tackle or because the pack are there very quickly.
12

sorryfortherefs,

stillear 26/04/2008 11:05:44
didn,t blame him
or the players that have been cleared of stamping on his head but just asked the question would the incident have happened if he moved away from the tackle as you are supposed to ?
So Cooper wanted to get away from the ball and trying to unfortunately moved his arm in his attempt to get away from the tackle and moved the ball back over his body just as Dalziel struck the ball to move it from the ruck and because Cooper moved the ball with his arm Dalziel,s foot was deflected onto his body both players movements accidental but with far reaching results because incident not analised correctly .

Wonder if Gav Scott the Brittish Lions analist who works for the SRU could have shed some light on this very murky situation ???

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.