Chiefs Vs Tigers - Sat 3.05pm

[FKAS]

From the Times.

"Chessum collided with his team-mate, Solomone Kata, when attempting to halt an Exeter attack, and he was taken off for a HIA, which the 24-year-old passed and so he returned to the field. After the match Chessum also passed a second HIA. The independent match-day doctor was involved in the decision to remove Chessum for the initial assessment.

However, as the Tigers team were leaving Sandy Park, the independent doctor told Cheika that he had reviewed the footage of the Chessum incident and now believed he had shown signs of concussion and should have been permanently removed. As this was his new verdict, the doctor said that Chessum should take the mandatory stand-down period of 12 days out."

and

"Yeandle. On this, the independent disciplinary panel, which banned the 29-year-old for four weeks, relayed that he had shown “obvious signs of concussion” in his earlier collision with Chessum, so should have been removed from the field. Had he been removed for an HIA, he could have avoided the red card.

Leicester are frustrated that Kata’s four-week ban will effectively last five weeks because it begins after his 12-day concussion stand-down period. Their view is that had he been injured in another way, his ban would have run concurrently with this absence and that he is therefore being punished more severely for having a concussion.

Cheika’s four-hour disciplinary hearing on Tuesday night ended at about 11pm. The Times understands that five witnesses were called, and four — including an England international — supported Cheika’s view that he had not intimidated or disrespected the independent doctor. The panel sided with the fifth witness, however, who said that he had."

https://www.thetimes.com/article/f42aed ... cb1c077a0f

[FKAS]

So twofold annoyances for Cheika.

1. Chessum passes two HIAs both during and after the game but the independent doctor after the game rules him out for 12 days with a stand down, despite letting him go back onto the pitch for the final minutes.

2. Doctor has obviously reviewed the Kata and Chessum incident at the time because he was part of the decision to give Chessum a HIA. After the event he decides Kata also needs a stand down period which the RFU then add to Kata's ban.

You can see why Cheika is vexed. Add in the fact that five witnesses are called and the RFU decide with the minority and Tigers seem rightly annoyed. The independent doctor hasn't covered themselves in glory though I'll wait to see what the full transcript says as Cheika does have previous for unloading verbally.

[Puja]

Having a ban not count across concussion when it does across any other injury is utterly wild and makes little to no sense.

Puja

[Oakboy]

It all smacks of a personality clash rather than an impartial judgement of facts.

[FKAS]

Having a ban not count across concussion when it does across any other injury is utterly wild and makes little to no sense.

Puja

How to encourage players not to report symptoms of concussion.

[Mikey Brown]

Rugby is doing a great job of highlighting the safety issues in the game by making a fuss about them, bringing in all these new regulations, and then pussying out before any material change can actually be made. All it seems to have done is ramp up drama around reffing decisions.

[Which Tyler]

So twofold annoyances for Cheika.

1. Chessum passes two HIAs both during and after the game but the independent doctor after the game rules him out for 12 days with a stand down, despite letting him go back onto the pitch for the final minutes.

2. Doctor has obviously reviewed the Kata and Chessum incident at the time because he was part of the decision to give Chessum a HIA. After the event he decides Kata also needs a stand down period which the RFU then add to Kata's ban.

You can see why Cheika is vexed. Add in the fact that five witnesses are called and the RFU decide with the minority and Tigers seem rightly annoyed. The independent doctor hasn't covered themselves in glory though I'll wait to see what the full transcript says as Cheika does have previous for unloading verbally.

I can absolutely see why Cheika is frustrated and irritated, but it's no excuse for intimidating / disrespecting the Dr (about which, we, or "I" at least, don't yet have enough information to decide for myself). Making different decisions based on more information (including more time with the same information) is an absolutely fair and often correct thing to do. Number of witnesses is pretty irrelevant compared to the believability of their statements - what an international rugby player calls "intimidating / disrespecting" - probably about their boss - may be slightly different from what bloke-on-the-street would consider "intimidating / disrespecting".
Ultimately, if the recipient is intimidated, then it was intimidating, whether intentional or not. In much the same way that a couple of kids punching another kid and laughing may consider it to be just a joke, but if the recipient considers it bullying, then it's bullying.

On this case, I would want more information, and probably more information than we'll ever get - we kinda need to know what words Cheika used, and the context around those words - tone of voice, body language etc etc.

Having a ban not count across concussion when it does across any other injury is utterly wild and makes little to no sense.

100% this.
I can see how this has come about as a reaction to teams arranging a sneaky friendly to count against ban lengths - but it really shouldn't apply to matches missed for medical reasons. It sounds like an unforeseen consequence of closing a previous loophole. Which doesn't make it remotely "right".


I mentioned before that the independent Doc.s have really screwed up a few times this season - which is a bad thing. They certainly need a meeting, and tightening up their recognition procedures.
I simply can't believe though, that club medics don't also have the right to decide that they're player needs (or has auto-failed) an HIA. In which case, if it was so obvious, why did the Leicester medics not bring Kata off themselves?

[Puja]

So twofold annoyances for Cheika.

1. Chessum passes two HIAs both during and after the game but the independent doctor after the game rules him out for 12 days with a stand down, despite letting him go back onto the pitch for the final minutes.

2. Doctor has obviously reviewed the Kata and Chessum incident at the time because he was part of the decision to give Chessum a HIA. After the event he decides Kata also needs a stand down period which the RFU then add to Kata's ban.

You can see why Cheika is vexed. Add in the fact that five witnesses are called and the RFU decide with the minority and Tigers seem rightly annoyed. The independent doctor hasn't covered themselves in glory though I'll wait to see what the full transcript says as Cheika does have previous for unloading verbally.

I can absolutely see why Cheika is frustrated and irritated, but it's no excuse for intimidating / disrespecting the Dr (about which, we, or "I" at least, don't yet have enough information to decide for myself). Making different decisions based on more information (including more time with the same information) is an absolutely fair and often correct thing to do. Number of witnesses is pretty irrelevant compared to the believability of their statements - what an international rugby player calls "intimidating / disrespecting" - probably about their boss - may be slightly different from what bloke-on-the-street would consider "intimidating / disrespecting".
Ultimately, if the recipient is intimidated, then it was intimidating, whether intentional or not. In much the same way that a couple of kids punching another kid and laughing may consider it to be just a joke, but if the recipient considers it bullying, then it's bullying.

On this case, I would want more information, and probably more information than we'll ever get - we kinda need to know what words Cheika used, and the context around those words - tone of voice, body language etc etc.

I will take a moment to note that Cheika was cleared of intimidating in the hearing - he's only been found guilty of "disrespecting" by questioning their decision in public. Agreed that we need more info to have an informed opinion, but it's confirmed that it wasn't intimidation.

On bringing Kata off themselves, I would imagine Leicester's argument is that we had used our backs subs at that point (72nd minute) and so we could only tactically sub him for a lock forward (if memory serves - we may not have even had any subs left at all). If he went off for an HIA, we could bring someone else back on. It's not a great argument on player safety grounds though.

You'd've thought Kata's defence team would've used this in his hearing to get mitigation. "Yes, I plead guilty to the high tackle, but my defence is that I was punch drunk and didn't know what I was doing," would surely be a powerful argument to get it down, no? Surely would obviate the increase in sentence for his previous history, if he could prove he wasn't compos mentis?

Puja

[Oakboy]

How are the independent doctors appointed, I wonder? Surely, anybody applying for the position would understand the robust environment of a rugby match. Within that, how is disrespect measured? A few loud expletives should not count, for example. Openly insulting a doctor's competence should obviously.

[Puja]

While I reserve the right to be wrong, I don't believe Cheika's even accused of saying it to the doctor personally - I think he's just accused of questioning the decision in general.

Puja

[FKAS]

I'd argue that loud expletives aimed at an individual shouldn't be tolerated. The independent doctor is effectively another match official and should get the same level of respect.

I thought at the time Kata should have come off for a HIA. Does the independent doctor have to rubber stamp any HIAs? Therefore stopping any claims of "he's actually fine you just wanted to bring player x back on". I could then understand more than a little irritation if that was blocked during the game then back tracked later, surely that's not the case though.

The independent match official I believe has match coverage and data from mouth guards. Does Kata wear a mouth guard? Might complicate things (they should be mandatory). Rewind the match coverage and rewatch the footage a couple of times and that should have been enough to send both for a HIA.

[Banquo]

Tigers having a right moan https://www.leicestertigers.com/news/st ... igers-2425

[FKAS]

Tigers having a right moan https://www.leicestertigers.com/news/st ... igers-2425

It's already posted on the other page.

Peter Tom speaking on behalf of the club is less than impressed with the RFU. Some more careful work from the RFU could have removed the drama. Keeping quiet until the full report was ready for starters.

[Banquo]

Tigers having a right moan https://www.leicestertigers.com/news/st ... igers-2425

It's already posted on the other page.

Peter Tom speaking on behalf of the club is less than impressed with the RFU. Some more careful work from the RFU could have removed the drama. Keeping quiet until the full report was ready for starters.

deflection imo

[Which Tyler]

Whilst the panel have yet to provide reasons for its decision, the club is particularly disappointed with the disrespectful finding given that multiple witnesses gave evidence at the disciplinary hearing supporting Michael's version of events.

As ever - it's not the number of witnesses that matter; it's the feelings of the "victim", and the credibility of the witnesses.

The club is also disappointed that despite its request not to do so, the RFU issued a statement announcing the panel’s decision despite the club having not yet been provided with the written judgment and knowing the exact reasons for the decision.

Is it common practice to tell the club (who had representatives at the meeting) with the written judgement before announcing the result? It's certainly common practice to release the result before the written judgement - and often before there's a chance to write-up the full judgement.

Additionally, we find it regrettable that the RFU's statement included some reasoning for the decision from the Chairman of the panel which was not shared with the club at the hearing and before the written judgment has been provided.

Again - is it common practice to tell the club the reasoning before the public?


It sounds like the complaints above are that a disciplinary panel acted in the way disciplinary panels have for the last decade or so. If that's not the case, then fair enough. We do know that publicly, it's absolutely standard practice to release the decision, and then the write-up a couple of days later.

[FKAS]

Whilst the panel have yet to provide reasons for its decision, the club is particularly disappointed with the disrespectful finding given that multiple witnesses gave evidence at the disciplinary hearing supporting Michael's version of events.

As ever - it's not the number of witnesses that matter; it's the feelings of the "victim", and the credibility of the witnesses.

The club is also disappointed that despite its request not to do so, the RFU issued a statement announcing the panel’s decision despite the club having not yet been provided with the written judgment and knowing the exact reasons for the decision.

Is it common practice to tell the club (who had representatives at the meeting) with the written judgement before announcing the result? It's certainly common practice to release the result before the written judgement - and often before there's a chance to write-up the full judgement.

Additionally, we find it regrettable that the RFU's statement included some reasoning for the decision from the Chairman of the panel which was not shared with the club at the hearing and before the written judgment has been provided.

Again - is it common practice to tell the club the reasoning before the public?


It sounds like the complaints above are that a disciplinary panel acted in the way disciplinary panels have for the last decade or so. If that's not the case, then fair enough. We do know that publicly, it's absolutely standard practice to release the decision, and then the write-up a couple of days later.

Depends as you say on the witnesses, if the ignored witnesses are members of the Tigers staff then dismissing their testimony is unlikely to be well received by the club.

I suspect the club requested the full written judgement be provided before the outcome is announced because they are likely to appeal and wanted to avoid the media circus the RFU have now started.

I think being unhappy about the RFU stating reasons for the decision that weren't aired at the hearing is entirely justified. The justification for the reason is the justification, you can't then amend it and say something else to the media after the hearing. Consistency and transparency should be givens.

[Which Tyler]

Depends as you say on the witnesses, if the ignored witnesses are members of the Tigers staff then dismissing their testimony is unlikely to be well received by the club.

Which doesn't make the complaint valid.

I suspect the club requested the full written judgement be provided before the outcome is announced because they are likely to appeal and wanted to avoid the media circus the RFU have now started.

Does it matter? RFU aren't beholden to Leicester, and aren't obliged to acquiesce to their every request.
The media circus started with Cheika being cited. No disciplinary hearing ever has gone through the full hearing, and the appeal, before announcing that it's happening. That is NOT a reasonable request.

I think being unhappy about the RFU stating reasons for the decision that weren't aired at the hearing is entirely justified. The justification for the reason is the justification, you can't then amend it and say something else to the media after the hearing. Consistency and transparency should be givens.

TBH, I don't even know what point you're making here. What amended justification are you talking about?

[FKAS]

Depends as you say on the witnesses, if the ignored witnesses are members of the Tigers staff then dismissing their testimony is unlikely to be well received by the club.

Which doesn't make the complaint valid.

I suspect the club requested the full written judgement be provided before the outcome is announced because they are likely to appeal and wanted to avoid the media circus the RFU have now started.

Does it matter? RFU aren't beholden to Leicester, and aren't obliged to acquiesce to their every request.
The media circus started with Cheika being cited. No disciplinary hearing ever has gone through the full hearing, and the appeal, before announcing that it's happening. That is NOT a reasonable request.

I think being unhappy about the RFU stating reasons for the decision that weren't aired at the hearing is entirely justified. The justification for the reason is the justification, you can't then amend it and say something else to the media after the hearing. Consistency and transparency should be givens.

TBH, I don't even know what point you're making here. What amended justification are you talking about?

Re the first point, Tigers are likely to take any aspersions cast upon their staff negatively.

Re the second point, not really. Tigers made a request that would have delayed the announcement by a day, that's more Peter Tom being annoyed that the RFU were just desperate to show they'd done something as opposed to a fairly reasonable request. Doesn't really matter either way.

The third point is the most concerning, "Additionally, we find it regrettable that the RFU's statement included some reasoning for the decision from the Chairman of the panel which was not shared with the club at the hearing and before the written judgment has been provided." The report to the media contains elements not discussed at the hearing, then what's the point having the hearing? Makes it seem like either a kangaroo court or that the RFU are changing the story after the event to cover their backsides. Hence my points about transparency and consistency.

[twitchy]

I doubt Cheika has to do much to be intimidating to a normal member of the public even if he didn't intend it.

[Oakboy]

The poor little doctor did not like aggressive eye contact apparently!

[FKAS]

https://rfu.widen.net/s/fss8vn8tn2/mich ... ember-2024

So basically the IMDD cocked up by not reviewing the footage of the incident immediately, the Leicester TD didn't conduct a video review before sending Chessum back onto the pitch because the IMDD had wandered off, which was incorrect and they should have waited.

Has the IMDD reviewed footage immediately they would have ordered Kata and Chessum off and stood down.

Process not being followed efficiently, basically.

Cheika was asked to come to the IMDD room by the Tigers medical staff where he and the IMDD has a personality clash. Cheika comes across as confrontational (shock) but not overly so and the IMDD comes across as being an arrogant arse. Unsurprisingly there was a personality clash.

[Puja]

Basically reads like both the doctor and Cheika bridling cause they thought the other was disrespecting their decision-making, and both sides digging in and digging deeper. Doesn't seem to be too much of anything tbh, but the doctor's effectively a match official and, even if you think you're right, and even if he's being a snarky shit to you, you mustn't argue with a match official for 5 minutes - it's just not okay.

I'd say not having the whole sentence suspended seems a touch harsh, but it's not out of bounds. Take the one game off against Newcastle and call it a day, rather than appealing.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Basically reads like both the doctor and Cheika bridling cause they thought the other was disrespecting their decision-making, and both sides digging in and digging deeper. Doesn't seem to be too much of anything tbh, but the doctor's effectively a match official and, even if you think you're right, and even if he's being a snarky shit to you, you mustn't argue with a match official for 5 minutes - it's just not okay.

I'd say not having the whole sentence suspended seems a touch harsh, but it's not out of bounds. Take the one game off against Newcastle and call it a day, rather than appealing.

Puja

Sounds about right to me.

Both the Independent Doc and Tiger's medical team should be taken to task for not following procedure; but equally, you can't go off on one to a match official, even if he's not technically a match official (as IIRC we've had before with players and doping officers). This goes double if you've essentially been brought in to mediate an existing dispute between the 2 medical teams.

[Puja]

My overriding reaction from all of this is that Kata's been hard done by. I'm not sure it was a red card in the first place - looked to be shoulder to shoulder contact first and it wasn't massive force but, even if we say it's a definite red card, the fact that he was concussed at the time is surely mitigation for the citing commision to bring it down to a yellow, or at the very least not apply the punitive for him having repeated offences. And then to add an extra week onto the ban *because* he was concussed seems to be adding insult to injury.



That does not look like a tackle that deserves an effective 5 week ban, especially if the player committing it was concussed and groggy at the time of the offence.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

That's the first time I've seen it and I'd call that a red to be honest. Possibly shoulders collide before heads, but he is going in fully upright leading with his head towards Yeandle's. Seems exactly the sort of lazy tackle tachnique we want to get rid of. That's leading to a head collision at least 50% of the time.