Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

James Haskell's New Zealand punch recalled by solicitor

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

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 5 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search