Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:05 am  

I don't read many people 'defending' Ben Flower's actions. There's a difference between defending his actions (which would be ridiculous) and merely suggesting that some of the reactions are foaming-at-the-mouth over the top. Watching a slow-motion replay is massively misleading here. There are two issues - the first concerns hitting a man on the floor. This is very bad. It's wrong. It deserves a long ban. BUT...let's not pretend it's the first time it's ever happened and is the worst incident ever seen in Rugby League, etc. etc. The second is hitting a man who you believe to be unconscious. That is beyond very bad, and you couldn't really argue with a lifetime ban. HOWEVER, nothing in *real time* leads me to believe that Flower *knew* he was hitting an unconscious man. You may disagree, fine, but don't base your guess about Flower's state of mind and decision making process by watching a slow motion replay.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:23 am  

coco the fullback wrote:

RL is a physically aggressive, high speed, full contact sport. For it to remain that way the aggression needs to be controlled.
Flower crossed a line.
Up to the final act everything was what you get both within and outside the rules. What is outside the rules is accepted and dealt with by the disciplinary system.
Often things boil over in the normal course of a game, but when any player is injured there is usually an instant reaction to protect the welfare of the player.
This is the line that was crossed and it needs to be seen as unacceptable in the game.
I envisage a large fine and a ban of 8-12 games, preferably nearer the top end.

I did read that the police prefer sporting incidents to be dealt with by disciplinary bodies rather than the legal process being involved. Providing they're satisfied that the disciplinary process is sufficiently robust, the penalties can often be more severe than are likely to be handed out by the courts.

According to the Times the police and CPS have been in discussions with the RFL about the matter which seems rather strange. Suggests a very large book is about to be thrown?

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:36 am  

Cibaman wrote:

I did read that the police prefer sporting incidents to be dealt with by disciplinary bodies rather than the legal process being involved. Providing they're satisfied that the disciplinary process is sufficiently robust, the penalties can often be more severe than are likely to be handed out by the courts.

According to the Times the police and CPS have been in discussions with the RFL about the matter which seems rather strange. Suggests a very large book is about to be thrown?

Throw the book at him. Then, when he's unconscious, throw it again.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:36 am  

RLBandit wrote:

I don't read many people 'defending' Ben Flower's actions. There's a difference between defending his actions (which would be ridiculous) and merely suggesting that some of the reactions are foaming-at-the-mouth over the top. Watching a slow-motion replay is massively misleading here. There are two issues - the first concerns hitting a man on the floor. This is very bad. It's wrong. It deserves a long ban. BUT...let's not pretend it's the first time it's ever happened and is the worst incident ever seen in Rugby League, etc. etc. The second is hitting a man who you believe to be unconscious. That is beyond very bad, and you couldn't really argue with a lifetime ban. HOWEVER, nothing in *real time* leads me to believe that Flower *knew* he was hitting an unconscious man. You may disagree, fine, but don't base your guess about Flower's state of mind and decision making process by watching a slow motion replay.

Ignorance is no excuse or mitigation. If flower is going to hit someone it is his responsibility to hit one who isn't out on the floor. "I hit him before I checked he was conscious" would quite possibly be the worst defence ever offered for anything.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:48 am  

Flower should have tea bagged him.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:52 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Ignorance is no excuse or mitigation <snip>

I agree that it doesn't mitigate the unacceptable action of hitting a prone individual who indeed could have been unconscious and even if not, was not in a good place to defend himself.

However, it is a defence against the even greater charge of "knowing a man was unconscious and making the deliberate decision to hit him anyway" which would appear to be the charge that some people here would make (and incidentally, if true as charged would be the worst thing I at least have ever seen on a rugby field and worthy of a lifetime ban).

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:09 am  

RLBandit wrote:

I agree that it doesn't mitigate the unacceptable action of hitting a prone individual who indeed could have been unconscious and even if not, was not in a good place to defend himself.

However, it is a defence against the even greater charge of "knowing a man was unconscious and making the deliberate decision to hit him anyway" which would appear to be the charge that some people here would make (and incidentally, if true as charged would be the worst thing I at least have ever seen on a rugby field and worthy of a lifetime ban).

It's not really any worse to hit a man you knew was unconscious compared to hitting a man you were recklessly indifferent to whether he was conscious or not.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:18 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

It's not really any worse to hit a man you knew was unconscious compared to hitting a man you were recklessly indifferent to whether he was conscious or not.

You're welcome to hold that view, provided you agree that it applies to anyone who ever throws a punch in a pile-on on the floor.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:20 am  

craigizzard wrote:

Throw the book at him. Then, when he's unconscious, throw it again.

Re: Ben Flower : Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:32 am  

RLBandit wrote:

You're welcome to hold that view, provided you agree that it applies to anyone who ever throws a punch in a pile-on on the floor.

Only if you weren't aware of what reckless indifference was.