* Matt Challinor is still out for a citing back in October for law 9.12 - striking with forearm or elbow

* Unsurprisingly, Toby Flood has been cited for law 9.11 reckless or dangerous play - I'm interested in which instance. He'll be going in front of the judicial officer today.

I found these regulations.........

17.11 Matches where Citing Commissioners are not Appointed 17.11.1 For Matches where, in accordance with Regulation 17.8.3 or 17.8.6, it is not reasonably practicable for a Citing Commissioner to be appointed, the following shall apply: (a) Each team participating in a Match, or any of its authorised officials, or its Union, may cite: (i) a Player(s) for an act(s) of alleged Foul Play committed during that Match provided that such act(s) have not been detected by the Match Officials; (ii) a Player for more than one incident of alleged Foul Play in the same Match; and (iii) more than one Player in any Match. (b) Unions and Tournament Organisers shall put in place procedures for team citing which accord with the following: (i) citings by teams or their Unions shall be in writing and sent by an authorised member of the Union or management of the team to the nominated officer of the Host Union or Tournament Organiser responsible for the Match in which the incident that is the subject of the citing complaint occurred. Last updated 1 January, 2015 244 REGULATION 17 (ii) such citing, to be effective, must be made no later than 48 hours of the conclusion of the Match in which the Foul Play is alleged to have occurred; (iii) the responsibility for obtaining information and reportREGULATION 17 (ii) such citing, to be effective, must be made no later than 48 hours of the conclusion of the Match in which the Foul Play is alleged to have occurred; (iii) the responsibility for obtaining information and reports in relation to the citing shall rest with the Union or team management making the citing complaint. The Union or team management shall liaise with the Host Union or Tournament Organiser (or its/their nominated officer) to ensure that relevant information and reports are circulated to the appropriate parties in advance of the hearing; (iv) the independent disciplinary body of the Union or Tournament Organiser having jurisdiction over the Match, shall consider the citing complaint and any other evidence it deems appropriate including via televisual means, oral (witness), film or photographic evidence. The Player cited shall have the right to be heard, to be represented and to produce evidence; and (v) at any hearing of a citing complaint a representative of the citing team or Union must be in attendance, failing which the citing complaint will be dismissed. If an act of Foul Play is found to have been committed the disciplinary body of the Union or Tournament Organiser having jurisdiction over the Match shall take the appropriate action and shall apply the World Rugby’s Sanctions for Foul Play set out in Appendix 1, by following the core sanctioning principles set out in Regulation 17.19. 17.11.2 Players who are the subject of a citing by Unions shall not be provisionally suspended pending the hearing of the case.

No 7

You are quoting the section of the 2015 update, for matches at tiers where there is no citing commissionaire. 

Please have a look at the 2019-20 appendix 4 to regulation 19, which is the current regulation.

https://www.englandrugby.com//dxdam/32/32321267-a5bc-43b6-a222-e07ec2824e61/Regulation%2019%20Appendix%204.pdf" rel="nofollow - https://www.englandrugby.com//dxdam/32/32321267-a5bc-43b6-a222-e07ec2824e61/Regulation%2019%20Appendix%204.pdf

On the very first page is states the following...

"The procedures set out below apply only to Clubs in the Premiership and Championship and Women’s Premier 15s (1st XV) – where an RFU Citing Commissioner is appointed. 

1. The RFU Head of Discipline shall ensure that match footage is made available to the Citing Commissioner. 

2. A Club participating in a match may refer any incidents in the match to the Citing Commissioner that they want him/her to consider, within the timescales set out below: Premiership: 4 hours of conclusion of the match Championship and Women’s Premier 15s (1st XV): 8 hours of conclusion of the match 

3. A Citing Commissioner alone shall have the power and responsibility to cite a Player whom the independent video and/or other evidence shows to have committed an act of Foul Play whether or not it has been detected by the Match Officials. Such citing, to be effective, must be made in writing to be received by the RFU Head of Discipline from the nominated Citing Commissioner within the timescales set out below: "

Point 3 is key.

There is a lot more - it goes down to point 11, before starting on level 3 and below. Nowhere in points 1-11, which cover tiers 1 & 2, and womens' premiership rugby do clubs cite players. 

That's not very readable 'legislation' - not that I'm blaming you No7. Not sure the detail is critically important, the gist is that a citing commissioner is appointed to each GKIPAC game and reviews it to see if there are any disciplinary concerns, charging players where an offence is deemed sufficiently serious. Clubs are entitled to draw the attention of the CC to particular incidents... that's about the long & short of it I think.

I believe that confirms it is the club who have been offended against that intigate the citing procedure .

Yes i agree. It's a matter of sheer chance that the result of the foul play was not serious. Surely the offence should be judged by what it is, not by the lucky consequences.

The wording of the judgment seems to me to very careful to minimise what happened. Yes we know the referee and co saw it, but the video is the key.

Possibly favouring a well known player?

https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/article/newcastles-flood-given-ban-for-dangerous-play" rel="nofollow - https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/news/article/newcastles-flood-given-ban-for-dangerous-play

That judgement stinks, and I would argue that the logic is faulty. They cite a previous judgement as precedent to say that not all contact with the head or neck is definitely a mid-range entry point. However, they then follow that up not by claiming that the contact was incidental, but by stating that the contact with the head was actually with the ground consequential with being rolled out of the ruck. That makes no sense.

By that logic, I could pick someone up by the legs and tombstone piledriver their head into the ground, and that wouldn't require a mid-range entry point because the contact with the head was consequential to me driving him into the ground.