oooh JD still flogging the horse. Its dead. I can't see that anyone who has read the tribunal 2007 doc could have come to any other conclusion than baker was guilty of rough conduct.
Could you please explain what finding you think the tribunal got wrong.
-Unnecessary contact
-Impact severe
-Contact High
The rules state "any bump causing forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck will be reportable for rough conduct. Rough conduct is interpreted widely in relation to any contact which is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances."
Unless you can argue that the contact was necesary, wasn't severe or high he's guilty. These are the rules, have been all year.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Could you please explain what finding you think the tribunal got wrong.
-Unnecessary contact
-Impact severe
-Contact High
The rules state "any bump causing forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck will be reportable for rough conduct. Rough conduct is interpreted widely in relation to any contact which is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances."
Unless you can argue that the contact was necesary, wasn't severe or high he's guilty. These are the rules, have been all year.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]




