There is something about the Northampton Saints that rubs people the wrong way, some of it certainly justified and definitely our players' and club's own doing, while some of it also seems to have been born out of thin air. The negative sentiments the Calum Clark 'incident' has brought up were to be expected, and Calum Clark himself and the club are getting what they deserve. As I mentioned on Twitter last night, I don't think the Saints are doing themselves any favours by saying that they're concerned and disappointed at the length of the ban imposed upon Clark.
32 weeks may sound like a lot, but given the fact that there's a considerable amount of off-season included in those 32 weeks, it's actually not that harsh a sentence anymore. I can't for the life of me figure out why match bans still haven't made their way into rugby, because players being able to tick off their bans during holidays, off-season or international breaks makes a bit of a farce of the entire system.
Part of the Saints' disappointment over the length of the ban stems from the judiciary not reducing the ban even more, even though Clark had shown remorse for his actions. Excuse me, but shouldn't that be a given? Personally, I believe showing remorse and apologizing to the victim shouldn't have any influence on the length of a ban, unless a player doesn't show any remorse at all, then judiciary panels are free to add to the ban.
As for the length itself, it could've been and frankly should've been a longer ban. Had the judiciary panel banned him for the entire 2012/13 season or even for life, I certainly wouldn't be complaining about it either, for the very simple fact that actions like Clark's have no place in rugby - or in life, for that matter. And as a Saints supporter, I also don't want to be associated with brutality like that.
Because that's what it was to me. An act of brutality. What he did wasn't only against the spirit of good sportsmanship, it was against the spirit of humanity. He hasn't failed as a sportsman in that situation, he has failed as a decent human being first and foremost, which is one more reason why I believe the ban to be too lenient. Just because it happened on a rugby field between two people competing in a contact sport, where injuries are part of the deal, doesn't make it any less horrific.
What I'm a bit concerned by is the judiciary panel apparently deeming the injury unintentional and unfortunate. Sure, Clark probably didn't set out to hurt Rob Hawkins from the get-go, but saying afterwards that you're sorry and didn't want to hurt him? Oh really? We're not talking about a tackle that went slightly wrong, slid higher and landed the player in a hospital with a slipped disk or even a broken neck.
We're talking about a premeditated action, we're talking about someone intentionally grabbing someone else's arm and intentionally twisting it. In that case, how can the injury be called genuinely unintentional and unfortunate, when the player in question wilfully accepted the other player's injury? Isn't that intention by default, if being aware of the horrible consequences doesn't stop him from doing it?
Defendants usually say "I didn't want to kill him/her.", but when the victim in question has been stabbed 43 times, it's a bit difficult to make too much of that assertion. In the same way as Clark can't grab someone's arm and twist it like that, and not just for a fraction of a second but actually for a good moment, even though Hawkins was already screaming in pain, and then sit back and expect me to believe that he didn't mean to hurt him.
He's always been a bit short-fused, and maybe this ban is necessary to make him learn the hard way that there are certain things you just cannot do on the rugby field - as well as off it. Let's face it, had that happened down at the pub, he'd be sentenced to pay damages and maybe even sent to jail. I'm sure he's kicking himself silly right now and for the next 32 weeks, because he probably isn't a bad person after all. He's made a horrible decision, and I hope he's going to take it like a man, and not allow the club to appeal and drag this out even more. As I said, the ban is too lax in my opinion, an appeal could see him banned for an even longer period of time, and both player and club just need to accept that.
All the best to Rob Hawkins for a quick and smooth recovery.
No comments:
Post a Comment