RugbyRebels

Comparing the procedure and sanctions in their meetings with Ulster, Clermont Auvergne are Furious at the gouging accusations against their young prop. They are comparing the way this incident was handled with the handling of a Rory Best incident the previous week..

Articles in French below.

http://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/champions ... tory.shtml

Rory Best incident here below. It didn't go in front of the commission as deemed not intentional


Clermont player gets 7 weeks for this, thanks to the players very clean record (Commission agreed the gesture wasn't intentional)



I myself, believe that the French tend to exaggerate the unfairness, but that it is still present. Still can't understand how saying sorry takes weeks off your sanction. These commissions are also held in English which is understandable of course, but this does affect the way a defending French/Argentinian/Italian player can expresses themselves.

The judiciary is broken and inconsistent. In other news, water is wet and night follows day.

cashead wrote:The judiciary is broken and inconsistent. In other news, water is wet and night follows day.

Yeah, I don't think this is either news or evidence that the French are being systematically picked on. I think the random wheel of discipline happened to end up pointing to a ban for Falgoux, while another spin ended up with Best being let off.

Puja

Puja wrote:

cashead wrote:The judiciary is broken and inconsistent. In other news, water is wet and night follows day.

Yeah, I don't think this is either news or evidence that the French are being systematically picked on. I think the random wheel of discipline happened to end up pointing to a ban for Falgoux, while another spin ended up with Best being let off.

Puja

The wheel of discipline rarely points positively for the French though.

Adder wrote:

Puja wrote:

cashead wrote:The judiciary is broken and inconsistent. In other news, water is wet and night follows day.

Yeah, I don't think this is either news or evidence that the French are being systematically picked on. I think the random wheel of discipline happened to end up pointing to a ban for Falgoux, while another spin ended up with Best being let off.

Puja

The wheel of discipline rarely points positively for the French though.

Shall we note Pape getting nothing for his dive? Or for that matter kneeing Heaslip last year.

Puja

Shall we note Pape getting nothing for his dive?

Has anyone been punished for that yet? he did get a warning

Or for that matter kneeing Heaslip last year.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/31487235

10 weeks , no?

SOB got a week for punching him in the Plexus during the RWC2015

BTW I'm not saying that All French are innocent, just that punishments handed to them seem to be longer.

Adder wrote:

Shall we note Pape getting nothing for his dive?

Has anyone been punished for that yet? he did get a warning

Or for that matter kneeing Heaslip last year.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/31487235

10 weeks , no?

SOB got a week for punching him in the Plexus during the RWC2015

BTW I'm not saying that All French are innocent, just that punishments handed to them seem to be longer.

Ah. Mea culpa - I could have sworn that there was a French player who got away with murder just before the RWC and I thought it was Pape, but my memory's not great at the best of times.

Puja

Huget put in an awful stamp which the French authorities decided didn't need a hearing because that would force a ban, though Ireland did similar with one of their props.

The French always come off worse with accusations of gouging and the pacific islands for roughness.

Some of the stuff happening is nonsense, first game of the season Glasgow v Connaught the ref and TMO had a discussion about a dangerously low tackle because the fly half got his knee twisted.

whatisthejava wrote:The French always come off worse with accusations of gouging and the pacific islands for roughness.

I do agree with this.

I have long held the opinion that there needs to be a global disciplinary panel set up by world rugby that all professional competitions need to be signed up to and use. That way all bans can be compared and people held accountable if there are uneven bans handed out.

As things stand IIRC the pro 12, premiership, Top 12, Euro competitions and international rugby all use different panels. It should be standardised under one group IMO.

Big D wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:The French always come off worse with accusations of gouging and the pacific islands for roughness.

I do agree with this.

I have long held the opinion that there needs to be a global disciplinary panel set up by world rugby that all professional competitions need to be signed up to and use. That way all bans can be compared and people held accountable if there are uneven bans handed out.

As things stand IIRC the pro 12, premiership, Top 12, Euro competitions and international rugby all use different panels. It should be standardised under one group IMO.

I still don't think the would fix anything , look at the nonsense we ha at the WC where Ford and JG were cited for a dangerous tackle, banned even though the ref thought there was nothing in it and then the appeal was 2 days before the game, it was a complete joke of a situation caused by some very stringent reading of the rules by people unqualified.

You also have to look at Hartleys red card and no that he was banned with the specific goal of being available for England

whatisthejava wrote:

Big D wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:The French always come off worse with accusations of gouging and the pacific islands for roughness.

I do agree with this.

I have long held the opinion that there needs to be a global disciplinary panel set up by world rugby that all professional competitions need to be signed up to and use. That way all bans can be compared and people held accountable if there are uneven bans handed out.

As things stand IIRC the pro 12, premiership, Top 12, Euro competitions and international rugby all use different panels. It should be standardised under one group IMO.

I still don't think the would fix anything , look at the nonsense we ha at the WC where Ford and JG were cited for a dangerous tackle, banned even though the ref thought there was nothing in it and then the appeal was 2 days before the game, it was a complete joke of a situation caused by some very stringent reading of the rules by people unqualified.

You also have to look at Hartleys red card and no that he was banned with the specific goal of being available for England

I think it would help if set up correctly. The Gray/Ford thing was a nonsense.

An independent global panel (set up correctly say 2 ex players and a lawyer or whatever) could have NZ/Oz/Argentinian people sitting in making the decisions so in theory player suspensions wouldn't be made so player x was available for country y. If they were then questions could be asked about fairness. As things stand in domestic league rugby the RFU, PRO 12, TOP12, Super Rugby don't need to worry about being consistent with each other and can pretty much hand out what ever length bans suits their agenda at the time. I am not even sure what power world rugby have to hold them accountable.

Big D wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:

Big D wrote:
I do agree with this.

I have long held the opinion that there needs to be a global disciplinary panel set up by world rugby that all professional competitions need to be signed up to and use. That way all bans can be compared and people held accountable if there are uneven bans handed out.

As things stand IIRC the pro 12, premiership, Top 12, Euro competitions and international rugby all use different panels. It should be standardised under one group IMO.

I still don't think the would fix anything , look at the nonsense we ha at the WC where Ford and JG were cited for a dangerous tackle, banned even though the ref thought there was nothing in it and then the appeal was 2 days before the game, it was a complete joke of a situation caused by some very stringent reading of the rules by people unqualified.

You also have to look at Hartleys red card and no that he was banned with the specific goal of being available for England

I think it would help if set up correctly. The Gray/Ford thing was a nonsense.

An independent global panel (set up correctly say 2 ex players and a lawyer or whatever) could have NZ/Oz/Argentinian people sitting in making the decisions so in theory player suspensions wouldn't be made so player x was available for country y. If they were then questions could be asked about fairness. As things stand in domestic league rugby the RFU, PRO 12, TOP12, Super Rugby don't need to worry about being consistent with each other and can pretty much hand out what ever length bans suits their agenda at the time. I am not even sure what power world rugby have to hold them accountable.

Occasionally WR ask for clarification whenever something weird or clearly not quite right but you never hear if anything happens after that

whatisthejava wrote:I still don't think the would fix anything , look at the nonsense we ha at the WC where Ford and JG were cited for a dangerous tackle, banned even though the ref thought there was nothing in it and then the appeal was 2 days before the game, it was a complete joke of a situation caused by some very stringent reading of the rules by people unqualified.

You also have to look at Hartleys red card and no that he was banned with the specific goal of being available for England

I don't think anyone defends the Gray/Ford thing; but the Hartley one is tin-foil-hat time.
Why would the Welsh and Scottich (IIRC) disciplinary panel be so interested in making Hartley available for england? and why is a conspiracy needed to come up with the punishment that basically everyone (who'd read WR guidelines) actually expected?

I don't really suspect that Scottish officials are always looking for the best result for Scotland but bans for high profile players that are not called Chris Ashton seem to always be well timed so they don't lose international game time.

Hartley is an interesting case because after 60 weeks of bans , im surprised there isn't a multiplier for repeat offenders.

If I smacked someone like that in the street after punching, biting and gouching someone I would end up with much more than 6 weeks in the clink

I seem to remember Hartley missing a RWC and a Lions tour because if his indisciplin - which rather count against a conspiracy.
You may be surprised that there isn't a multiplier, and you'd be far from alone in thinking there should be - but until there is one, we can't be too surprised when it's not applied.
Just about everything that happens on a rugby pitch would land people in real trouble if carried out on the street. It's never been relevant (even though several [including myself] wouldn't have minded the cops getting involved against Callum Clarke, Duncan McCrae or that Argentine who "tackled" the ref in Italy recently)

Thé fact is it has been that way for decades...

There are 3 fundamental problems. First is a lack of independence. It is plain wrong that an Irish panel can decide whether an Ulster player receives a ban which would affect the national team. Second is a lack of consistency. Whilst some argue that that comes from the first problem, it is an inherent difficulty with having amateurs involved at every level of the citing process. The decision to cite seems largely press driven rather than a proper evaluation of what occurred in the game. The panels pay little to no regard to what's gone before - ok I know that not everyone has a common law system but still - and arbitrarily seem to decide not to apply the sanctions set out. Finally there are insuficient appeals.

Id add that you second point is exacerbated by the use of different panels for different competitions. Its a recipe for a lack of consistency.

I also find it baffling that previous offences are not automatically considered.

Which Tyler wrote:I seem to remember Hartley missing a RWC and a Lions tour because if his indisciplin - which rather count against a conspiracy.
You may be surprised that there isn't a multiplier, and you'd be far from alone in thinking there should be - but until there is one, we can't be too surprised when it's not applied.
Just about everything that happens on a rugby pitch would land people in real trouble if carried out on the street. It's never been relevant (even though several [including myself] wouldn't have minded the cops getting involved against Callum Clarke, Duncan McCrae or that Argentine who "tackled" the ref in Italy recently)

It really does have to be pretty serious for the police to get involved, but it has happened on occasion.