I wrote yesterday about how the incoherently inconsistent disciplinary procedure has been the one true blight on this World Cup. I was really looking forward to being proved wrong after sensible and consistent sanctions were handed down to Sean O’Brien, Jonny Gray and Ross Ford.
After what must surely be one of the longest disciplinary hearings every yesterday, which saw Twitter being refreshed maniacally by the entirety of Ireland and Scotland for the duration of the afternoon, the verdicts were finally handed down at around half past eight.
And sadly, the decisions were largely met with the general bemusement and, in a lot of places, anger, that have summed up reactions to the disciplinary process in general this World Cup.
Citing decisions in #RWC2015 are so all over the shop those making decision are either bent, stupid, drunk, or a combination of all 3.
— Blood & Mud (@bloodandmud) October 13, 2015
World Rugby are using a Magic 8 Ball for their disciplinary bans
O'Brien Punch…1 week
Tuilagi just Running…3 weeks (downgraded from 5)
— Eggchasers Podcast (@RugbyPodcast) October 13, 2015
How can a sport that produces such consistent respect for its officials, have officials who have so little respect for consistency?
— Sam Roberts (@samrobertsrugby) October 13, 2015
Looking at Ford and Gray first – how can lifting a man perhaps half a foot off the ground, before accidentally – note, not deliberately – bringing him back to ground on the shoulder/neck area possibly be worthy of a three week ban, when under two weeks ago Michael Hooper was banned for just ONE WEEK for recklessly and deliberately charging into Mike Brown’s face with his shoulder?
Seriously. How anyone at World Rugby can say with a straight face that these decisions are consistent is beyond me. Ford and Gray are guilty of nothing more than poor judgement – it was not worthy of more than a yellow card.
In the same game, Ryan Wilson lashed out with his foot and was inches away from a Samoa face – an incident that was far, far more worthy of a ban than this. He received a yellow card at the time but was not cited. Three weeks for Ford and Gray, nothing for Wilson. Madness.
And as for O’Brien, well, he is a very lucky boy. One week for an aggressive punch feels very, very lenient indeed, and has only added fuel to the fire to those that thing the tier one nations are being given favourable treatment in the disciplinary process.
This is the body shot for which Sean O'Brien was given a one-week ban. Tier one: the diplomatic immunity of sport https://t.co/CCti1ocpMz
— Paul Hayward (@_PaulHayward) October 13, 2015
Intriguingly, in the overview of the verdicts, Gray and Ford were handed an entry level ban of four weeks, which was increased to five “due to the need to deter this type of dangerous foul play”. O’Brien’s ban was not increased from the entry level point of two weeks, because presumably there is no need to deter other players from punching during a game? Really?
Both bans were then reduced for their “good conduct” at the disciplinary hearings but what does that mean? They’re hardly likely to go into these hearings and behave badly, are they?
To recap: Alesana Tuilagi got a five week ban for running. Gray and Ford got a three week ban for a dangerous tackle that was very marginal, and in no way deliberate. Michael Hooper got a one week ban for deliberately and dangerously smashing Mike Brown with his shoulder. Sean O’Brien got a one week ban for a deliberate punch.
The whole thing has just been a complete mess.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Having taken part in numerous RFU disciplinary meetings as a team manager supporting my cited players I can assure you that logic, fairness, natural justice etc etc do not come into it. They were almost always Kafkaesque in the way that they were conducted and decisions were often down to the chairman’s personal prejudice. These farcical events were the reason that I finally resigned from all rugby roles that involved any contact with the RFU. I can’t imagine that the RWC panels are any different.
Really interesting comment Roy. What was your role exactly?
I’m genuinely so fed up with all this nonsense. The action on the pitch has been great but the blazers are still getting it so wrong off it.
Jamie, team manager of a county side, my run-ins were with everyone from Jeff Blackett down and took up a huge amount of my time to only achieve results that I found unfair and illogical. I resigned, in protest, on the spot at one such panel.
Agreed that it’s a complete mess. Not just the bans handed out, but the number of citings. Citings used to be fairly remarkable events, but they’re probably averaging at more than one per week at the moment. You have to wonder if the citing commissioners are on commission!
I can’t help but wondering why part lawyers are playing in this process – I hear they’re usually present at hearings. Perhaps the tier 1 nations have better ones! Not that that in any way excuses any of this.
It seems 2 conclusions can be drawn, first tier 1 team bans or reprimands are excessively lenient with tier 2 and below being made an example of, and secondly the citing process is floored – it is ok for a citing to be recommended by an official who has an apparent link to one of the offenders potential opponents but the actual hearing should be by a panel made up of independent officers who do not change except to exclude both the country whose player has been cited and the country being played at the next game.
Both Hooper and Pocock would have been banned for 4 + 2 weeks resp. if their verdicts were consistent with the Scotland and Samoa ones.
Not a Scotland fan but really feel they are being unfairly penalised.
RWC being brought into disrepute when focus should be on QF game build up.
The cynic would say that this is because Ireland (and Australia, in the case of Hooper) are more likely to produce matches which would attract big TV audiences than Scotland (or Samoa, or Namibia, or whoever) would… so World Rugby will favour those teams
And honestly, the cynical view is now the only one which makes any sense of what’s going on…
I agree that they’re likely to get bigger audiences, but I don’t think that’s really going to change if Hooper or O’Brien isn’t playing. Then again, they’re not averse to ill-though-out, short-sighted behaviour!
It is a disgrace and so inconsistent. It has all been said already so nothing to add!
I can only think that Mike has hit the nail on the head here. What other reason can there be other than to protect revenue?
After all they’ve already had the disaster of the host nation failing at the pool stage, the last thing they need is stars of the game like Hooper, Pocock or O’Brien being banned for all or much of the remainder of the tournament.
It’s not so much the bafflingly short ban for O’Brien, but the fact that:
– Bosch only got 1 week for a spear tackle that tipped his man after the pass was away and put him down head first from waist height.
– JP Pieterson’s similar spear tackle (vs Scotland) was deemed nothing more than a penalty by Owens because ‘there was no malice in it’. There was no malice in Gray and Ford’s clear out either.
– There are numerous instances of similar clear outs (some even directly in front of the referee) that go totally unpunished (e.g. http://www.glasgowwarriors.com/phpbb/download/file.php?id=233 Or https://vine.co/v/eE5hY9ni1AJ)
It’s the same as refereeing in a game, nothing is more damaging or frustrating than inconsistency.
Tried to comment the other day but my net connection failed me. I couldn’t disagree more about the Gray/Ford incident. When u first saw it on your twitter feed I felt it was deliberate and they were very lucky boys at the time. I’m not sure how it looks accidental??
Regardless, the inconsistency in punishments makes the disciplinary board look ridiculous and only further perpetuates the tier 2 nations belief that there’s 1 set of rules for them and 1 for the tier 1 teams.
The duration of the bans are farcial but funnily enough Ireland were serverly punished for O’Briens indiscretion on the pitch. Pape was really rield up after that and later in the game put in a monster hit on sexton from which he gets up gingerly rubbing his ribs, 2 minutes later Picamoles repeats the blow leading to him being extracted injured, next up Pape clears out a ruck leading to O’Connell getting injured
Object lesson don’t piss Pape off in the first minute of the game
Regarding inconsistency between tier 1 and 2 nations, if Scotland have been dealt with harshly does that make them a tier 2 side………..?
Seriously though can’t agree more with the fight for consistency. We demand it from the players and the refs – the bureaucracy needs to catch up.
So basically – if you’re going to get caught doing something make sure it’s not a rugby move gone wrong, make sure it’s just a proper pub car park type move.
Getting your tackles/running wrong = multiple week bans.
Smacking someone cos he spilt your pint = 1 week ban or even no ban if you’re twuly, ywuly sowwy….
It’s a load of bull. https://vine.co/v/eEJ1aJl1Hpa
I am a huge Scotland rugby fan and can understand all Scottish fans frustration with the bans imposed and would have wanted our best team to be playing against the Aussie’s.
However,i have been actively involved in fundraising for Stirling university rugby player Connor Hughes (see Connor’s journey,www.lindeanlore.co.uk) who is now quadriplegic.
Rugby is a tough,dangerous sport and World Rugby has a duty to reduce the possibility of serious injury through tip-tackles,shoulder charges,punches etc.
My issue is with the equitable application of the bans imposed across all matches and incidents missed.This needs to be addressed to be seen to be fair to all countries,maintain the integrity of the disiplinary process and protect all players at whatever level from serious injury.
Ally, I completely agree – that’s exactly what I was trying to get across in the article. It’s not necessarily the 3 week bans I have an issue with (although quite why Ford was cited, I’ve no idea – it was Gray’s tipping that did the damage, not him), but rather the inconsistency across the board when you look at other similar – if not worse – incidents from earlier in the tournament.
That, and the clear preferential treatment given to the bigger nations.
It’s worth noting that no damage has been reported as being done by the ‘tip tackle’. Unlike Wood or Carter’s kicks to the head, for example.
Player safety IS the most important thing… thinking Matt Hampson here, but also empathise with yr comments, including those of yr last para.
Harsh indeed. Inconsistent indeed. And let’s not also forget that Burgess only got a warning for his ‘clotheslining’ of Hooper.
I understand that Scotland were appealing the decision of 3 weeks? Even so, neither player would likely have appeared on Saturday, potentially reduced sentences notwithstanding.
Could/would not Scotland have been better off issuing a legal challenge? Or as a last resort, refusing to play & thus conceding the match, especially as Scotland are arguably almost certain to lose now anyway?
Such a measure might possibly temporarily halt the tournament, but it seems only a radical thunderbolt will stop the bias & inconsistency? And think of the fallout that WR (& Scotland of course) would come under. The press would have a field day.
Ok, so then I woke, but…. sometimes something seismic shakes some senses?