With howls of derision emerging from all parts of Italy regarding the banning of their talisman and captain Sergio Parisse, and Ireland's Cian Healy appealing against his suspension for stamping, Planet Rugby takes a deeper look into the two cases to understand the need for discipline in our sport.
It's easy to look at the suspensions of both the Azzuri skipper and the Irish Prop and conclude that Parisse has been hard done by, and Healy is a rather lucky young man.
Yes if you applied 'the bar room test', then you'd conclude that off the field of play, Healy could be charged with assault and Parisse with nothing other than a cheap remark.
But look slightly deeper and a wider agenda is obvious. In a contact sport, respect for officials is absolutely paramount in order to maintain discipline on the pitch. It is the one quality that sets rugby apart from other sports, and is something that we, as players, writers and watchers, must maintain above all others.
If the disciplinary process is followed correctly and consistently then the outcome will be appropriate for the crime. This, in a nutshell, means that two cases that look similar on face value may have different outcomes despite having the same entry point under IRB Reg 17. It is difficult to compare the two cases that are highlighted. Healy's, as we understand it, had mitigating factors (clean record, English player on wrong side, etc), whereas Parisse's case had aggregating factors in terms of his record with this type of offence.
The key word there is 'if.'
Healy's stamp could have ended Dan Cole's career. It was reminiscent of Marius Bosman's stamp on Doddie Weir in the Lions tour of 97, a stamp that ended Weir's rugby life and consigned the big Scot to his farm. If you then look at Healy's obvious punch that was not cited, it's fair to conclude he's gotten off quite lightly.
Parisse on the other hand is known for his excitable pressuring of referees. He has been warned and carded before for 'backchat' and must now realise that this is not tolerable or acceptable.
His ban, whilst robbing the Six Nations of a true great of the modern game, is essential to send out the right message.
However, there is a palpable lack of evidence, and, perhaps a suggestion that the LNR and FFR are penalising Parisse for having the temerity to lead Italy to the destruction their beloved XV de France, leaving les Bleus rooted at the foot of the Championship. None of that does the game any favours, but we reiterate that the core value of on field conduct is respect, and on that measure alone, Parisse's sentence is one that should remind all players of their responsibility.
Are both bans fair and commensurate with the crime?
It is a complex issue and one that needs adjudication at the highest level. Currently, sanctions are in the hands of the relevant union if a domestic game, and with the Six Nations organising committee during a Test.
In the international season, and in the case of current international players, surely it would be appropriate for the IRB to 'referee' the disciplinary process at all levels in order that criticism of the domestic unions be avoided?
This would obviate any notion or accusation that the officials can manipulate bans for their own means (a case in point would be Manu Tuilagi's very lenient sentence last season for punching Chris Ashton, surprisingly allowing him to be available for England duties!) and it would also allow absolute consistency, remove any doubts and accusations of bias, and allow true integrity and fairness in terms of punishment and crime.
As the LNR might have said when sentencing Parisse, I rest my case!
By James While
Comments
jontheref says...
Well done PR, a good article.(Though justifying the stamp because Cole is on the wrong side is a little rich.)
Others don't think so, that is their opinion, and you will never plaese all the people all the time.
I suggested in a post on Parisse, rather toungue in cheek, that the ban also included an element for leading Italy to a win over France.
I didn't realise you had read it!
There is no consistency over citing, sentencing or appeals.
This is what frustrates us who see what happens at the grass roots level, where a player doing what Healey did would have got 8+ weeks, and Parisse a 12 month minimum ban.
melkdave, Parisse got 40 days, 10 days suspended.
Also, "So healey did get a longer ban ,and should have to boot", bit of a pun for you, considering he used the booT
Posted 08:10 26th February 2013
shrimps says...
@ Iyhel
everyone is entitled to their opinion, your opinion is very stupid though about the stamp.
Posted 20:15 25th February 2013
ironmanI441 says...
This is a touch one, but I totally agree that in a contact sport the respect of the referee must be paramount. Therefore any backchat should be an immediate march 10 back, and if it continues after a warning then show him the yellow, if it is an aggressive approach to the referee or abusive language, suspension. This isn't football, it doesn't belong. I also don't think letting the IRB rule on the suspensions during this period would be a bad idea, as imagine how much bigger in impact it would of had if the French officials suspended Parisse BEFORE the France Italy game, that would have been even more controversial. However by letting the IRB rule on domestic issues it would be calling into question the susposedly unbiased nature of the officials.
As far as Healy, I think he had his blood up, made a dumb mistake and it could have cost Cole his career. Although he was on the wrong side of the ruck, that is not up for Healy to remedy with an illegal stamp or do so in such a violent manner right on the ankle bone. It was more than just being physical and aggressive, it was an attempt to injure. Again no place, if injuries happen in the run of play, oh well, it happens, but if you are just standing there and decide to take discipline into your own hands and injure someone, then I think a month enjoying the sidelines is about right for the first time and longer if it is a subsequent offence.
Posted 11:59 25th February 2013
lacroix says...
utterly pathetic article. PR you should be shamed of yourselves for airing this gibberish.
Posted 23:04 24th February 2013
Absoloodle says...
The assault on doddie weir's knee was sickening.
Did he ever receive an apology?
Posted 21:20 24th February 2013
Iyhel says...
@munster30: please read again; just said that making justice by yourself is a way of stating that the ref is useless. And I'll stand by that.
Posted 20:53 24th February 2013
ChrisInCrete says...
In my opinion a rather dire article - it could have been covered much better.
The two offenses are not comparable. They are completely different.
Whilst one was system oriented, the other was career threatening. Just look at the video, it is scary (you cannot mitigate over the result "Cole wasn't damaged", only the intention and action).
The only conclusion one might make is that there is a problem with either a) the sentencing system, or b) the sentence awarded/selected.
I do agree that there must be a one system sentence. If you are banned at any level it covers all levels.
Posted 21:02 23rd February 2013
munster30 says...
@ Iyhel
oh grow up! every penalty is an insult to the referee??? what game are u watching?
The only thing thats' an insult to the ref is a direct verbal or physical attack on him. Rugby is a sport of 2 teams of 15 players in highly aggressive physical contact? do you expect them to consider everything they do as an insult to the ref? when your in the middle of the match you are hardly considering these things. of course if players had time to think there would be very little personal fouls in games. But thats whats makes sport great. its split second decisions. Healy clearly does not have a record of being dirty and this was taken into account in his ban. Parisse HAS a reputation for mouthing to referees, with todays' ref microphones its quiet easy to pick up, and the powers that be took this into consideration too! Enough is enough.
What was scandalous was the deferring of Healys ban for a week? Bans should start on the day of the offense or the day of the hearing? Look at AB hooker Andrew Hore being allowed to consider 2 meaningless club friendly games, he was never going to play in, as part of his suspension?
What you want is consistency in the rules. Why was Hore allowed to use the club games but Healy was not? The practically redundant ban Tuilagi got last year for assaulting Ashton for his minor push in the back, highlighted in this article is a perfect example. I think the IRFU are fully within their rights to appeal the ban on these grounds. And Hores infringement was much worse than Healys!
A great point is made in this article. Leave domestic unions out of assigning punishment and have a neutral, international panel. Simples!
PS: not condemning Tualigi for smashing Ashton!!! As an Irishman I thought he had it coming all season! Took the gloss off his swallow dive for a while
Posted 18:42 23rd February 2013
suntzu says...
A stamp is a stamp... unless it's the type that you stick to an envelope you should face sanctions for it - rucking is a different matter... Abuse of the official is not on, no proof seems to exist of it so it's Parisses' word against the refs and unfortunately in that type of situation I don't see how the player could ever get the benefit of the doubt...
Posted 16:45 23rd February 2013
Iyhel says...
Healy's stamp is at least as disrespecting if the ref as any word could be as he rather makes justice by himself than rely on the ref's authority. Plus the health threat = longer ban than Parisse IMO.
Cannot see a link between the LNR's decision (clubs, top14, completely independent and often at odds with the Federation) and the 6N match!
Posted 16:29 23rd February 2013
melkdave says...
The obvious fact is the IRB has to officate at all disaplinary meetings.Also good behaviour or mitagating circumstances should not affect the length of any ban.A ban should be a ban for its full term,full stop.As to the two offences,in reality Healy got 35 days ,cut to 21,for mitagating circumstances.Parisee got 30 days ,with no migating circumstances.So healey did get a longer ban ,and should have to bootSo no migating circumstances allowed from now on ,and players and fans will know exactly what doing certain acts will carry,atm its a lottery and thats just fair or consistent.
Posted 16:27 23rd February 2013
Chubbylugs says...
I didn't realise a player lying on the wrong side was mitigation for stamping, well not since the mid nineties anyway
Posted 15:55 23rd February 2013