Rugby fans flocked to condemn the inconsistent disciplinary hearing judgements handed down to Rob Simmons and Adam Thomson this week.
Rugby has been building up to a moment like this for quite some time. Defining a fair suspension that will satisfy all parties is rare, but in the cases of Rob Simmons and Adam Thomson, the results of both hearings have been fiercely contested by both fans and media.
Simmons was originally handed a 14-week suspension by the IRB for a tip tackle of France's Yannick Nyanga. It was late, dangerous and off the ball and if the officials on the field had been able to identify Simmons as the perpetrator he may well have been sent off.
Despite having his suspension cut down by six weeks for "exemplary previous disciplinary record and his conduct at the hearing", Simmons' ban however remains at eight weeks, nearly double the average for tip-tackle bans over the past two years based on the following examples:
One week - Francois Hougaard
Two weeks - Cooper Vuna, Carl Hayman
Three weeks - Sam Warburton, Justin Tipuric
Four weeks - GJ Van Der Veize, Steve Shingler, John Afoa
Five weeks - Digby Ioane
Seven weeks - Bradley Davies
Deciding whether the Simmons tackle on Nyanga was obviously worse than any of those listed above comes down to the position of the player's head and the level of force into the ground, but when the average punishment is around four weeks, to originally hand out a suspension of more than triple that time period is hard to understand.
The recklessness of the tackle is not in doubt, purely the length of the suspension.
Tip-tackling remains an area of contention over a year after it was brought under the spotlight following Sam Warburton's sending off in the Rugby World Cup semi-final. It will continue to be examined ahead of the Lions tour next year, with British fans still infuriated at the lack of justice against Keven Mealamu and Tana Umaga.
Hours after the Simmons hearing, Adam Thomson was given a one-week ban for "stamping or trampling" on the head of Alasdair Strokosch, resulting a similar outpouring of dismay on Twitter except this time for the leniency of the punishment.
Thomson was originally sin-binned after making contact with the head of Strokosch whilst the Scot was stuck at the bottom of the ruck. It was not excessively violent, but there was contact, enough for Thomson to be punished.
With a previously unblemished disciplinary record at Test level and lawyer Owen Eastwood as part of his defence team, Thomson protested his innocence stating that the incident was "unintentional", but the footage is difficult to ignore.
His ban remains at a single week rather than falling in the two-to-nine week lower-end range normally associated with stamping bans, of which the five week ban given to John Hayes for stamping on Cian Healy's face back in 2009 is an example.
Thomson's defence was clearly effective but when you strip away the context and watch the footage, one week appears remarkably light. Any time a boot makes contact with an opponent's head, you are playing with fire.
Suspensions need to be logical and fair, which is where the case of Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu comes into the equation. The Samoan was given a three-week suspension last season for tweeting about Saracens fly-half Owen Farrell.
The balance is wrong if a player can be given a longer ban for tweeting about another player as opposed to stamping on another player's head.
By maintaining the accuracy of the judicial system, the IRB can avoid the derision of the last 24 hours and prevent situations where CEO Brett Gosper has to announce on Twitter that the sanction against Thomson is under review.
Consistency is important and the IRB have to be careful with the precedents they set.
If Simmons eight-week ban is now the benchmark, how big will the next tip-tackle punishment be? And if players know that they will only receive one or two weeks bans for stamping on players' heads, then how much more dangerous will the game become?
Questionable decisions are emerging from disciplinary hearings far too often, to the long-term detriment of the IRB and its member unions' reputations.
In this high-profile month for the sport, greater accuracy is essential.
By Ben Coles
@bencoles_
Comments
Danatthecorner says...
What on earth is this talk of "consistency" in punishments only to then compare incidents that are worlds apart? Its like comparing sentences for fraud and assault. Meaningless.
That the ban for tweeting was longer than the ban Thomson got is neither here nor there. It ignores the fact Sapolu had been warned and fined 2/3 times prior to that and it ignores the fact he threatened Farrell with physical harm.
The only thing to come from all this hand-wringing is the fact people want longer bans; when it isn't their player. The rugby can't come quick enough so we can all move-on.
Posted 00:50 16th November 2012
rugbyphile says...
The Kiwis don't have much going for them in their wet and green isolated island--poor economy-- -limited education and peasant- like jingoism (if you have any doubt on that read the posts here)--volcanoes, earthquakes--- but they are very very good at rugby. And they do enjoy unbelievable leniency from the IRB on all occasions. You would think that after the Meleamu /Umaga debacle the IRB and its officers would have resolved to change---but not so.
Posted 00:25 16th November 2012
jmanngod says...
absolutely agree that the discplinary system is shocking - especially when one considers the vile attacks on the head of Richie McCaw over the last few years (incl Rougeries vicsious attack on his eyes in RWC2011 Final). But Thompson's ban is about right. It doesn't look intentional, it doesn't look like a "stomp" AND the guys head is covering the ball. If 2 weeks is the minimum then 2 weeks he deserves. As for mitigating circumstances - if the Law allows for it that is fair enough. If anything it is those mitigating circumstances that need to be removed from the equation.
As for the Umaga / Mealamu thing... Just get a life... preferably on the right side of the ruck!
Posted 00:22 16th November 2012
StunTheMullet says...
Where were all these mouthpieces when Greyling got his 2 weeks for his flying elbow to the head? Or Higgenarse got his 2 weeks for kneeing and headbutting?
Didn't hear a peep from them either when Gougerie was going at it in the RWC final or Boofhead Hartley dropped his elbow on Sir Richies head or Boofhead Powell head highed Sir Richie.
But hey, then different standards apply to the All Blacks.
Posted 23:34 15th November 2012
Norm says...
Yeah Steven Maiden
Do yourself a favour and watch Jonesy's posts for a few articles, he will show the way to post, intelligently, insightfully and most importantly maturely and objectively!
Posted 22:36 15th November 2012
Mukachua says...
Wow,finally the rest of the world has caught on to the IRB's shenanigans, saffa fan and for years we've seen such inconsistency and general unfairness when it comes to punishment for indiscipline. I know there'll be those idiots who'll say that boks are thugs but the ABs are just as bad if not worse at times,its just that when it comes to the ABs the IRB will always treat them with kid gloves, if a bok done what thompson done I can bet my life on it that it probably would have been a ban longer than 4 weeks at least. But as always the IRB has their heads stuck way up the ABs ass that they have just effectively said its much worse to speak your mind on twitter than it is to step on someones head? 1 week for stepping on someones head, jeez I wouldn't want to be a rugby player of a ruck right now especially if NZ be the opposition
Posted 22:31 15th November 2012
mfblions says...
Thomson is one my favourite players, but he was lucky to only get a 1 week ban tho. despite his defence that it was an accident still one week is not fair compared to others. IRB has always been lenient towards New Zealand players, this in it self is not fair to other countries.
Posted 22:14 15th November 2012
rugby_phile says...
This is what I said in another post yesterday, still stand by it, but lets move on guys. Thompson is the latest cockup in a long line (Greyling, Cooper, Higginbotham, Hartley, and yes Umanga and Mealamu), they need to do something and is becoming tiresome.
"Cards on the table here. I am an AB supporter, the "tap" on the head wasn't malicious with intent to injure, there was never any danger and Thomson is not a dirty player.
BUT, it was stupid, sends out the wrong message, and most importantly INTENTIONAL. And the head is a NO-GO area!!
The ban is an absolute joke, completely inadequate and ridiculous. I hope there were no NZelanders on the judiciary, otherwise I hang my head in shame and apologise to everybody. I think a ban to take him out of the tour would have been sufficient plus a few weeks added ala Simmons (over the Christmas break) to enforce the message.
Judiciary, you limped wristed twits, you have missed a great opportunity to send out a very powerful message."
Posted 21:55 15th November 2012
Waz4before says...
Jonesy2 - just because you can post stuff on the Internet does not make it true! Check with your mom before posting stuff like his in the future ....
Posted 20:33 15th November 2012
philipjfry says...
The real winner is Thomson's solicitor.
Posted 19:54 15th November 2012
hellovanite says...
Get over it, apples and pears, and I don't mean stairs
Posted 19:53 15th November 2012
Cdn_content says...
Yeah you've got to let the bod incident go, tip tackles weren't illegal back then, I was a pretty consistent offender but have since realized the recklessness of them. I agree Simmons was doing nothing more than trying to hurt his opponent. Thomaons one week ban is laughable, good lawyer or not. This is rugby not the law, boots to the head is never acceptable and in no way was this unintentional, just maybe not thought out
Posted 19:37 15th November 2012
ShamanSheep says...
The arguments about level of danger, intentionality etc. will no doubt rage on and people will get very heated for no reason - (@jonesy2 - 'put a fist through your face'? Honestly? For writing something on an internet message board about rugby?).
I do have one question of all articles and tv coverage dealing with tip-tackles, (including any done on planet rugby) - why is the fact that a player might not have the ball consistently completely ignored? Why is it still referred to as a tackle? - the Simmons and Davies incidents were not tackles - they were off the ball, this completely changes the level of the offence in my view, but seems to be completely ignored in the media.
Posted 19:35 15th November 2012
NHsaints says...
I'm pretty sure we're over the Umaga-Mealamu thing now (Mealamu has always been a dirty player which is more infuriating) I reckon the sanction on Thompson is fair, it's not like he stamped on his head clearly intending to go for the head but he was trying to scrape the ball back and Strokosch himself said he was lay over the wrong side...Simmons on the other hand: in the context the tackle was late, intentional, a very bad tip and he didn't get sent off so the game was affected, hence I'd deem 1 week more than Bradley Davies' tackle on that irish lock very consistent as the tackles were virtually the same but davies was carded during the game...
Posted 19:24 15th November 2012
TVaddict says...
Good article, consistency is a huge problem. I always find it funny how every country feels that when they're touring they'll be treated extra harshly. I read an article on the New Zealand herald talking about how New Zealand are always over harshly treated on European tours, and that this Thompson case was so important as it represented how oppressed New Zealand is by petty losers. However a lot British people seem to view touring New Zealand as a dangerous experience, with their players able to do anything (i.e. the can of worms mentioned by DaveJ) but with our players punished for have a grumpy look. However true these things are (I don't think they're true), at the root of the problem is a lack of trust in the citing procedures and their effectiveness across different countries. It definitely needs addressing.
The different events in the article are good, but the problem is there are so many more to mention. The case that sticks out for me is Matt Stevens getting a two year ban for using recreational, NOT performance enhancing, drugs, compared to Schalk Burger getting only 8 weeks for a very obvious, and well photographed/filmed, attempt to blind someone (eye gouge). That meant taking a recreational, though illegal, drug was over 13 times worse than a deliberate act to blind another player. Does anyone else not find that ridiculous?
Posted 19:03 15th November 2012
ruckingkiwi says...
Lets be honest here, anything is possible when a lawyer is involved and it looks like the Aussies need a new one.
Posted 18:49 15th November 2012
jmanngod says...
whilst I totally agree with this article (see the rubbish that was Deon Grayling's decision) - The Thompson decision was 100% correct. It was a nothing touch of his foot, instantly removed, casuing ZERO damage or hurt, and likely unintentional. It was dealt with at the game and didn't need to go any further. 1 week was about right.
Posted 18:25 15th November 2012
kitch says...
simmons clearly hard done by compared to other tip tackles.
thompsons ..rather than going back 3 years to a similar yet totally different incident (hayes actually put a fair amount of force and intent into his stomp!..you would hardly call thompsons a stomp!!)..a fair decision compared to other more recent head incidents by repeat offenders!..
you cant compare the 2 bc theyre totally different. You can only compare the irbs decisions compared to other similar incidents... clearly they need some consistency here.
And if we are going back to past incidents then the irb needs to lengthen the time for players to be cited after a game.. ie the rougerie eye gouge clearly seen on camera but nothing done bc it fell outside a 24 hr time limit!...weak!
Posted 17:34 15th November 2012
ArmchairGeneral says...
Smv16: it's a good one. Did you read it?
Posted 17:33 15th November 2012
Tony says...
No mention of course of the constant assaults McCaw has had to put up with almost all of which have not even been cited. Higginbottom kneed him in the head couple of weeks back and then punched him and missed one game. Hayes stamp on Healy was gratuitous so fail to see its relvance to Thompson's something and nothing offence. In Strokosch's own words he barely felt anything. Doesn't make it right but this atricle is lacking bit of proportion. Two weeks would have been right in my view.
Posted 17:32 15th November 2012