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
ferdie says...
was Gosper drunk when he sent that Twiiter re a review, shooting off at the mouth in a little tantrum in repsonse to Simmons' ban?
Scouring the IRB site and their many news releases there is nil mention of any proposed judicial/disciplinary review process.
There has been no media release/word from IRB on any future review.
There is this from Gosper on Twitter : "The IRB will review this case as it is a match under our jurisdiction," tweeted Gosper. "If we decide to take action we will make it public."
Nothing since - he has gone quiet.The IRB have never mentioned any such review. Getting a bit late now in Thompson's case the one week ban has expired.
Has he made a fool of himself here speaking on Twitter without support of the IRB? There has been absoluitely no statement from either Gosper/IRB officials subsequent to that one line Twitter statement.
I would support any such review in the hope there is more consistency in the process. But it appears this will not happen in the near future.
Neither did the Qantas Wallabies go ahead with their appeal re Simmons. What happened?
____
Got this from the Irish Independent, a predursor to troube in the referreeing ranks? Bring back Paddy!
Last week, at the Lensbury club in London, the referees for this November series had their first collective sit-down with Joel Jutge, who in August succeeded Paddy O'Brien as the IRB refs' manager. Seemingly, Jutge came across as a boss who didn't want to hear why refs weren't toeing the party line, rather he wanted them to understand and implement it. He'll know what he's dealing with by the end of the month.
Posted 23:39 18th November 2012
Kije says...
Lot of valid comments here, but the debate rages mainly because the IRB has failed to show clear leadership regarding discipline. Whatever the punishment for a particular offence, consistency is an absolute must.
Posted 23:23 18th November 2012
Smash40 says...
@rugbyphile
NZ is ranked 4th in the OECD for literacy/numeracy/science skills. Higher than the UK and Aus.
:)
Posted 23:16 17th November 2012
7ton says...
APV1
Yes and in many cases we could extend your question to Newspapers, television and the media in general from all parts of the world
Posted 11:18 17th November 2012
kitch says...
mukachua
and was greylings 2 weeks fair??...for a repeat offender!!
Posted 18:06 16th November 2012
APV1 says...
@ 7ton - I've asked it before and I'll ask it again. When have facts and accurate information been a pre-requisite for posting on this site..?!
;-)
Posted 17:00 16th November 2012
7ton says...
APV1
Good point and I agree. IMO their needs to be more consistency.
However to be fair without us being able to sit in and get the full details of the hearing and all the video evidence and statements from culprit and victim it can be hard for us to judge the actual citing officers and judges.
Posted 14:52 16th November 2012
7ton says...
latin
Would you like to explain to us why greyling got only 2 weeks.
Also how the laws changed after the 2005 Lions tour in regards to lifting a player and putting him down safely.
Then you may be taken seriously.
As for thompson Yes he should have got more
Posted 10:21 16th November 2012
APV1 says...
There are many posters, from all points of view, who seem to lack basic comprehension skills. By citing other examples, which have been treated more or less favourably, you are proving the point of the article:
That there needs to be more consistency.
Is there anyone reading this who thinks that the current system is fine? If so, please justify your reasons, as I cannot agree but would be interested in reading your point of view.
I don't mean examples of individual sanctions being appropriate, I mean that you believe the system is not flawed and inconsistent.
Currently I believe that sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're too lenient, sometimes they're too harsh. And that, my friends, is inconsistency personified.
So now the rest of us can just sit back, for once in agreement with each other.
Makes a nice change, doesn't it?
Posted 09:59 16th November 2012
jamesliveinhope says...
Is it not fair to say thay the IRB will show greater consistency when the incidents become more consistent.
PR have listed a whole host of tip tackle incidents yet the one (that I have seen) that is closest in image to the Simmons one is Brad Davies, and his ban was similar.
The Thomson incident can't be compared because it was a completely different type of play. Whilst I agree that boot to head should be a straight red, regardless of circumstance, most posters on here seem to agree that, whilst the play was reckless, the head part appeared to have been an accident.
There was a lot of trip talked about Dylan Hartley's earlier this year but, having read the (several pages of report), it would appear that foul play as self-defence was attempted to be used as a defence and Ferris's evidence as to how his finger came to be in Hartley's mouth was stated as being a little vague. That was also combined with a player saying that his finger was bloodied and bruised which contradicted the Irish medics version who said that the skin had not been broken.
What we see on TV, even in replay, is only a very small part of the evidence received in citing hearings, expensive lawyers are frequently involved too.
We should also compare the rugby (both codes) system with other sports - Football for example appears to rely exclusively on the refereeing team for these decisions with very rare instances (usually violent conduct) actually making it to any external disciplinary board.
Personally, I think that the present system is about right, we just need to understand that the game is tough and the line between fair confrontation and foul play as pretty blurred.
Posted 08:14 16th November 2012
nzmaoriboy says...
Dude should have been banned longer for the poor execution! having been stomped (& dished out stomps) it was a pretty average effort. Even Strokosch Defended Thompson in an after-match interview (you can see him chatting with Thompson after the game). Definitely do not condone the act! but in the heat of battle things happens! many people that have played first class rugby would understand this. Think our "PC" nation have just become far too powerful in this later age. You couldn't even smash someone in a game legitimately without offending a thousand do-gooders. I watch and play rugby for the pure physical aspect and challenge involved with playing it. Hopefully pervading "soft" views will not change what a lot of people like about it. There will always be dumb/foul acts carried out in rugby..but this is pretty much determined by the individual..which you cannot legislate for! there does need to be a few tweeks with the judicial process...but that is all.
Posted 07:56 16th November 2012
hayj05 says...
@Mukachua - Do you forget what Greyling did to McCaw just a few months ago?
Clearly a lot worse than what Thompson did & he recieved exactly the same ban in terms of games... So shut your mouth!
For the record this is what Strokosch came out & said on twitter - "Also I don't think there was any malicious intent by Adam Thomson, there isn't even a mark and hopefully his yellow will be the end of it."
Thompson to Strokosch - " Strokosch is a credit to his country and team. Apologies again and all the best mate. Hope to see you around.
Did Greyling apologise to McCaw? Nope... That was left to headmaster Meyer.
Posted 07:36 16th November 2012
hayj05 says...
@rugbyphile - You obviously don't live in NZ & you clearly have no idea what it's like to live in NZ.
"(if you have any doubt on that read the posts here)" That's quite a laugh considering the unrelated & ignorant vile you just spewed out.
What country are you from mate? I've never lived there but apparently I know exactly what it's like.
Grow up & respond to the article or comments... not your deep seated jealousy.
Posted 06:57 16th November 2012
bigb6969 says...
"with British fans still infuriated at the lack of justice against Keven Mealamu and Tana Umaga in 2005"
Once again - they cleaned O'Driscoll out of a ruck, and yes I think it was reckless, but this action happened all the time back then. What they fail to mention is the law regarding tip tackles or specifically making it illegal to pick a player and not bring them to ground safely was introduced the following year !!
So there you have the special treatment of the All Blacks, and All Black does something, immediately a law introduced to specifically out law it (as it happens it is a good rule). And here with Thompson, it is perceived an AB got off lightly, now suddenly it is time for the IRB to review the decision ??? Where was their action, outrage and review then Greyling superman flying elbow directly into McCaws face ? He got a one match ban. This decision with Thompson was fairly rendered , the facts of the matter put , however with Greyling the decision said he was reckless clearly out a ruck, rubbish he came in flew over the ruck to someone on his own side of the ruck on the ground, he flew right over and smashed McCaw with malice and affect, and that is obviously to everyone an interpretation of those actions as absolutely farcical.
Posted 05:35 16th November 2012
mooloonaki says...
You have to be kidding if you think that hayes and thompsons incidents are even close. Hayes had intent and had a malice when he went for healy and cut him open. Do you really think healy would have gone to the judiciary and said there wa nothing in this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoS9FmlbwnM&feature=related (Look at 2.49)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci8pxxKX3Bs
Thompsons was silly but had no malice or intent to hurt the player. You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this one.
I do agree that the suspensions are hard to fathom.
What you have to remember with Simmons is 8 weeks will only effect his end of year tour as he wont play any footy in december and January so in some ways he is only getting 3 games.
This is part of the problem. The suspensions need to be games not weeks, as per this example. Once again with simmons he like warburton didnt have there eye on the player when they tip tackled so Id suggest it was reckless and stupid rather than hayes with the intent and malice.
Posted 05:32 16th November 2012
latin says...
amazing the inconsistency and although i like watching NZ, i have no doubt they are favoured by IRB. we all getting pretty sick of that and sadly a tide of animosity is growing against them as a result. I agree that Mealamu and Umaga cases were so unfair. They deserved much more sanction. More people switching allegiance to other countries.
Posted 05:21 16th November 2012
rugbyspook88 says...
What a rubbish article. Thompson's actions were silly but certainly caused no harm and probably was never intended to. To call it stamping is like calling a push a punch. Lets get real here, if he really meant to hurt the guy, I think he had every opportunity jump on his melon. A two week ban was probably about right with consideration for his unblemished record. Contrast this with the flying forearm and head butts against McCaw in this years rugby championship and the absolutely shocking swinging forearm tackle against McCaw in the the 2010 Welsh test at Millennium Stadium and clearly there are degrees severity that need to be considered when dishing out punishments. That is why we have a judicial process that includes a defense. I would hate to see a situation where people are handed out penalties which are fixed regardless of the severity of the offense. That is not justice..
Posted 04:31 16th November 2012
missionary says...
Yes - not a bad article. Thomson - despite the lack of malicious intent, should still have copped 2 weeks. It was bloody stupid.
Simmons - that is pretty harsh and we've seen worse get less. What riles me the most is that many of the English press (sorry, British - forgot Stephen Jones who IS a moron), are carping on about this - despite some inconsistencies that have benefited them. Kev Mealamu 4 week ban was rubbish. Dylan Hartley's non-citing was pathetic, as was Andy Powells. Pretty luke warm mentions by these hacks at the time. Dan Carter's eek suspension is a complete travesty given that he has never been carded in his life - based on the bleating of the Welsh and Warren Gatland. Gatland further distanced himself from NZ because of that one.
The IRB really does need to get its house in order regarding sanctions.
Posted 02:47 16th November 2012
Ramage says...
Once you argue whether the action was intentional or not you open a can of worms and these arguments will rage. Some will be ill informed and parochial others will be calm and thoughtful. The Thompson situation, to me, is clear as he was guilty of reckless play, intentional or not. I believe that what is worrying many people is the fact that it was the head. Thompson argued his case and was successful in getting a light sentence. Should he? I believe not, but it is not up to me.The French adjudicator obviously did and he is the man who has heard the arguments and brought down such a judgement. I dont believe comparing this incident with others really helps the matter.Lets state our case on the incident involved not on Nationality or outrage because our player got a harsher sentence. IMO Thompson should have received more, enough to see he never played for the All BLacks again on this tour. The head as I've said is sancrosanct and must be protected whether the act is deliberate or not.If not there should be at least three weeks, if not then scale it up.
Finally dredgingup the tackle by Maleamu and Umaga is really quite mischievous but typical. The writer knows that the rules were different then and it was not because those players who were let off but the fact the laws did not allow them to be cited. Tthe South African adjudicator believed so. It was following this incident that the laws were tightened and yet we still find ourselves in a similar bind. I believe following the Northern tours the IRB needs to sit down seek imput from the World Rugby Unions and look at how these citings can be dealt with more fairly. I do warn however this is a judiciary and there wiull always be problems we see with any decision. All player have the right to argue their innocence and this is their right. Let's just be sure a tweet is not worth more weeks than foul play.
Posted 01:36 16th November 2012
hayj05 says...
Yip, well written piece. Really highlights just how inconsisent they are when you bring out all the comparative suspensions.
Are they not comparing the suspensions & the video footage of relative incidents? Do they not have clear guidelines for each type of incident? Are they being over influenced by the defences? Are monkeys in charge? It really is a shambles.
I honestly think any fan of Rugby could do a better job than they're doing.
And the other thing that's grinding my gears... When the Fark are they going to change the bans from "weeks" to "games"?
Surely the whole intention of a ban is based around the player missing games. If you make it "games" then the suspensions are clear cut & they don't need to work out how many weeks they need to ban them for in order to miss x amount of games.
I just cannot understand why they haven't brought it up & changed something so simple yet!
Congratulations IRB!!! On running one of the most illogical systems in sport.
Posted 00:55 16th November 2012