Suspended: Rob Simmons
Related links
Teams
Also see
Australia lock Rob Simmons has been given an eight-week ban after being cited for a dangerous tackle during last Saturday's Test against France.
Simmons was suspended by the Six Nations, which oversees disciplinary issues during the November Tests, after being cited for a tip tackle on France openside flanker Yannick Nyanga.
He will miss Saturday's Test against England at Twickenham, as well as the games against Italy and Wales on the final two weekends of the tour. He is free to return to action on February 25.
A statement released on Wednesday by the Six Nations says a ban of fourteen weeks was reduced to eight because of mitigation, including Simmons' exemplary previous disciplinary record.
Comments
Ramage says...
Lol georgesmith has rushed to the defence of one ohf his golden boys R.Simmons the player he is always asking to be picked to replace that horrible old man N Sharpe. The IRB according to expert george are biased and R Simmons did not mean it but put the player down gently and to boot the French player wasnt injured lol. If that was truly the case then Simmons would not have received such a ban. Simmons who was on the field for a minute at most could not control himself and in a red mist slammed the French player into the ground. This lack of personal self control is the reason he was given such a penalty and the reason he is not a first choice player for the team. So despite your misplaced trust georgesmith it shows once again your poor judgement.
In regards to Adam Thompson I hope the IRB do revisit his case it is an extremely light penalty and to me it is no different to the Crown appealing a judicial decision they are not happy with. I believe it was more than just a tap on the head but whilst it wasnt a stamping it was totally unacceptable and a message must be given. I hope it is revisited a nd a longer period given so that he cant be selected on this tour again. However if he is cleared and the one week stands then he does have the right to play again just as Higgenbotham does having served his term.
Posted 10:32 18th November 2012
Wallaroo says...
@Trader2, fair enough mate. As long as one can say hand on heart that if the same had been done to one of their players and they would have expected the same then the call is right. Neither were teams I directly support, although NZ would always be my preferred choice, if it had been a Wallaby I'd have liked 4 weeks.
In Simmos case if had been a Wallaby that was spear tackled like that and the perpetrator had not owned up I'd have called for a minimum of 9 weeks, hence my call.
Although our measure of punishment is different I think we're on the same page in respect to the punishment being rewarded consistent with expectation.
Posted 15:46 16th November 2012
georgesmith says...
A very biased decision. R. Simmons did not mean it. It's rugby. He did put the player down gently. 1 week would have been sufficient. The main thing is that the French number seven did not sustain any injury.
Posted 08:12 16th November 2012
Trader2 says...
Wallaroo
I agree clearly it was dangerous but I do not agree that it was intentional, the ball was there and the intention was to rake it back, this has nothing to do with parochialism. Obviously the judiciary agreed with me on this point, hence the sentence, 2 weeks for the offence minus 1 week for the yellow which is, as previously stated far too light. It comes down to intention and I just do not think Thomson saw the head and said "righto I am going to stamp on this". If he had been a dirty or violent player it may have been a different story but he is not.
Posted 23:22 15th November 2012
Wallaroo says...
@Trader2 - I'll go with 4 weeks then but please don't make out it wasn't dangerous or unintentional, footage clearly indicates it was. Anyway more to the point these bans are in place to reduce the number of incidents and based on worst case scenario. So consider this, what would have happened if Thompson had slipped forward while "resting" his foot on Strokosch head. Not just stupidity or a bit of horseplay hey bro.
The fact that there has been such an outcry against this from supporters around the world must tell you something.
Bottom-line Trader2 is to be honest with yourself and take the "parochial" viewpoint out of the equation. View it as if the perpetrator was from another country and the recipient of the fool play was a countryman, honestly you'll see it completely differently; that's why I think Simmo deserves 9 weeks at a minimum because if was against a Wallaby player, I would have expected at least a 9 week ban, had he manned up in the game then 6 weeks would have sufficed. 50% extra for cowardliness.
Posted 15:04 15th November 2012
APV1 says...
@ Ramage - we all know you're right regarding the Kiwi Conspiricy. But you failed to mention that a grasp of facts and a knowledge of rugby are discouraged when posting on these threads. For Goodness' sake, man!
@ fattysock - Hear! Hear!
Posted 14:52 15th November 2012
Trader2 says...
@Trinats
Well that is something else you have no knowledge about, sports injuries and judiciary guidelines. 14 weeks (your recommendation) for a tap on the head as against 8 weeks for driving a player into the turf head first. (yes I know slight exageration in this case) You just cannot have that brain of yours engage your mouth can you Trinats, then again maybe it does.
@Wallaroo
Now come on mate look at the two incidents, Thomson rested his foot on the head and that was it, as previously stated I agree he got off lightly and I thought 2 weeks would have been deserved just for stupidity, but thought he might get 4, so he was lucky. I guess the judiciary saw it as I did, it was not dangerous and that is one of the most important cosiderations used in these issues. The stomping and stamping that some emotive readers are going on about is just not correct, however if it makes them feel better about life well go for it.
Posted 13:10 15th November 2012
APV1 says...
AaronC says, "The whole citing process seems like a lottery and is terribly inconsistent."
Hear! Hear!
Posted 11:08 15th November 2012
Trinats2 says...
8 week ban, free to return to action on February 25 ??? When does the ban start !!! or is there a break for xmas ???
Also have to ask what year on Feb 25 !!! it is the IRB after all !!!!
Posted 10:34 15th November 2012
fattysock says...
Kind of off topic, but with regards to the whole "they didn't get his number" thing, doesn't that just take the p!ss a bit?
It's admitting that they KNOW someone did something wrong. Something worth a red card... but because the person who did it won't own up, then they get away with it?
How about this as a solution. In cases like this, where the ref got a clear view of the incident, but wasn't sure who it was, then the captain is sent off unless the guilty player owns up? It's not fair on the wronged party (i.e. France) that no one got sent off when a red card offence was committed, and seen by the refs?
Posted 10:29 15th November 2012
ferdie says...
Complain to the IRB then. Consider this first:
In its decision, the IRB judicial officer deemed Simmons's tackle to be at the "high end" of the scale, so gave an entry point of 12 weeks. Two weeks was added as a "deterrent" before six weeks was taken off the penalty for Simmons's "exemplary previous disciplinary record".
Posted 09:27 15th November 2012
Ramage says...
Ons in to give their opiniomnce again everyone rushes in to give their opinion based on what they believe they saw and what they believe should happen or not happen. Based usually ion what nationality you are. Or you wade in and try to make a point by comparing it with some other offence.
The problem with these post is that none of the writers have sat in on the hearing listened to the facts heard the arguments. In fact many have never even sat on these judiciaries and wouldnt know how these sessions are conducted. Yet they still feel they have all the facts based on what they believe they saw and their own biased point of view. Reminds me of all the criticism of our judges who have years of legal training but of coure=se we always know better.
To me it seems harsh and yes the penalty of Thompson seems light but having sat on a judiciary I know that not being on that bodythat heard Simmons case i dont have all the facts. Of course Thompson was let off because he was a kiwi. However. if you listen to the Saffas, if Simmons got that sentence 8 weeks then if he was a Saffa he would have got 16 weeks. We know this because the Judiciary is in the hands of kiwis and thus the bans that have been delivered.
Reminds me of that decision a number of years ago when one player admitted to being an Aussie. I decided then and there that his penalty would be doubled and this was unanimously agreed to by the rest of the panel. Trinuts I really enjoyed watching his forlorn look when he was told he would be stood down for all games starting on a certain date and ending on a certain date which meant 16 games but had there been any midweek games he would have missed more. So Trinuts we are all corrupt but really an OZ and Queenslander at that throwing out charges of corruption at other is really quite laughable.
Posted 09:01 15th November 2012
ferdie says...
scrumpoacher - harsh? - if their starting point for this particular offence was 14 weeks as the article states, then having it reduced to just 8 is less than harsh.
If this is the current rule/penalty for this offence, quite a warning to other players/teams.
Posted 07:44 15th November 2012
MaxPower says...
does it seem like...if you hurt a top team you get whacked if it's just little old scotland, well a weeks enough?
Posted 05:42 15th November 2012
MaxPower says...
but thompson only gets one? just proves that judiciaries are inconsistent all over the world...
Posted 05:22 15th November 2012
paulynz says...
His mum (georgesmith) will be furious!!
Posted 04:29 15th November 2012
bigb6969 says...
Didn't a French player do a worse spear tackle in this game ? Simmons may have been a bit unlucky to get so much. The player landed on his back, the hurt came from Simmons landing on his chest.
Posted 03:32 15th November 2012
Sharkies says...
And the Springboks are dirty ..... look at how you whined about a non contact head butt. That was done with intent, 8 weeks is not enough.
Posted 00:44 15th November 2012
Cdn_content says...
Wow
Posted 00:35 15th November 2012
ferdie says...
still think he deserves an award for standing and looking so innocently 'it wasn't me' as ref and asst refs were admitting they didn't get his number.
Article mentions 14 weeks - is this the new starting point for these tackles? If so, and getting six weeks off for no previous record, then he's almost fortunate in the circumstances. He would have been red-carded if they had the number, wouldn't have helped the Qantas Wallabies - France may have hit 50.
If these big penalties continue - fair enough, as long as they are consistent it's quite a warning to teams and players.
Posted 23:42 14th November 2012