Centre of controversy: Adam Thomson
The International Rugby Board has confirmed that it will appeal what it strongly believes to be an "unduly lenient sanction" handed down to All Blacks flank Adam Thomson for stamping or trampling on the head of an opponent.
Thomson was suspended for one week after Independent Judicial Officer Jean Noel Couraud upheld the citing complaint for an alleged act of illegal and/or foul play contrary to Law 10.4(b) during the Scotland versus New Zealand match on November 11, 2012. The hearing process was run under the auspices of the Six Nations Committee.
"As custodians of Rugby worldwide, the IRB has a duty to protect its image, values and integrity together with the welfare of players at all levels in order that the sport can continue its unprecedented growth and welcome more men, women and children to the Rugby family," read on IRB statement on Wednesday.
"At the very heart of this mission is the universal application of the disciplinary process as set out in Regulation 17. This IRB Disciplinary regulation is intended to protect all players and the Game through the strict application of a sanctioning regime that acts as a strong deterrent against acts of foul play.
"This stance was reaffirmed by leading international players, coaches, referees and administrators attending the IRB Morality Conference in London in March this year who unanimously agreed that a tough and consistent stance on discipline is key to Rugby's integrity.
"After careful consideration and having reviewed the full written decision in the Thomson case well within the permitted 72 hours of receipt, the IRB strongly believes that the sanction of one week is unduly lenient for this particular act of foul play and not aligned with the sanctions handed down in similar cases.
"The IRB firmly believes it is in the best interests of the Game and its integrity to exercise its ability to appeal the Thomson decision. The right of appeal by the IRB (in defined circumstances) and for Host Unions and tournament organisers was introduced into the revised Regulation 17 effective on June 1 this year to uphold the integrity of the disciplinary process in appropriate cases."
Comments
new_j4a says...
@rugbylover says..." I wonder if the word starting with 'h' & ending with 'd' will get me bounced" Huh?
Posted 07:20 24th November 2012
hellovanite says...
He hardly touched the guy, tall poppy witch hunt?..... yawn
Posted 23:36 23rd November 2012
ferdie says...
maybe over at last and back to the rugby:
"IRB claimed the sentence was too lenient - but lost the appeal, with the committee finding the initial judgement of a two-week suspension to be in line with the recommendations laid down by the governing body. The committee agreed the act had been entry level, but they upheld the IRB's contention that the initial sentence should not have been cut in half - therefore meaning that Thomson's ban was extended to two weeks.
The All Blacks had withdrawn him for selection for both the tests against Italy and Wales meaning the 30-year-old is able, if required to play against England."
Posted 23:12 23rd November 2012
Trader2 says...
tha_mai
I don't think he was enraged, he was just p....d
Posted 12:35 23rd November 2012
bigb6969 says...
"As custodians of Rugby worldwide, the IRB has a duty to protect its image, values and integrity"
Well said Kevin Gosper - so when the Judiciary said Greyling was just reckless in cleaning out at a ruck - the absolute absurdity of this statement did not prompt you to review Greylings one match review.? Smacks of Northern Hemisphere bullying or jealously of the All Blacks.
Appropriate and Australian setting up a Kangaroo court
Posted 06:25 23rd November 2012
tha_mai says...
suggest the Australian Gosper's enraged Tweet was prompted not by Thomson's suspension, but in response to Simmons' suspension and bleaty little whines from ARU. If the second had not occurred, the Thomson topic would be dead by now.
Posted 04:38 23rd November 2012
ruckingkiwi says...
thermyan,
I don't understand what you're saying. I'd like to imagine if someone turned someones face into a jelly sandwich then they would be banned for a very long time. The Thompson incident is no way comparable to a "jelly sandwich"...
And talking of kids, have you played recently or seen kids play.. rucking, finger bending, biting, ear pulling, the occasional gouge, pinching, pulling, stomping and whatever goes on far more than what they'd ever learn on TV, amateur rugby players could teach the professionals a few tasty tricks about playing dirty, don't worry about that.
Posted 23:53 22nd November 2012
rugbylover says...
Apropos the poisonous S Jones, & his blind emotion [obsession?] with the AB's, I wonder if the word starting with 'h' & ending with 'd' will get me bounced
Posted 22:08 22nd November 2012
rugbylover says...
Sorry guys - and yes I may still be bouncing. The essential elements of assault are (a) Intent by the perpetrator & (b) lack of consent by the victim. The quantum of force [direct or indirect] is irrelevant. In rugby - where extraordinary force is used all the time - the element of consent is (generally) deemed to negate any charge of assault. No more - this is a rugby website. Thomson intentionally assaulted Strokosh& was punished, Adequately or not is the issue. Bitter vindictive creatures like S Jones really have no place in rugby circles. Dear old JBG Thomas was at least a gent. Mr Reason (Snr) loved the game. Mr Jones does not appear to like anyone - especially All Blacks.
Posted 22:00 22nd November 2012
kennyisgay says...
correct trinuts, slightly older than you lass.
Posted 20:19 22nd November 2012
pog_mahone says...
@kennyisgay - I know, and there is no answer to that.
@kiwilad - I apologize I just love winding those lunatics up.
@StunTheMullet - you can talk.
Posted 18:28 22nd November 2012
jontheref says...
markpat
Excellent comments.
The way some defenders of the indefensible are dredging up their version of the one eyed past, are commenting, a breathe of sanity.
APV1
you are right about the iRB being in a cleft stick over this.
Should not need to act if done properly first time, but showing they listen to public opinion.
Again, your comments are sensible, unlike some of the aforementioned indefensible defenders.
IMO, the ban should have been longer, but can I have his barrister if I ever need one!
Well worth his fee!
Posted 17:09 22nd November 2012
Trader2 says...
APV1
I don't think there is anyone would say what was done was acceptable and that a ban (however short or long) was appropriate and I have already commented on this. However I remain a little disturbed that the IRB would pander to public opinion, surely thats as bad reacting to media pressure, just look at the "public opinion" you get on this site. They have a system in place, ableit one that needs to be overhauled, but to appeal their own rulings seems a little twisted to me.
Also old chap while I hate picking up a wordsmith like yourself, it's Thomson not Thompson, the condemmed man should have that right in his obituary.
Posted 13:58 22nd November 2012
new_j4a says...
@APV1, Are there not degrees of acceptability? While I would rather not see even this mild "assault" just because kids will copy it clumsily and someone get hurt....I think that the 1 week ban is about right....just my 2p worth.
Posted 13:54 22nd November 2012
makemehappy says...
@WTF123 - I find it laughable that you can't use logic. We know that there was no injury. We can see the force was minimal. We can see that cap is struck. Can you please explain how there could have been an injury?
Don't bother by say 'if.....' that didn't happen!
Posted 13:20 22nd November 2012
Trader2 says...
There are two ways you can go here. If you believe Thomson with malice of forethought set out to maim, injure or damage his opponent then the book should be thrown at him. On the other hand if you believe it was a stupid careless act in an attempt to free the ball then he should get four weeks, minus one for the yellow and one for his good record. I am attempting to be objective here as I hate acts of thuggery aimed at a players heads, that is cowardly and there has been too much of it of late. I am comfortable with my view and suspect that even Gospers Kangaroo (is that a pun) court will see it that way.
Posted 13:11 22nd November 2012
APV1 says...
Is there anyone who thinks what Thompson did was acceptable? If so, please explain that to me.
We all debate the length of the ban, but we all seem to agree that a ban was appropriate.
The IRB are reacting to media pressure. One one hand it shows them to be rubbish and useless - why wasn't it correct in the first place? On the other, it shows that they take note of public opinion, consider the issues and address them if necessary.
Not many people felt that 1 week was right. So they're reviewing it. I'm not usually one to support the IRB, but on this I think they're doing the right thing.
We all know that the lack of consistency is the big issue. We can all cite examples of poor decisions going both ways - too harsh, or not harsh enough.
But to keep dredging up old cases isn't going to help. We want the IRB to be progressive and perhaps this is the next step in that.
@ Chubbylugs - Hear! Hear!
markpat summed it up perfectly:
"...there is no conspiracy against certain teams, just rubbish disciplinary decisions."
Posted 13:05 22nd November 2012
new_j4a says...
@rugbylover says..."an assault is defined as the intentional application of force.......... (no matter how small) as someone said - is there a soft head butt?" Nonsense! In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction .....tell us what change the "victim's head" experienced. By your definition, every time I "slap" my son heartily on the back to congratulate him on scoring the winning try, I have committed an "assault" and some H&S do gooder (like yourself?) should call child services??? And if you really want the question "is there a soft head butt" answered, ask your missus; she'll either enlighten you or wish she was in a position to do so.
Posted 12:02 22nd November 2012
davodiablo says...
Despite most Kiwis agreeing the ban should've been longer , fiction writer Stephen Jones will somehow claim victory here. God knows he needs a win . Still laughing after he predicted NH dominance after Englands 2003 WC victory .
Anyway this kind of kills off the conspiracy theories about Kiwis influence at the I.R.B.
Posted 11:27 22nd November 2012
carpelone says...
rugbylover
You are still bouncing.
Posted 11:16 22nd November 2012