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
Isograford says...
Storm in a Tea Cup. If the Scottish player didn't think there was anything in it surely that says it all. People should take out a stop watch and see how long his foot was in contact with the back of the players headgear. It was hardly a stomp, more a tap.
Most of the uproar is because Thomson is an All Black and the European press and fans seem to delight in any misfortune they have.
Posted 19:30 21st November 2012
Softpom says...
Trial by Twitter. What has become of rugby?
Posted 19:13 21st November 2012
ruckingkiwi says...
The consistency of suspensions is all over the show, Thompson should have got longer, it wasn't malicious but it was stupid and illegal.. however, for the IRB to undermine their own judiciary system by re-opening this case is a disgrace, are they going to review all recent cases which have had light sentencing? Way to bow to pressure from a media which wants nothing more than the All Blacks to slip up. Hard to take this new IRB boss seriously. For clowns like pog_mahone, us Kiwis won't dispute the sentence, just the fact they are reviewing a decision their own system has made, I expect this to happen for every case deemed light sentencing from now on - they have set the precedent.
Posted 19:03 21st November 2012
Melkiwi says...
Well this is interesting the IRB are appeal a ruling that were created by themselves?
I have no problem with Thompson getting a longer ban (he should have got a longer ban) but for the IRB to step in like this is going to cause I a lot of issues now with the possibility of other clubs and countries asking for the IRB to review other issues.
If they new their system had some inconsistancies (it has been for some time) then why wasn't it resolved?
Just goes to show how imcompatant the IRB really are
Posted 18:55 21st November 2012
porridge_time says...
This is wrong. Not a good look for the IRB at all. Thomson in my opinion got of lightly, but the problem is the inconsistency of the body that is the problem. If you take Ezbeth ban for a headbutt that did not connect then look at the Greyling forearm smash that connected yet both receive the same ban. The IRB have crumbled to pressure from the English media.
Yes there should be a review of the judicial system, but not in this way. The should have had their review and started with a clean slate.
Posted 18:54 21st November 2012
davodiablo says...
@pog_mahone ...I'm Kiwi and totally agree with you and I suspect most others would as well .
Posted 18:38 21st November 2012
liam2me says...
Well done IRB for getting it's act together, even if it is a bit late
Posted 18:37 21st November 2012
jontheref says...
iRB are covering themselves with ridicule.
Again.
They supposedly set the guidelines, so if they officers cannot follow a set of guidelines, get rid of them, or have a professional body who do all hearings at test level.
Far comments about many of the unpunished illegal hits on Friday night.
First one on Hibbard in about minute 3 or even earlier.
Barnes did nothing.
His comment that Blue 7 was clearing out at the ruck, when he had a choke hold twisting the player backwards using his own body as fulcrum, defies belief.
It was a gooh hold for a martial arts contest.
What does Barnes watch in hisspare time?
Posted 18:11 21st November 2012
jmanngod says...
unbelievable - hypocrites for sure! Where have the IRB appeals been for the viscous attacks on R McCaw's head these last 18 months? Or the eye-gouge from Rougerie in the final? One can only hope they lose their own appeal.
@makemehappy - didn't see any dangerous Samoan tackles... just hard man! That's the way they are taught growing up in NZ.
Posted 17:55 21st November 2012
davodiablo says...
Okay make it 4 weeks . No one would disagree with a longer ban .
But I suspect we all have a list of far worse incidents that really deserved a second look way before this.
Posted 17:55 21st November 2012
carpelone says...
Etzebeth for attempting to headbutt Sharpe, two weeks (should have been none, or one for bad example).
Greyling for elbowing McCaw, two weeks (should have been eight).
Thomsom for stamping, one week (should have been four reduced to three because he has a clean record).
Where is the consistency?
Posted 17:55 21st November 2012
pog_mahone says...
Queue all the AB apologists to tell us he didn't mean it, it wasn't malicious, it was only a tap and all the assaults on McCaw through the years that went lightly punished were really were much worse.
I don't care whether it was hard or not; or malicious or not - Strokosch was helpless, his hands were trapped and he couldn't protect himself. Thompson first punched him, then sized up the best place to put his foot and applied it to Strokosch's head. For the good of the game and so that I as a coach don't have to deal with my underage players trying the same thing he has to be made an example of.
OK, Rampage, MulletStunner, JManGodcomplex, XXX_Kiwi and Kiwi_XXX do your worst.
Posted 17:54 21st November 2012
geoff332 says...
Will they also appeal the Higginbottom suspension? At best, that was as serious as Thompson's foul play (although, given you can, quite legally, ruck with your foot - it was only the contact with the head that made it foul play; I've never seen anyone successfully ruck with their knee; and, to my knowledge, headbutts are a no no). If Thompson ends up with a more severe penalty than two matches, wouldn't that be a miscarriage of justice as well?
And should Thompson's ban be extended to - say - four weeks. This then makes it the equivalent to jumping through a ruck and punching the opposition. Is that consistent?
Consistency is fine. But I don't see how this is consistency.
The cynic in me wonders why this is being raised a week or so before the ABs play England...
Posted 17:51 21st November 2012
mew2000 says...
IRB you are a joke! They are your own rules and you now have opened up a can of worms.... If the IRB think they can punish someone twice when they have followed all the rules then they have got another thing coming. Let me be blunt , thompson should hve ot 2 weeks but since he is hardly ever in trouble and he didn't stomp on his head they cut it too 1 week... We now get 2 english newspaper hacks running the game is it from MR Stephen Jones?
If I was THE NZRU I would sue the IRB for breaking there own rules, see how they like that !
Posted 17:49 21st November 2012
Tony says...
Damned hypocrites
Posted 17:31 21st November 2012
makemehappy says...
Given some extremely dangerous Samoan hits weren't punished (as far as I'm aware), and they resulted in injuries, whilst clearly breaching the rules of the game, actually, in hindsight, his punishment seems harsh!
Bottom line though - what are we doing looking at banning someone who didn't and couldn't have injured someone with what he did. A joke!
Posted 17:27 21st November 2012