Does the punishment fit the crime?

The recent Manu Tuilagi case has raised the questions of equitable treatment for all players, regardless of profile and national agenda.

With the Rugby World Cup approaching, and teams desperate to make sure their talent is available for selection, the recent Manu Tuilagi case has raised a few eyebrows in the rugby world, and has raised the question of equitable treatment for all players, regardless of player profile and national agenda.

Planet Rugby contributor James While has been looking at two such recent and very contrasting incidents that caused a lot of debate on our forums and were compared to show the inequity of the current system: the Tuilagi suspension and the tragic case of Aspatria's Alan Hedworth and Whitehaven flanker Callum Jennings, and we hope this article clarifies some of the misperceptions.

(In writing this piece, Planet Rugby are at great pains to point out that we in no way condone any form of on-field violence, including gouging or eye contact. This article based upon the available evidence and commentary. We sympathise with the plight of Alan Hedworth and wish him and his family the very best for the future.)

Reading the RFU report of Tuilagi's hearing after he was cited for punching Chris Ashton, and the mitigation used by the representatives of young Manu, combined with the hitherto unprecedented level of 'committee level' involvement to secure his resident's visa, one has to wonder just what lengths the authorities will go to keep Tuilagi available for the RWC.

After all, they've already pressured (as many employers do, and albeit it through the correct channels), the Home Office for a very exceptional exemption to allow Tuilagi to stay in the UK, effectively condoning the player's palpable abuse of the Immigration system. All involved knew of this issue way before, as did England Rugby, electing to only select Tuilagi for home age group internationals in a four year period.

In his report, the RFU's Jeff Blackett stated: “The Player (Tuilagi) comes from a Samoan family with a culture of honesty, discipline and hard work. He is a committed, physical and very skilful rugby player, but has a very good record with no offences recorded against him. He has played for England at U16, U18 and Saxons level and has been selected for the U20 7s tournament in Glasgow and for this year's Churchill Cup. He is clearly a very good prospect for the future at Leicester and with England. He added that this was the biggest game of his career – a local derby and the semi-final of the Aviva Premiership – and he certainly over reacted.”

The cynics are suggesting that the authorities have been guilty of manipulation many times before, notably in 2000 with the farcical non-suspension (due to appeal) of Martin Johnson, when his uppercut left Scotland hooker Robbie Russell sporting six stitches and a closed eye. It was ironic (and possibly fitting) that Johnson was suspended later that season for the offence and missed the Grand Slam decider against Scotland, which England lost.

However, many employers find themselves in this position and it is hardly unheard of for employers to support employees that may have slipped through the net and into (effectively) illegal employment. Indeed the RFU went on record as saying “We fully supported Leicester Tigers' application to the Home Office and we are delighted that Manu has been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Manu's secondary education and rugby career has been in this country and he has represented England Under-16s, Under-18s and Saxons. We are looking forward to him making further progress with Leicester Tigers and within the England representative structure.”

Certainly this case is interesting, and inspired a lot of debate on the Planet Rugby forums, and was on several occasions compared to the tragedy involving Alan Hedworth of Aspatria and Whitehaven Flanker Callum Jennings, who is still banned for 78 months despite some involved in the game in question saying his crime was nothing more than a regulation hand off that went rather horribly wrong.

On Saturday, October 24, last year Alan Hedworth was playing against Whitehaven when he moved in to tackle Callum Jennings, who was bearing down on him with the ball. Moments later, he felt a searing pain in his left eyeball. Hedworth underwent a three-hour operation at the Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle, but surgeons could not save the sight in his injured eye. Cumbria Police looked into the matter before it was passed on to the Rugby Football Union's disciplinary processes.

It was alleged that Hedworth's injuries were caused by “an unlawful hand-off in that it had been made with an outstretched hand, or extended finger or fingers”. That claim has been keenly disputed, Jennings insisting that he had used the flat of his palm for the hand-off (which is allowed). There was no denying the consequences, as detailed in the report of the hearing which involve the “eyeball bursting.”

Jennings's defence is that if he had used his fingers at full pace he would have broken them. Hedworth acknowledges that the player had not intended to blind him, but can not agree it was an accident. The panel concurred, finding Jennings guilty of “recklessness”.

You cannot help but feel for Hedworth, there but for the grace of God go us. It's a risk we all take when we play the game- just ask Matt Hampson, a wonderful guy who, despite his crippling injury, doesn't regret playing the game in any way at all. It's also worth stressing that there's nothing but the utmost sympathy for Hedworth in every quarter of the game.

Going back to the act itself, one finding of the report that could be debated long and hard is whether or not his hand off was meant to cause injury (i.e. deliberately). It is difficult to believe, that in the heat of a battle, that anyone has the capability to target and execute a hand off of that nature. The truth is, you go for the hand off and do your best.

Surprisingly, the Laws do not define a hand off, nor reasonable force. Neither do the laws dictate as to which part of the body the hand off can be applied (although cross-referencing the laws, it is clear that contact with the eyes is simply not allowed)

Should Jennings cop five years for a regulation hand off in the heat of the moment that simply went wrong? Is this the thin end of the wedge – what next? A prop suspended for scrummaging too hard? A fly-half suspended for kicking the ball too hard into the face of an oncoming flanker? These are questions that need to be answered by reference to Statute Law, exactly how the RFU Disciplinary Boards work.

The key questions are: 1. Do you penalise the offence, the effect, the cause or the action, and, 2. Was the act actually illegal in rugby terms?

It's a complicated issue and needs clarification. If Tuilagi had have broken Ashton's jaw, would the punishment for the same action have been increased dramatically?

The answer lies in Common Law, and the RFU and IRB rightly take the view that the