Pascal Papé's behaviour

[tituslechmakus]

Well I don't know how you see it from your Isles but here we have the perception that the comitee is always more severe with French players ... Is it just an idea ? Remember David Attoub's 52 weeks few years ago.

But in this case, I will not complain about the severity, I would have given more to him for his whole hard work !

 

[tituslechmakus]

Well I don't know how you see it from your Isles but here we have the perception that the comitee is always more severe with French players ... Is it just an idea ? Remember David Attoub's 52 weeks few years ago.

But in this case, I will not complain about the severity, I would have given more to him for his whole hard work !

 

[Groundhog]

I'd imagine his record didn't help him in getting a shorter ban.

 

[goodNumber10]

52 weeks for gouging isn't' enough.

 

[ncurd]

The problem is his previous record doesn't seam to count for anything.

Russell's sanction was 3 weeks but for a clean record it was reduced by 33% to two weeks.

Pape on the other hand has sanction level of 15 weeks but because he apologised it was reduced by 33% to 10 weeks.

To me that says a clean record reduces your ban but if you don't have one we'll reduce it anyway if you say you were sorry you've been a thug repeatedly so.

 

[tituslechmakus]

52 weeks for gouging isn't' enough.

That is your opinion. I find 52 weeks too much for any brutality anyway ! It is their job after all, not a hobby. If any player gets seriously injuried by brutality, then it should be juged at a civil court, not in a sport court. Ask yourselves in which job would you be suspended for a year ?

 

[ncurd]

That is your opinion. I find 52 weeks too much for any brutality anyway ! It is their job after all, not a hobby. If any player gets seriously injuried by brutality, then it should be juged at a civil court, not in a sport court. Ask yourselves in which job would you be suspended for a year ?

If I eye-gouged someone I'd be fired and probably put jail....but that can be described on what would happen if tried many thing done on rugby field.

Eye-gouging it not part of player's job and personally I'd ban any player culpable of it form playing rugby again and yes if I were a player and I got eye-gouged I;d would be taking them to a civil court.

 

[tituslechmakus]

If I eye-gouged someone I'd be fired and probably put jail....but that can be described on what would happen if tried many thing done on rugby field.

Eye-gouging it not part of player's job and personally I'd ban any player culpable of it form playing rugby again and yes if I were a player and I got eye-gouged I;d would be taking them to a civil court.

Yep I agree, eye gouging is an act of personnal agression, same as O'Connel's kick in the head last year. These facts should not be juged as a simple brutality part of a game. Rugby in its spirit is already a brutal game, no need to add real agressions (not talking about 2 or 3 punches). The comitee should be more severe with these things but more than that, they should applie the same sanctions to all the players, whatever their nationalities are.

 

[goodNumber10]

it seems reasonably consistent to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-gouging_(rugby_union)#Examples i don't see anything in there to signal the French are picked on over everyone else.

Yes Attoub's is a massive leap from everyone else, but it was A: Clear cut and B: repeated on a prone player - Dupuy in the same game got a far more lenient sentence.

 

[tituslechmakus]

it seems reasonably consistent to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-gouging_(rugby_union)#Examples i don't see anything in there to signal the French are picked on over everyone else.

Yes Attoub's is a massive leap from everyone else, but it was A: Clear cut and B: repeated on a prone player - Dupuy in the same game got a far more lenient sentence.

And what would you say with O'Connell getting nothing for a kick in the head ? Intentional or not ... He got nothing ...

 

[goodNumber10]

And what would you say with O'Connell getting nothing for a kick in the head ? Intentional or not ... He got nothing ...

why would he if it was unintentional?

If it was intentional then he should have got cited/dealt with... but lets be clear, it's a very very different scenario to that of taking your fingers and sticking them into someones eye socket far enough for the tip to disappear - twice.

If you want to argue the POc against Pape incident, i'd say that one was in the motion of a natural occurrence in the game (flyhacking a ball) the other is not normal behaviour on the pitch (technique wise).

I dont' know about you but i don't know anyone show skips into a maul knee first.

The constant pleading by the french for everyone else to be dealt with harsher is really tiring...the simple fact is these guys shouldn't' do what they did, and you can't mitigate that against something else.

 

[tituslechmakus]

why would he if it was unintentional?

If it was intentional then he should have got cited/dealt with... but lets be clear, it's a very very different scenario to that of taking your fingers and sticking them into someones eye socket far enough for the tip to disappear - twice.

If you want to argue the POc against Pape incident, i'd say that one was in the motion of a natural occurrence in the game (flyhacking a ball) the other is not normal behaviour on the pitch (technique wise).

I dont' know about you but i don't know anyone show skips into a maul knee first.

The constant pleading by the french for everyone else to be dealt with harsher is really tiring...the simple fact is these guys shouldn't' do what they did, and you can't mitigate that against something else.

And you didn't read what I said ! I'm not complaining about Papé being suspended, I find 10 weeks too few for his behaviour ! Entering a maul knee first is unaccpetable, that is clear !

What fed's up all us down here is the inequality between french and anglo saxon players with this damn comitee. What would you English say if your players would almost all the time get double penalty for the same act as a French ? You would complain, same as we do.
But the comitee is full of anglo saxons ... So you wouldn't shoot a bullet in your own foot by giving fair penalties, when you have the occasion to burry those damn French !!! That is very nice of you ! All the pleasure is for us ! You are fair play ... only when you win ...
Being a professional player, O'Connel could not kick another player's head without getting nothing. Put a blue jersey on his back and look how many weeks would he get ? Maybe around 30 ! But good for him, his jersey was Green (or maybe red being Munster's)

 

[goodNumber10]

And you didn't read what I said ! I'm not complaining about Papé being suspended, I find 10 weeks too few for his behaviour ! Entering a maul knee first is unaccpetable, that is clear !

What fed's up all us down here is the inequality between french and anglo saxon players with this damn comitee. What would you English say if your players would almost all the time get double penalty for the same act as a French ? You would complain, same as we do.
But the comitee is full of anglo saxons ... So you wouldn't shoot a bullet in your own foot by giving fair penalties, when you have the occasion to burry those damn French !!! That is very nice of you ! All the pleasure is for us ! You are fair play ... only when you win ...
Being a professional player, O'Connel could not kick another player's head without getting nothing. Put a blue jersey on his back and look how many weeks would he get ? Maybe around 30 ! But good for him, his jersey was Green (or maybe red being Munster's)

It's such a fallacious argument, I've just posted a list of people suspended for gouging & making contact with the eye areas it is relatively consistent (even allowing for good behaviour etc...) yes there are some anomalies in each direction (why did Azam onlyget 9 weeks), but Attoub gouged Ferris twice IIRC soooooo......

Then you compared POC to Attoub and as i pointed out, it's easy to argue POC's was unintentionally clumsy, as a flyhack is something that happens on every rugby pitch the world over, the eye gouge doesn't.

Also i didn't say you complained about Pape's suspension i said you complained others weren't because he was...

 

[nickdnz]

@tituslechmakus

You may be making a really interesting point on the different treatment of French players to others, but there is nothing other than your word for it that the treatment is different. I would be very interested in seeing a record of all judicial decisions made by World Rugby, and you may well be correct that the French are treated more harshly for similar offenses than players of other nations. However naming one off circumstances in which French players received some heavy sentences is relatively useless, especially compared with the punishments of other players who committed totally different offenses. I do agree that there is a lack of consistency in judicial rulings, and even in citings, but it would require more data to make a comparison between nations.

 

[Tony Manx]

Remind me how long did Healy get for the stamp on Cole and how many matches did he miss?

 

[goodNumber10]

three weeks

but what's the relevance?

- - - Updated - - -

@tituslechmakus

You may be making a really interesting point on the different treatment of French players to others, but there is nothing other than your word for it that the treatment is different. I would be very interested in seeing a record of all judicial decisions made by World Rugby, and you may well be correct that the French are treated more harshly for similar offenses than players of other nations. However naming one off circumstances in which French players received some heavy sentences is relatively useless, especially compared with the punishments of other players who committed totally different offenses. I do agree that there is a lack of consistency in judicial rulings, and even in citings, but it would require more data to make a comparison between nations.

I posted a list, from wiki, of bans for gouging and conatct with the eye area, it's not half as bad as you would be led to believe.

there are two substantial bans, Attoub (70, reduced to 52 weeks) and Richard Nones (104 weeks), otherwise it's pretty consistent -

Dupuy 24 weeks, vs Dylan Hartley 26 for example.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I just want to compare two incidents that are equal in my eyes. I think 10 weeks is a bit over the top, I was expecting around 4-6 weeks but year on year the bans are getting harsher.

That is your opinion, it is not that of the RFU. To be fair World Rugby's opinion may be different again, but I'm unable to find a copy of their guidelines to confirm.

Stamping / trampling has entry points from 2 to 9 weeks depending on severity. Striking with the knee has entry points from 4 weeks to 12.

PP struck a defenseless player in a place that could have caused paralysis, so I would argue that it was a top end offense. I would argue that stamping on an ankle / leg is more of a mid range offense (there are plenty more serious forms of stamping / trampling). Also, rightly or wrongly, you should bear in mind that these hearings consider the result of the offense when assessing severity - Heaslip has a broken spine, Cole wasn't injured (IIRC). You should also remember that these citings consider provocation - Cole was lying on the wrong side of a ruck slowing ball down, Heaslip did nothing to provoke PP's attack. Lastly, you should bear in mind both players' disciplinary record. I don't recall Healey having much if any previous at the time, PP on the other hand is one of, if not the worst disciplined players in the Top14.

Factoring all of the above in, I really don't see why anyone would suggest that the two incidents merit the same sanction.

I still don't see the value in comparing apples and oranges - each incident is unique and must be assessed on its individual merits within the framework I've alluded to above (again, assuming World Rugby work the same way as the RFU).

 

[gaston le gaff]

not getting into this conversation but Heaslip has not a broken spine he has 3/4 fractured vertebrae and to what severity not sure let us not go too overboard.

 

[big ginger 8]

not getting into this conversation but Heaslip has not a broken spine he has 3/4 fractured vertebrae and to what severity not sure let us not go too overboard.

It's the exact same thing.

 

[gaston le gaff]

you are obviously not a doctor

 

[goodNumber10]

It's the exact same thing.

it's not in this case, isn't it a hairline fracture?

 

[big ginger 8]

you are obviously not a doctor

Are you?

Vertebrae make up the spine and a fracture is a type of break. How fractured vertebrae can't be described as a broken spine then is beyond me.

 

[gaston le gaff]

because if he had a broken back he would not be playing rugby, i had two serious back injuries and was confined to a wheelchair for 4 months, a hairline fracture is obviously bad but it is not a broken back

 

[big ginger 8]

because if he had a broken back he would not be playing rugby, i had two serious back injuries and was confined to a wheelchair for 4 months, a hairline fracture is obviously bad but it is not a broken back

It's obviously not a particulary severe one of course but I'm pretty sure it still officially counts as a broken back. Although of course I could be wrong.

 

[The Jones Boy]

It's not a broken back or he wouldn't be walking.
It's not good though because he is gonna be out for a while.
Pape is a scumbag cheap shot artist.

 

[TommiG88]

That is your opinion, it is not that of the RFU. To be fair World Rugby's opinion may be different again, but I'm unable to find a copy of their guidelines to confirm.

Stamping / trampling has entry points from 2 to 9 weeks depending on severity. Striking with the knee has entry points from 4 weeks to 12.

PP struck a defenseless player in a place that could have caused paralysis, so I would argue that it was a top end offense. I would argue that stamping on an ankle / leg is more of a mid range offense (there are plenty more serious forms of stamping / trampling). Also, rightly or wrongly, you should bear in mind that these hearings consider the result of the offense when assessing severity - Heaslip has a broken spine, Cole wasn't injured (IIRC). You should also remember that these citings consider provocation - Cole was lying on the wrong side of a ruck slowing ball down, Heaslip did nothing to provoke PP's attack. Lastly, you should bear in mind both players' disciplinary record. I don't recall Healey having much if any previous at the time, PP on the other hand is one of, if not the worst disciplined players in the Top14.

Factoring all of the above in, I really don't see why anyone would suggest that the two incidents merit the same sanction.

I still don't see the value in comparing apples and oranges - each incident is unique and must be assessed on its individual merits within the framework I've alluded to above (again, assuming World Rugby work the same way as the RFU).

It's obviously not the same incident but it is not blatant Pape was being intentional although Healy was. Healy got a 3 week ban, on a stamp that could have broken an ankle. Heaslip got a knee to the back which wasn't obviously intentional and got a cracked invertebrate. The game is a contact sport, I didn't see intent but that's my opinion. I watched the game sober and couldn't see the problem until they showed it in slow motion from a certain angle. There looked to be no intent in his face and he wasn't looking, try running with out leading with your knee! I know I can't. It falls into the category of accidental/avoidable but not intentional. A sin bin and 6 week ban would have been more in line. Finn got a 2 week ban for a tackle in the air which could have ended biggars career.

My point is, nothing is transparent when it comes to the IRB. Before you say I know nothing, it's only my opinion. I believe citing is a great thing in rugby, however it is not consistent.

 

[RedruthRFC]

It's obviously not the same incident but it is not blatant Pape was being intentional although Healy was. Healy got a 3 week ban, on a stamp that could have broken an ankle. Heaslip got a knee to the back which wasn't obviously intentional and got a cracked invertebrate.

If Heaslip's invertebrate was cracked as well as fracturing (breaking) three of his vertebrae (part of the spine), surely the case against PP is even stronger!

The game is a contact sport, I didn't see intent but that's my opinion. I watched the game sober and couldn't see the problem until they showed it in slow motion from a certain angle. There looked to be no intent in his face and he wasn't looking, try running with out leading with your knee! I know I can't. It falls into the category of accidental/avoidable but not intentional.

Given the top end sanction and the popular opinion in this thread, it appears that you're in a minority in holding this belief although some of us have conceded that it's hard to prove conclusively. Part of my rationale for saying that it was deliberate is the fact that hitting a maul with your knee out in front of you is a terrible, weak body position. How do the vast majority of players manage to hit mauls week in, week out without getting penalised if it's so difficult to run without your knee becomming an offensive weapon?!? I take it you never hit a maul during your playing career?

A sin bin and 6 week ban would have been more in line. Finn got a 2 week ban for a tackle in the air which could have ended biggars career.

Eh! World Rugby's decision to ban both players is an admission that the referee got it wrong at time time and should have gone straight for a red. As I have said already, I don't agree with the result oriented style of these hearings, but it is a reality. Bigger was unscathed, Heaslip has three fractured bones.

My point is, nothing is transparent when it comes to the IRB. Before you say I know nothing, it's only my opinion. I believe citing is a great thing in rugby, however it is not consistent.

I certainly agree with that. Much of the discussion here could be cleared up if a summary of the hearing's finding was published as the RFU used to do (I can't seem to find them on the "new and improved" website).

There may be inconsistencies in bans, but in order to highlight them, you need to compare apples to apples, not oranges which nobody has managed to do so far. On top of all the other differences between the two cases you mention which make comparisons impossible, you need to know the recommendations at the time for the offenses in question. The eye gouging list is a decent starting point, the massive varience shows that either there are wild inconsistencies or that there is more to it than meets the eye. Anyone with a particular agenda can ignore these subtleties in an attempt to prove their point with isolated examples.

 

[goodNumber10]

There may be inconsistencies in bans, but in order to highlight them, you need to compare apples to apples, not oranges which nobody has managed to do so far.

I have

 

[RedruthRFC]

I have

See the rest of the paragraph you quoted.

 

[dasNdanger]

My point is, nothing is transparent when it comes to the IRB. Before you say I know nothing, it's only my opinion. I believe citing is a great thing in rugby, however it is not consistent.

We, as fans, need to have a bit of faith that WR knows what they're doing, and respect their decision on each individual case. I don't see any reason to think that this particular incident has been judged too harshly, or too lightly. Accident or intentional act, Pape was still reckless and fractured vertebrae in Pascal's back. They can't just sit back and shrug, 'Too bad, it's what to expect from a physical game.' In this case if they have erred in their decision, they erred on the side of caution. Had the punishment been too light it would have amounted to a wink and a nod to reckless play.

And I don't think World Rugby (IRB ) needs to be transparent with everything. Fans don't *need* to know all the details. Sure, it's nice to get all the inside dirt, but in the end the only ones who really need to know all the facts are the parties involved.

In the end there's no point debating bans vs bans, infringement vs infringement - each offense needs to stand on its own and punishment determined - not by a ban placed on a different player years ago for a totally different offense - but on the specifics of the incident currently up for review. They can't sit there and say, "Well, we only gave so-and-so X-weeks for a gouge (w/o injury), so we can't give this guy more than that - despite the injury - because a kneeing doesn't look as bad in replay as a gouge." A ruling has to be judged on the specifics of the individual case, and not in comparison to anything else.


das