How should bans operate

[smartcooky]

How do you think bans ought to operate?

The iRB want bans to cover all rugby, but that can sometimes work out unfairly for some players and not for others.

In this recent situation with Quade Cooper and Jaque Fourie, we have an apparent disparity between bans issued to two players for the same offence in the same match.

Quade Cooper was found guilty of a Dangerous tip tackle. He has no previous conviction for foul play, and was banned for two weeks, the low-end entry level. As a result, he misses two Bledisloe Cup/Tri-Nations matches because they are the next two matches over the two weeks covered by the ban

Jacque Fourie was found guilty of a Dangerous tip tackle. He does have a previous conviction for the same offence (Hamilton 2009) and was banned for four weeks, but because South Africa has only one Tri-Nations match over that period, he effectively only gets banned for one Tri-Nations match. Yes the ban also covers some Currie Cup matches over that period, but it is unlikely that he would have played those anyway.

Former Wallaby Tim Horan thinks that is unfair...

Horan wants tournament-specific bans
AAP - July 28, 2010, 8:39 pm
Wallabies great Tim Horan has called for tournament-specific rugby suspensions after Test playmaker Quade Cooper lost his appeal against a two-match ban that robs him of a eagerly-anticipated Bledisloe Cup debut.
Cooper copped a second blow in four days when a three-man appeals committee dismissed Australia's objection to his punishment for Saturday night's dangerous tackle on South African Morne Steyn.
The red-hot five-eighth will miss both Saturday night's clash against the All Blacks at Etihad Stadium and the return encounter in Christchurch the following weekend.
Cooper's punishment is effectively the most severe of three similar lifting tackles in consecutive Tri-Nations matches even though his offence was arguably the most tame.
His Australian Rugby Union legal counsel and coach Robbie Deans argued Springboks Jean de Villiers and Jaque Fourie were given more lenient bans as they could serve their time through missing provincial Currie Cup matches in South Africa.
While de Villiers' tackle on All Black Rene Ranger was viewed as the most dangerous and Fourie had a prior conviction, they both only have to miss one Tri-Nations Test.
Horan, who acts as a rugby mentor for Cooper, also felt back-to-back Bledisloe Cup Tests was an overly harsh punishment for a lifting tackle that went wrong.
But the inconsistency of the sentence was the biggest issue for the 80-Test centre.
"It's just a shame that the two Test matches are week after week (against NZ)," Horan said.
"In a competition any bans handed out should be served within that competition.
"If you commit an offence playing Currie Cup you miss Currie Cup matches and if you commit it in the Tri-Nations you miss Tri-Nations matches."
Deans felt the same way after the appeal, which aimed as much for a reduction to a one match ban as a complete exoneration.
Asked if suspensions should served within the same competition, he said: "Yeah, ideally.
"That's obviously one manifestation if you like that hasn't been consistent, but it depends where you sit," Deans said.
"The critical message out of this for Quade and any subsequent players who find themselves in this circumstance and you're in this predicament you lose control of your own destiny, so you're much better to avert being in this predicament in the first place."
Horan agreed.
"It (damage to Steyn) wasn't serious but it could have been and you can't have young kids seeing that and trying to imitate it,' Horan said.

What do you think?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I've said before that i think bans should be per match.
So if you Cooper would've gotten a two match Wallabies ban (and missed any provincial matches over that period as well) and vice versa, so say Heaslip got an 8 match ban playing for Leinster, he'll miss the next 8 leinster matches plus any Ireland matches that'll be played over that period as well

As you said, the current rules doesn't really work, especially in the cases of Cooper and Fourie, giving out the harsher ban to the latter, yet he comes off lighter in the end

 

[alex]

if the bans were tournament specific, and you knew you were retiring for internationals only you could come onto the field and do a flying elbow to the nose and get banned for 250 million international matches, but the ban would be useless, as it would've been youre last game anyway.

i explained it badly, someone else will do it later in the thread.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

if the bans were tournament specific, and you knew you were retiring for internationals only you could come onto the field and do a flying elbow to the nose and get banned for 250 million international matches, but the ban would be useless, as it would've been youre last game anyway.

i explained it badly, someone else will do it later in the thread.

Aye, but if you were banned from all rugby for the duration of those 250million matches, then it'd be a decent deterrent

 

[Sparty]

I agree , banning should be in terms of the comp and games. So say for instance if you play an international then banned for 2 games period but that must include 2 Trinations games even though it would equal say 3 CC games as well. If the offense occurred in CC or any other local comp then banning should include 2 local games even if there are internationals in between. Off course this will effect the guy more say in the scenario its a final of the S14 and he is banned for 2 games , the next S14 comp is only next year , in this case CC games should count for local as well. It will be harsh as the player could miss 3 local games and a International but then there would be more consistency for the offense , besides will will discourage dirty play.

My problem now is that on face value the banning justifies the calls for inconsistency of refs against SA players , I agree and maybe cos I am a SA supporter that we were hard done by in some of the calls but the 4 weeks banning was not one of the bad calls for us , instead is was a good call for us and our player in case gets in fact a lighter sentence.

 

[William18]

The banning people in terms of week is simply ridiculous. I remember once when Ma'a Nonu was given a one week ban because of something he had done in a Hurricanes game. The only problem was the Hurricanes next game wasn't until 8 says later so he served no ban at all. Banning people in terms of matches makes far more sense to me.

 

[Charles]

Agree with everybody here. Make it games, not weeks. Then againthe IRb is so clueless when it comes to this, noyhing much to except. There should have been a world panel officiating for all comps for years already...

 

[smartcooky]

One of the problems with expressing bans in terms of matches is that it can throw up some strange anomalies.

What if the seriousness of an offence is worth, say, four matches, but there are only two left in the season? Do you carry the ban over to the first two matches of the following season.

If so, what if a NZ player is banned for four matches in Super 14 but there are only two left. Does that mean he will not be allowed to play ITM Cup and cannot go on the end of season All Blacks tour?

You cannot ban within competitions either, because that could end up even worse. Here is an example I posted on "The Roar" today. Lets say a player commits a really serious act of foul play, such as an eye gouge, in a Heineken Cup match. A “competition specific†ban could see him banned for, say, 18 Heineken Cup matches. That would be between two and three years depending on whether or not his team made the play-offs. If could be even more if his team misses qualification for one year, but in the meantime, this player would be free to play in Premiership/ Magners League/ Top 14 and Six Nations. That would be just a farcical state of affairs.

As I see it, the best solution would be a combination of a ban expressed in weeks and matches, divided on a basis of the level of rugby rather than a specific competition. The levels would be

Domestic: Super 14, ITM Cup, Club Rugby, Magners League, Top 14, Pro D2, Heineken Cup, Premiership etc

International: Tri/Four Nations, Six Nations, Autumn Internationals, June Tours, Rugby World Cup etc.

Step 1: Decide on a punishment expressed in number of matches at the level in which the player was cited. Also decide on a maximum number of weeks that the offence carries.

Step 2: Fix a date for the last match to which the suspension applies. If the last match is beyond the end of the current season, then use the maximum number of weeks instead.

Step 3: Ban the player from playing in any and all matches at any level up until and including that date.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

A Japan Q player is red carded on same day as Zander Fagerson for Scotland. Both receive the same penalty. Due to scheduling of friendlies one player is available for the opening round of the RWC and the other is not.

As per the post above, bans should be based on a number of weeks AND a number of games. Whichever is the longest period should apply.

Japan without Pieter Labuschagne against Chile at World Cup - Americas Rugby News

Pieter Labuschagne will not play against Chile at the World Cup. Japan's opening World Cup match wil

www.americasrugbynews.com