Punishments

Discussion in 'Aviva Premiership / LV Cup' started by mohamed_ali12, Jul 20, 2009.

  1. Basically, this topic reflects what i said in the 'Crisis at the REC' topic.

    Burger is found guilty for gouging an opponent. He later recieves an 8 week ban on the 29th June
    view the incident here
    Tom Williams of Harlequins is banned for 52 weeks for 'fabricating an injury' on the 20th July
    view the incident here
    Justin Harrison reveals to an RFU panel that he took cocaine at an end of season party, and (techically) advocated drugs to academy players on a team bus. He recieves an 24 week ban.
    Matt Stevens fails a drugs test and admits that he has an addiction to cocaine. He is banned from rugby for 104 weeks

    I am left absolutely dumbfounded at the lack of sense of the disciplinary panels. I really don't understand how, according to those who govern the game, eye gouging, potentially causing someone blindness, is less of an issue than someone faking an injury. I understand that had Harlequins gone on to win the game and the H-Cup there would be complete outrage, but seriously, it is crazy that someone who undertakes in a bit of gamesmanship recieves a stricter sentance than someone who could end another player's career.

    To continue, according to the RFU it is more acceptable for a player who is in the public eye to take an illegal drug than to leave the field with a fake injury. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I understand that the RFU are trying to advocate fair-play, but if players who attack other players or take drugs are getting off the hook (in comparison) it makes absolutely no sense.

    Furthermore, Matt Stevens is banned for 2 years for drug abuse, while Harrison is banned for only 8 months. Surely there should be some kind of consistency on the matter? If the issue is that he took it in the off-season rather than during competition, then that is completely ridiculous. They're basically saying that we don't mind if you take cocaine, but not if you're playing a match on the weekend.

    As you can see, im thoroughly ****** off.
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. C A Iversen

    C A Iversen Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ali12 @ Jul 21 2009, 10:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Largely, your right. Mind you in the Harrison case, when compared to the Stevens one, the judiciary must look at whether this is one-off behaviour or habitual. If it happened during the season or after it. If the player was effectively on-or-off contract. They are not the courts, so there is a limit to their framework. Still you make a good case and I'd really have said the difference should've been much less in their punishments.
     
  4. bristol-iain

    bristol-iain Guest

    Totally agree- but its not just the length, its who they give the length of ban to.

    I draw you attention to a couple of items I wrote regarding James Haskell's ban early in the season:

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
     
  5. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Jul 20 2009, 11:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
     
  6. Just read this on the guardian website:
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
    If there had been an englishman on the panel would Quins have gotten more than just a fine? I doubt it.
     
  7. shazbooger

    shazbooger Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ali12 @ Jul 20 2009, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Not really as simple as that. I'm still assuming that Williams has taken the hit for the entire club. If he pointed the finger at Richards and the Physio he probably would have gotten off lightly, he didnt so they got off and he rightly carries the can for the lot of them. Tough **** really.

    There is however a serious level of inconsistency when it comes to some of the other injuries. 8-12 weeks for delibrate gouging is insane.
     
  8. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    I think what we all agree on is that there needs to be standards passed by the iRB under legal advice and a proper and official panel which should adjudicate these things at the correct time rather than the ad-hoc system we have now. Only then will we find a consistent level of punishment that everyone is satisfied with. I'm honestly shocked that they haven't got adjudicating members who are not the same nationality as the player when looking at the international cases!

    The regulations on "gouging" for example are like something out of a law from the Stuart times. With multiple levels of "gouging" depending on "where the finger is" and "what it is touching", the chance of a cop out or a lenient punishment is very very high.

    There needs to be a set code with ambiguities and grey areas destroyed by the fine light of "if x y and z happens then x y and z punishment happens" via bullet point.
     
  9. In that case, what do people think the consequences should be for:

    a. taking performance enhancing drugs
    b. taking recreational drugs
    c. eye gouging
    d. fabricating an injury

    Personally i would say

    a. life ban
    b. 2 year ban
    c. 1 year ban and fine for the club/player
    d. hefty fine and docked points
     
  10. shazbooger

    shazbooger Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ali12 @ Jul 21 2009, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    a. 2 year ban for first offense. Lifetime ban for second.
    b. 1 year ban
    c. 9-12 months depending on severity on the incident and past disciplinary record.
    d. Hefty fine for club, docked points, 1 year touchline ban for offending management representatives (physio and head coach regardless of who was at fault, they become responsible by default).

    One thing I'd like to see is the penalties increase if and when an appeal is unsuccessful.
     
  11. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    That sadly is opening up a can of worms - Let's use Neil Best as an example.

    He was judged to have made "accidental contact with the eye area" and only that, yet received a lengthy ban. He's also now labelled as an "eye-gouger" by the great unwashed and misinformed (including the BBC and Skys lazy reporters who apparently have a lot of sway). Conversely, James Haskell was convicted of eye-gouging, but yet only received 1 weeks ban which the whole world has forgotten about. Next time either is pinged (should it ever happen), the eye gouge will technically be Bests first offence and Haskells second, I would bet a months wages that Best would receive a much sterner punishment.

    The whole disciplinary system needs reworking from the ground up, run by an independent organisation, getting rid of the blazers and club/EPS bias and resetting to a worldwide standard organised by the IRB - so the ERB, SANZAR and all other unions have to adhere and work together/

    That's the only way anything will ever be done. But as each organisation spend too much time looking after number 1, it's another part of the game that's stuck in the amateur era dissolving any hope that professionalism has of surviving in the long term.
     
  12. monkeypigeon

    monkeypigeon Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Jul 21 2009, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    a. 2 year ban for first offense. Lifetime ban for second.
    b. 1 year ban
    c. 9-12 months depending on severity on the incident and past disciplinary record.
    d. Hefty fine for club, docked points, 1 year touchline ban for offending management representatives (physio and head coach regardless of who was at fault, they become responsible by default).

    One thing I'd like to see is the penalties increase if and when an appeal is unsuccessful.
    [/b][/quote]

    Disincentives to appeal go entirely against fair procedure. Can't have that.


    I've been thinking about the Williams ban and I think it would be fair if he got a year ban from Heineken cup matches. Shame :(
     
  13. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    Ok, there are some SERIOUS inconsitencies in how people are punished.

    Eye gougers get a 6 month ban. That's what Hartley got, and it is a fair punishment.

    Alan Quinlan got 12 weeks for his. In my opinion this is to light; however there was a vague doubt over the incident which is why it may have been punished less harshly.

    Schalk Burger getting 8 weeks is pathetic. It is purely because of who he is. He deserves another 18 weeks.

    -------------------

    Performance druggies should get kicked out for life. Fortunately we've had none of them. (I can't remember too much about Scott MacLeod)

    Recreational druggies should have it graded, in accordance to the Law. For example, Cannabis is a Class B drug, and should give you less punishment that Cocaine.

    Stevens was made an example of, and was lambasted by everyone. He got 2 years. As far as I'm concerned, he was a victim of being the scapegoat for a wider cocaine scene at Bath.

    I think testing positive for a Class A drug like cocaine should get you a 52 week ban. After all, it's an arsehole drug to do.

    This meens Harrison is a very lucky man, and Lipman, Crockett and Higgins should all be treated like they're guilty. They all deserve a year on the sidelines. Stevens got 2 years because it was such a shock, and the RFU wanted to wave its big dick around. Harrison got 8 months because he's not an England player, he's not in the public eye, and he's about to retire anyway. Pathetic.

    Incidentally, cannabis should get you a fine. It's no worse than alcohol, which rugby players are notorious for consuming in large quantities. The fine should be the same as a punishment for being drunk and disorderly - in other words, both are minor illegalities and are punished as such.

    ---------------------

    This thing with Williams is grossly unfair. Here is a case of a player being punished when the club is at fault. Harlequins should be given a hefty fine and a points deficit in next year's Heineken Cup.

    To ban Williams for a year from all rugby is a disgrace. Firstly he is not to blame, and secondly a year is 52 weeks too long for the crime he comitted. Especially when you consider Harrison and Burger.


    iRB & RFU: congratulations on once more handling your sport VERY badly.
     
  14. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Jul 21 2009, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Hold on hold on, if the RFU think he didn't do it on purpose, how can he be banned for it. Surely the ban is for the malice in the act, so if there is no malice how can there be ban??
     
  15. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    Because he'as not an England player and doesn't play for one of the LBNW mafia clubs.

    Another example to look at is when Mark Regan faked an injury to get Mark Robinson banned for rugbing. On the flip side, Harry Ellis blatantly stamped on an opposition players face in the same season and no ban was brought up.
     
  16. monkeypigeon

    monkeypigeon Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ali12 @ Jul 21 2009, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Hold on hold on, if the RFU think he didn't do it on purpose, how can he be banned for it. Surely the ban is for the malice in the act, so if there is no malice how can there be ban??

    [/b][/quote]

    for being reckless. That's what they use most of the time when it's not clear cut. 'reckless use of the boot or reckless use of the hand near the eye'
     
  17. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Jul 21 2009, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    and the official reason?
     
  18. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

  19. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Jul 21 2009, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Hold on hold on, if the RFU think he didn't do it on purpose, how can he be banned for it. Surely the ban is for the malice in the act, so if there is no malice how can there be ban??

    [/b][/quote]

    for being reckless. That's what they use most of the time when it's not clear cut. 'reckless use of the boot or reckless use of the hand near the eye'
    [/b][/quote]

    But then surely the governing bodies would just look at a later gouging case (i.e. Quinlan) and realise that you can't ban someone whos gouge was 'reckless' for longer than someone who's gouge was obviously intentional.

    I know we've pretty much agreed unanimously that the RFU are **** at their jobs, but seriously, it makes me so frigging angry.
     
  20. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    Bias, Bullshit and Jobs for the Boys. Welcome to the politics of discussing the RFU and it's procedures.
     
  21. Thingimubob

    Thingimubob Guest

    It's ridiculous how much in-consitency there is in the punishments, it really needs to be sorted out.
    What still confuses me is how Leicester did pretty much the same as Quins in the Semi Final when they brought Dupuy back on the field in extra time. It's just stupid if it's one rule for Quins and another for Leicester.
    And talking about 'fabricating an injury' what about Olivier Azams dive in the pool stages? I'm trying to condone the Tom James headbutt (which was nowhere near as bad as Azam made out) but there's just no room in the game for an Oscar Winning Dive like that, I mean Cristiano Ronaldo would have been proud of that one!
    the IRB and RFU are making the game look terrible atm, I mean if they lack the balls to give out long bans when they're due, what's going to stop more people breaking the rules?
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page