Rugby Citings and Inconsistencies

Not looking to start a debate on either of the Jennings or Hayes incidents, as they've been done to death in the past. But was hoping we could seriously discuss the inconsistencies across competitions/rugby unions with the citing and banning of players.

Should there be a minimum ban for certain offences? Punching an opponent 4 weeks? Stamping 6 weeks? Biting/Gouging 12 weeks?

This comes to light after Welsh flanker Jonathon Thomas was suspended for only 2 weeks following his "mental outburst" during the game at the weekend. Take a look at the clip here, he throws 3 punches and was lucky to stay on the field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUk85jJhopw

I don't think Rugby has become a dirty game, but I find the inconsistencies in bans always seem questionable, obviously in certain circumstances these inconsistencies could be understandable, but unless these circumstances are obvious, or reported, we will only ever see "Shalk Berger gouging - 6 weeks" compared to Shane Jennings gouging - 12 weeks.

Should there be an independent citing commissioner, and also independent disciplinary panel involved? The current rules, whereby the home nation are in charge of the ban seems farcical to me.

What do you think?

outwest

sure if ur a international and you have been cited ur get a small ban as the home union wants you playing in big games. wales scotland and ireland need to set up a 3 man comittee to deal with citings. or get outside help for mengland or france.

the irb should step in and stop these small bans from being handed.
it just means it will happen again.

last fogarty did it, this yeat thomas as landed a few punces. both small bans,
if it was the irb handing out bans of 6-8 weeks then player would think again before punching.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

Should there be an independent citing commissioner, and also independent disciplinary panel involved? The current rules, whereby the home nation are in charge of the ban seems farcical to me.

What do you think?

I think there was an independent citing commission for the ML last year, but then Leinster kinda fecked it up by getting Jennings off on a technicality.

There are minimum sentences for certain transgressions, the problem is that there are different citing commissions for all the competitions and they don't always match up very well.

Incidentally, I can't believe he only got two weeks for that. He punched someone trapped in a ruck. Bloody cowardly.

WeeBushy

Different competitions have different boards ruling on the incidences so that's where the inconsistencies come from. I think it would be a very good idea for the IRB to set up a body that oversees all citing in every competition, that way you wouldn't have Burger get a shorter ban than Jennings for something way worse and other such incidences.

Chucky the tree

WeeBushy wrote: »

Different competitions have different boards ruling on the incidences so that's where the inconsistencies come from. I think it would be a very good idea for the IRB to set up a body that oversees all citing in every competition, that way you wouldn't have Burger get a shorter ban than Jennings for something way worse and other such incidences.

Certainly didn't seem way worse to me. Both deserved 12 weeks bans.

WeeBushy

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Certainly didn't seem way worse to me. Both deserved 12 weeks bans.

You're right they both deserved 12 weeks. But burgers was simply worse. Look at the videos.

It's OT though, the OP was talking about inconsistencies in bans, and how to bring consistency to it.

Chucky the tree

Consistency or correct decisions aren't gotten by simply looking at youtube videos.

wixfjord

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Certainly didn't seem way worse to me. Both deserved 12 weeks bans.

Have you seen Jennings incident on anything other than youtube?

WeeBushy

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Consistency or correct decisions aren't gotten by simply looking at youtube videos.

Don't think that's relevant to the thread.

Not looking to start a debate on either of the Jennings or Hayes incidents, as they've been done to death in the past.

Seeing as each disciplinary body has their own guidelines, maybe what the IRB should do is give out their own recommendations ie. minimum bans, bans for medium/high end offenses, that all bodies have to follow as opposed to them deciding what players deserve. Maybe their only role should be to decide guilty/not guilty.

Chucky the tree

wixfjord wrote: »

Have you seen Jennings incident on anything other than youtube?

No. But I read the report.