Attoub appeal dismissed by ERC

David Attoub has had his appeal dismissed by the Independent Appeal Committee. Details on the ERC website: http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/5019_15271.php

Attoub appeal thrown out
4 March 2010, 12:24 pm
The Independent Appeal Committee appointed to hear the appeal brought by Stade Français Paris player David Attoub has dismissed the players appeal.
The Appeal Hearing was held in London on Tuesday, 2 March, 2010. Mr Attoub appealed against both the finding of foul play and level of sanction imposed by an independent Disciplinary hearing, arising from the Heineken Cup Pool 4 match against Ulster Rugby at Ravenhill, Belfast, on Saturday, 12 December, 2009.

The independent Disciplinary Hearing found that David Attoub was guilty of foul play in contravention of Law 10.4 (l) in that he made contact with the eye / eye area of Ulster Rugby player Stephen Ferris (No 6) and that the offence was at the top end in the level of seriousness. Having taken into account any mitigating and aggravating factors the independent Judicial Officer suspended the player for a period of 70 weeks running up to and including 22 April, 2011.

The Independent Appeal Committee, chaired by Professor Lorne Crerar (Scotland) and also comprising Rod McKenzie (Scotland) and Robert Williams (Wales) found that Mr Attoub had not demonstrated that the original decision had been in error and therefore dismissed the appeal.

I guess the next step is the Court of Arbitration in France. If the Tincu case is anything to go by, odds are he will be back playing in the Top 14.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess the next step is the Court of Arbitration in France. If the Tincu case is anything to go by, odds are he will be back playing in the Top 14.

The Tincu case was a fairly different set of circumstances.

Its the same premise though. Tincu's case was that he shouldnt be banned from the domestic league for what transpired in another competition.

toomevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Its the same premise though. Tincu's case was that he shouldnt be banned from the domestic league for what transpired in another competition.

Totally morally and ethically bankrupt position.

thebaz

if you stick 2 fingers in to someones eye, I assume you are trying to pull his eyes out or just blind him , so take the punishment on the chin , and move on , rather than looking for a technicality to get off on, from such a cowardly act

Eoin

thebaz wrote: »

if you stick 2 fingers in to someones eye, I assume you are trying to pull his eyes out or just blind him , so take the punishment on the chin , and move on , rather than looking for a technicality to get off on, from such a cowardly act

I'm absolutely not defending his gouging... but if I was a professional rugby player who was banned for nearly a year and a half, I would probably pursue any option that could have me playing games sooner.

toomevara

Excellent piece from Shaun Edwards in Today's Guardian:

IRB must act to prevent France setting up its own disciplinary system

Question: When is a 70-week ban not a 70-week ban? Answer: When David Attoub next plays rugby. Actually, forget Attoub and forget 70 weeks. It is really just an example – if one that is fresh in everyone's minds, because the Stade Français prop yesterday had his ban for eye-gouging ratified and his appeal thrown out.

Attoub had been found guilty of making contact with the eye or eye area of Stephen Ferris, the Ulster and Ireland flanker, in a Heineken Cup match in Belfast in December. At the original hearing Jeff Blackett, a judge and the man who appears to hear all the big disciplinary cases dealt with by the Rugby Football Union, described the incident as "the worst act of contact with the eyes I have had to deal with". Yesterday the independent appeal committee, sitting in London, ruled that Attoub "had not demonstrated that the original decision had been in error and therefore dismissed the appeal".

But that is the detail. If Attoub serves his ban – and I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, whether it is draconian or not or whether it was deserved for an offence rugby is desperate to eradicate – he will not play until April 2011.

Or will he? Could he appear for Stade long before then, possibly even this season?

I ask because of the curious case of Marius Tincu, the Perpignan hooker who was banned in 2008 after being found guilty of eye-gouging, again in the Heineken Cup, this time against the Ospreys in Swansea. The Romanian was banned for 18 weeks after being cited for making contact with the eye of the prop Paul James.

There was no conclusive evidence, just a report from a medic about marks on James's face. Perpignan appealed. Their appeal was thrown out on a technicality. Perpignan threatened to pull out of the Heineken Cup and took their case to the body that represents the leading clubs in France, Ligue Nationale de Rugby (LNR). After that, as a last resort, they turned to the Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français (CNOSF), the supreme legal body for sport in France.

This time Perpignan argued that as Tincu had been banned for an offence committed in a cross-border competition, that should not stop him from playing in the domestic league. This time they won the day. LNR said that the decision was the first step in a battle to affirm the primacy of French law and Tincu went back to work.

So what will now happen to Attoub? Clearly he and his representatives will know about Tincu and the CNOSF ruling, and they will also know that French justice has a habit of looking at things rather differently than perhaps we are used to over here. For example, back in 2003 Stade's South African-born prop, Pieter de Villiers, tested positive for cocaine and ecstasy. In most nations where rugby is played that would have earned him in a two-year ban. But De Villiers was tested out of competition and French anti-doping laws stated that players who failed such a test could only be banned had they been found to be taking performance-enhancing substances.

As a result the prop got off with a three-game ban for bringing the game into disrepute. He would clearly have celebrated French independence of mind. But there are now suggestions that moves are afoot for the LNR and the Fédération Française de Rugby (FFR) to go further and to set up their own disciplinary commission for players who have been banned at a European level.

If you want to go even further down that route, there are further suggestions around that Julien Dupuy, the France scrum-half who was once of Leicester and now plays for Stade, has been talking to that joint body about his own ban – which was reduced from 24 weeks to 23 on appeal. He was also found guilty of gouging Ferris during Stade's 23-13 defeat at Ravenhill.

Now, I know that there are issues about whether rugby sentences are too harsh – Attoub's 70 weeks isn't even the longest on record for gouging, being exceeded by the two-year ban that was handed out in 1999 to another prop, Richard Nones of Colomiers – and that the French always see Perfidious Albion at work. I also understand that the LNR-FFR link might only be a rumour.

But surely the case of Tincu alone shows that there is enough of a twin-track disciplinary code in action already for the International Rugby Board to do something about it. Especially as it is a Frenchman, Bernard Lapasset, who is currently at the helm of rugby's governing body.

BoarHunter

that's because the french players take disproportionate ban compared to the other leagues' players ...

When Attoub cannot play in the TOP14 for 70 weeks , Flannery take a convenient 6 weeks for a murder attempt on Palisson.

convenient as he won't get to be prevented playing for his Club for the next fixture ...

So when the ERC will cop on with their biased pantomine court marshal against the french and allow to have the representant of clubs, leagues, to defend the players with an honnest jury then we will see what happen.

I have spoken enough about the Attoub Ban. I carry on saying that Gouging Must be banned but at the moment the ERC are just a "lobster pot" who have put a french muppet on top who have no choice but applying the rules of his brit/ Irish board ... ( clever by the way ).

They did the same at the IRB actually. Don't tell me Lapasset is taking any decision. He is just a hand shaker ...

toomevara

BoarHunter wrote: »

When Attoub cannot play in the TOP14 for 70 weeks , Flannery take a convenient 6 weeks for a murder attempt on Palisson.

Thats not massively helpful. Tone it down a bit.

BoarHunter

well call it something else if you want. you sound like this ERC people all of a sudden when i accuse Flannery

toomevara

BoarHunter wrote: »

well call it something else if you want. you sound like this ERC people all of a sudden when i accuse Flannery

'Murder attempt' way OTT and highly inflammatory. Tread carefully.

BoarHunter

apologies so. In my eyes it was looking like a deliberate wooper of a kick in the legs in order to injure his opponent and take him out of the game ( what he suceeded in ).

BoarHunter

And if you look at the consequences of both acts :

Attoub ban is OTT knowing that Ferris played the end of the match and was MOTM the following week. Means Attoub mustn't have pressed his finger all the way.... The act must be firmly punished as was Dupuy. he has also the benefits of the doubts knowing that a picture can tell many different stories : looks bad on the picture but how did it happen in real time ? Up to 30 weeks would have been fair

Flannery act was done in front of every one, caught on video replays. Clearly showing that he had enough time to think about it .... and he injured a player as a consequence of it. 12 weeks max ban should have been applied

thebaz

BoarHunter wrote: »

When Attoub cannot play in the TOP14 for 70 weeks , Flannery take a convenient 6 weeks for a murder attempt on Palisson.
..

personally I'd prefer someone to attempt to break my leg, than to try and squeeze one of my eyes out - its on a par with biting. if not worse

Risteard

BoarHunter wrote: »

And if you look at the consequences of both acts :

Attoub ban is OTT knowing that Ferris played the end of the match and was MOTM the following week. Means Attoub mustn't have pressed his finger all the way.... The act must be firmly punished as was Dupuy. he has also the benefits of the doubts knowing that a picture can tell many different stories : looks bad on the picture but how did it happen in real time ? Up to 30 weeks would have been fair

Flannery act was done in front of every one, caught on video replays. Clearly showing that he had enough time to think about it .... and he injured a player as a consequence of it. 12 weeks max ban should have been applied

He also has a previous conviction for gouging, I'm sure that influenced it and Ferris' testimony that he felt a hand feeling around his face before the fingers went in..

BTW I agree with you that Flannery's ban should have been longer.

BoarHunter

thebaz wrote: »

personally I'd prefer someone to attempt to break my leg, than to try and squeeze one of my eyes out - its on a par with biting. if not worse

Once again the guy was far from having his eye taken out : he finished the match and was MOTM the following week ...

a few drops in the eye cured it. So i would say that it hurted more to take Flannery's kick in the legs.

I agree though that Attoub act could have ended up way worst than anything if he had pushed it : and that's what should be punished ! but 70 weeks ....

thomond2006

Risteard wrote: »

He also has a previous conviction for gouging, I'm sure that influenced it and Ferris' testimony that he felt a hand feeling around his face before the fingers went in..

BTW I agree with you that Flannery's ban should have been longer.

+1

JustinDee

BoarHunter wrote: »

And if you look at the consequences of both acts :

Attoub ban is OTT knowing that Ferris played the end of the match and was MOTM the following week. Means Attoub mustn't have pressed his finger all the way.... The act must be firmly punished as was Dupuy. he has also the benefits of the doubts knowing that a picture can tell many different stories : looks bad on the picture but how did it happen in real time ? Up to 30 weeks would have been fair

Attoub had a previous ban for the same offence (I know the very player personally). He also pled innocent despite evidence proving the contrary.
That is why the ban was upheld.

BoarHunter wrote: »

Flannery act was done in front of every one, caught on video replays. Clearly showing that he had enough time to think about it .... and he injured a player as a consequence of it. 12 weeks max ban should have been applied

Flannery's ban is due to an entirely different offence and circumstance.

The consequence isn't taken into account in any hearings when deciding the guilt of a player. The offence and degree of intent are.

BoarHunter

his record was for : contact with the face of an opponent player. instead of punching him with the fist he pushed the guy's face with his open hand. I saw the video recently.

BoarHunter

the debate is sterile anyway lads . we won't agree much on anything and that won't change the ERC commission either.

Don't know what these people intend to do. Burn Jeanne d'Arc another time or something else ...

the same mentality than this guy's article. The kind of Article that influence thousands of readers mind over the channel ... and maybe also the ERC people ...

JustinDee

BoarHunter wrote: »

his record was for : contact with the face of an opponent player. instead of punching him with the fist he pushed the guy's face with his open hand. I saw the video recently.

He went for his eye in a grab. I was only talking to the very player this week.

I really find defending such a foul and paranoid delusions that its because he is French very trite indeed.

BoarHunter

well, looking at the decisions push the major part of the people to concure with this. when you see the difference of treatment.

These people will have to explaine it, if it is not against the french then why is there such decisions ?

I'm curious to know, really. And reading such rubbish in the article ( page 1 ) is not going to change my mind that there is somewhat a certain opinion of France that is totally taking people's mind...

fitz

Personally, I think if Stade go down that route, they should be booted from the HEC.

Boarhunter, French players will stop getting huge bans when they stop gouging. The Flannery decision is irrelevant. The rules stipulate far more severe punishment for what Attoub did than what Flannery did, and rightly so. The fact that you continue to defend and trivialize the danger of what Attoub did is mindboggling tbh.

Dave Joyce

FFS, I really can't believe what I'm reading here. Apart from the HUGE differences in the seriousness of the offences, Gerry Flannery ADMITTED his guilt, while Attoub the scumbag was TOTALLY unhelpful during his hearing and TRIED to lie his way through it. Secondly, Fla was suffering from concussion when he committed his offence.....what was Attoub's excuse, he got carried away in the moment:rolleyes: Gouging has to be one of the SCUMIEST things to do in a game and he deserves more that 70 weeks in my opinion ESPECIALLY as it wasn't his first offence.

csm

Flannery's offence should have been given a harsher punishment in my opinion, but your defence that Attoub didn't blind Ferris and therefore should have been given a reduced sentence is ridiculous.

Your assertion that the only reason Attoub and Dupuy were given harsh sentences is because they are French is as idiotic as Attoub's defence that the photo's were doctored.

d'Oracle

BoarHunter wrote: »

Once again the guy was far from having his eye taken out : he finished the match and was MOTM the following week ...

Dude, you keep saying this and its just stupid.

If I shoot you in the leg and you make a full recovery, does that mean its OK that I shot you?

Even though you could have lost the leg?

No, its not.
Its not because its bloody dangerous to shoot people.

Similarly its bloody dangerous to insert your digits into peoples eyes.

Stephen Ferris has been a candidate for man of the match nearly every game he has played, he is in good form.
It is irrelevant to the seriousness of the attack whether he recovered or not.

yimrsg

BoarHunter wrote: »

well, looking at the decisions push the major part of the people to concure with this. when you see the difference of treatment.

These people will have to explaine it, if it is not against the french then why is there such decisions ?

I'm curious to know, really. And reading such rubbish in the article ( page 1 ) is not going to change my mind that there is somewhat a certain opinion of France that is totally taking people's mind...

Difference of treatment for different offence. There are set ban periods for various offences; not one based on the offenders nationality. Attoub had denied wrong doing and was found guilty and was heavily punished, whilst Flannery pleaded guilty and was given lenience and received 6 weeks, which IMO should have been longer.

I can't understand why your having a go at the IRB (who banned Flannery) and ERC (who banned Attoub) for Flannery's ban, it's like giving out about a judge who gives someone a life sentence for murder and a different judge gives someone a suspended sentence for shop lifting.

I think we're heading off on a tangent. The point of the thread was to discuss the problems of enforcing sanctions, not whether gouging occurred. The IRB are going to look mighty foolish if one of its members (the FFR) flouts the regulations again and allows a banned player to continue playing. The whole thing is a farce.

pat_mas

fitz wrote: »

Personally, I think if Stade go down that route, they should be booted from the HEC....

Please do so, we don't give a damn thing about the HCUP. The Top14 is way more important. This WE there were 78250 people in the Stade de France for SF vs Toulouse.

castie

pat mas you think a player caught gouging should be allowed play then?

JustinDee

pat_mas wrote: »

Please do so, we don't give a damn thing about the HCUP. The Top14 is way more important. This WE there were 78250 people in the Stade de France for SF vs Toulouse.

You should be very thankful that the people who run and play the sport in France do not think like that.

When a team is owned by a private individual, don't ever be surprised if they bolt when the going gets tough for them and leave a club hanging.

BoarHunter

well it is the growing opinion in France from the fans and the clubs ATM. Would allow the clubs to have a lighter calendar and the National team to benefit from it.

The Hcup as it is is way too long and badly organized. French club have to go and play abroad ( Spain, switzerland, Belgium ) for obvious advertising of the sponsor reasons.

The group stage is endless. Would be better to start the knock out stage straight away with less teams.

The refereing is somewhat different than the TOP14 and the finale are played 9/10 times in UK/ireland.

As in France people are not really attracted to travel to the UK ( Ireland is more attractive because the irish are more welcoming but french don't have this tradition to travel for a match anyway ), the attraction for the competition is fading big time.

duckysauce

yeah it should be played in paris every year,just to keep the french interested:rolleyes:

fitz

BoarHunter wrote: »

The Hcup as it is is way too long and badly organized. French club have to go and play abroad ( Spain, switzerland, Belgium ) for obvious advertising of the sponsor reasons.

Yeah, it's nothing to do with having neutral venues. :rolleyes:

The refereing is somewhat different than the TOP14 and the finale are played 9/10 times in UK/ireland.

Give it a rest about refereeing, everyone has to deal with different interpretations from different referees, French sides often get away with murder in terms of being offside depending on who the ref is, there's no point in everyone else moaning. Consistency of refereeing is a totally different kettle of fish, but French sides gain or lose no more advantage from it than any other teams.

In the 15 years since the competition has started (including this year) the final will have been played in France 3 times. That's 2 in ten, with 5 countries involved. Seems pretty balanced to me.

BoarHunter

i wouldn't be devastated if we were not playing the Hcup and a growing number of people ( including the clubs ) think the same.

I don't think SF- Ulster ( the postponed match in Bruxelles ) was set to be played in a neutral venue.
Biarritz 1/4 finale against munster in san sebastien either. Same for Bourgoin - munster in Switzerland, etc, etc ....

But at least there, Heineken can show off...

So maybe a knock out stage straight away with 16 clubs to spice up the season but i really prefer to watch the TOP14.

pat_mas

castie wrote: »

pat mas you think a player caught gouging should be allowed play then?

I don't, but I still think that offenses are not dealt in fairness. It's quite unfortunate but if this is the only way to make the ERC/IRB a bit fairer then the FFR must reduce Dupuy's and Attoub's bans.

If you want France to respect the IRB/ERC committees then make them respectable first. The thing is the FFR does have to raise its voice, we French are fed up with the way offenses are dealt with:
If you're French then no pity
If you're Irish, well ... just acknowledge, tell you're sorry, that you desserved a red card (at no expense btw) and there you go (even if you're a 2 timer)
And you can even be more cynical: you can show how weak (fake) were your previous repentance by appealing a "way too light" ban.

sock puppet

BoarHunter wrote: »

i wouldn't be devastated if we were not playing the Hcup and a growing number of people ( including the clubs ) think the same.

I don't think SF- Ulster ( the postponed match in Bruxelles ) was set to be played in a neutral venue.
Biarritz 1/4 finale against munster in san sebastien either. Same for Bourgoin - munster in Switzerland, etc, etc ....

But at least there, Heineken can show off...

So maybe a knock out stage straight away with 16 clubs to spice up the season but i really prefer to watch the TOP14.

To be fair the ERC don't force French clubs to play outside France. The French clubs should tell Heineken to go **** themselves if they're putting pressure on them. If it means less sponsorship money so be it.

Eoin

pat_mas wrote: »

I don't, but I still think that offenses are not dealt in fairness. It's quite unfortunate but if this is the only way to make the ERC/IRB a bit fairer then the FFR must reduce Dupuy's and Attoub's bans.

If you want France to respect the IRB/ERC committees then make them respectable first. The thing is the FFR does have to raise its voice, we French are fed up with the way offenses are dealt with:
If you're French then no pity
If you're Irish, well ... just acknowledge, tell you're sorry, that you desserved a red card (at no expense btw) and there you go (even if you're a 2 timer)
And you can even be more cynical: you can show how weak (fake) were your previous repentance by appealing a "way too light" ban.

You just can't compare the two offences. Maybe Flannery should have received a longer ban, but even then it would never have been as long as Attroub's - because it wasn't as serious an offence. Perhaps rather than crying about some anti-French agenda, the French Rugby Union could do more to stamp out gouging themselves.

And if you want to talk about cynical - how about accusing a journalist of faking a photo?

thomond2006

BoarHunter wrote: »

The group stage is endless. Would be better to start the knock out stage straight away with less teams.

The group stage is fantastic. At least 4 groups go down to the wire each year.

BoarHunter

i agree with you thomond about the suspens but there are way too man6y matches ...

this is not our primary league guys and it takes place at a crucial time for the domestic league.

this year it is a bit easier because the 6 first now qualify for the play off. That explains why some teams played the game a bit more this year and that we have 4 teams qualified.

but see that results : biarritz won't make the play off and Stade Francais are in a very week position.
All of that because they played the game in Hcup and lost vital points in TOP14.

it's the same in GPL remember the london irish in 2008. They went all the way in 1/2 final of the Hcup.

Were they even qualified the next year ? NO- then they had a quieter season and qualified for this year Hcup

it's too difficult for too many teams to play on the 2 levels. And to chose i prefer to follow the TOP14.

If the magners league teams prefer top sacrify their domestic league or don't need to set their A game in it. fair enough, they are still certain to play the Hcup the following year whatever they do. Not the same story in TOP14.

Great game by the way between SF and Toulouse 29-0 for the visitors of Stade de France with a big Show prior to the match with the Moulin rouge Dancers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQvK3pwOLdA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boJQtyG0Z1g

the only sad point is that michalak is out for the season after 2 minutes on the pitch he broke his cross knee ligaments ...

duckysauce

BoarHunter wrote: »

i wouldn't be devastated if we were not playing the Hcup and a growing number of people ( including the clubs ) think the same.

I don't think SF- Ulster ( the postponed match in Bruxelles ) was set to be played in a neutral venue.
Biarritz 1/4 finale against munster in san sebastien either. Same for Bourgoin - munster in Switzerland, etc, etc ....

But at least there, Heineken can show off...

So maybe a knock out stage straight away with 16 clubs to spice up the season but i really prefer to watch the TOP14.

yeah you are right to watch the top14 a french team are quite likely to win it , and it probably will be played in france with no foreign competition, and they dont have to travel, and heineken cant adverise for a great competion

JustinDee

BoarHunter wrote: »

well it is the growing opinion in France from the fans and the clubs ATM. Would allow the clubs to have a lighter calendar and the National team to benefit from it

Thankfully the FFR don't think like that. I don't think you realise how important that is in a time when clubs are owned by people who at a whim can pull out anytime they like. And yes, they can pull out. Even in a sport as massive as soccer, private investors and owners jilt their club playthings.
FFR are also a partner in the ERC, by the way.

BoarHunter wrote: »

The Hcup as it is is way too long and badly organized. French club have to go and play abroad ( Spain, switzerland, Belgium ) for obvious advertising of the sponsor reasons

The Top14 finishes in June!
The fixtures played at other venues are arranged by the clubs participating, not by 'Heineken'.

BoarHunter wrote: »

The group stage is endless. Would be better to start the knock out stage straight away with less teams

(I'll repeat too) . . . Top 14 finishes in June

BoarHunter

yes and we have also league games at the same time than the 6 nations or the automn tests .... no break for christmas. tired players.

There is a need to work on the calendar, and if there was something to pull out from it, that would be the HCup... simple calculation.

There is also some people who think we should divide the league into 2 groups of 8 and then have play off and play down... why not, it would also free some time on the calendar.

JustinDee

BoarHunter wrote: »

yes and we have also league games at the same time than the 6 nations or the automn tests .... no break for christmas. tired players.

There is a need to work on the calendar, and if there was something to pull out from it, that would be the HCup... simple calculation.

There is also some people who think we should divide the league into 2 groups of 8 and then have play off and play down... why not, it would also free some time on the calendar.

As I said, your own union being a partner in the competition doesn't seem to agree with you.

BoarHunter

TOP14 and FFR are 2 different things there is the league and the federation. They are 2 totally different organism

PhatPiggins

Do the T14 clubs need the HC? Probably
Does the HC need the T14 teams? Absolutely

I think they need to find a middle ground as there is definetely a growing friction.

JustinDee

BoarHunter wrote: »

TOP14 and FFR are 2 different things there is the league and the federation. They are 2 totally different organism

Wrong. Very wrong.
All rugby union matters in France are under the remit of the FFR. The Top 14 committee is formed by the FFR's domestic rugby department under the name LNR.
The players in the Top 14 must be registered with the FFR as do the clubs.

All rugby union in France is overseen and administered by the FFR.

toomevara

OK this one has run its course.