General Rugby Discussion 3

It works in soccer because it stops players using friendlies or games like Autumn internationals that rugby pretend aren't friendlies. You get a ban in the CC you shouldn't be allowed use the URC to get you back in time for a vital knockout game. Irish players could even count their AIL games.

GAA I believe use a hybrid of time with a minimum number of games to be served.

Yeah but if a player gets a ban in his last Six Nations game of the tournament, its not much use banning him for the following year's Six Nations game. Or the next international game when that could be a tour to Romania or Georgia.

Time bans are fine but the problem is that they're not serious enough to make any impact. They're so 'mitigated' now that they barely make any impact as they're only ever a handful of weeks which in rugby generally isn't any meaningful games. Ntamack will really miss only one meaningful game because two weeks is nothing.

And again, this 'tackle school' nonsense is some of the worst BS I've ever heard.

I remember when eye-gouging was one of the scummiest offences. These days, a repeat offender like Mapimpi somehow gets his punishment halved from 4 weeks to 2 weeks because he acknowledged that eye-gouging was something only bold boys did. Now he did get an extra 1 week because he was a repeat offender but is 1 week extra for being a repeat offender any sort of deterrent when its already been mitigated.

The punishments needs to be longer and the soft mitigation bollocks removed.

I think you can blame the home countries for this and not World Rugby. World Rugby do not run the 6 nations.

It's not relevant to the team he was playing against. That would be bonkers.

Similar to soccer bans is what I am suggesting.

I think this is spot on. The reality is that if you get a ban anytime before maybe February or March, it means shag all to your team. The URC and Champions Cup (in its group stage) have little to no jeopardy so missing a few games in either is not really going to affect your club. Fines will hurt the offender and if its an egregious offence rather than an accidental one, the fine should reflect that.

Ntamack receiving a ban for 'three matches' (albeit has been reduced to two) is nonsensical because you can easily count the Toulouse v Bayonne game and Italy v France game which are a day apart.

That's not true. The disciplinary decisions are based on World Rugby regulations that are supplemented by the Six Nations Disciplinary Rules. World Rugby regulations (17.19) are what set out mitigating factors - so World Rugby are the ones that allow mitigation for this nonsense ideas of 'remorse'.

I've no idea what happens in soccer but I don't see much wrong with the current system other than the mitigation they use. They give a period of time and list the number of games to be missed.

In you proposal - if a Munster player playing in the round 4 of the Champions Cup receives a ban, Munster don't progress to the knock out games and you want it Competition tied then it would be next season before a ban would start but then they fail to make the Top 8 of the URC so don't make the Champions Cup for next season. The player gets off scott free

But its the World Rugby rules that cause the problem not who's on the committee..

The regulations state that:

"Mitigating factors include the following:

(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of the commission of foul play by the offending Player;

(b) the Player’s disciplinary record;

(c) the youth and/or inexperience of the Player;

(d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing

(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his/her conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and

(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate."

The disciplinary panel are forced to take into consideration all of the above because its written into the rules.

That’s how it works in soccer. If a player gets sent off in the final World Cup qualifier for instance, and his team doesn’t qualify for the WC, then the ban will be served in two years time when they start playing the next set of WC qualifiers. If the player has retired by then or hasn’t been selected so be it. It’s competition tied and one of the few things I’d take for rugby from soccer.

I think you make some very good points, especially with the 20-minute red card rule they're forcing through I think bans should also be doubled, otherwise where's the motivation to tackle properly?

Your right, he didn’t and just checked to see if he was cited and he wasn’t so it had to have been someone else…! Can’t even find record of the game because it was never official, but I remember it well and the Aussies going mad about it and suspensions subsequently being changed to games instead of weeks

You cant get rid of mitigation unless you totally change everything that refa do. Mitigation comes ibto lot of other areas as well. Ypu cant aimply have aggravating factors to add to bans with nothing to mitigate where poasible/feasible.

Maybe a baseline, severe enough so players & fans know what's absolutely the minimum that will happen. Then increase the sanction if no apology, penitence, wrong biscuits, nice lad defense etc etc.