I think missing an international match at least costs the players something like 25 grand. Missing a club match, they probably get paid as normal.
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'.
It's just another way to say the ban is double for a repeat offence, I suppose. Unless you're Mapimpi and don't want anyone else to have two Is.
It's not relevant to the team he was playing against. That would be bonkers.
Similar to soccer bans is what I am suggesting.
With cross competitions it's difficult to manage, like Munster played 4 teams in the Champions Cup this season and might not meet them again next season.
Also, say a Munster player was banned for something they did playing Castres in this season's Champions Cup and then that player moves to a French Club at the end of the season, does the ban against that player playing against Castres extend to his new team and to the Top14?
I think you can blame the home countries for this and not World Rugby. World Rugby do not run the 6 nations.
The reason the foul plays Law sanctions exist is to protect players. But, as in traffic laws, offenders seem to think that their own safety will never suffer due to their actions, and they continue to ignore laws.
Sanctions are not an end in themselves, they exist only to convince the offender (& other would be offenders) that they should not commit foul play (or indeed 'speak their minds' as in one notable case).
So what level of sanction would have a player (& others) think "Hang on, this is really bad for me, I'll not be doing that again".
Fine the player. Fine the Club. Ban the player from all Club activities & locations for a period. Repeat offenders get bigger fines & longer bans.
The present system allows banned players to train & rest and the ban being of a specific duration means the Club can be certain how long the player is going to be unavailable.
Contrast that with an injured player. He can't train & it's uncertain how long his injury is going to last & affect his availability to play.
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.
That's a real shame, but I'd imagine he's laid some groundwork and hopefully had some input to longer terms plans that will keep things going in the right direction beyond his departure.
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.
BBut A player who say does somwthing in november internationals then misses his province/clubs european games and if in 6 nations the knockouts of that conpetition. I dont see why it ahould be limited to thatcompetition where the foul play took place. It doesnt add anything.
So if a player commits a serious offence in the Champions Cup final he gets banned for the summer. Or gets banned during the 6 Nations and misses only a few URC games that teams are not even full strength for anyway.
I dont see why time bans ars stupid and bans shoyldnt only be for team you play for. An i cident of foul play jn an international mightnt get punished for 3/4 mobths but player can keep playing. Thar jsnt right.
Time bans are absolutely stupid. It should be match bans and relevant to the team the ban was received with.
Joe Schmidt to step down as Wallabies coach at the end of the Rugby Championship. Appears that family affairs are a big part of it. Pity as he’s made a huge difference already to Australia.
TOTs suspension was heavier because it wasnt his first offence
Half off "because he acknowledged his foul play" is an utter joke. His foul play was blatantly obvious, on camera, for all the world to see.
Missing only 2 weeks for a dangerous tackle, to the head, at the top level, goes completely against the whole idea of player welfare aimed at reducing concussions from dangerous tackles. Which is supposedly the key goal at the moment.
6 weeks, including the rest of the 6N, would have been a proportionate ban.
How injured a player is shouldn't factor into it. Getting lucky or unlucky that the player has or hasn't an iron jaw shouldn't mitigate what you've done at all.
The Tom O'Toole incident was unfortunate. Ntamack's was not unfortunate in the slightest.
I agree entirely though that a ban should be a ban with no stupid mitigants. This nonsense of a player coming in with a sad face to acknowledge that they did indeed smash another player in the face with their shoulder and it was bold being somewhat of a reason to not punish them is laughable.
Players should be sent to tackle school regardless and it shouldn't be a mitigatant at all.
It's clearly not unreasonable for the panel to have some latitude with sanctions as not all 'foul play' offences are equally serious. It's also not possible to sanction players more severely depending on the outcome of that particular foul play. Any action adjudged to be foul play needs to be sanctioned heavily in order that all players understand the seriousness of foul play. All these measures are designed to protect players and only serious sanctions will convince players not to commit them. In particular, premeditated foul play need the most serious sanctions.
I don't want to get into comparing offences. But O'Toole's offence did injur the player and can end careers. Ask Dan Leave.
O'Toole also got half his ban suspended. If the standard is to suspended half the ban, then they should just make the ban half as long and actually impose it fully.
What's the thinking behind suspending half the ban as standard?
Not at all.
Tom O'Toole receive a ban three times as long for his offence against Ulster.
Madness.
Yep, not a meaningful ban for what was a premeditated & dangerous action. Always suspected that having a dedicated Foul Play official would lead to softer on field decisions & this is a fine example of it. France couldn't avail of the 20min RC replacement in this instance, whereas Junior Kpoku got a straight RC, was replaced after 20mins and still only got a 3 week ban !.
No, back for the Bayonne game technically.
How a six week ban is so easily reduced to three is farcical.
So he misses 6N v England + Toulouse v ASM + Toulouse v Bayonne
& is available thereafter
Lots of Tigers nearer the end than the beginning. Shilcock & Volavola won't strike terror in their opponent's hearts.
Ntamack ban was halved from six weeks to three weeks because he acknowledged his foul play (minus another week for tackle school). What a joke.
World Rugby’s approach to player safety is absolutely laughable.
POllard leaving tigers this summer and they are rumoured to be after Owen farrell
Ntamack's hearing starts at 10 today.
As Bernard Jackman says, they'll consider how he walks old ladies across the street in Tulouse and brought biscuits to the hearing, attend tackle school and he'll be back in time for the Ireland game. I'll be shocked if he's not back for Ireland.
Repeating what I said in the URC thread, the practice of discounts or mitigation due to remorse/apology is outrageous. Apologising for being caught should not cut bans in half.
Mapimpi gets caught eye gouging players in two successive matches and gets… 3 weeks suspension.
Ridiculous stuff.
