London Irish Suspend Chris Halaufia internally whilst injured so that he doesn't have to do the full amount of time on the ban that the ERC give him...!!!

It appears that London Irish are not trying to clamp down on their recent poor disciplinary record.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/12/2287/chris-halaufia-suspended-internally-for-six-weeks-after-citing-for-dangerous-tackle

He's injured with a broken arm/wrist or something. While i'm sure we are trying to improve our disciplinary record, i'm not sure we'd be doing this if he was fit to play. I'm not sure but as we have taken the action to suspend him it could mean his suspension is backdated, when (not sure if it has already) the citing comes through. If there is no citing i beleive Irish will end this internal suspension as soon as he is fit to play.

"they will review their rulings once the outcome of the ERC hearing is known"

On a side not, Hala'ufia needs to sort his discipline out, he make delon armitage look like an

Sorry I just read your post, he has been banned whilst injured ?

Its a cynical move. they ban him internally now then when he gets the official ban its backdated tot he start of the internal ban. he wouldn't have been playing anyway as he is injured.

Its a cynical attempt to reduce the impact of any ban, I hope the powers that be see thru it

What about teaching him a lesson for what he's done wrong....?

I thought London Irish were trying to do the right thing due to them having a bit of a problem with indiscipline.

Armitage, Hape and Shingler are all also currently serving or have just finished bans for bad tackles.

Will the club not maybe get Premiership points deducted or something for this?

I suppose LI are in a "Damned if we do, damned if we don't" situation.

The idea of an internal ban is good one but it is clearly not going to make a blind bit of difference here as the guy looks as if he might have broken his arm executing that terrible forearm smash.

I suspect the reason the citing hearing has been delayed is because the guy is unable to play because of injury anyway so the internal ban is unlikely to reduce the suspension period significantly.

The fine they have imposed is a more significant gesture.

I'm sure his ban will be long and rightly so!

Mrs P

I didn't see how much the RFU had fined London Irish for this. Do you have a link?

The fine isn't from the RFU. The club has fined the player.

I'm not sure if the RFU will be involved in this at all as it happened in an HEC match so the ERC will be deciding the ban.

MrsP wrote:The fine isn't from the RFU. The club has fined the player.

I'm not sure if the RFU will be involved in this at all as it happened in an HEC match so the ERC will be deciding the ban.

I guess so.

I am surprised that a club are allowed to cheat the system like this. When a governing body decides to punish a player for breaking the rules, then that player should serve the punishment when not injured.

Maybe banning players for wrong doing is less relevant to players than fining them. It would also be prudent when a club in particular has such a poor record of discipline that they receive a heft fine too.

The reason that the IRB make stiff laws on reckless tackles is to try and eradicate them, what London Irish RFC is doing by protecting their player from serving a legitimate ban, and with his and their record for players charged with acts of dangerous play, I don't think the system is working.

I'm sure that clubs do use that tactic to reduce the time that players are unavailable but I'm not so sure that is really what is going on here.

The guy was cited but the hearing has been postponed. Now if the fella hadn't injured himself and the hearing had gone ahead as sheduled he would be in for a hefty ban. Let's say 10 weeks for the sake of argument.

However he is injured so there is no need to rush to hold the hearing. The club have banned him so there is no chance of a "miraclous recovery" allowing him back before the hearing.

Say they hold the hearing in Early Jan, give him 10 weeks but back date it to the day the club banned him?

He guy still serves the same amount of time off the pitch, no?

I totally agree that something needs to be done about the guy before he causes more damage to someone other than himself!

I see what you are saying but does the idea of a ban actually make a difference to him, especially when he would not have played anyway.

It makes no difference to anyone in my opinion and sounds rather like cheating the system.

It says that he recently returned from serving a seven week ban. His punishment is due to be pretty Harsh because of his previous record.


What are London Irish doing to positively sort out their problem with so many of their players getting banned for similar offences? I would like to know how much he has been fined.

As with all taken into account it doesn't sound like he is being punished at all.

I understand what you're saying but a broken arm is a bit of a punishment, no?

By the way, I'm guessing it was broken, I haven't actually seen an official report on his injury.

Let's just hope he gets the book well and truely thrown at him.

Might just manage to hit his good arm!

I think Capital punishment is not promoted in rugby, so I don't think you can count a player breaking his arm as punishment, especially when he broke it whilst committing the act that got him banned.

I agree that the book is likely to get well and truly thrown at him for this.

Very sad for a player to end up in this situation though and I do feel that the way his club have behaved is irresponsible and wrong. They should receive some type of punishment for their behaviour too.

I know that they are in a tricky situation, fighting for their lives on several fronts and currently missing a large number of their first team but five of those are serving bans over four weeks for dangerous tackles.

A club should be accountable for its disciplinary record when it is this bad.

santimonious rubbish being spouted on these boards by those with an agenda again

Cyril the stalker... What a surprise...!

Oi! Stop calling me Cyril mate, you cheeky beggar! I'm insulted

Why did you change your name then?

I didn't.

Did you?

Why exactly should the club face a punishment maesteg?

If the players were getting banned for cheap shots, or serious violent conduct then I would say that you may have a point. If you read the disciplinary hearing reports for Armitage, Hape and Shingler, it was accepted in all of those cases that the player was attempting to make a legitimate tackle, which due to circumstances at the time of the incident resulted in it being executed poorly and become an illegal tackle. Due to an IRB memo in the summer around the potential for injuries in those circumstances the players were banned (for excessive periods compared to other similar and related incidents in my opinion).

Now Hala'ufia is a different case. Both of his tackles were poor and smacked of trying to be the hard man out on the pitch. On both occasions the club banned him internally prior to his disciplinary hearing. On this occasion they have also hit him in the wallet with a fine to be donated to charity.

Now you are slating them for banning him claiming that they are trying to get him off, but had they done nothing, you would be on here moaning that the club are condoning his behaviour by taking no action.

a player breaking his arm as punishment, especially when he broke it whilst committing the act that got him banned

I'm guessing that will be a lesson learned right there. He'll think twice before doing it again as breaks are not pleasent.

A lot of clubs fine and ban players after the incident. Tigers have done it previously with White after he sat down Sheridan. The club needs to be seen to be taking action otherwise it risks damaging it's reputation. A broken arm will see him out for a while anyway and it would extremely harsh to date the ban to start as he finishes rehab.

Ozzy3213 wrote:
Now you are slating them for banning him claiming that they are trying to get him off, but had they done nothing, you would be on here moaning that the club are condoning his behaviour by taking no action.

To be honest Ozzy, I actually praised London Irish for their action in suspending him when I first read the article and posted this thread. I was thinking that they were taking a good lead in acting on their clubs unfortunate disposition currently having four, (now 5), players serving bans for dangerous tackles... Whether they genuinely were dangerous tackles or not has already been decided by the governing bodies appropriate and those four players are currently serving their sentences.

I was later corrected by other posters that London Irish should maybe not be commended at all for what they are doing as it is quite a cynical act.

My point as this thread has developed is that I don't think a player should be serving a ban when they are injured.

What London Irish are consciously doing in this case is reducing the playing time of the player that is likely about to be banned by the ERC for an illegal dangerous tackle, by internally banning him whilst he would not be able to play anyway because he is injured.


That is not right... It should not be allowed.

formerly known as Sam wrote:A broken arm will see him out for a while anyway and it would extremely harsh to date the ban to start as he finishes rehab.

Why...? Surely that is the right thing to do.

It makes no difference to the club or the player if you are preventing a player from playing by banning them when they are injured.

MrsP wrote:I'm sure that clubs do use that tactic to reduce the time that players are unavailable but I'm not so sure that is really what is going on here.

The guy was cited but the hearing has been postponed. Now if the fella hadn't injured himself and the hearing had gone ahead as sheduled he would be in for a hefty ban. Let's say 10 weeks for the sake of argument.

However he is injured so there is no need to rush to hold the hearing. The club have banned him so there is no chance of a "miraclous recovery" allowing him back before the hearing.

Say they hold the hearing in Early Jan, give him 10 weeks but back date it to the day the club banned him?

He guy still serves the same amount of time off the pitch, no?

This is what I thought.

Much ado about nothing.

If the club have fined him (and then given it to charity) it shows that this isn't just an attempt to get around any official bans.

think you were right in your OP maesteg tbh.

maestegmafia wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:
Now you are slating them for banning him claiming that they are trying to get him off, but had they done nothing, you would be on here moaning that the club are condoning his behaviour by taking no action.

To be honest Ozzy, I actually praised London Irish for their action in suspending him when I first read the article and posted this thread. I was thinking that they were taking a good lead in acting on their clubs unfortunate disposition currently having four, (now 5), players serving bans for dangerous tackles... Whether they genuinely were dangerous tackles or not has already been decided by the governing bodies appropriate and those four players are currently serving their sentences.

I was later corrected by other posters that London Irish should maybe not be commended at all for what they are doing as it is quite a cynical act.

My point as this thread has developed is that I don't think a player should be serving a ban when they are injured.

What London Irish are consciously doing in this case is reducing the playing time of the player that is likely about to be banned by the ERC for an illegal dangerous tackle, by internally banning him whilst he would not be able to play anyway because he is injured.


That is not right... It should not be allowed.

Your assertion is incorrect in this case Maesteg. The situation is this. As I said at the time of the incident, Chris will deservedly get somewhere in the region of 10-12 weeks for this. His hearing, as per normal procedures should have been this week, which if he gets 12 weeks would leave him eligible to play again around 12th March.

Prognosis on his broken arm which he has had surgery on is that he will not be fit to play again anyway until the end of March, so whether the ban the club has imposed on him serves to lessen the ban given by the ERC or not, he is unlikely to be seen on a rugby pitch again until April at best. The issue of whether or not his ban from the ERC should commence when he is once again fit to play is a separate issue that does not sit alongside Irish's decision to ban and fine him, given the fact that the club also imposed a ban on him prior to an RFU disciplinary hearing earlier in the season.

I didn't see your original post, only your amended version, but this is coming across as you attempting to use Irish banning the player whilst injured as some sort of stick with which to beat the (English) club, when it is standard practice for lots of clubs around the world to ban their own players prior to the authorities doing so, be they injured or not.

Ozzy3213 wrote:
I didn't see your original post, only your amended version, but this is coming across as you attempting to use Irish banning the player whilst injured as some sort of stick with which to beat the (English) club, when it is standard practice for lots of clubs around the world to ban their own players prior to the authorities doing so, be they injured or not.

I am not using this "as some sort of stick with which to beat the (English) club", but you will have to take my word for that. I did not know this was common practice at any clubs, in any countries.


I would be very keen to see any evidence of other clubs doing the same


I am frankly not happy with it in the slightest. I think it goes against what is right....!

Did Quins do something along those lines not so long ago? I'm only asking as I'm not sure but I seem to recall something about imposing a ban on a player who looked like he was on his way to citation? I could be perfectly dreaming that one too though! I'm prepared to admit it.

I think Stade Francais banned both Attoub and Dupuy before their ERC hearings after the incidents with Stephen Ferris 2 seasons ago. The club were very apologetic until the ERC hearing and then they denied the incidents and said that the photograph showing Attoubs finger in Ferris' eye had been faked!!!

I think the whole pre-emptive club ban is used pretty commonly. It really doesn't make much difference unless the incident is right at the end of the season and the hearing is severely delayed.

So not quite an epidemic then..!

Hate to say it, but he's been a dirty player for years. Always hitting high.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/oct/19/rugbyunion.sport

"It was White's fourth red card in his English club career, having been sent off once for Saracens and twice while playing for Bristol. This week, having been suspended by Leicester an hour after the final whistle against Newcastle, he issued a contrite statement in which he apologised to his club and fans. "

Evidence of it being done years ago Maesteg. Tigers normally issue an immeadiate 1 week ban plus fine if they believe their player is guilty. I've never noticed it have a great deal of difference though. Then again the official ban does always start from the first day of the club ban, that has never really aided us though.

Reading through this the bigger question is whether the punishments imposed on players for whatever reason it is that they get have been accused is actually working, preventing them from repeat offending.

Sams post above and plenty of others like Chris Halaufia, Delon Armitage are all multiple offenders, sometimes in the same season.

Maybe a large fine, to the player and the club, is a better way to deal with the problems rather than suspending them.