World rugby to monitor Ireland and France player discipline

Oh well, it looks as though World Rugby is going to keep an eye on the French and the Irish before the upcoming world cup after their latest non citing's of obvious foul play, this should be interesting to say the least, it was about time somebody higher up the food chain stepped in to sort this nonsense out.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/32953649

it looks to me that the BBC journo has been wandering on these boards to find material
the only relevant part of this article is "World Rugby is keeping an interested eye on the application of the disciplinary process".
what does it exactly means? will they review older incidents ? do they have the power to cite players after games ? or will they ask refs to do it themselves?

I think the Journalist is spinning the comment by World Rugby to make it appear as though Ireland and France have been singled out.

Here is the comment by World Rugby:

"World Rugby is keeping an interested eye on the application of the disciplinary process."

That may have been in response to questions on the failure to cite McGrath and Huget, but a response not specific too Ireland and France. Why would it be?
Not that Huget and McGrath shouldn't have been cited. They should have. Just that it would be very strange if World Rugby picked out Ireland and France for special attention.

I think the story is deliberately misleading.

I might be misleading but it is good to know that World Rugby will be taking note that if certain nations turn a blind eye to potential citing's that they could step in. It is obvious that these last few incidents have been overlooked with the WC in mind.

"World Rugby is keeping an interested eye on the application of the disciplinary process."

I agree with whats been said. To be honest, that seems like a standard evasive non-answer. An interested eye, but no commitment to actually doing anything.

Should this be in the International Section?

Five players mentioned by name - Hartley, McGrath, Madigan, Huget and Farrell.

It's not even a stirring journo who mentions "Ireland and France" - it's solely LordDowlais.

I don't think McGraths has been overlooked with a view to the World Cup. I think it has been overlooked because it was a Baabaa's game. I think Huget escaped his citing only because of the World Cup.
It's a bit late in the day for World Rugby to be keeping an interested eye on the disciplinary process. It's been in need of a shake up for some time now. Does World Rugby only take an interest when World Cups are just around the corner?
I'm not convinced the reply by World Rugby was anything more than a reply to shake off nosey journalists. Maybe journalists who would like to see certain French and Irish player miss the world cup.

To be fair, Don, the journalist does mention Ireland and France at the top of his article:

"World Rugby is monitoring recent disciplinary cases in Ireland and France before this year's World Cup."

Considering the reply by World Rugby doesn't specify Ireland or France, I think the journalist is misleading. He's playing with words to fool the readers into believing that Ireland and France have been singled out, without actually saying that either country has been singled out.

Munchkin wrote:To be fair, Don, the journalist does mention Ireland and France at the top of his article:

"World Rugby is monitoring recent disciplinary cases in Ireland and France before this year's World Cup."

Considering the reply by World Rugby doesn't specify Ireland or France, I think the journalist is misleading. He's playing with words to fool the readers into believing that Ireland and France have been singled out, without actually saying that either country have been singled out.

Thank you Munchkin, I was just about to reply but I saw this first. It seems people go straight on the attack on here before they read things properly, I will not hold my breath for an apology from him mind....

Sorry - missed that - entirely fair original post, LD.

I officially apologise for smearing LD. Lazy article reading led to niggle where absolutely none was warranted.

It's always warranted with LD

Fair play to you Don. Apology accepted.

No worries.

I do agree that citings and bannings need seriously looked at and - crucially - standardised. If a ban affects league, cup and international games, they need to be coherent. They're fairly all over the show as things stand. Four weeks for Hartley with his record is ludicrous, and I can't believe McGrath wasn't up before a panel.

Why is four weeks ridiculous? If it was anyone else they probably wouldn't have even been cited? It was as light as it could possibly be and I think the minimum was 2 weeks. His record doubled it and put him out of the world cup (if he had been available for one warm up and all the games he would have been in).

One big problem is that most people seem to look at these very emotionally. Just look at the language used (headbutt, eye gouge, taking his head off, tried to break his leg). These things cloud judgement so you have someone saying "he wouldn't do that, you can't tell intent from video" to "he clearly did it deliberately" based on his personal knowledge of players.

I find the bans, in the main, are pretty consistent. If some is cited then they usually get a ban even if it's something that happens often in a game. simply because technically it warrants one. However if they don't get cited no-one gets their knickers in a knot. That's the issue for me. We should cite more and ban less.

I think there is absolutely no consistency between the Pro12 bans and the AP bans. I will have to plead ignorance on Top 14.

I'm not saying one league is right and one is wrong, I just don't think they marry up very well.

HammerofThunor wrote: However if they don't get cited no-one gets their knickers in a knot.

You clearly don't read the Pro 12 threads...

I don't agree at all that we should cite more and ban less, Hammer. I would say cite less and ban more.
Citing players means that players and staff have to take time out from training, and training that may be crucial for the games ahead. Ulster had two citings in which both players were cleared, and both those citings meant that those players missed out on valuable training time. It's also difficult for the coaching staff because with not knowing if their cited player is going to be available, planing for the game ahead is that much more complicated.

Oh - and to be clear - I actually phrased that ar$e-about-face. I meant that it was ludicrous that there was any ban for Hartley - it was solely because of his reputation. I posted the precise opposite of what I meant.

I'm on fire today...

It's ok, Don. It's Monday

In Madigans case I think it'd be harsh, its nearly every game you have the same thing happening. I think its time they looked at the choke tackle as well as theres too much movement when mauls go to ground now, it happened in the AP final at the weekend, Saracens applied the choke tackle, a Sarries player rolled round to prevent the ball go back on the ground but Stringer had his hands on the ball yet it was a scrum awarded.

I can't tell if the reporter is absolving the RFU of blame in any such action or doing the same, Hartley received the absolute minimum he could get in spite of being a repeat offender and had no good record to use to reduce the ban.

McGrath on the other hand is a lucky boy and should still be sweating over his place

Don Alfonso wrote:Oh - and to be clear - I actually phrased that ar$e-about-face. I meant that it was ludicrous that there was any ban for Hartley - it was solely because of his reputation. I posted the precise opposite of what I meant.

I'm on fire today...

I have to disagree, Hartley pled guilty so a ban was inevitable and if Jamie George hadn't reacted quickly there may have been more damage done.

It wasn't pleasant, but it barely looks like a headbutt, as far as I'm concerned (Although I've only seen the Vine, in fairness, so I may be missing the bigger picture). And you can't punish someone for something that "may" have happened.

I don't think it merited a red. The problem was that once it was cited, the citing was always going to be upheld. It may not have been a full on headbutt, but technically it was still a headbutt, and the citing panel really didn't have any other option but to uphold the citing.

If Hartley had received a yellow card, and no further action, that would have been fair. Hartley only has himself to blame though. If he hadn't have bumped heads he wouldn't have been cited.

Don Alfonso wrote:It wasn't pleasant, but it barely looks like a headbutt, as far as I'm concerned (Although I've only seen the Vine, in fairness, so I may be missing the bigger picture). And you can't punish someone for something that "may" have happened.

He put his head into an opponents face and made contact, that's a headbutt

If we're saying that the action rather than the outcome is policed then its right to ban him, he wasn't cited because of his reputation the ref looked at it at the time so it goes to the committee after the game. He entered a guilty plea so they can't say he hasn't a case to answer if he pleads guilty, there are plenty claiming that hes being victimised but he's got off lightly when you consider a good record gets you a reduction. If someone is a repeat offender logic dictates you add more to teach them a lesson

It was back to front though. Having pleased guilty to leading with the head it should have been longer. Thing is though no one else would have been cited for that, it was because it was Hartley. it wasn't a headbutt.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was back to front though. Having pleased guilty to leading with the head it should have been longer. Thing is though no one else would have been cited for that, it was because it was Hartley. it wasn't a headbutt.

If Saracens have lodged it with the citing commissioner can the commissioner throw it out? If its been referred to the TMO does it not automatically get looked at after the game?

Should the intent not be punished as much as the result? The fact that he keeps doing these things makes him a danger to other players

I don't see a defence for Hartley whatsoever, but then I don't see defences for Mcgrath or Huget either, at least Hartley has been dealt with accordingly.

marty2086 wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:It wasn't pleasant, but it barely looks like a headbutt, as far as I'm concerned (Although I've only seen the Vine, in fairness, so I may be missing the bigger picture). And you can't punish someone for something that "may" have happened.

He put his head into an opponents face and made contact, that's a headbutt

If we're saying that the action rather than the outcome is policed then its right to ban him, he wasn't cited because of his reputation the ref looked at it at the time so it goes to the committee after the game. He entered a guilty plea so they can't say he hasn't a case to answer if he pleads guilty, there are plenty claiming that hes being victimised but he's got off lightly when you consider a good record gets you a reduction. If someone is a repeat offender logic dictates you add more to teach them a lesson

It is, but he didn't do it with any force so he's unlucky. Stupid, very stupid, but you can be unlucky and stupid.

As for World Rugby getting involved in standardising the disciplinary process; I honestly wish they would. But I don't think their one-line statement in this article suggests they will. It just seems like more talk that won't be backed up with actions.

Could World rugby actually do anything if they wanted to? Logistically it would be a nightmare trying to evaluate every instance of foul play, decide wether thay should step in, fight with the union involved, then punish the player through the system.

Don Alfonso wrote:Five players mentioned by name - Hartley, McGrath, Madigan, Huget and Farrell.

It's not even a stirring journo who mentions "Ireland and France" - it's solely LordDowlais.

Well surely that's Ireland, France and England?

Done and dealt with, Saint. Apology to LD offered and graciously accepted.

4 weeks isn't the minimum for striking with the head. It's the Low entry level (which often gets confused with the minimum for some reason). The IRB then recommend that up to 50% can be taken off this so a 'minimum' would be half the LE level, which is 2 weeks.

There's only been one case (that I know of) when more than 50% reduction was applied. And that was for Haskell for striking with the head (flying into a ruck headfirst), which was reduced from 4 weeks to 1 week (75%). In this case the additional mitigating circumstances were that a teammate of Haskell's was being held down in a ruck and being repeatedly punched. Haskell tried to bring it to the refs attention be he was ignored so he charged in to clear him out.

Also, it wasn't a head butt (unless you clash touching someone with a fist a punch, i.e. pressing it against someone and pushing).

Finally, where do the PRO12 publish their discipline reports?

In the Pro12 this season, the four Irish provinces account for 67% of the proven citings on the fair play table. The Pro12 also as a league consisting of 4 separate Unions would make it trickier to enforce preferential treatment due to the nature of it's set-up. Any league where discipline is enforced solely by its own Union..........

"Also, it wasn't a head butt (unless you clash touching someone with a fist a punch, i.e. pressing it against someone and pushing)."

Not sure I can agree. As much as I don't think Hartley deserved red, I do think it was a headbutt, even if it was no more than a nudge. The reaction of Jamie George leads me to believe it wasn't just a simple push. Describing it as a headbutt might be slightly misleading, as the quote below describes it as a strike with the head:

“This offence falls within the low entry point for striking with the head,” said Enright in an RFU statement.
“There was no significant injury to the other party, the opposition player was not removed from the field of play and the incident did not affect the game. However, there cannot be any place in our game for this class of behaviour, and that is why we have imposed this sanction.”

HammerofThunor wrote:

Finally, where do the PRO12 publish their discipline reports?

I think they were held in the same safe deposit boxes that the PRL kept their corruption report into the AP Champions.  But of course that place got unfortunately burgled as we all now know.

Don't be fooled by all those false stories about who those guys were in their fancy shoes - it was a combined IRFU and PRL operation carried out by Secrecy Compartmentalisation Special Forces.

It's all there in Thusday's edition of the Rugby Paper.

HammerofThunor wrote:4 weeks isn't the minimum for striking with the head.  It's the Low entry level (which often gets confused with the minimum for some reason).  The IRB then recommend that up to 50% can be taken off this so a 'minimum' would be half the LE level, which is 2 weeks.

There's only been one case (that I know of) when more than 50% reduction was applied.  And that was for Haskell for striking with the head (flying into a ruck headfirst), which was reduced from 4 weeks to 1 week (75%).  In this case the additional mitigating circumstances were that a teammate of Haskell's was being held down in a ruck and being repeatedly punched.  Haskell tried to bring it to the refs attention be he was ignored so he charged in to clear him out.

Also, it wasn't a head butt (unless you clash touching someone with a fist a punch, i.e. pressing it against someone and pushing).

Finally, where do the PRO12 publish their discipline reports?

Overall fairplay stats;

http://www.pro12rugby.com/statzone/specsavers_fair_play_league.php#woU1jBzwO12HbKfS.97

I haven't actually seen a dedicated space anywhere for disciplin reports (maybe someone has a link). I tend to just pick it up from the news threads.

On the 'it wasn't a headbutt' line above hammer, are you talking about the Haskell incident or the Hartley incident?

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

On the 'it wasn't a headbutt' line above hammer, are you talking about the Haskell incident or the Hartley incident?

Haskell clearly and unapologetically headbutted the post so he must mean Hartley.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:In the Pro12 this season, the four Irish provinces account for 67% of the proven citings on the fair play table.  The Pro12 also as a league consisting of 4 separate Unions would make it trickier to enforce preferential treatment due to the nature of it's set-up.  Any league where discipline is enforced solely by its own Union..........

Ah but you could also say that only one of those provinces is responsible for 44.44% of the Pro12's upheld citings, so that really skews the figures somewhat.

you typed what I was thinking of typing.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:In the Pro12 this season, the four Irish provinces account for 67% of the proven citings on the fair play table.  The Pro12 also as a league consisting of 4 separate Unions would make it trickier to enforce preferential treatment due to the nature of it's set-up.  Any league where discipline is enforced solely by its own Union..........

Ah but you could also say that only one of those provinces is responsible for 44.44% of the Pro12's upheld citings, so that really skews the figures somewhat.

It doesn't skew who is on top, who is third and who is fourth in a twelve side league.

We must get World Rugby to keep a close eye on excessive ill discipline that leads to red and yellow cards in the league.

SecretFly wrote:We must get World Rugby to keep a close eye on excessive ill discipline that leads to red and yellow cards in the league.

Only the one's that go unpunished, the TMO's and citing commissioners need looking at as well, not just the players.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:In the Pro12 this season, the four Irish provinces account for 67% of the proven citings on the fair play table.  The Pro12 also as a league consisting of 4 separate Unions would make it trickier to enforce preferential treatment due to the nature of it's set-up.  Any league where discipline is enforced solely by its own Union..........

Ah but you could also say that only one of those provinces is responsible for 44.44% of the Pro12's upheld citings, so that really skews the figures somewhat.

But then on points we represent only 13.3%, with Scarlets on 9.04%.

Not that it makes great reading for us anyway. Our discipline has been very poor this season.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:We must get World Rugby to keep a close eye on excessive ill discipline that leads to red and yellow cards in the league.

Only the one's that go unpunished, the TMO's and citing commissioners need looking at as well, not just the players.

I would say including those that are punished. I agree with you that TMO's and citing commissioners should also be scrutinized.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:We must get World Rugby to keep a close eye on excessive ill discipline that leads to red and yellow cards in the league.

Only the one's that go unpunished, the TMO's and citing commissioners need looking at as well, not just the players.

Ulster would undoubtedly agree with you there, Lord

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:We must get World Rugby to keep a close eye on excessive ill discipline that leads to red and yellow cards in the league.

Only the one's that go unpunished, the TMO's and citing commissioners need looking at as well, not just the players.

Ulster would undoubtedly agree with you there, Lord

Well, Marshall Kilgore would have to look out.

I meant Hartley's wasn't a headbutt. But that's just a semantic thing. Whether you call it a head butt or not is irrelevant (other than it's an emotive term, I've been headbutted and it wasn't what Hartley did).

It WAS striking with the head, which is the thing against the laws.

As for the Discipline hearing reports, well to avoid things like bias it's important to be open on clear with these things. The RFU publishes all their reports which allows you to see their decision making and the evidence that was provided (rather than relying on the usual media). The ERC did the same, as does the EPCR now. I was unable to find anything on the IRFU or Pro12 websites. The WRU have a general 'results' page but no detail (and I didn't see any Regional players on there). Only a quick look, I'm sure it's somewhere.

LordDowlais wrote:

Well, Marshall Kilgore would have to look out.

Court Marshall for Kilgore??

Oh those lovely WalesOnline hacks would have a field day with that!

HammerofThunor wrote:4 weeks isn't the minimum for striking with the head.  It's the Low entry level (which often gets confused with the minimum for some reason).  The IRB then recommend that up to 50% can be taken off this so a 'minimum' would be half the LE level, which is 2 weeks.

There's only been one case (that I know of) when more than 50% reduction was applied.  And that was for Haskell for striking with the head (flying into a ruck headfirst), which was reduced from 4 weeks to 1 week (75%).  In this case the additional mitigating circumstances were that a teammate of Haskell's was being held down in a ruck and being repeatedly punched.  Haskell tried to bring it to the refs attention be he was ignored so he charged in to clear him out.

Also, it wasn't a head butt (unless you clash touching someone with a fist a punch, i.e. pressing it against someone and pushing).

Finally, where do the PRO12 publish their discipline reports?

That's recommended whens theres been no previous bad conduct, you think Hartley falls into that bracket?