What a farce!

I have only just been made aware of this:

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Laurent-sempere-n-est-plus-suspendu-en-france/636835

Laurent Sempere was banned for 15 weeks by a 6Ns disciplinary pnel on behalf of EPCR for making contact with Marcos Ayerza's eyes. Due to an injury crisis Stade decided to appeal, but not to the original panel but internally in France. A tribunal made up of two FFR representatives plus LNR representatives decided there was insufficient evidence to have convicted Sempere in a French court. He has thus been cleared to play in the T14.

This is not the first time this has happened in France, with similar occurring a few years ago after a ban from the HEC. This was one of the main reasons that EPCR chose to use the 6Ns Union led disciplinary processes to avoid a repeat occurrence. All teams and Unions signed up to the process, though obviously that means nothing.

This is now being appealed to World Rugby for adjudication by EPCR but any decision by them will likely come after the original ban had ended.


Farce. Complete bloody farce.

The EPCR should be banning French teams from playing unless they stick to the rules

Well that makes a joke of it

TBH the whole disciplinary process needs tidied up.

Firstly it should be games and not weeks, as a 2 week ban on the first game of the season is different to a 2 week ban after the last game, but the panel see's them as equal.

Secondary Club and Country should be different,
take for example Astons latest ban playing for Saracens, he can't play for England during the 6 nations, but from Saracens they would have been missing him for this time anyway, and when he does come back, he will be fresh and ready for the run in, so they haven't really been punished or lost out on this.

Therefore I think bans should be for x number of club games and x number of internationals. Club games should only count for primary club, so that Welsh, Irish or Scottish players can't use count the likes of Welsh premiership games, when there is no Pro 12 games on.

So Sempere is free to play T14, but not EPCR. It is a farce, and I'm sure some Wealthy club owners will have taken note.

Strange that they say French law doesn't convict without evidence, in this case photographic evidence, neither does UK law. but what do they mean by 'no evidence'? Is it that Sempere's fingers were hidden from camera at the time, but it was still obvious that Sempere was guilty of gouging?

Kingshu wrote:Well that makes a joke of it

TBH the whole disciplinary process needs tidied up.

Firstly it should be games and not weeks, as a 2 week ban on the first game of the season is different to a 2 week ban after the last game, but the panel see's them as equal.

Secondary Club and Country should be different,
take for example Astons latest ban playing for Saracens, he can't play for England during the 6 nations, but from Saracens they would have been missing him for this time anyway, and when he does come back, he will be fresh and ready for the run in, so they haven't really been punished or lost out on this.

Therefore I think bans should be for x number of club games and x number of internationals. Club games should only count for primary club, so that Welsh, Irish or Scottish players can't use count the likes of Welsh premiership games, when there is no Pro 12 games on.

Kingshu Saracens haven't lost out from missing Ashton?

2 losses and 1 draw in the 6 nations period I think shows Saracens are suffering. You say it as if Ashton was a shoo in for England, he wasn't.

Ashton has missed these games:

Toulouse
Bath
Exeter
Wasps
Gloucester
Sale
Saints

Will miss

LI
Leicester
Exeter

10 games is a lot.

You should at least be grateful Ashton has been punished.... I should add he deserves the punishment but to say that Saracens haven't suffered just isn't right.

Squeezing people's nuts is legal.

If Ashton is fresh for the run in it means at least we'll have one Saracens player who will be.

A farce?

1) Sempere was banned by the EPCR/6N panel for having allegedly made contact wit Ayerza eyes
2) French law needs clear evidence to convict someone
3) most importantly, there is a lot of distrust over here when it comes to any panel made up by Anglo-Irish so called rugby lawyers, be it from the HEC, EPCR, 6N you name it. French clubs have been allegedly victim of many double standards over the years. I also remember POC who "missed out" on a potential band by the IRFU after a pro12 game where he injured someone so that he could play in the 6N for instance. just one example of the reverse situation (nothing against the Irish here by the way but it's the first one that came to mind)

whether or not you do not agree with 1), 2) and 3) those are considered as facts in France so go ahead and ban French clubs please if it suits your agenda but the whole international rugby disciplinary process is a farce in my opinion as essentially biaised and based on non factual items like "good behavior", "remorse" and other nonsense.

whocares wrote:A farce?

1) Sempere was banned by the EPCR/6N panel for having allegedly made contact wit Ayerza eyes
2) French law needs clear evidence to convict someone
3) most importantly, there is a lot of distrust over here when it comes to any panel made up by Anglo-Irish so called rugby lawyers, be it from the HEC, EPCR, 6N you name it. French clubs have been allegedly victim of many double standards over the years. I also remember POC who "missed out" on a potential band by the IRFU after a pro12 game where he injured someone so that he could play in the 6N for instance. just one example of the reverse situation (nothing against the Irish here by the way but it's the first one that came to mind)

whether or not you do not agree with 1), 2) and 3) those are considered as facts in France so go ahead and ban French clubs please if it suits your agenda but the whole international rugby disciplinary process is a farce in my opinion as essentially biaised and based on non factual items like "good behavior", "remorse" and other nonsense.

So you lot are at it as well

French clubs allegedly victims

It is a bit silly when you see people get off lightly or completely and it just so happens to fall nicely for a 6Ns tournament etc! Maybe the Aviva needs to play the game like some others, we keep banning Hartley, Ashton (sure there are others) for their clubs and costing the international team. As someone who got into rugby late on and followed football as a kid it still amuses me that club bans overlap into Europe and Internationals and vice versa.

whocares wrote:A farce?

1) Sempere was banned by the EPCR/6N panel for having allegedly made contact wit Ayerza eyes
2) French law needs clear evidence to convict someone
3) most importantly, there is a lot of distrust over here when it comes to any panel made up by Anglo-Irish so called rugby lawyers, be it from the HEC, EPCR, 6N you name it. French clubs have been allegedly victim of many double standards over the years. I also remember POC who "missed out" on a potential band by the IRFU after a pro12 game where he injured someone so that he could play in the 6N for instance. just one example of the reverse situation (nothing against the Irish here by the way but it's the first one that came to mind)

whether or not you do not agree with 1), 2) and 3) those are considered as facts in France so go ahead and ban French clubs please if it suits your agenda but the whole international rugby disciplinary process is a farce in my opinion as essentially biaised and based on non factual items like "good behavior", "remorse" and other nonsense.

Have you read the findings for the ban?

1) Sempere was banned based on facts that on weight backed up an allegation of gouging, this included video and pictures from showing his hand go across Ayerzas face, scratches and a black eye for Ayerza as well as a bloodshot eye. All allegations are alleged until proven otherwise, the Disciplinary Committee belief it was proven.

2) There is no such thing as clear evidence unless all parties accept it not to mention he wasn't on trial or under French law

3) The POC example you cite was from a Munster Leinster match and had nothing to do with the IRFU, it was the Pro 12 who made the decision and was after the 6Ns and they believed that the incident was careless but not deliberate, this emphasis has since changed. So if you're going to cite examples at least get your facts straight

So there was photo evidence. It is a farce. Lawyers

Well, the obvious solution is take the number of games he would have missed in France and then he misses them in Europe and internationally. So 15 weeks would be 15 games in the European Cup, which could be as many as the best part of three seasons if they don't make the knockout stages. Similarly if he was selected for the Six Nations squad, any weeks he had played during his ban when he wasn't meant to would be imposed at that point. They'd start getting the message if players start getting ruled out of the Six Nations altogether.

The French always pish and moan over long bans like these, but ultimately there's no reason anyone else should ever accept that they can do what they want and there's no reason anyone else should accept their players are free to gouge others without fear of appropriate punishment. There's a very thuggish side to French rugby and this just seems like they are in denial about tackling it. Well, thats fine but not in competitions where it could affect our players from an injury standpoint. Do as they like in their own league but when playing in cross-border competitions its not acceptable and additional penalties should be incurred for non-compliance.

marty2086 wrote:

whocares wrote:A farce?

1) Sempere was banned by the EPCR/6N panel for having allegedly made contact wit Ayerza eyes
2) French law needs clear evidence to convict someone
3) most importantly, there is a lot of distrust over here when it comes to any panel made up by Anglo-Irish so called rugby lawyers, be it from the HEC, EPCR, 6N you name it. French clubs have been allegedly victim of many double standards over the years. I also remember POC who "missed out" on a potential band by the IRFU after a pro12 game where he injured someone so that he could play in the 6N for instance. just one example of the reverse situation (nothing against the Irish here by the way but it's the first one that came to mind)

whether or not you do not agree with 1), 2) and 3) those are considered as facts in France so go ahead and ban French clubs please if it suits your agenda but the whole international rugby disciplinary process is a farce in my opinion as essentially biaised and based on non factual items like "good behavior", "remorse" and other nonsense.

Have you read the findings for the ban?

1) Sempere was banned based on facts that on weight backed up an allegation of gouging, this included video and pictures from showing his hand go across Ayerzas face, scratches and a black eye for Ayerza as well as a bloodshot eye. All allegations are alleged until proven otherwise, the Disciplinary Committee belief it was proven.

2) There is no such thing as clear evidence unless all parties accept it not to mention he wasn't on trial or under French law

3) The POC example you cite was from a Munster Leinster match and had nothing to do with the IRFU, it was the Pro 12 who made the decision and was after the 6Ns and they believed that the incident was careless but not deliberate, this emphasis has since changed. So if you're going to cite examples at least get your facts straight

No I did not read the findings of the British panel. could not care less really. The article from "L'Equipe" seemed to suggest there was an absence of proof and picture though. French Law can apply if a French court decide they are "competent" for such case (sorry don't know how to translate the exact word in English), besides it happened on French soil . however I can agree that no French court was actually consulted here so this decision could be challenged very easily anyway (the EPCR would then need to use a French court to enforce Sempere ban before a proper appeal is made).
As for the POC example, am really really sorry if my memory failed me but it does not change anything in my opinion that POC was let off lightly back in the day. Apologies for that, last thing I want is to offend the whiter than white Irish players (I could also mention such saints as SOB, Healy etc).
Maybe the EPCR could decide to disqualify Stade Français from their cup , it's not like they would be a big threat to the mighty tigers anyway.

whocares wrote:
No I did not read the findings of the British panel. could not care less really. The article from "L'Equipe" seemed to suggest there was an absence of proof and picture though. French Law can apply if a French court decide they are "competent" for such case (sorry don't know how to translate the exact word in English), besides it happened on French soil . however I can agree that no French court was actually consulted here so this decision could be challenged very easily anyway (the EPCR would then need to use a French court to enforce Sempere ban before a proper appeal is made).
As for the POC example, am really really sorry if my memory failed me but it does not change anything in my opinion that POC was let off lightly back in the day. Apologies for that, last thing I want is to offend the whiter than white Irish players (I could also mention such saints as SOB, Healy etc).
Maybe the EPCR could decide to disqualify Stade Français from their cup , it's not like they would be a big threat to the mighty tigers anyway.

Well L'Equipe would seem to be wrong then, the case was neither criminal or civil so a French court has no standing whether they are believed to be competent. EPCR are don't need to use a French court it would be CAS they'd use as precedent and I think regulations dictate.

POC was lucky to escape a ban but you made up a story to make it seem like the French are hard done by not to mention that Healy and SOB, have both received bans this season so your kind of arguing against your own point there

whocares wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

whocares wrote:A farce?

1) Sempere was banned by the EPCR/6N panel for having allegedly made contact wit Ayerza eyes
2) French law needs clear evidence to convict someone
3) most importantly, there is a lot of distrust over here when it comes to any panel made up by Anglo-Irish so called rugby lawyers, be it from the HEC, EPCR, 6N you name it. French clubs have been allegedly victim of many double standards over the years. I also remember POC who "missed out" on a potential band by the IRFU after a pro12 game where he injured someone so that he could play in the 6N for instance. just one example of the reverse situation (nothing against the Irish here by the way but it's the first one that came to mind)

whether or not you do not agree with 1), 2) and 3) those are considered as facts in France so go ahead and ban French clubs please if it suits your agenda but the whole international rugby disciplinary process is a farce in my opinion as essentially biaised and based on non factual items like "good behavior", "remorse" and other nonsense.

Have you read the findings for the ban?

1) Sempere was banned based on facts that on weight backed up an allegation of gouging, this included video and pictures from showing his hand go across Ayerzas face, scratches and a black eye for Ayerza as well as a bloodshot eye. All allegations are alleged until proven otherwise, the Disciplinary Committee belief it was proven.

2) There is no such thing as clear evidence unless all parties accept it not to mention he wasn't on trial or under French law

3) The POC example you cite was from a Munster Leinster match and had nothing to do with the IRFU, it was the Pro 12 who made the decision and was after the 6Ns and they believed that the incident was careless but not deliberate, this emphasis has since changed. So if you're going to cite examples at least get your facts straight

No I did not read the findings of the British panel. could not care less really. The article from "L'Equipe" seemed to suggest there was an absence of proof and picture though. French Law can apply if a French court decide they are "competent" for such case (sorry don't know how to translate the exact word in English), besides it happened on French soil . however I can agree that no French court was actually consulted here so this decision could be challenged very easily anyway (the EPCR would then need to use a French court to enforce Sempere ban before a proper appeal is made).
As for the POC example, am really really sorry if my memory failed me but it does not change anything in my opinion that POC was let off lightly back in the day. Apologies for that, last thing I want is to offend the whiter than white Irish players (I could also mention such saints as SOB, Healy etc).
Maybe the EPCR could decide to disqualify Stade Français from their cup , it's not like they would be a big threat to the mighty tigers anyway.

If you seen photo evidence of Sempere gouging, what would you think of him, and what would you think about his ban being overturned?

P.s I would take anything L'Equipe says with a pinch of salt.

Munchkin, gouging is wrong. so are a lot of other foul plays in rugby for that matter. please send me photo/video evidence proving there is intentional gouging. for the record in the same game there was another gouging incident , cant remember the name of the 2dn row who was guilty but he got off with only 8 weeks.

whocares wrote:Munchkin, gouging is wrong. so are a lot of other foul plays in rugby for that matter. please send me photo/video evidence proving there is intentional gouging. for the record in the same game there was another gouging incident , cant remember the name of the 2dn row who was guilty but he got off with only 8 weeks.

I know there were two French players sent off for gouging, and I don't have any photo evidence. For the 6N's citing panel to rule that Sempere was guilty, and especially to ban him for 15 weeks, they must have fairly solid evidence, I would think. Maybe if someone has a link they will post it.

Yes, there are a lot of other types of foul plays, although gouging seems particularly nasty, to me. Worse than stamping, or throwing a punch.

whocares can you tell me who said it was intentional?

The farce for me is that having agreed to abide by a disciplinary process, they decided to ignore it because they have an injury issue.

To me it is the same as the salary cap evasion - a side has signed up big shot lawyers so they can go "NAH NAH NAH NA NAH".

Promises that such action would not happen again have been completely ignored, as have the permitted appeal routes.

Stade choise not to appeal the original verdict when it was handed down which is their first option. After that they can appeal to the CAS. What they did was 4 weeks later when they needed the player they decided to launch a partial appeal inside of France only. Luckily for FFR the spineless wonders on the World Rugby board will do nothing.

In the absence of the properly handed down judgement, it seems to me he should be suspended for the next 15 Euro matches. However, I agree with most people above, this is a joke and needs to be fixed - maintenant.

whocares wrote:Munchkin, gouging is wrong. so are a lot of other foul plays in rugby for that matter. please send me photo/video evidence proving there is intentional gouging. for the record in the same game there was another gouging incident , cant remember the name of the 2dn row who was guilty but he got off with only 8 weeks.

No picture can show intent. Intent is not required.

The point here is that if the French clubs enter a competition they must abide by the rules. There will be no effective discipline at all if one country's teams can ignore the rules of a competition.

LondonTiger wrote:A tribunal made up of two FFR representatives plus LNR representatives decided there was insufficient evidence to have convicted Sempere in a French court. He has thus been cleared to play in the T14.

This has to be the most gutless, hypocritical tribunal outcome ever. These people are not "in a French Court", therefore it is impossible for anyone to adjudicate what the outcome from another independent body would be. Perhaps this tribunal is so far above the Law that they could decide in normal civil and criminal cases which ones would have sufficient evidence and which ones wouldn't and so dispense with the court system altogether?!

This tribunal decided there was insufficient evidence but were so lily-livered, they try to deflect attention away from themselves by pointing to some mythical court that allegedly would have agreed with them. What is plain is there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE available to prove they are in any way qualified to speak on behalf of the French judicial system. Claiming they speak for a French Court should be grounds for legal action against them for misrepresentation.

It has always been obvious that the LNR are happy in a world sans European competition, but slightly more surprising about the FFR. They are party to the disciplinary process for the 6N, but the implication is they don't trust it so they are hypocritical and only support it when it suits them. Either the FFR sign up to the 6N agreement and support it or do not subscribe to it and withdraw from it. That is the very least that World Rugby should be asking the FFR.

As for Stade the EPRC should find them guilty of a breach of competition rules and suspend them for say four European games starting now.

marty2086 wrote:

whocares wrote:A farce?

1) Sempere was banned by the EPCR/6N panel for having allegedly made contact wit Ayerza eyes
2) French law needs clear evidence to convict someone
3) most importantly, there is a lot of distrust over here when it comes to any panel made up by Anglo-Irish so called rugby lawyers, be it from the HEC, EPCR, 6N you name it. French clubs have been allegedly victim of many double standards over the years. I also remember POC who "missed out" on a potential band by the IRFU after a pro12 game where he injured someone so that he could play in the 6N for instance. just one example of the reverse situation (nothing against the Irish here by the way but it's the first one that came to mind)

whether or not you do not agree with 1), 2) and 3) those are considered as facts in France so go ahead and ban French clubs please if it suits your agenda but the whole international rugby disciplinary process is a farce in my opinion as essentially biaised and based on non factual items like "good behavior", "remorse" and other nonsense.

Have you read the findings for the ban?

1) Sempere was banned based on facts that on weight backed up an allegation of gouging, this included video and pictures from showing his hand go across Ayerzas face, scratches and a black eye for Ayerza as well as a bloodshot eye. All allegations are alleged until proven otherwise, the Disciplinary Committee belief it was proven.

2) There is no such thing as clear evidence unless all parties accept it not to mention he wasn't on trial or under French law

3) The POC example you cite was from a Munster Leinster match and had nothing to do with the IRFU, it was the Pro 12 who made the decision and was after the 6Ns and they believed that the incident was careless but not deliberate, this emphasis has since changed. So if you're going to cite examples at least get your facts straight

Was that the POC V D Kearney incident? POC was not cited for that. Clermont fans were raging he wasn't cited and made their thoughts known when he went to play down there for a HCup game.

Good on the French. Again. This is Tincu MK2.

Rugby needs to understand that it is not above the law of the lands in which the game is played.

That's true. You would be arrested for tackling a guy in the street, so presumably we should arrest all the rugby players?

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's true. You would be arrested for tackling a guy in the street, so presumably we should arrest all the rugby players?

Thankfully, from reading Brian Moore on this subject, the law of the land sees right through that kind of stupidity.

What has happened is that while the FFR & Bernard Lapasset were 'sorting out' out and taking over control of world rugby, they let their own union in France become the b**ch of the LNR.

Sin é wrote:Was that the POC V D Kearney incident? POC was not cited for that. Clermont fans were raging he wasn't cited and made their thoughts known when he went to play down there for a HCup game.

It was indeed and it was a ban all day long but not an IRFU fix up to keep him available as someone claimed

PhilBB wrote:Good on the French. Again. This is Tincu MK2.

Rugby needs to understand that it is not above the law of the lands in which the game is played.

Your becoming a parody

So seriously where do you draw the line between the 2. Your comment was tongue in cheek?

Sin é wrote:What has happened is that while the FFR & Bernard Lapasset  were 'sorting out' out and taking over control of world rugby, they let their own union in France become the b**ch of the LNR.

When untwisting your knickers, please could you try to understand that the law of the land over rules the opinion of rugby administrators. LNR, World Rugby, Brett Gosper, even dear auld John Feehan can do nothing to alter that fact.

Nobody is the 'b1tch' of anybody other than the law of the land.

Rugby has to play by somebody else's laws.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Good on the French. Again. This is Tincu MK2.

Rugby needs to understand that it is not above the law of the lands in which the game is played.

Your becoming a parody

That's ironic coming the epitome of the 'new to rugby in 2000 Irish rugby follower' stereotype.

We've been here before with Tincu. Prove it to the necessary standards and the ban will be upheld.

It's that simple.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So seriously where do you draw the line between the 2. Your comment was tongue in cheek?

No, my comment was not tongue in cheek.

French law has been perfectly explained in this thread. Those are the standards that have to be met to deny a man work. Meet those standards or follow the soccer route of banning the player only for the competitions in which the tournament administrators have jurisdiction over.

This blanket ban for all games is just another legacy of the Blazer controlled amateur era.

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Was that the POC V D Kearney incident? POC was not cited for that. Clermont fans were raging he wasn't cited and made their thoughts known when he went to play down there for a HCup game.

It was indeed and it was a ban all day long but not an IRFU fix up to keep him available as someone claimed

So you think he should have been banned without an opportunity to defend himself? That would not stand up in a court of law.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:What has happened is that while the FFR & Bernard Lapasset  were 'sorting out' out and taking over control of world rugby, they let their own union in France become the b**ch of the LNR.

When untwisting your knickers, please could you try to understand that the law of the land over rules the opinion of rugby administrators. LNR, World Rugby, Brett Gosper, even dear auld John Feehan can do nothing to alter that fact.

Nobody is the 'b1tch' of anybody other than the law of the land.

Rugby has to play by somebody else's laws.

The law of the land is irrelevant as no crime was reported so had no place in the decision and if you read up on the law of the land the participation agreement for the ERCC Im sure it includes a clause regarding the decisions of the disciplinary committee which French law would make binding. So there are then two competing laws in place there

marty2086 wrote:
3) The POC example you cite was from a Munster Leinster match and had nothing to do with the IRFU, it was the Pro 12 who made the decision and was after the 6Ns and they believed that the incident was careless but not deliberate, this emphasis has since changed. So if you're going to cite examples at least get your facts straight

Who was the citing officer for that match?

There might be a clue there for you in terms of the influence of the IRFU. Just a clue. Can you think who the citing officer was?

The blanket ban I've said seems strange for someone coming from a football background but this is what the clubs have agreed to, and play to. French law really should have nothing to do with this as it's the rules of rugby we should surely be concentrating on?

marty2086 wrote:
The law of the land is irrelevant as no crime was reported so had no place in the decision and if you read up on the law of the land the participation agreement for the ERCC Im sure it includes a clause regarding the decisions of the disciplinary committee which French law would make binding. So there are then two competing laws in place there

Bloody hell.

The law of the land is the employment law, Martyn. Not criminal law.

Try starting in the right place before you continue down this road of stupidity.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The blanket ban I've said seems strange for someone coming from a football background but this is what the clubs have agreed to, and play to. French law really should have nothing to do with this as it's the rules of rugby we should surely be concentrating on?

Rugby is not above the employment law of the land.

Let's get that in our minds and move forward from that position of accuracy. The rest will then fall into place.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Good on the French. Again. This is Tincu MK2.

Rugby needs to understand that it is not above the law of the lands in which the game is played.

Your becoming a parody

That's ironic coming the epitome of the 'new to rugby in 2000 Irish rugby follower' stereotype.

We've been here before with Tincu. Prove it to the necessary standards and the ban will be upheld.

It's that simple.

I don't need to prove it and the disciplinary committee and JO weren't asked to prove it to any standard other than their own which would also be against French law as it then lacks the foundation of a fair trial

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
3) The POC example you cite was from a Munster Leinster match and had nothing to do with the IRFU, it was the Pro 12 who made the decision and was after the 6Ns and they believed that the incident was careless but not deliberate, this emphasis has since changed. So if you're going to cite examples at least get your facts straight

Who was the citing officer for that match?

There might be a clue there for you in terms of the influence of the IRFU. Just a clue. Can you think who the citing officer was?

Magical thing called google and try introducing yourself to it

marty2086 wrote:
I don't need to prove it and the disciplinary committee and JO weren't asked to prove it to any standard other than their own which would also be against French law as it then lacks the foundation of a fair trial

A fair trial? What? This is a civil case.

And one without jurisdiction.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
3) The POC example you cite was from a Munster Leinster match and had nothing to do with the IRFU, it was the Pro 12 who made the decision and was after the 6Ns and they believed that the incident was careless but not deliberate, this emphasis has since changed. So if you're going to cite examples at least get your facts straight

Who was the citing officer for that match?

There might be a clue there for you in terms of the influence of the IRFU. Just a clue. Can you think who the citing officer was?

Magical thing called google and try introducing yourself to it

If you do, you'll find the citing officer was Eddie Walsh of....... can you guess?........ the IRFU.

So, claiming that the decision to not cite had nothing to do with the IRFU is just plain ignorant and incorrect. You've been found out again.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:What has happened is that while the FFR & Bernard Lapasset  were 'sorting out' out and taking over control of world rugby, they let their own union in France become the b**ch of the LNR.

When untwisting your knickers, please could you try to understand that the law of the land over rules the opinion of rugby administrators. LNR, World Rugby, Brett Gosper, even dear auld John Feehan can do nothing to alter that fact.

Nobody is the 'b1tch' of anybody other than the law of the land.

Rugby has to play by somebody else's laws.

I seem to recall the ERC winning some legal cases that were brought against them about bannings and other stuff like refusing to accept late registration of players.

There is nothing the French courts can do about a suspended player if the competition organisers recognise that suspension. For example, the tournament organisers of the 6Ns could disallow him playing in 6Ns games (even though the FFR have lifted his supsension from French competition).

Sin é wrote:

I seem to recall the ERC winning some legal cases that were brought against them about bannings and other stuff like refusing to accept late registration of players.

There is nothing the French courts can do about a suspended player if the competition organisers recognise that suspension. For example, the tournament organisers of the 6Ns could disallow him playing in 6Ns games (even though the FFR have lifted his supsension from French competition).

Tincu, dear. Tincu. Learn your precedent as you're writing crap.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The blanket ban I've said seems strange for someone coming from a football background but this is what the clubs have agreed to, and play to. French law really should have nothing to do with this as it's the rules of rugby we should surely be concentrating on?

Rugby is not above the employment law of the land.

Let's get that in our minds and move forward from that position of accuracy. The rest will then fall into place.

Ok, so the French clubs sign up to the rules laid down in the Euro comp yeah? Why should anything else come into play?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
The law of the land is irrelevant as no crime was reported so had no place in the decision and if you read up on the law of the land the participation agreement for the ERCC Im sure it includes a clause regarding the decisions of the disciplinary committee which French law would make binding. So there are then two competing laws in place there

Bloody hell.

The law of the land is the employment law, Martyn. Not criminal law.

Try starting in the right place before you continue down this road of stupidity.

Employment law has nothing to do with it, maybe you should find the right starting place before criticising others

The French committee found that the EPCR did not meet the criteria to achieve a conviction in French law, that's criminal not employment

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Ok, so the French clubs sign up to the rules laid down in the Euro comp yeah? Why should anything else come into play?

Let's think of this another way.

Think of your employer. Say 'they' 'signed up' to something that broke your employment rights.

Reckon you'd be able to sue them?

marty2086 wrote:

Employment law has nothing to do with it, maybe you should find the right starting place before criticising others

The French committee found that the EPCR did not meet the criteria to achieve a conviction in French law, that's criminal not employment

Nope. It's to do with the employment of the player and stopping his right to work.

That French law being employment law.

So the French clubs have broken the law is what you're saying?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the French clubs have broken the law is what you're saying?

How have you arrived at that conclusion - assuming the question was aimed at me?