What a farce!

by **LondonTiger** Mon 07 Mar 2016, 12:04 pm

First topic message reminder :

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.

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 3:59 pm

PhilBB wrote:
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.

No comment, Martyn?

by No 7&1/2 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:03 pm

PhilBB wrote:
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?

They've signed up to something knowing that it breaks French law by the sounds of it opening them up to be sued by their own employees.

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:05 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
PhilBB wrote:
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?

They've signed up to something knowing that it breaks French law by the sounds of it opening them up to be sued by their own employees.

So, guess what, they just ignore it and hence don't break the law.

See Tincu.

We've been here before so I don't understand why people are so surprised by it.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:06 pm

It's a bit unethical and a bit of a farce, like stated. I mean it's complete rubbish as you'll see bans handed out in football etc and nothing like this.

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:07 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's a bit unethical and a bit of a farce, like stated. I mean it's complete rubbish as you'll see bans handed out in football etc and nothing like this.

Football bans only apply to the competition in which the tournament body has jurisdiction.

Can we all think why?

by Sin é Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:08 pm

PhilBB wrote:
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?

Nope. I reckon they just couldn't sack the ill disciplined player who tried to blind someone.

by Sin é Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:09 pm

PhilBB wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:It's a bit unethical and a bit of a farce, like stated. I mean it's complete rubbish as you'll see bans handed out in football etc and nothing like this.

Football bans only apply to the competition in which the tournament body has jurisdiction.

Can we all think why?

Because its highly unlikely a soccer player would try and take the eyes out of another player?

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:09 pm

Sin é wrote:

Nope. I reckon they just couldn't sack the ill disciplined player who tried to blind someone.

You may be right there, of course, just like Munster couldn't sack Quinlan.

How's the glass house? It must almost be full.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:09 pm

PhilBB wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:It's a bit unethical and a bit of a farce, like stated. I mean it's complete rubbish as you'll see bans handed out in football etc and nothing like this.

Football bans only apply to the competition in which the tournament body has jurisdiction.

Can we all think why?

So what the difference employment law wise?

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:10 pm

Sin é wrote:

Because its highly unlikely a soccer player would try and take the eyes out of another player?

Erm, no.

It's because Authority A has no 'authority' over Authority B.

I can understand how an Irish rugby follower would have a real struggle understanding the concept of independence, mind you.

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:10 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So what the difference employment law wise?

Eh?

by marty2086 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:13 pm

PhilBB wrote:
PhilBB wrote:
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.

No comment, Martyn?

Phil maybe you want to go back see what I claimed first but why change a habit of a lifetime, the claim was the IRFU refused to ban him so he could take part in the 6Ns that was the point I refuted

And because he is associated with the IRFU does not mean it was a decision that involved anyone but Eddie Walsh, well beyond your paranoia

by marty2086 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:15 pm

PhilBB wrote:
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.

Again your changing the facts to suit your argument, no but you applied employment law to it

And his right to work isn't infringed, he can still train and fulfil his contract he just can't play which is not a right under law otherwise drug cheats could play and disregard bans

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:18 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Phil maybe you want to go back see what I claimed first but why change a habit of a lifetime, the claim was the IRFU refused to ban him so he could take part in the 6Ns that was the point I refuted

And because he is associated with the IRFU does not mean it was a decision that involved anyone but Eddie Walsh, well beyond your paranoia

You wrote: "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"

It wasn't the PrO'12 who made the decision. It was the IRFU Citing Officer.

The post you replied to stated: "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"

The comment you responded to was 100% correct as it was the IRFU, in the shape of their employee Eddie Walsh, who made the decision.

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:19 pm

marty2086 wrote:

Again your changing the facts to suit your argument, no but you applied employment law to it

And his right to work isn't infringed, he can still train and fulfil his contract he just can't play which is not a right under law otherwise drug cheats could play and disregard bans

Drug cheats are likely covered under French law as it is a matter of fact.

Bans for alleged gouging are a matter of opinion, not fact.

I'm sure that even you can spot the difference and now work out why, again, you're writing incorrect drivel.

by Sin é Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:22 pm

PhilBB wrote:
Sin é wrote:

Nope. I reckon they just couldn't sack the ill disciplined player who tried to blind someone.

You may be right there, of course, just like Munster couldn't sack Quinlan.

How's the glass house? It must almost be full.

I don't recall Ireland or Munster defying the ban. So Quinlan went on the Lions Tour then, did he? Huge personal financial loss for him there. Did he get anywhere in court with that one?

Or did he accept his ban?

by marty2086 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:24 pm

PhilBB wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Phil maybe you want to go back see what I claimed first but why change a habit of a lifetime, the claim was the IRFU refused to ban him so he could take part in the 6Ns that was the point I refuted

And because he is associated with the IRFU does not mean it was a decision that involved anyone but Eddie Walsh, well beyond your paranoia

You wrote: "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"

It wasn't the PrO'12 who made the decision. It was the IRFU Citing Officer.

The post you replied to stated: "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"

The comment you responded to was 100% correct as it was the IRFU, in the shape of their employee Eddie Walsh, who made the decision.

No it wasn't 100% correct as it took place in April after the 6Ns, you make want to check what 100% means

Eddie Walsh found POC to have been careless not reckless which funnily enough was the decision of the officials in the England Ireland game when Mike Brown kicked Conor Murray. Both decisions I disagree with but what is it you are always harping on about precedent? It seems his decision was a correct one going by the standards adopted by others

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:26 pm

Sin é wrote:
PhilBB wrote:
Sin é wrote:

Nope. I reckon they just couldn't sack the ill disciplined player who tried to blind someone.

You may be right there, of course, just like Munster couldn't sack Quinlan.

How's the glass house? It must almost be full.

I don't recall Ireland or Munster defying the ban. So Quinlan went on the Lions Tour then, did he? Huge personal financial loss for him there. Did he get anywhere in court with that one?

Or did he accept his ban?

Why have you gone from 'sacking a player' to a Union branch 'defying the ban'? That's a big flip flop even for you.

No, Quinlan had no choice but to accept his ban as his contract was with the IRFU.

by marty2086 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:26 pm

PhilBB wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

Again your changing the facts to suit your argument, no but you applied employment law to it

And his right to work isn't infringed, he can still train and fulfil his contract he just can't play which is not a right under law otherwise drug cheats could play and disregard bans

Drug cheats are likely covered under French law as it is a matter of fact.

Bans for alleged gouging are a matter of opinion, not fact.

I'm sure that even you can spot the difference and now work out why, again, you're writing incorrect drivel.

It wasn't alleged it was proven and legal substances are banned by WADA, see Maria Sharapova as an example. So they are not covered by French law

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:30 pm

marty2086 wrote:
me wrote:
The comment you responded to was 100% correct as it was the IRFU, in the shape of their employee Eddie Walsh, who made the decision.

No it wasn't 100% correct as it took place in April after the 6Ns, you make want to check what 100% means

Eddie Walsh found POC to have been careless not reckless which funnily enough was the decision of the officials in the England Ireland game when Mike Brown kicked Conor Murray. Both decisions I disagree with but what is it you are always harping on about precedent? It seems his decision was a correct one going by the standards adopted by others

The 100% clearly and obviously refers to the IRFU influence over the decision. That's what the sentence means that I've left in, above.

Sure, you can argue that O'Connell's was a precedent for Brown, but you could also argue that the laws and guidelines have changed since O'Connell's IRFU sponsored incident, meaning that Rees this season is a better precedent.

Needless to say, it was the decision of the IRFU employee that prevented O'Connell from being cited, which was the point you replied to.

Of course, citing O'Connell would likely have meant him unavailable for the upcoming ERC Semi Final and that could have affected the income of the IRFU.

by Sin é Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:30 pm

PhilBB wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Phil maybe you want to go back see what I claimed first but why change a habit of a lifetime, the claim was the IRFU refused to ban him so he could take part in the 6Ns that was the point I refuted

And because he is associated with the IRFU does not mean it was a decision that involved anyone but Eddie Walsh, well beyond your paranoia

You wrote: "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"

It wasn't the PrO'12 who made the decision. It was the IRFU Citing Officer.

The post you replied to stated: "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"

The comment you responded to was 100% correct as it was the IRFU, in the shape of their employee Eddie Walsh, who made the decision.

by PhilBB Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:31 pm

marty2086 wrote:

It wasn't alleged it was proven and legal substances are banned by WADA, see Maria Sharapova as an example. So they are not covered by French law

No, it wasn't proven to the standard of French law, Martyn.

by Sin é Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:33 pm

PhilBB wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Phil maybe you want to go back see what I claimed first but why change a habit of a lifetime, the claim was the IRFU refused to ban him so he could take part in the 6Ns that was the point I refuted

And because he is associated with the IRFU does not mean it was a decision that involved anyone but Eddie Walsh, well beyond your paranoia

You wrote: "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"

It wasn't the PrO'12 who made the decision. It was the IRFU Citing Officer.

The post you replied to stated: "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"

The comment you responded to was 100% correct as it was the IRFU, in the shape of their employee Eddie Walsh, who made the decision.

But the incident took place in April AFTER the 6Ns. Why would the IRFU worry about POC getting banned from a competition that would not happen for 9 months?

by Guest Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:33 pm

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.

If it was set in Ireland, and an Irish player involved, you would be apoplectic.

by marty2086 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:40 pm

PhilBB wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

It wasn't alleged it was proven and legal substances are banned by WADA, see Maria Sharapova as an example. So they are not covered by French law

No, it wasn't proven to the standard of French law, Martyn.

A FFR disciplinary hearing isn't a French court so no one can say it has or it hasn't and the case was never asked to meet that standard, the LNR, FFR and Top 14 don't even apply that standard to their own suspensions so can't arbitrarily apply it to those applied elsewhere

Not to mention he appeared before the EPCR and presented a case which is an acknowledgement of their jurisdiction on the matter

by No 7&1/2 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:42 pm

PhilBB wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
So what the difference employment law wise?

Eh?

I'm not as familiar with French employment law as you. Why does a ban in rugby break their law and football doesn't? French domestic bans count across all formats so they happily break the law?

by carpet baboon Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:43 pm

Am I wrong, but didn't saurez get banned from all football, and cantina? Dosent that fly in the only in the one compatition argument?

by carpet baboon Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:44 pm

Cantona *

by Sin é Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:48 pm

PhilBB wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
me wrote:
The comment you responded to was 100% correct as it was the IRFU, in the shape of their employee Eddie Walsh, who made the decision.

No it wasn't 100% correct as it took place in April after the 6Ns, you make want to check what 100% means

Eddie Walsh found POC to have been careless not reckless which funnily enough was the decision of the officials in the England Ireland game when Mike Brown kicked Conor Murray. Both decisions I disagree with but what is it you are always harping on about precedent? It seems his decision was a correct one going by the standards adopted by others

The 100% clearly and obviously refers to the IRFU influence over the decision. That's what the sentence means that I've left in, above.

Sure, you can argue that O'Connell's was a precedent for Brown, but you could also argue that the laws and guidelines have changed since O'Connell's IRFU sponsored incident, meaning that Rees this season is a better precedent.

Needless to say, it was the decision of the IRFU employee that prevented O'Connell from being cited, which was the point you replied to.

Of course, citing O'Connell would likely have meant him unavailable for the upcoming ERC Semi Final and that could have affected the income of the IRFU.

Press Release from Pro12 about the incident.

RABODIRECT PRO12 DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
For immediate release: Wednesday 17th April 2013
Issued on behalf of RaboDirect PRO12

David Jordan , Tournament Director of the RaboDirect PRO12, today reiterated the disciplinary procedures in relation to the citing process in the RaboDirect PRO12 at present, following comments made by some quarters after the Munster v Leinster match last Saturday.

The Citing Commissioners in all domestic competitions are selected on their independence and experience and appointed by the respective Unions. In each of the RaboDirect PRO12 countries, independent Citing Commisssioners are appointed for matches, avoiding where possible the Citing Commissioner’s own club, province or region. This is similar to the French Top 14 and England’s Aviva Premiership

‘The independent Citing Commissioners in the RaboDirect PRO12 attend the matches and take note of any indicators of possible foul play. They can then seek further information from TV, medical, team officials and players immediately after each game. The independent Citing Commissioner has a maximum of 48 hours from the final whistle, to notify the Tournament Disciplinary Officer of a citing. The independent Citing Commissioner will have reviewed the match DVD, usually with extra TV angles, to confirm his decision.

‘ In the specific Munster vs Leinster game last Saturday, the independent Citing Commissioner from Connacht considered all incidents and decided that there were no citings forthcoming, i.e. no incidents that would have warranted a red card. Last Monday morning, the Disciplinary Officer, Tournament officials and team managers were notified of this decision and this was confirmed to the media upon enquiry.

‘Only if the independent Citing Commissioner decides to cite, does the Disciplinary Officer has the option to refer the citing to an independent “gatekeeper” for a second opinion. An independent Judicial Committee is appointed by the Chairman of the independent RaboDirect PRO12 Disciplinary Panel to formally consider the citing normally later that same week’.

-----

Eddie Walsh is from Connacht, so he was independent of both Leinster & Munster.

In a similar situation in France or England, presumably the Citing Commissioners would want any French players to be available to represent their country and say if you used a French Citing Commissioner, he would want POC to be banned as he would be biased in favour of Munster's opposition in the Heineken Cup.

by marty2086 Tue 08 Mar 2016, 4:57 pm

And Nigel Owens was the ref for that game too and didn't see fit to card POC, what role does he have in the IRFU? Whistle

by The Great Aukster Tue 08 Mar 2016, 6:28 pm

What the French tribunal has done is dismiss the citing process. Therefore any time a player gets gouged or stamped or bitten, the plaintiff must take his case to a proper court. Aside from the delays and costs, is this really the way the French want the game to go?

by PhilBB Thu 10 Mar 2016, 9:46 am

Sin é wrote:
But the incident took place in April AFTER the 6Ns. Why would the IRFU worry about POC getting banned from a competition that would not happen for 9 months?

Haven't I answered that already?

Nice ERC semi final was coming up vs ASM, too. Coincidence, obviously.

by PhilBB Thu 10 Mar 2016, 9:49 am

Munchkin wrote:
If it was set in Ireland, and an Irish player involved, you would be apoplectic.

Not at all.

Just like the McCreevy tax break, good on Ireland for having its own laws.

You're confusing being 'apoplectic' with needing to explain to the deluded that the Irish spent their way to success, just as the French are now doing. Of course, the problem is that the average Irish rugby follower a) didn't recognise they were doing that b) didn't understand they were doing that and c) now have to be embarrassed into recognising that they did do that.

by PhilBB Thu 10 Mar 2016, 9:50 am

marty2086 wrote:
A FFR disciplinary hearing isn't a French court so no one can say it has or it hasn't and the case was never asked to meet that standard, the LNR, FFR and Top 14 don't even apply that standard to their own suspensions so can't arbitrarily apply it to those applied elsewhere

Not to mention he appeared before the EPCR and presented a case which is an acknowledgement of their jurisdiction on the matter

Martyn, your confusion comes from your conflation of the different bodies.

To clear your mind, read up on Tincu.

by PhilBB Thu 10 Mar 2016, 9:50 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
I'm not as familiar with French employment law as you. Why does a ban in rugby break their law and football doesn't? French domestic bans count across all formats so they happily break the law?

Have you not already commented on how bans in soccer are for the tournament and not for all tournaments?

by PhilBB Thu 10 Mar 2016, 9:51 am

marty2086 wrote:And Nigel Owens was the ref for that game too and didn't see fit to card POC, what role does he have in the IRFU?

None.

But he does do lots of after dinner speaking gigs in Ireland. Coincidence, no doubt. Just as it was coincidence that he refereed Munster in their QF, SF and final for the first HEC win.

Just coincidence.

by PhilBB Thu 10 Mar 2016, 9:53 am

Sin é wrote:
Eddie Walsh is from Connacht, so he was independent of both Leinster & Munster.

In a similar situation in France or England, presumably the Citing Commissioners would want any French players to be available to represent their country and say if you used a French Citing Commissioner, he would want POC to be banned as he would be biased in favour of Munster's opposition in the Heineken Cup.

Eddie Walsh work(s)/(ed) for the IRFU at the time. He was judging his colleagues. Therefore, he was not independent.

Why is this basic fact so hard for so many followers of Irish rugby to comprehend?

And you're confusing the Citing process. It is not the Citing officer who decides the ban, ffs.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 10 Mar 2016, 9:54 am

PhilBB wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
I'm not as familiar with French employment law as you. Why does a ban in rugby break their law and football doesn't? French domestic bans count across all formats so they happily break the law?

Have you not already commented on how bans in soccer are for the tournament and not for all tournaments?

Yes I have.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 10 Mar 2016, 9:54 am

Obviously wrong in some cases as well, forgot about Suraez.

by PhilBB Thu 10 Mar 2016, 9:55 am

carpet baboon wrote:Am I wrong, but didn't saurez get banned from all football, and cantina? Dosent that fly in the only in the one compatition argument?

Suarez was banned by FIFA for an act in a FIFA competition.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:01 am

Yes he was. So sorry I was genuinely asking a question on the law. You're saying the Suarez one would be breaking French law if he was playing for a club there (but not Spanish or British). And I'm assuming French club bans cover internationals; is the legality of that ok?

by PhilBB Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:05 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes he was. So sorry I was genuinely asking a question on the law. You're saying the Suarez one would be breaking French law if he was playing for a club there (but not Spanish or British). And I'm assuming French club bans cover internationals; is the legality of that ok?

Let's start this again.

Suarez was banned by FIFA, the world governing body. Our French friend was banned by a club tournament. There's a clear and obvious difference between the legitimacy of the two organisations mentioned here, isn't there?

And let's remember that the punishment FIFA implemented was, in part, overturned by CAS.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:11 am

Legitimacy? No there isn't. Just the 2 bodies which run those comps.

So Suarez's ban wouldn't have broken French law (if he were playing for a French club)? And is domestic ban in the French league ok?

by marty2086 Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:16 am

PhilBB wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
A FFR disciplinary hearing isn't a French court so no one can say it has or it hasn't and the case was never asked to meet that standard, the LNR, FFR and Top 14 don't even apply that standard to their own suspensions so can't arbitrarily apply it to those applied elsewhere

Not to mention he appeared before the EPCR and presented a case which is an acknowledgement of their jurisdiction on the matter

Martyn, your confusion comes from your conflation of the different bodies.

To clear your mind, read up on Tincu.

No the confusion is for you, you are relating one thing to another and they have no relevance to each other beyond you linking them for some unknown reason

by marty2086 Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:19 am

PhilBB wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes he was. So sorry I was genuinely asking a question on the law. You're saying the Suarez one would be breaking French law if he was playing for a club there (but not Spanish or British). And I'm assuming French club bans cover internationals; is the legality of that ok?

Let's start this again.

Suarez was banned by FIFA, the world governing body. Our French friend was banned by a club tournament. There's a clear and obvious difference between the legitimacy of the two organisations mentioned here, isn't there?

And let's remember that the punishment FIFA implemented was, in part, overturned by CAS.

That was overturned because FIFA went above and beyond their own rules and regulations to implement the ban, the bans in the ERCC don't do that in fact the overturning of the ban goes against the rules

by PhilBB Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:23 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Legitimacy? No there isn't. Just the 2 bodies which run those comps.

So Suarez's ban wouldn't have broken French law (if he were playing for a French club)? And is domestic ban in the French league ok?

Oh, ffs.

One is the global body, the other is a tournament.

Can we first start with that one?

by PhilBB Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:24 am

marty2086 wrote:

That was overturned because FIFA went above and beyond their own rules and regulations to implement the ban, the bans in the ERCC don't do that in fact the overturning of the ban goes against the rules

You almost got there.

Think: both bans went outside of their own legitimate remit.

And we've arrived! Hooray.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:29 am

PhilBB wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Legitimacy? No there isn't. Just the 2 bodies which run those comps.

So Suarez's ban wouldn't have broken French law (if he were playing for a French club)? And is domestic ban in the French league ok?

Oh, ffs.

One is the global body, the other is a tournament.

Can we first start with that one?

Both are the organisers of 2 tournaments yes. So you're saying French law would allow Suarez's ban to stand but wouldn't if it was done say in the European Championships by UEFA? What are the specifics of the law? Is a French club rugby ban earned in the cup applicable in the league, and do they run to European comps? Are they breaking the law if they do cross comps?

by broadlandboy Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:31 am

Until he is tried in a French Court they are only guessing that he would be found innocent. It is not breaking Employment Law as he has no right to be picked to play( unless he has a very unusual contract which says he choses when he plays), they are not stopping his employment. The club agreed to the terms of the competition, which included the competition's right to discipline players.

by marty2086 Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:33 am

PhilBB wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

That was overturned because FIFA went above and beyond their own rules and regulations to implement the ban, the bans in the ERCC don't do that in fact the overturning of the ban goes against the rules

You almost got there.

Think: both bans went outside of their own legitimate remit.

And we've arrived! Hooray.

No actually they didn't, those that take part EPCR tournaments sign up to the participation agreement, which has been accepted and ratified by clubs, unions and World Rugby and includes the tournament rules and disciplinary rules and allows the EPCR to ban players from all rugby tournaments, see Chris Ashton and the 6Ns and AP.

The only person claiming they over stepped their bounds is YOU! The ban was overturned because the French board who had no jurisdiction claim it failed to meet an irrelevant standard that they themselves don't apply to their own hearings.

You are making an argument on a point that has nothing to do with the issue but one you claim is relevant because of an historic case that was never cited as part of the proceedings.

by Sponsored content