When should World Rugby Intervene.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 29 Mar 2016, 7:44 pm

As we all know, World Rugby have decided to intervene in the Joe Marler case. A 6 Nations Committee (AKA the Blazers of Dublin) had some sort of hearing and decided not to pursue the matter. World Rugby have stepped in and called for a new hearing in a situation the RPA (Rugby Players Association - effectively the players union) liken to trying a man twice for the same crime (or Double Jeopardy).

Now there is no point thrashing out the wrongs of Marler - that has been discussed to death and there are extremists on both sides of the argument who frankly make any reasoned debate untenable.

What I would like to highlight (again) is another case. On 27th January an EPCR Disciplinary panel (interestingly also run by the Blazers of Dublin or BoD) found Laurent Sempere, the Stade Francais prop, guilty of a mid range offence of making contact with the eye(s) and/or eye area of the Leicester Tigers prop, Marcos Ayerza. Sempere was banned for 15 weeks.

http://www.epcrugby.com/discipline/32495.php#.Vvq6OvkrLcs

Four weeks later, in the midst of a player shortage, Stade appealed this ban to a panel made up of FFR/LNR officials (AKA the Blazers of Paris -BoP) who overturned the ban. It means that Sempere was allowed to immediately resume playing - but within the T14 only. This was referred to World Rugby for adjudication, but they declined to get involved.

So why are they willing to get involved in one case (even if I believe the BoD made the wrong call) and not in the other.

by Guest Tue 29 Mar 2016, 7:50 pm

It's the same as a referee getting something wrong (e.g. Watching a TMO replay and making the wrong decision) and some higher body overruling it, or revisiting it, at a later date. I guess it's another layer of quality assurance/red tape, depending on your view.

When should they intervene? I guess when one or more parties are not satisfied with the original outcome. If they feel pressure to go further then they step in.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 29 Mar 2016, 7:52 pm

So why not intervene with Sempere, who it should be noted was still banned from rugby outside of France.

The only real difference is that there has been a media witch hunt against Marler - when really the BoD are the villains in not dealing with this in the first place.

I am not saying they are wrong to intervene in the Marler case, but to pick and choose based on what attracts the media turns them into spineless hypocrits.

by Geordie Tue 29 Mar 2016, 8:37 pm

LT

It in absolute disgrace that this is still ongoing. Ludacris beyond belief!!!!

by Guest Tue 29 Mar 2016, 8:44 pm

Did anyone kick up a fuss about the Sempere incident? If they had then World Rugby may have felt forced to intervene to show that they were doing something, as with the Marler case. Had there been no media interest or coverage post-Marlergate then I'm confident they wouldn't had stepped in.

You're right though, it's wrong of them to pick and choose. But as the world governing body I guess they're the moral guardians of the game and when something non-rugby related like 'race' is raised as a controversial issue then they're the ones to get involved. Perhaps as the Sempere incident was a rugby issue World Rugby felt that it could be dealt with by the powers vested in the EPCR. Inconsistent though, so agree that it's frustrating.

by Fanster Tue 29 Mar 2016, 11:21 pm

I probably agree with all above, the case should've been ended with a punishment, either by the RFU, or 6N. The fact it's still going on is the media outcry.

Let me jus play the other side for a moment, I'm a blazer working at world rugby...

Marler calls Lee 'Gypsy boy' on mic, with the outcry of the poor decision making this seasons 6N, some extremely poor decisions on field, some non citings, the french calling up a non qualified player etc.. the ensuing race row is surely going to be handled swiftly and justifiably by 6N.

Before this you have Gatland playing it down, the WRU playing it up, Jones mocking both parties, then refusing to take an interview seriously and make a statement, compounded with social media outcry outside of the sports community, the head of the Irish traveller and gypsy (whatever their actual title is) making comments on a public forum, and then the massive sense of injustice with the ludicrous justification of 'heat of the moment' comments are ok!

Then further damning video comes out of Marler making more comments, rumours of numerous comments before and after these, public figures making silly comments on both sides and the circus is fully underway...

It was only a matter of time before I was called into question, and asked why I was burying my head in racist sands, so for the good of the game I demand moral answers.

Lets be honest, it's a bit of a Poopie show, but World rugby now stepping in is probably the right thing to do before theyre dragged into it kicking and screaming.

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 12:03 am

They should intervene when it is suspected that their regulations are not being followed. In the Sempere case, the FFR were involved in the panel and that is good enough for the IRB. The FFR are responsible for the discipline of French players. The fact they signed up to the ECPR and then chose to ignore it is between those parties. If the French club just ignored it and the FFR complained then the IRB might well get involved.

In this case it is suspected that the 6 Nations group did not follow the IRB regulations/guidelines/best practice/whatever. So they got involved. Very different cases to my mind.

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 12:13 am

Just to clairify the BoDs.

The 6Ns BoDs is chaired by the RFU chairman, Bill Beaumont. Both these (RFU and 6Ns) organisations failed to deal with it.

World Rugby is also based in Dublin and it is chaired by a Frenchman, Bernard Lapasset who is about to retire shortly and Bill Beaumont will be elected in his stead.

by Guest Wed 30 Mar 2016, 12:38 am

LondonTiger wrote:So why not intervene with Sempere, who it should be noted was still banned from rugby outside of France.

The only real difference is that there has been a media witch hunt against Marler - when really the BoD are the villains in not dealing with this in the first place.

I am not saying they are wrong to intervene in the Marler case, but to pick and choose based on what attracts the media turns them into spineless hypocrits.

It's interesting that you repeat the fact that 6N's is located in Dublin, and then abbreviate it to BoD. Just a wee joke, I'm sure.

Anyway, I think you're a bit quick to judge the 6N's as being spineless hypocrites. It could well be that the 6N's hands were tied legally, preventing them from doing much, if anything, about it. We already know that certain clubs threaten legal action if they do not get their way, and so perhaps your ire should be directed at those who disregard the rules they signed up to. So, if the 6N's were prevented because the action was legal, then there's no point in WR intervening.

In the case of Marler, I believe the 6N's would have acted within the law to sanction Marler for his comment, but failed to do so, and so WR felt this an issue that merited further investigation.

There's no indication of hypocrisy that I can see, but there is lack of good judgement.

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 7:48 am

Sin é wrote:Just to clairify the BoDs.

The 6Ns BoDs is chaired by the RFU chairman, Bill Beaumont. Both these (RFU and 6Ns) organisations failed to deal with it.

World Rugby is also based in Dublin and it is chaired by a Frenchman, Bernard Lapasset who is about to retire shortly and Bill Beaumont will be elected in his stead.

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you think the role of a chairman is?

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 7:56 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:Just to clairify the BoDs.

The 6Ns BoDs is chaired by the RFU chairman, Bill Beaumont. Both these (RFU and 6Ns) organisations failed to deal with it.

World Rugby is also based in Dublin and it is chaired by a Frenchman, Bernard Lapasset who is about to retire shortly and Bill Beaumont will be elected in his stead.

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you think the role of a chairman is?

I suppose something like this:

The principal role of the Chairman of the Board is to manage and to provide leadership to the Board of Directors of the Company. The Chairman is accountable to the Board and acts as a direct liaison between the Board and the management of the Company, through the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 8:06 am

You chipped up a couple of times now about this Sin, so you think Beaumont is protecting English players in his roles? You know he sat on the panel, or he was putting pressure on? Just intrigued as we've seen Hartley, Ashton etc miss out on big tournaments after receiving domestic bans so doesn't seem a historic thing.

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 8:33 am

Sin é wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:Just to clairify the BoDs.

The 6Ns BoDs is chaired by the RFU chairman, Bill Beaumont. Both these (RFU and 6Ns) organisations failed to deal with it.

World Rugby is also based in Dublin and it is chaired by a Frenchman, Bernard Lapasset who is about to retire shortly and Bill Beaumont will be elected in his stead.

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you think the role of a chairman is?

I suppose something like this:

The principal role of the Chairman of the Board is to manage and to provide leadership to the Board of Directors of the Company. The Chairman is accountable to the Board and acts as a direct liaison between the Board and the management of the Company, through the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)

So, manage and lead the board. But what does that actually mean and practical level?

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 8:37 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:You chipped up a couple of times now about this Sin, so you think Beaumont is protecting English players in his roles? You know he sat on the panel, or he was putting pressure on? Just intrigued as we've seen Hartley, Ashton etc miss out on big tournaments after receiving domestic bans so doesn't seem a historic thing.

For starters, it doesn't bother me one way or another, but as an observation, I think that Beaumont might turn out to be an old fart type of chairman of World Rugby. I've come to this conclusion because Lepasset destroyed him in the last election for World Rugby chair and then the PRL humiliated him over European Rugby.

With Beaumont becoming the next chair of World Rugby, you might see people trying to win favour with him by letting disciplinary stuff go for teams that are close to his heart. He needs to be on top of it by even being much stricter with England players than on anyone else.

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 8:39 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:Just to clairify the BoDs.

The 6Ns BoDs is chaired by the RFU chairman, Bill Beaumont. Both these (RFU and 6Ns) organisations failed to deal with it.

World Rugby is also based in Dublin and it is chaired by a Frenchman, Bernard Lapasset who is about to retire shortly and Bill Beaumont will be elected in his stead.

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you think the role of a chairman is?

I suppose something like this:

The principal role of the Chairman of the Board is to manage and to provide leadership to the Board of Directors of the Company. The Chairman is accountable to the Board and acts as a direct liaison between the Board and the management of the Company, through the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)

So, manage and lead the board. But what does that actually mean and practical level?

He should be the one to tell his board and CEO that its not on letting Marler off the hook.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 8:41 am

So in this particular case, you seem to be suggesting he's already giving English players a beneficual ride? I doubt in the role of chairman of World Rugby he'll be sitting on many disciplinary panels tbh and of course he doesn't need to be stricter on English players, what a bizarre thing to say!

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 8:48 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:So in this particular case, you seem to be suggesting he's already giving English players a beneficual ride? I doubt in the role of chairman of World Rugby he'll be sitting on many disciplinary panels tbh and of course he doesn't need to be stricter on English players, what a bizarre thing to say!

I'm not suggesting he is giving English players a beneficial ride. He needs to understand that a higher level of accountability is expected of him and needs to be evident. He needs to avoid conflict of interest.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 8:53 am

Fair enough Sin. Clearly the 6Ns have messed this one up but given the past bans to English players I'd say it was down to the situation rather than nationality of player. And yes the Chair needs to show he's impartial which includes not being stricter with English people.

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:08 am

I think it's probably because there is damning video evidence against Marler showing that he needs to be punished. Which the 6N failed to do.

Is there any damning video evidence over the Sempere incident that has been dragged through the media?

This all shows that the disciplinary process in rugby is in complete disarray.

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:14 am

But he should know you can't just push stuff like that under the carpet. It has to be seen to be dealt with properly.

For example, Peter Boyle (former IRFU Chairman) resigned from World Rugby Committee that was tasked with recruiting a new CEO because of the flawed process. Good read this. Bill came to the rescue of course Wink

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/9317838/International-Rugby-Board-insists-recruitment-drive-to-appoint-new-chief-executive-remains-very-much-on-track.html

by Geordie Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:18 am

bumble wrote:I think it's probably because there is damning video evidence against Marler showing that he needs to be punished. Which the 6N failed to do.

Is there any damning video evidence over the Sempere incident that has been dragged through the media?

This all shows that the disciplinary process in rugby is in complete disarray.

Dear lord did he brutally murder someone or something?

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:20 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:
bumble wrote:I think it's probably because there is damning video evidence against Marler showing that he needs to be punished. Which the 6N failed to do.

Is there any damning video evidence over the Sempere incident that has been dragged through the media?

This all shows that the disciplinary process in rugby is in complete disarray.
Dear lord did he brutally murder someone or something?

No, he shouted "Oi gypsy boy, get back to your caravan". Which is racist abuse. Which the 6N failed to deal with, and which should get a long ban.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:22 am

So he needs to micro manage every decision to ensure it's correct then Sin?

by Geordie Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:22 am

ha ha ha your hilarious.

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:26 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:ha ha ha your hilarious.

my hilarious?

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:32 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:So he needs to micro manage every decision to ensure it's correct then Sin?

No. Just tell his minions to follow the laws of rugby with no shortcuts.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:36 am

Surely once the processes are in place, with the leads in that area, you let them get on with it? There are differences in disciplinary process but these mostly come about between leagues and club to internationl level as this thread suggests. The English system seems pretty much spot on so hopefully he can mirror it across the board.

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:40 am

The RFU had the same take on Marler as the Six Nations (they were both happy with his half time apology), so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion that the English system is better than the 6Ns one.

World Rugby's sanctions:

10.4(m) Verbal abuse of Players based on Religion, Race, Colour, or National or Ethnic Origin or otherwise
LE – 4 weeks. MR – 8 weeks. TE 13+ weeks

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:47 am

Ashton vs Francis for a start. The domestic system doesn't tend to hand out slaps on the wrist which end just before tournaments and in general don't seem lenient.

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:57 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ashton vs Francis for a start. The domestic system doesn't tend to hand out slaps on the wrist which end just before tournaments and in general don't seem lenient.

I'd say it might depend on who is being suspended.

I think the 6Ns and RFU were way too casual about what happened here.

I actually feel sorry for Marler - its turned into a real circus for him because the correct procedures were not followed.

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:59 am

Sin é wrote:

I think the 6Ns and RFU were way too casual about what happened here.

I actually feel sorry for Marler - its turned into a real circus for him because the correct procedures were not followed.

Feehan should lose his job over this. The 6N bazers thought it would go away. It shows how out of touch blazers are in this game.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 10:02 am

Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Ashton vs Francis for a start. The domestic system doesn't tend to hand out slaps on the wrist which end just before tournaments and in general don't seem lenient.

I'd say it might depend on who is being suspended.

I think the 6Ns and RFU were way too casual about what happened here.

I actually feel sorry for Marler - its turned into a real circus for him because the correct procedures were not followed.

So you're saying that the English and 6Ns processes judge on who the player is initially and then what they've done? Really? So why did they favour a Welsh player above an English one?

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 10:26 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Ashton vs Francis for a start. The domestic system doesn't tend to hand out slaps on the wrist which end just before tournaments and in general don't seem lenient.

I'd say it might depend on who is being suspended.

I think the 6Ns and RFU were way too casual about what happened here.

I actually feel sorry for Marler - its turned into a real circus for him because the correct procedures were not followed.

So you're saying that the English and 6Ns processes judge on who the player is initially and then what they've done? Really? So why did they favour a Welsh player above an English one?

From what I can gather, it didn't seem to have made it to a citing stage as there is no record of a meeting. It sound like someone decided that Marler said he is sorry and they left it at that.

I'm not sure how you think they favoured anyone.

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 10:27 am

Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So he needs to micro manage every decision to ensure it's correct then Sin?

No. Just tell his minions to follow the laws of rugby with no shortcuts.

Minions? And the Chairman can just ignore what the board decides and enforce his own will? Not sure it works that way but I can understand why you were so concerned if you think it does.

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 10:29 am

Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Ashton vs Francis for a start. The domestic system doesn't tend to hand out slaps on the wrist which end just before tournaments and in general don't seem lenient.

I'd say it might depend on who is being suspended.

I think the 6Ns and RFU were way too casual about what happened here.

I actually feel sorry for Marler - its turned into a real circus for him because the correct procedures were not followed.

So you're saying that the English and 6Ns processes judge on who the player is initially and then what they've done? Really? So why did they favour a Welsh player above an English one?

From what I can gather, it didn't seem to have made it to a citing stage as there is no record of a meeting. It sound like someone decided that Marler said he is sorry and they left it at that.

You mean the non-English citing official? And the non-English reffing team? But then it was raised outside of the correct discipline channels by the 6N board, which is chaired by an English representative...and you think that means it was brushed under the carpet by the English? Shocked

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 10:30 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So he needs to micro manage every decision to ensure it's correct then Sin?

No. Just tell his minions to follow the laws of rugby with no shortcuts.

Minions? And the Chairman can just ignore what the board decides and enforce his own will? Not sure it works that way but I can understand why you were so concerned if you think it does.

The principal role of the Chairman of the Board is to manage and to provide leadership to the Board of Directors of the Company. The Chairman is accountable to the Board and acts as a direct liaison between the Board and the management of the Company, through the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 10:33 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Ashton vs Francis for a start. The domestic system doesn't tend to hand out slaps on the wrist which end just before tournaments and in general don't seem lenient.

I'd say it might depend on who is being suspended.

I think the 6Ns and RFU were way too casual about what happened here.

I actually feel sorry for Marler - its turned into a real circus for him because the correct procedures were not followed.

So you're saying that the English and 6Ns processes judge on who the player is initially and then what they've done? Really? So why did they favour a Welsh player above an English one?

From what I can gather, it didn't seem to have made it to a citing stage as there is no record of a meeting. It sound like someone decided that Marler said he is sorry and they left it at that.

You mean the non-English citing official? And the non-English reffing team? But then it was raised outside of the correct discipline channels by the 6N board, which is chaired by an English representative...and you think that means it was brushed under the carpet by the English?

Who is the person who chairs the Disciplinary Committee who reports to the 6Ns Board (presumably)?

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 10:37 am

They made a judgment on it though Sin, if they wanted to bury it they chose a strange way of doing it. In the end for my money they got the judgment badly wrong, but it wasn't a cover up in any way.

by yappysnap Wed 30 Mar 2016, 10:41 am

Well it was almost an interesting discussion for a moment there Rolling Eyes

by Sin é Wed 30 Mar 2016, 10:42 am

More or less my thoughts on it posted above.

sin e wrote:I think the 6Ns and RFU were way too casual about what happened here.

I actually feel sorry for Marler - its turned into a real circus for him because the correct procedures were not followed.

For the record, I got involved because the blame seem to have been shoved over on those BoDs in Dublin Whistle

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 10:51 am

Well at least you're honest about your motives and bias.

EDIT: out of curiosity, what's the role of the CEO in this sort of organisation?

by majesticimperialman Wed 30 Mar 2016, 12:01 pm

I could be wrong and most probably am, but in my opinion the reason this is still going on is because people out side of rugby have voiced their opinion. ( people of the traveler and gypsie ) folk have spoke out in public and said MARLER should be punished.

If this is the case, then they will wan't ( be seen to come down hard ) on Marler. Just so the PC brigade are happy it could well be seeing the last of MARLER on the rugby field. Which will be bad for rugby.

World Rugby should only get involved in rugby matters, and should not be swayed about pleasing members of the public ( wider community ) just too be seen as doing something, especially when the 6ns committee said their was nothing to answer for.

by wrfc1980 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 12:19 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:I could be wrong and most probably am, but in my opinion the reason this is still going on is because people out side of rugby have voiced their opinion. ( people of the traveler and gypsie ) folk have spoke out in public and said MARLER should be punished.

If this is the case, then they will wan't ( be seen to come down hard ) on Marler. Just so the PC brigade are happy it could well be seeing the last of MARLER on the rugby field. Which will be bad for rugby.

World Rugby should only get involved in rugby matters, and should not be swayed about pleasing members of the public ( wider community ) just too be seen as doing something, especially when the 6ns committee said their was nothing to answer for.

Spot on. Its in vogue now days for people to get offended, from student unions banning the wearing of Sombrero's as its discriminatory or stereotypical imagery, to this nonsense.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 12:49 pm

Did they say there was nothing to answer for? I didn't read it like that.

by majesticimperialman Wed 30 Mar 2016, 1:15 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Did they say there was nothing to answer for? I didn't read it like that.

The did say he had been cleared. Does that not mean the same thing?

Not trying to split hairs here. But to me saying he had been cleared, was the same as saying he has noting to answer for.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Mar 2016, 1:19 pm

No it's not the same. Anyone avoiding a ban hasn't done anything wrong in your eyes? The whole reason for him avoiding the ban is why WR want to review it.

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 2:08 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Did they say there was nothing to answer for? I didn't read it like that.

The did say he had been cleared. Does that not mean the same thing?

Not trying to split hairs here. But to me saying he had been cleared, was the same as saying he has noting to answer for.

He hasn't been cleared. He just hasn't been banned. Not the same thing at all. The 6 Nations very clearly said that he had done wrong. Everyone (with half a brain) has agreed he has done wrong. The question is level of sanction. 6 Nations appear to be suggesting that this comment does not meet the minimum criteria for a ban, i.e. not a red card. World Rugby look like they disagree.

Edit: This one is all a bit weird because it wasn't cited and dealt with in the correct manner. Not clear who actually made the decision or how (which in itself is something that requires clarification for World Rugby)

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 2:11 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
majesticimperialman wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Did they say there was nothing to answer for? I didn't read it like that.

The did say he had been cleared. Does that not mean the same thing?

Not trying to split hairs here. But to me saying he had been cleared, was the same as saying he has noting to answer for.

He hasn't been cleared. He just hasn't been banned. Not the same thing at all. The 6 Nations very clearly said that he had done wrong. Everyone (with half a brain) has agreed he has done wrong. The question is level of sanction. 6 Nations appear to be suggesting that this comment does not meet the minimum criteria for a ban, i.e. not a red card. World Rugby look like they disagree.

Not only that, but there is suggestion that the 6 Nations actually refused to order a full independent inquiry as the tournament organiser responsible for upholding the regulations of the game. Therefore World Rugby are doing it themselves.

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 2:28 pm

bumble wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
majesticimperialman wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Did they say there was nothing to answer for? I didn't read it like that.

The did say he had been cleared. Does that not mean the same thing?

Not trying to split hairs here. But to me saying he had been cleared, was the same as saying he has noting to answer for.

He hasn't been cleared. He just hasn't been banned. Not the same thing at all. The 6 Nations very clearly said that he had done wrong. Everyone (with half a brain) has agreed he has done wrong. The question is level of sanction. 6 Nations appear to be suggesting that this comment does not meet the minimum criteria for a ban, i.e. not a red card. World Rugby look like they disagree.

Not only that, but there is suggestion that the 6 Nations actually refused to order a full independent inquiry as the tournament organiser responsible for upholding the regulations of the game. Therefore World Rugby are doing it themselves.

Independent inquiry into what? Why it wasn't cited?

by funnyExiledScot Wed 30 Mar 2016, 2:31 pm

I don't think rugby is best served by having numerous authorities overseeing the same incident.

by Sponsored content