Franks not cited

First topic message reminder :

I do find it interesting that apparently Owen Franks has nothing to answer for? I can't think of another incident recently, where a player has clearly placed his hand on another's face and it's not been looked at. The ref was very close, so perhaps saw it different. From the angles the public saw, it certainly looked worthy of an investigation.

Rugby Fan wrote:

It's also that there are no examples at all of anyone doing what Franks did and being exonerated.

Pretty much any French player ever when its been an FRU panel?

Munchkin wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:World Rugby can't be jumping in on every potential act of foul play that fans and pundits argue about post match.  Nothing would ever get done.

Franks did nothing wrong. Precedent set and should be repeated at every maul going forward (it stops players getting their hands on the ball if they have to bring their hands up to protect their own head / not-facial area).

World Rugby don't jump into every potential act of foul play. The one they did jump into - Marler, something was done.

You say Franks did nothing wrong. Is that according to rugby law?

I don't understand your point about bringing hands up to protect the head. It appears that you're arguing against yourself, so I'm guessing I'm not reading it right  

According to the review by the relevant officials he did nothing wrong and there was no citing. Personally I've seen plenty of players pinged for it in the past, on a practical basis you only put your hands there with the intention of trying to get the other player to remove their hands from wherever they were to protext their own head. I said not-facial area because if it was hands in the facial area it would be per the rules of the game a citable offense but this has now been ruled not to fall under that bit of rugby law. But this instance can be used as the precedent if a referee ever pings or cards someone for putting hands near face in a driving maul in future.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:World Rugby can't be jumping in on every potential act of foul play that fans and pundits argue about post match.  Nothing would ever get done.

Franks did nothing wrong. Precedent set and should be repeated at every maul going forward (it stops players getting their hands on the ball if they have to bring their hands up to protect their own head / not-facial area).

 Thats correct, they only need to step in when the credibility/integrity of the game is put at risk. Which will be the criteria used by the  Australian RU complaining  to World Rugby Re Hansen having meetings with the match officials prior to the game.

Personally I've no problem with match officials meeting coaches in the build up to a game to discuss how they are going to approach things. My only issue would be if the officials only met with one team prior to the game....... actually I'd go a little further I'd only have an issue if the officials didn't offer a meeting of similar length to both teams in the build up to the game, whether a coach decided to take them up on the offer or not is up to the coach.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:...But this instance can be used as the precedent if a referee ever pings or cards someone for putting hands near face in a driving maul in future.

We already had a body of precedent, specifically Galarza, Ashton and Francis. Unless SANZAR provides more clarity to World Rugby about how the Franks case is different, then we are just left with a shambles.

...Rugby Championship administrators continue to face criticism over its handling of the Franks incident during the second Bledisloe Cup Test in Wellington last month.

The All Black prop escaped scrutiny during and after the game, despite two video angles showing a clear moment when Franks brushed his fingers over the face of Wallabies second-rower Kane Douglas during a maul.

SANZAAR stands by its decision to not take the matter further, while the New Zealand and Australian teams appear keen to move on.

The incident sparked outrage in the northern hemisphere and prompted World Rugby vice-chairman and former Argentina international Agustin Pichot to criticise Rugby Championship administrators for failing to take action.

It is understood the matter has now been added to the formal agenda at the next meeting of World Rugby's executive committee.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/world-rugby-to-discuss-owen-franks-eyegouge-incident-waratahs-issue-corruption-warning-20160908-grbhhq.html

At least WR appear to wanting to confront these things head on.

Not sure if this has already been posted, either way Franks has dodged a bullet here and as we all know these things have a way of coming back to bite ya!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyulN5GHsoE

Anyone who argue's that this was not making contact with the face quite frankly is either blind or a liar.

Very bad day for the All Blacks, Ozy, Sanzar and World Rugby all round. stinking hypocrisy.

When I first saw footage on this I wondered why he wasn't cited. My preference would probably still be that he had been cited. This is certainly a view held by many, with strong arguments for a ban, and calls of a bias towards New Zealand.

However, being analytical in nature, I've been thinking about this and how you would know that calls were consistent and a sense of equity and fairplay exists. It seems to me there is a general lack of transparency in the judicial process, even if it is consistent it's not evident, because we aren't party to the process. Additionally, rugby reporting is often appalling, especially when pundits write opinion pieces (Chris Rattue, Stephen Jones, etc, please stand up). I understand the NSW rugby union has made a submission to the IRB asking for more transparency in line with premier league football and NFL. I personally support that.

Back to the issue of gouging, hands on the face, penalties, cards and suspensions. It seems to me the only way to actually know if it's been consistently assessed, policed and penalised. I'm not convinced it's as clear cut as is being made out. I'm just going to look at gouging in games involving top tier nations (6 nations and Rugby championship teams) from 2011 to present (I don't have time to do more). As far as I'm aware there are 6 potential cases of gouging that have been talked about. 3 resulted in suspensions (Ghiraldini (Ita) on Healy (Ire) 2011, Galarza (Arg) on Retallick (NZ) 2015, Francis (Wal) on Cole (Eng) 2016) and 2 that didn't (Rougerie (Fra) on McCaw (NZ) 2011 and Franks (NZ) on (Aus) 2016). In terms of the wider game it's harder to know for sure given the vast number of games. Thankfully the IRB will discuss this next time they meet.

In terms of the laws I think it's a bit vague. I think it's ruled from Law 10.4(m). Which states "A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure." In terms of gouging this seems to have been interpreted in several different ways 1) coming into contact with the eye, or 2) coming into contact with the eye or eye area. Certainly players haven't been cited because they haven't contacted the eye (e.g. Heaslip on Brussow). A simple solution would be to include a specific law vis a vis eye gouging (if there already is I apologise).

Having said that a tweak to the laws and more transparency is desirable, as well as pointing out that I would have been happy with a citing. I would have understood a ban given some of the other recent decisions. The other relevant points are Kane Douglas (the victim) doesn't think he was eye gouged. In many, if not most of the gouging incidents I've seen it's relatively obvious that the players eyes have been contacted because of their reaction. There is a process that allows teams and players to raise the issue. Australia had the right to make a complaint, they didn't. Douglas has the right to make a complaint (he hasn't).

In terms of this game I understand that hands in and around the head in mauls wasn't uncommon, given the nature of mauls and how teams try and counter it. I'd be really interested to know how often hands go near eyes. I also think (and this is not to say that he wasn't right to raise the issue) it's good PR for Cheika. He's had a horrendous start to the season. It's gone from bad to worse. This game was also, probably, the dirtiest game I've seen the Wallabies play for a while. The non citing has really distracted the discussion away from the Wallabies performance.

Lastly, my bugbear is not with nationalities. It's more about consistency with test match citings and cards at home vs away. To my mind players are more likely to be cited or carded if playing away than at home.

Hands on the face are an absolute penalty and should immediately result in a card (preferably Red) and subsequent ban. To argue this incident is anything other is quite frankly BS.

Your logic is ridiculously flawed.

The facts are that contact with the face and eye area was made wether the eye was gouged or not is irrelevant.

The referee saw this and took no action which is appalling and should result in his own suspension.

That the player and his Union made no appeal is their choice, however I believe is a decision based on ignorance.

The Sanzar citing officer did not believe the incident warranted a Red card and so did not cite. The  incompetence of this decision is disgusting and stinks of in house hypocrisy. This citing officer should be suspended.

World Rugby's failure to intervene is weak in the excess. Complete and utter joke. Player and game welfare my arse!

Hands on the face are an absolute penalty and should immediately result in a card (preferably Red) and subsequent ban. To argue this incident is anything other is quite frankly BS. Firstly. I said I'd be happy for a card and a subsequent suspension. Secondly in terms of the assessment IRB match officials have made on gouging it is consistent (or more to the point consistently inconsistent.

Your logic is ridiculously flawed. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think you're actually questioning some of the info I've based my arguments on.

The facts are that contact with the face and eye area was made wether the eye was gouged or not is irrelevant. Not according to a number of IRB assessments. Recent decisions, on citing have included contact near the eye as both a reason for suspension and a reason for non suspension/ non citing.

The referee saw this and took no action which is appalling and should result in his own suspension. He obviously didn't view it as gouging, when looking at real time. That doesn't mean that most of the rest of us didn't think it was suspicious.

That the player and his Union made no appeal is their choice, however I believe is a decision based on ignorance. The citing officer approached the Australians 3 separate times following Cheicka's comments.  As I stated earlier, irrespective of whether gouging occurred, dealing with it in the press transferred a lot of heat off the Wallabies players this week. Good media management

The Sanzar citing officer did not believe the incident warranted a Red card and so did not cite. The  incompetence of this decision is disgusting and stinks of in house hypocrisy. This citing officer should be suspended. It can't stink of hypocrisy if it's consistent with a number of recent decisions, even if inconsistent with others. The issue is that there is some inconsistency in how hands on the face are viewed. There is even inconsistency during and after a game by different officials (e.g. Francis earlier this year).

World Rugby's failure to intervene is weak in the excess. Complete and utter joke. Player and game welfare my arse!
I tend to agree with you. NB: The IRB has apparently intervened. News reports out today suggest he's been given a warning from the IRB to make a formal complaint in the future rather than use the media (I.e. put up or shut up). I don't think this can be done without involving the relevant committee (Which includes an Australian) or the CEO (An Australian)

kingelderfield wrote:Hands on the face are an absolute penalty and should immediately result in a card (preferably Red) and subsequent ban. To argue this incident is anything other is quite frankly BS.

Your logic is ridiculously flawed.

The facts are that contact with the face and eye area was made wether the eye was gouged or not is irrelevant.

The referee saw this and took no action which is appalling and should result in his own suspension.

That the player and his Union made no appeal is their choice, however I believe is a decision based on ignorance.

The Sanzar citing officer did not believe the incident warranted a Red card and so did not cite. The  incompetence of this decision is disgusting and stinks of in house hypocrisy. This citing officer should be suspended.

World Rugby's failure to intervene is weak in the excess. Complete and utter joke. Player and game welfare my arse!

Correct. I thought Francis' ban was harsh, but it was correct to the letter of the law. Franks' should have suffered similar if not the same punishment, these laws are specifically in place for player welfare regardless of whether they seem harsh or not.