Bans

Is it about time that rugby followed football and bans encountered for misbehaviour in one competition only apply to that comp?

We saw sonny bill williams get away with a glorified training match counting towards his ban. We now see Marler and Hughes get away with a very similar situation.

But should they even be missing domestic or international matches for their European misdemeanours, personal ally I think not. What am I missing by the current system?

Joe Marler: England prop set to be available despite ban - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/41771309

Keep calm and have a cup of tea dear.

I'm not overly surprised you 2 aren't bothered!

What exactly is the problem? Football doesn't limit it to one competition, it limits it to competitions under the umbrella of the different governing bodies

In Marlers case the disciplinary committee tried to be clever and it backfired

Football limits to European domestic or international.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Football limits to European domestic or international.

It does but why is that better?

For me the fact its wider ranging in rugby makes it better and more powerful, if your international place is jeopardised then maybe you'll think twice and learn fast. Dylan Hartley being the glaring exception

And there should be a whole independent set of rules for Dylan ' i fancy a week off' Hartley

I see certain regular wums are reverting to type

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I see certain regular wums are reverting to type

as are certain players

Actually marty hartley didn't gt banned and want an example here. But the thinking behind a ban affecting club vs country etc would be that team may have benefitted from the decision ieissued red then citing but may never see any resulting negative.

Not this week but there are what, 8 previous occasions? Hence my mention of his name, he was also bloody lucky not to get banned this week

That is a fair point though round the team not being affect but should a team be affect or should the player? Surely thats the one the punishment is for?

Whichever way you do it there will always be an element of unfairness as the team that was offended against doesn't get any benefit from a post-match ban instead of a red at the time, but other teams that weren't even involved could potentially benefit from banned players not being available against them - for example Worcester may benefit this week from a number of the Quins starting players not being available due to bans.

Do we really want rugby to follow football? In football there is a big disconnect between the Premier League, European Competitions and Country, whereas rugby is a much more holistic sport. So missing a game for your club in the league, in Europe, or for your country is a much bigger thing. Many football fans support their club and not their country. I hope rugby never goes down that road. If that is what you want 7 & 1/2 then more shame you - please go and be a football fan.

It's regrettable two different disciplinary committees - in the cases of Marler and Hughes - came up with two different interpretations of which matches the bans should cover. If they are working from the same guidelines, then they should draw the same conclusions.

With Marler, the committee reasoned he wouldn't play the Anglo-Welsh fixture, so it shouldn't be included. Even without reference to the different ruling with Hughes, Quins pointed out Marler had not been selected for England, so could play. Now that match is included, of course, Marler becomes available for England again, and probably won't play the Quins fixture. That's quite a mind-bender.

Rugby is still relatively new to professionalism, with laws and technology changing all the time, so it's not surprising so many of the systems regulating the sport don't work smoothly.

In order to improve, there should be more public discussion of decisions so we can understand how they came about. When the same man watching the same game cites Hartley, but not Slimani, when the later seemed the worst offence, we need to know if he just made a mistake, or was he following World Rugby criteria.

There was confusion over SBW's ban, and now Marler's. As Heaf says, there's probably no system which will satisfy everyone, but we should expect that the current system can at least produce consistent outcomes. Currently, we don't know if the fault lies with the guidelines, or the quality of the personnel selected to make these rulings.

Something needs to change doesn’t it. A qualifying game needs to be a legitimate club game (at the applicable tier) and a legitimate international game. Games like pre-season club games, lower tier club games, game of three halves warm up games, B-side internationals, etc shouldn’t count.

And why can’t a player like Hartley be banned for life for racking up over a year of bans and often for violence? If a lot of the things he’s done on the field occurred on the street, he’d be in jail on £2 a week making spinning tops. Yet he’s still allowed to play professional rugby and make £100,000s a year assaulting people. If a player racks up 52 weeks of cumulative bans he should be banned for life. That’d sort out players like Hartley and Marler.

ebop wrote:Something needs to change doesn’t it. A qualifying game needs to be a legitimate club game (at the applicable tier) and a legitimate international game. Games like pre-season club games, lower tier club games, game of three halves warm up games, B-side internationals, etc shouldn’t count.

And why can’t a player like Hartley be banned for life for racking up over a year of bans and often for violence? If a lot of the things he’s done on the field occurred on the street, he’d be in jail on £2 a week making spinning tops. Yet he’s still allowed to play professional rugby and make £100,000s a year assaulting people. If a player racks up 52 weeks of cumulative bans he should be banned for life. That’d sort out players like Hartley and Marler.

 The problem with that Ebop is that many Rugby People would rather Ban Hartley not because he is a dirty player but because he is one of the best current Rugby players at the International level. the only question I have regards Harley why was he actually cited the other day?

 It often a good measure of players standing when he gets so many calls to have him banned.

ebop wrote:Something needs to change doesn’t it. A qualifying game needs to be a legitimate club game (at the applicable tier) and a legitimate international game. Games like pre-season club games, lower tier club games, game of three halves warm up games, B-side internationals, etc shouldn’t count.

And why can’t a player like Hartley be banned for life for racking up over a year of bans and often for violence? If a lot of the things he’s done on the field occurred on the street, he’d be in jail on £2 a week making spinning tops. Yet he’s still allowed to play professional rugby and make £100,000s a year assaulting people. If a player racks up 52 weeks of cumulative bans he should be banned for life. That’d sort out players like Hartley and Marler.

yes I agree, with Sonny Bill Williams being next in line

you seem to know a lot about jail. How are the showers?

Gwlad wrote:

ebop wrote:Something needs to change doesn’t it. A qualifying game needs to be a legitimate club game (at the applicable tier) and a legitimate international game. Games like pre-season club games, lower tier club games, game of three halves warm up games, B-side internationals, etc shouldn’t count.

And why can’t a player like Hartley be banned for life for racking up over a year of bans and often for violence? If a lot of the things he’s done on the field occurred on the street, he’d be in jail on £2 a week making spinning tops. Yet he’s still allowed to play professional rugby and make £100,000s a year assaulting people. If a player racks up 52 weeks of cumulative bans he should be banned for life. That’d sort out players like Hartley and Marler.

yes I agree, with Sonny Bill Williams being next in line

you seem to know a lot about jail. How are the showers?

 you been dropping the soap again Gwlad?

gwlad in the showers

=>

I think player and team should be affected marty. But just not the team which had nothing to do with it. I also think it partially solves issues like in this instance.

ebop in the showers

This topic comes up every three months or so.

For me the only issue is they are confusing bans measured in weeks with those in matches and creating the nonsense we saw in the inconsistencies with Hughes and Marler's cases.

The disciplinary system is designed to punish the player, which I agree with. I do not believe a player banned at club level, should be allowed to represent their country till the ban has expired. Nor should a player be allowed to represent their club when banned for country. That the club is also then punished is, for me, acceptable collateral damage - perhaps the player should have their wages suspended?

Bans shouldn't be for either weeks or matches but rather disciplinary points. Every match the player is eligible for should be given a points rating:
say - 1 point for B&I, second team or lower
3 points for club league
4 points for League knockouts
4 for European pool
5 for European knock out stages
4 for International
0 for Lions / Baabaas etc.
No more than one eligible match (probably the highest tariff) to count in any week.
Every player would be assumed to be available for Test selection (if their country had a game). Players couldn't play any rugby until their entire points punishment had been used up by missing eligible matches.

So if a player is given say a 12 point ban tomorrow they would miss their club game worth 3 next w/e and then miss the following three weeks 3x AIs (4 + 4 + 4).

If a player gets a 12 point ban in the second test of a three test summer tour they might miss:
Final Summer test - 4 points
Three pre-season games - 1+1+1
Two league games - 3+3

I'd also like to see yellow cards contribute to disciplinary points with each one being worth say a third of a point.