THE past week has confirmed what many of us feared: that the disciplinary procedures at the World Cup are a mess, are inequitable and are affecting results. Everyone is blaming World Rugby but they may be wrong, in that WR’s mistake has been to be too fair and open. They opted for an independent “judiciary” to run the disciplinary process and, ironically, it is the lawyers who have perverted the course of rugby justice, making it slow, costly and unfair. They must be banned.
The late lifting of the ludicrous ban meted out to Scotland’s Ross Ford and Jonny Gray yesterday, after they missed the build-up for today’s quarter-final against Australia, is another example of the shambles
First, there has been the shocking imbalance in the disciplinary decisions that have been meted out to players from tier one and tier two countries.
Among those players from the top nations to have escaped without sanction after committing violent acts on the field of play are: Sam Burgess, of England, for what appeared a horrible clothes-line tackle against Australia; Tom Wood, of England, for a neck hold on a Fijian, who he then threw to the floor; David Pocock, of Australia, for a measured knee drop into a prone Welsh player; Francois Louw of South Africa, for a dangerous hit on a Samoan player.
This is not an exhaustive list but you find that tier-two players have been disciplined in torrents, even though I can see no offence in at least five of the incidents dealt with by the independent system.
Advertisement
The other cause of outrage has been some unbalanced sentencing. Within 24 seconds of the Ireland-France match last week, Sean O’Brien punched Pascal Pape in the stomach, causing Pape to sink to the ground. Two days later he was still unable to do contact training.
O’Brien was banned for two matches and the judgment said there was no provocation, although mitigating circumstances saw the judicial officer reduce this to one match. One of these mitigating factors was that he showed good conduct at his hearing. As Brian Moore, once a distinguished legal practitioner, said afterwards: “I cannot see why good conduct at the hearing is mitigation, as if you are going to act otherwise. In my opinion, two weeks was correct.”
Ford was originally banned for three matches and therefore the rest of the tournament after Scotland played Samoa last weekend. Examine the incident carefully and you find that Ford enters a ruck — and rucks. Jack Lam, the Samoan flanker, falls over the ball and Ford bends down and drives him out of the way, not around the neck, and with no great force. Lam and Samoa were big enough to confirm that they had no problem. Yesterday, the appeals panel demolished the original decision and said there was no offence by Gray or Ford.
Last week, too, Alesana Tuilagi of Samoa was given a five-week ban. As Tuilagi was running with the ball at pace, his leading knee made heavy contact with a Japanese defender, about four stone lighter than the massive Samoan. Tuilagi was cited and banished, to outrage.
The judicial officer was Antony Davies, part of the independent panel. But when he made his written decision on Tuilagi, he took a wrong turn. He is there for his legal expertise, not as a technical rugby expert. But in his judgment, he wrote of Tuilagi’s run: “I have seen Mr Tuilagi play rugby many times from 2004 onwards — enough to know that what I’ve seen [in replays of the offence] is not his normal running style.”
Advertisement
Those of us who have seen Tuilagi play at least 50 times felt his run showed him in typical style. And that sprinting always involves knee lift. Yet Mr Davies felt he was qualified to prognosticate on a purely rugby matter. The appeals tribunal found this a procedural irregularity and reduced the ban to two weeks.
The proceedings have to stagger through a mountain of minor details as the barristers for the accused try to find any crumb in their client’s favour. The judicial officer in the O’Brien case first had to ask the match official to check if Pape had been wearing protective gear — as if that made any difference. Then he had to consult the French team doctor and the independent match doctor for further information on the minutiae of Pape’s injury. Finally, he had to cope with heavy questioning by O’Brien’s brief.
World Rugby has been too fair. This has led to an invasion of procedures by the legal profession, vast costs, delayed decisions and a mountain of irrelevant minutiae.
For the next World Cup and thereafter, it should summon its own good men and women, whose first desire is to make rugby safer. In this litigious world of super agents, highly–paid players and angry coaches, the reality that these good honest laymen might make mistakes will bring down the wrath of the legal profession. Looking at the anomalies at this World Cup, the sport should let those people do their worst.