After it was revealed at the weekend that Nathan Hughes would no longer face a three week ban for his incident involving George North in March’s Northampton Saints v Wasps clash, analysing other recent disciplinary cases with similar circumstances can highlight the importance of the appeal process.
In Hughes’ case, the initial ban was for so called ‘recklessness’ rather than ‘intention’ in regards to him striking North mid-try and causing him to lose consciousness and sustain concussion thereafter. It was clear to see that Hughes did not mean to hit North in the head, and on opinion not have been able to do anything to stop this from happening. Wasps proceeded to appeal this decision and the panel overturned the three-week ban concluding that “no act of foul play took place” and that the incident “occurred accidentally”. Director of Rugby at Wasps, Dai Young, said
“As a club, we feel we have a duty not only to protect player welfare, but also to protect the reputation of players who we feel have been unfairly sanctioned. We strongly believed this incident was an accident and that is why we appealed.”
He goes on to say how important this appeal was for not only the club, but for Hughes himself:
“We are delighted for Nathan that he has had the red card dismissed. He is a good guy, who has always had a clean record and I am pleased for him that that remains.”
As in the case of Nick Williams, the fact that he had a good track record (behaviour wise) played to his favour and was taken into consideration alongside other mitigating factors. The 16 week starting point ban given for striking Cardiff’s Rhys Patchell during a Pro 12 game earlier this year was reduced to an eight week ban thanks to the Ulster player’s not having had previous restrictions imposed on him for this type of incident. The panel said that Williams’ actions were at the “top end of the World Rugby sanctions for this type of offence” and taking into consideration the final matches of the season as well as warm up matches ahead of the 2015/16 season, Williams will be able to play again on the 1st September 2015.
In other circumstances the governing bodies conducting the hearing’s have seen initial sanctions upgraded because they have deemed the cases to be more serious after post-match analysis has taken place. Recently in Super Rugby, Francois Steyn was eventually given a five week suspension for his tip tackle on Aaron Cruden during Sharks’ 12-11 win over the Chiefs. To begin with it was stated that the tackle was legal and it was two other players coming into the action that made Cruden land awkwardly. However the SANZAR panel overturned the not guilty verdict and found that he had breached Law 10.4(i).
Law 10 of World Rugby’s Player Welfare document relates to Foul Play and states it as “anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.” Law 10.4 is Dangerous Play and Misconduct, with part (i) explaining that “a player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.”
Finn Russell was reprimanded under Law 10.4(i) during the recent Six Nations tournament for a ‘reckless’ tackle on Wales’ Dan Biggar. The controversial decision to send off the Scottish player was a topic of hot debate as it was discussed whether or not it was foul play. Russell clearly had his eyes on the ball and perhaps did not see his opposite number coming into play, resulting in the clash which left Biggar in a heap on the floor. The panel upgraded the yellow card that referee Glen Jackson showed Russell to a red card under part (i) of the Law, meaning they referred to the incident as reckless but not deliberate. Consequently, the SRU appealed, however this was rejected and the Scotsman faced a two week ban. It was obvious that the tackle was not intentional and the issue of some critics saying the yellow was controversial enough was worsened when it was upgraded to a red at the hearing.
The most recent disciplinary in the Aviva Premiership was on Tuesday (April 14th 2015) night, where both Billy Vunipola of Saracens and Verniki Goneva of Leicester Tigers were cited for striking players in the weekend’s fixture between the two clubs. Goneva was sin binned for hitting Kelly Brown with his forearm, for which he will now miss Tigers’ home tie against London Welsh on April 25th. The case against Vunipola, for headbutting Matthew Tait, was dismissed and he was cleared to play for Saracens in the coming weekend’s semi-final against Clermont Auvergne in the European Champions Cup. It has not been said yet whether Leicester plan to appeal the panel’s decision regarding Goneva.
The importance of the appeal process can sometimes mean the difference between winning and losing matches, especially when it comes to players who have key roles within a squad. Beginning a match with the disadvantage of not having a significant player can ultimately decide the result. A team currently suffering after having an appeal lost is Newport Gwent Dragons, who’s South African lock, Rynard Landman, was slapped with a six week ban for elbowing Jack Carty of Connacht in the head. Originally nine weeks, the sanction was reduced due to Landman’s “unblemished record”, and despite achieving an emphatic 25-22 win over Leinster last weekend in the Pro12, the Dragons’ will be needing a strong pack to travel to Edinburgh for this weekend’s European Challange Cup semi-final. The six weeks ban means he will not be able to play until midnight on April 19th, therefore only just missing the semi-final clash, much to Dragons’ supporters dismay. Whether his absence is noticeable or not, it is clear to see how influential appeals are when it comes to not only player welfare, but the game itself.
Main Photo:
