What a farce of a punishment

So Gloucester are found guilty of fielding an ineligible player and have just been more or less given a slap on the wrist. They have been given a 2pt reduction which does not make a difference to where they finished in the league and a £5000 fine, what a joke, the paltry points reduction should have surely been carried over for next season at least.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/33006089

I may be wrong, but didn't they realise their mistake themselves, and tell the RFU themselves that they had played an ineligible player?

What did you expect given those circumstances, automatic relegation?

BamBam wrote:I may be wrong, but didn't they realise their mistake themselves, and tell the RFU themselves that they had played an ineligible player?

What did you expect given those circumstances, automatic relegation?

They still broke the rules though, so at least start them off next season with a -2pt start.

By farse, you mean entirely consistent with previous occurrences?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/13209972

Seriously, WTF are you talking about?

Wow, Nemani Nadolo used to play for Exeter?! Was he as beastly then as he is now?

The whole issue of his eligibility and how it was handled was much more of a grey area than most. He had joined Gloucester a year before the incident but had been injured for most of that time.

There is another thread on it somewhere here

Seems about right for an admin error. Personally I think if you break the rules wherever possible the punishment should come in the same season.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Seems about right for an admin error. Personally I think if you break the rules wherever possible the punishment should come in the same season.

Of course you do. That's the logical and most sensible thing to happen. I'm sure LD's views are consistent between this and the salary cap stuff.

BamBam wrote:Wow, Nemani Nadolo used to play for Exeter?! Was he as beastly then as he is now?

He was - signed him at Christmas from Bourgoin, got him fit (scored 4 tries in an A game v wasps), into the 1st team, then released him "by mutual consent" at the end of the season.

Ah, no wonder I don't remember then, another example of Exeter's talent scouting there!

Exeter played Bourgoin (and Nadolo) in the Amlin that season - he was disenchanted with his French experience and Bourgoin were in financial grief. Brilliant signing, if he hadn't settled into the Exeter nightlife (such as it is) quite so well (and if he had a Fijian passport).

Why were London Welsh docked 5 points though when they did it? That was from the actions of one man was it not?

Because that wasnt an admin mistake, they forged a document didn t they to say someone was English when they werent?

It certainly was an admin error! the error was allowing the apprentice to doctor the document lol

He falsified records and the guy played for something like 10 matches, not one. Basically Welsh were penalised 3 times more severely for 10 times the offence, and it was a deliberate act of deceit by a staff member of the club. They got off lightly.

HammerofThunor wrote:He falsified records and the guy played for something like 10 matches, not one. Basically Welsh were penalised 3 times more severely for 10 times the offence, and it was a deliberate act of deceit by a staff member of the club. They got off lightly.

The club were also made aware of problems with Keats registration, people above Mike Scott in the organisation, and for several matches they did nothing.

LW were docked 1/2pt per game.

Glaws 2pts per game.

I thought the thread title was spot on until I read the post, which in itself is farcical. Galarza was properly registered with Glaws. Due to his long term injury he was registered with Hartpury for one game to get match fitness as the A league had finished. His registration was not changed back in time for his 25 minute substitution appearance against Sale, in which we were soundly beaten. We then realised our mistake and flagged it immediately. The initial ruling was to suspend the deduction, a decision made with a month of the season to go. The fact the decision was appealed and the suspension removed should not impact next season as the original decision was made whilst the league was still active.

Personally I'm fine with the ruling as it's consistent, but let's not get ludicrous over a very minor error.

I hadn't followed this issue very closely. But the explanations certainly seem clear and the punishment appropriate.