I love Parisse in the springtime!

Good news that Segio alongside Healy has been de-listed from the especial top side naughty step.

No good winning a GS unless it's against a top fit and available side.

[ed] http://www.espnscrum.com/six-nations-2013/rugby/story/178252.html

http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/22527.php

I hope he is selected.

Speaking of bans ending early, two weeks is not one month.

Good news. Ridiculous that you can get banned in the six nations for something that happened outside of International rugby.

They should add Parisse's reduction back onto Healy's ban. That would even everything up.

GunsGerms wrote:Good news. Ridiculous that you can get banned in the six nations for something that happened outside of International rugby.

I disagree. If you are banned from rugby it should be all rugby.

What was ridiculous is that they initially found him guilty of insulting the ref, when the ref was unable to verify what was actually said. Now it is just a generic "naughty boy" offence.

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Good news. Ridiculous that you can get banned in the six nations for something that happened outside of International rugby.

I disagree. If you are banned from rugby it should be all rugby.

What was ridiculous is that they initially found him guilty of insulting the ref, when the ref was unable to verify what was actually said. Now it is just a generic "naughty boy" offence.

Why what bearing does an incident in the top14 have on the six nations? None whatsoever so why cop a ban in the 6 nations for something that occurs in club rugby. Doesnt make any sense to me.

Why should it relate to a tournament. The player committed an offence and they are banned. Short bans for minor offences, longer bans for major ones.

If you abuse a ref at any level why should you be allowed to play at international? By committing the offence you lost all rights.

If we say that is ok - what if you push the ref, or punch him.

What about other bans, should a player banned for gouging only be banned from one tier of rugby?

GunsGerms wrote:Good news. Ridiculous that you can get banned in the six nations for something that happened outside of International rugby.

I disagree GG. It's ridiculous that bans can be served out downwards in the rugby echelons. Yes make Parisse do his porridge in the T14. But same goes for Healy - bans for Ireland.

Plus why do players almost never serve a ban from the offended side?

Is a player disciplinary passport not possible to carry forward penalties against the offended side?

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Good news. Ridiculous that you can get banned in the six nations for something that happened outside of International rugby.

I disagree. If you are banned from rugby it should be all rugby.

What was ridiculous is that they initially found him guilty of insulting the ref, when the ref was unable to verify what was actually said. Now it is just a generic "naughty boy" offence.

Sounds like a total cop out to me. I wonder if the FFR appeals committee would have come to the same conclusion if Italy were playing France this weekend?

Strange how the French have suddenly decided to free him up for the England game.

Is there no end to the tactics all and sundry will employ to try and deprive England of a GS?

Who cares, bring it on!

LondonTiger wrote:Why should it relate to a tournament. The player committed an offence and they are banned. Short bans for minor offences, longer bans for major ones.

If you abuse a ref at any level why should you be allowed to play at international? By committing the offence you lost all rights.

If we say that is ok - what if you push the ref, or punch him.

What about other bans, should a player banned for gouging only be banned from one tier of rugby?

If you punched a ref you would probably miss a year of club rugby and undoubtably not be selected for your international team as a result. Look at Julien Dupuy. He copped a year ban for gouging Ferris. He was first choice France scrum half at the time and hasnt been able to get into the team since.

For the Parisse incident or any incident the punishment should be a ban from a number of games at that level. That way for example a ban for a match at international level cant be served out by missing potentially some club matches and no International matches. You should be sanctioned within the level/competition as that is the only way you can ensure that the ban benefits the team against which the act was comitted as well as properly punishing the individual.

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:Strange how the French have suddenly decided to free him up for the England game.

Is there no end to the tactics all and sundry will employ to try and deprive England of a GS?

Who cares, bring it on!

Was that aimed at 'who cares' (the French fan on here)?

If we can't beat Italy at home, with or without Parisse, then we don't deserve to win anything!

GunsGerms wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Why should it relate to a tournament. The player committed an offence and they are banned. Short bans for minor offences, longer bans for major ones.

If you abuse a ref at any level why should you be allowed to play at international? By committing the offence you lost all rights.

If we say that is ok - what if you push the ref, or punch him.

What about other bans, should a player banned for gouging only be banned from one tier of rugby?

If you punched a ref you would probably miss a year of club rugby and undoubtably not be selected for your international team as a result. Look at Julien Dupuy. He copped a year ban for gouging Ferris. He was first choice France scrum half at the time and hasnt been able to get into the team since.

For the Parisse incident or any incident the punishment should be a ban from a number of games at that level. That way for example a ban for a match at international level cant be served out by missing potentially some club matches and no International matches. You should be sanctioned within the level/competition as that is the only way you can ensure that the ban benefits the team against which the act was comitted as well as properly punishing the individual.

If you punch a ref expect an automatic lifetime ban.

Solid8 wrote:
If you punch a ref expect an automatic lifetime ban.

Wouldnt argue with that to be honest at all.

I have never seen any player punching a ref. However, I do recall Irish ref David McHugh being attacked by an over zealous Springbok fan.

My guess that Parisse's presence would be about a ten point difference in the net match point score in Italy's favour.

So I'd predict only a 23 point win for England now.

Not punching, but Neil Back got 6 months I think for pushing over the ref, despite claiming he thought it was someone else.
Different era though. Bath won the game/trophy for starters.

I was playing in a vets game where the ref had to be restrained before he waded in with fists! That was pretty funny, not seen that guy ref since now that I think about it.

I have seen plenty of players wipe out the ref with a big tackle where the ref got in the way.

That is slightly different. A couple of internationals have done that.

Example: http://www.rugbydump.com/2006/12/45/breyton-paulse-try-vs-scotland-as-referee-gets-tackled

A friend of mine got a lifetime ban for punching a ref. He was a big lad (6'3 - well over 20 stone). His story was the opposition were having a go at him throughout the match and the ref wasnt doing anything about it, so he ended up punching the ref...

If the oppo are winding you up take it out on them!

Surely a 4 week ban should be a 4 week ban?

I am sick of all these reductions - 1 week off for remorse, 1 week off for good behaviour (basically not repeating same offence in that time period), 1 week off for being a nice bloke etc.

Healy missed just 1 match. Parisse has also just missed 1 match.

Undermines the disciplinary system when it's so sloppy and weak willed.

If you're banned for an offence during a game, foul/dangerous play or acts contrary to good sportsmanship, what gives you the right to then be available for international duty? Surely potentially missing important games (for club or country) is part of the deterrent.

I totally disagree with anyone who thinks a ban at club level should not affect availability for international matches, basically.

These players are being punished for something they shouldn't have done, you dont then let them play test rugby and get paid £20k a game or whatever it is.

JHEEZ.

beshocked wrote:Surely a 4 week ban should be a 4 week ban?

I am sick of all these reductions - 1 week off for remorse, 1 week off for good behaviour (basically not repeating same offence in that time period), 1 week off for being a nice bloke etc.

Healy missed just 1 match. Parisse has also just missed 1 match.

Undermines the disciplinary system when it's so sloppy and weak willed.

Surely a three week ban should be a three week ban and not a four week ban? There was no reduction.

Dont see why Parisse should have missed any matches. There isnt any evidence that he did anything at all.

GunsGerms talking about Parisse.

1 match missed by Healy. That's a very light sentence in relation to what he did.

The disciplinary panels have done a shoddy job all round.

Maybe Parisse didn't deserve the ban but to back track like those in the disciplinary system have is poor.

Getting it right in the first place would prevent their balls up.

There is no consistency.

beshocked wrote:There is no consistency.

Have to disagree with you there. They have consistently backtracked and let people off lightly at appeal.

beshocked wrote:GunsGerms talking about Parisse.

1 match missed by Healy. That's a very light sentence in relation to what he did.

Its consistent with most other bans for the same act. It was a 5 week ban reduced to 3 for past record. I have no issue with the length because it is consistent with precident.

beshocked wrote:

The disciplinary panels have done a shoddy job all round.

Maybe Parisse didn't deserve the ban but to back track like those in the disciplinary system have is poor.

Getting it right in the first place would prevent their balls up.

There is no consistency.

Parisse is within his rights to appeal and given that no one seems to know what he said then how can he be banned? I think by getting sent off he will have learned his lesson if there was a lesson to be learned.

Solid8 wrote:

beshocked wrote:There is no consistency.

Have to disagree with you there. They have consistently backtracked and let people off lightly at appeal.

Who got let off lightly on appeal?

Glad the FFR had the cahunas to reliase it was a ban on zero evidence and just after he had led Italy to a win over France!!

Have they decided to ban Parra/Yachvili? or they still defering that till after the 6N?

Well both Parisse's and Healy's ban were shortened on appeal for differing reasons. Come to think of it I cannot remember a citing commission decision that went to appeal that was not shortened. Maybe because teams don't bother if they know they won't win.

Healys ban was not shortened. He was given a three week ban. He served a three week ban.

He missed Leinster v Treviso and Scotland v Ireland.

Solid8 wrote:Well both Parisse's and Healy's ban were shortened on appeal for differing reasons. Come to think of it I cannot remember a citing commission decision that went to appeal that was not shortened. Maybe because teams don't bother if they know they won't win.

Healy's ban wasnt shortened. It was three weeks all along. It just started from the correct date.

Parisse didnt deserve to be banned so it just shows the appeal process is important and just.

red_stag wrote:Healys ban was not shortened. He was given a three week ban. He served a three week ban.

He missed Leinster v Treviso and Scotland v Ireland.

Bit of a fib realy saying he was going to play in the Treviso game!

More chance of my gran turning out for NZ than him ever going to appear in that game

Knackeredknees wrote:

red_stag wrote:Healys ban was not shortened. He was given a three week ban. He served a three week ban.

He missed Leinster v Treviso and Scotland v Ireland.

Bit of a fib realy saying he was going to play in the Treviso game!

More chance of my gran turning out for NZ than him ever going to appear in that game

So what. He was entitled to line out against them if he wanted as it was a Leinster game. He was denied doing so. Therefore he served a ban.

Doesn't matter a jot.

Knackeredknees wrote:

red_stag wrote:Healys ban was not shortened. He was given a three week ban. He served a three week ban.

He missed Leinster v Treviso and Scotland v Ireland.

Bit of a fib realy saying he was going to play in the Treviso game!

More chance of my gran turning out for NZ than him ever going to appear in that game

Whether he was or wasnt going to play in it is just speculation and not relevant. Point is he was available for it and could have played in it if required.

I am surprised people find the Healy thing so complicated.

GunsGerms wrote:
Healy's ban wasnt shortened. It was three weeks all along. It just started from the correct date.

Parisse didnt deserve to be banned so it just shows the appeal process is important and just.

Hey we agree on two things

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:
Healy's ban wasnt shortened. It was three weeks all along. It just started from the correct date.

Parisse didnt deserve to be banned so it just shows the appeal process is important and just.

Hey we agree on two things

I know that secretly you agree with everything I say.

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:GunsGerms talking about Parisse.

1 match missed by Healy. That's a very light sentence in relation to what he did.

Its consistent with most other bans for the same act. It was a 5 week ban reduced to 3 for past record. I have no issue with the length because it is consistent with precident.

beshocked wrote:

The disciplinary panels have done a shoddy job all round.

Maybe Parisse didn't deserve the ban but to back track like those in the disciplinary system have is poor.

Getting it right in the first place would prevent their balls up.

There is no consistency.

Parisse is within his rights to appeal and given that no one seems to know what he said then how can he be banned? I think by getting sent off he will have learned his lesson if there was a lesson to be learned.

The only lesson learnt by the multilingual Parisse would be to continue to swear in a language the ref doesn't understand.......

Thats the flaw with bans in weeks, rather than games.

If he needed a minor op then would be the best time to do it as he wont miss anything, same as getting an 8 week ban at the begining of May if you not an international, you miss no rugby at all.

Give it on a game basis, but with conditions; i.e you cant say oh well he's missed Saturdays game Mondays and Fridays 'A' games so hes free next Saturday to play!

GunsGerms wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

red_stag wrote:Healys ban was not shortened. He was given a three week ban. He served a three week ban.

He missed Leinster v Treviso and Scotland v Ireland.

Bit of a fib realy saying he was going to play in the Treviso game!

More chance of my gran turning out for NZ than him ever going to appear in that game

Whether he was or wasnt going to play in it is just speculation and not relevant. Point is he was available for it and could have played in it if required.

No, it's completely relevant to the new regulation for deferring bans. From what little information there is available, it seems that the appeal panel deemed that the disciplinary panel's method for ascertaining that Healy would not have been available for the Leinster game was flawed. A puzzling decision - the disciplinary/appeal reports may make interesting reading if they're ever released.

To me its very simply.

Game ban instead of weeks and make four tiers.

Domestic Ban - domestic league/cup games
European Ban - Heineken/Amlin Cup
International Ban - international test games, Lions or Barbarians
Global Rugby Ban - banned from all rugby

So you get sent off in the Premiership and cope a 4 game ban you miss the next 3 league games and the LV cup.

You get a 3 game ban in Europe and you'll miss the Heineken and Amlin Cup games

You get a 4 game ban internationally and you miss the end of the Six Nations plus the start of the Lions Tour games.

You get a 26 week global ban for eye gouging you are banned from all rugby.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

red_stag wrote:Healys ban was not shortened. He was given a three week ban. He served a three week ban.

He missed Leinster v Treviso and Scotland v Ireland.

Bit of a fib realy saying he was going to play in the Treviso game!

More chance of my gran turning out for NZ than him ever going to appear in that game

Whether he was or wasnt going to play in it is just speculation and not relevant. Point is he was available for it and could have played in it if required.

No, it's completely relevant to the new regulation for deferring bans. From what little information there is available, it seems that the appeal panel deemed that the disciplinary panel's method for ascertaining that Healy would not have been available for the Leinster game was flawed. A puzzling decision - the disciplinary/appeal reports may make interesting reading if they're ever released.

The deferring of the ban is for when there are no upcoming games. However, in Healy's case there was an upcoming game. Not that puzzling really.

red_stag wrote:To me its very simply.

Game ban instead of weeks and make four tiers.

Domestic Ban - domestic league/cup games
European Ban - Heineken/Amlin Cup
International Ban - international test games, Lions or Barbarians
Global Rugby Ban - banned from all rugby

So you get sent off in the Premiership and cope a 4 game ban you miss the next 3 league games and the LV cup.

You get a 3 game ban in Europe and you'll miss the Heineken and Amlin Cup games

You get a 4 game ban internationally and you miss the end of the Six Nations plus the start of the Lions Tour games.

You get a 26 week global ban for eye gouging you are banned from all rugby.

Any chance you could get that ingraved in a large slab of granite, drop by IRB HQ and beat a few around the head with it until it sinks in and a they get the right idea about bans

red_stag wrote:To me its very simply.

Game ban instead of weeks and make four tiers.

Domestic Ban - domestic league/cup games
European Ban - Heineken/Amlin Cup
International Ban - international test games, Lions or Barbarians
Global Rugby Ban - banned from all rugby

So you get sent off in the Premiership and cope a 4 game ban you miss the next 3 league games and the LV cup.

You get a 3 game ban in Europe and you'll miss the Heineken and Amlin Cup games

You get a 4 game ban internationally and you miss the end of the Six Nations plus the start of the Lions Tour games.

You get a 26 week global ban for eye gouging you are banned from all rugby.

completly agree with the tiering system. Seems a no brainer to me.

I think the Healy fiasco has set an interesting precedent. Now that they are handing out 80 minute bans, could a transgressor appeal and just sit out a ten minute YC-type suspension? - say if he was a good christian or liked pets?

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I think the Healy fiasco has set an interesting precedent. Now that they are handing out 80 minute bans, could a transgressor appeal and just sit out a ten minute YC-type suspension? - say if he was a good christian or liked pets?

It doesnt set a precedent it just follows precedent which is why it is particularly odd that it has drawn so much attention.

GunsGerms wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

red_stag wrote:Healys ban was not shortened. He was given a three week ban. He served a three week ban.

He missed Leinster v Treviso and Scotland v Ireland.

Bit of a fib realy saying he was going to play in the Treviso game!

More chance of my gran turning out for NZ than him ever going to appear in that game

Whether he was or wasnt going to play in it is just speculation and not relevant. Point is he was available for it and could have played in it if required.

No, it's completely relevant to the new regulation for deferring bans. From what little information there is available, it seems that the appeal panel deemed that the disciplinary panel's method for ascertaining that Healy would not have been available for the Leinster game was flawed. A puzzling decision - the disciplinary/appeal reports may make interesting reading if they're ever released.

The deferring of the ban is for when there are no upcoming games. However, in Healy's case there was an upcoming game. Not that puzzling really.

Surely the only time that there are no upcoming games is when the player is retiring?

There's no reference to upcoming games in the regulations, the relevant sub-clause is

"may defer the commencement of a suspension provided that the Player is not
scheduled to play (and will not be permitted to play) prior to the commencement
of the suspension"

There is another sub-clause dealing with the situation of a suspension running beyond the end of the current playing season.

The disciplinary panel is required to makes decisions based on a balance of probabilities - so, based on a balance of probabilities, they decided that Healy wasn't scheduled to play in the Leinster game. That seems to be to be correct, and I'm puzzled why the decision has been overturned.

GunsGerms wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I think the Healy fiasco has set an interesting precedent. Now that they are handing out 80 minute bans, could a transgressor appeal and just sit out a ten minute YC-type suspension? - say if he was a good christian or liked pets?

It doesnt set a precedent it just follows precedent which is why it is particularly odd that it has drawn so much attention.