Should international disciplinary matters be dealt with by National Unions or the IRB...?

In last weeks clash between France and Tonga two players were Red Carded for their participation in a brawl. It was concluded on the pitch, after checking recommendations of touch judges and the video evidence that both players were worthy of a sending off.

After both players had appeared before their respective disciplinary panels the out come was Taumalolo (Tonga) got four weeks and Maestri (France) none. Taumalolo threw the first punch, what for is undetermined and Maestri followed in retaliation, something, we are all taught from a young age, is not becoming of a rugby union player.

In a similar incident earlier this year Schalk Brits was suspended for three weeks by an International Rugby Board disciplinary panel for punching team mate Owen Farrell in the Lions vs Baa Baa's game in HK. Three to five weeks of suspension seems to be the normal punishment for fighting during a game. How come Maestri's was not treated so harshly as Britz or Taumalol's?

The hearing was undertaken by an independent three-man disciplinary committee in London on Tuesday. Maestri's red card was deemed a sufficient sanction and no suspension was imposed.

Both players had accepted prior to the hearing that their actions had warranted a red card," read a statement, released by the autumn international disciplinary.

The committee deemed that Sona Taumalolo's offence was in the mid-range of the IRB's sanctions (five weeks), allowing one week off for mitigating factors. I can find no evidence of what "Range" Maestri's offence was considered by the independent panel adjudicating.

There is also nothing stating whether this, London based panel were IRB sanctioned or not.

of course it was an IRB panel, what else it could be??

whocares wrote:of course it was an IRB panel, what else it could be??

There is no note of it. The findings of disciplinary hearings are published on the IRB's website, this one is not. The aritcles related only state that it was an independent panel in London.

ah well the reports I read in France only mentionned he was cleared by the IRB.

The Panel was

Antony Davies (England)
Barry O'Driscoll (Ireland)
Pat Barriscale (Ireland)

I don't think they are IRB officials, certainly no report of them other than Barry O'Driscoll being the former IRB medical advisor.

maestegmafia wrote:The Panel was

Antony Davies (England)
Barry O'Driscoll (Ireland)
Pat Barriscale (Ireland)

I don't think they are IRB officials, certainly no report of them other than Barry O'Driscoll being the former IRB medical advisor.

Who would they be if not IRB men?

...and let's not suggest they're PRL men !  

The Unions

Like European competition it should be decided by the unions with guidelines, oversight and right of intervention retained by the IRB

The Unions

Like European competition it should be decided by the unions with guidelines, oversight and right of intervention retained by the IRB

Scratch wrote:The Unions

Like European competition it should be decided by the unions with guidelines, oversight  and right of intervention retained by the IRB

Inevitably when Unions control discipline then some are far more harsh than others, especially when it is their captain or star player that is in the dock.

Scratch wrote:The Unions

Like European competition it should be decided by the unions with guidelines, oversight  and right of intervention retained by the IRB

The IRB make the rules, so they are in control. Pat Barriscale is a retired barrister from Limerick.

Pat specialised in litigation with particular emphasis on family law and employment law. He developed a reputation as a skilled advocate and was honoured by the ERC in 2005 when he was asked to become a judicial officer of the ERC and since then he has sat on the disciplinary panels of the European Rugby Cup, the Six Nations and the International Rugby Board.

maestegmafia wrote:

Scratch wrote:The Unions

Like European competition it should be decided by the unions with guidelines, oversight  and right of intervention retained by the IRB

Inevitably when Unions control discipline then some are far more harsh than others, especially when it is their captain or star player that is in the dock.

Agreed which is why IRB should ratify decisions.

I don't see what benefit the unions participation is.

What you describe is what has existed for years and it lacks consistency.

Maybe discipline should be metered solely by the IRB.