Marlborough Express

Franks in the clear

- RUGBY

All Blacks prop Owen Franks will not be punished for an alleged eye gouge on Wallabies lock Kane Douglas.

World Rugby confirmed on Monday they were not able to change Sanzaar’s ruling not to cite Franks for the incident which occurred in the seventh minute of New Zealand’s 29-9 win in Wellington on Saturday night.

The southern hemisphere governing body had earlier in the day made it clear they would not be changing their decision, despite the backlash it had caused in the wake of the Rugby Championsh­ip and Bledisloe Cup clash.

Footage of a new angle also emerged showing Franks attempting to put his hands near Douglas’ eyes, with Sanzaar and World Rugby copping criticism on social media from some of the game’s greats questionin­g why Franks was not charged.

The governing body for the game globally, though, will not be stepping in.

‘‘It would be up to Sanzaar to decide anything,’’ a World Rugby spokesman said. ‘‘We don’t have jurisdicti­on over Rugby Championsh­ip. We can’t intervene. The process is pretty clear in terms of who has jurisdicti­on there.’’

World Rugby have in the past stepped in to hand a player a sus- pension, with England prop Joe Marler banned for two matches and fined 20,000 pounds (NZ$36,000) in April for calling Welsh forward Samson Lee a ‘‘Gypsy boy’’.

An investigat­ion was conducted by World Rugby after organisers of the Six Nations tournament did not hand out a punishment. But World Rugby said that situation was not comparable to the incident involving Franks.

‘‘That was a issue regarding the process being followed by Six Nations and that was a misconduct case, it wasn’t a foul-play issue. The [situation] was very different in it was a process driven issue we had at the time.’’

A citing commission­er determined the Franks incident did not reach a red card threshold. Under Sanzaar procedures, it is not possible to appeal a non-citing, meaning even if new footage comes to light, the ruling from an independen­t commission will stand.

An appeal would be possible, however, if Douglas was prepared to make a complaint if he felt he was eye-gouged. This is not something Douglas plans on doing, but it does create a debate as to whether it is the player or the governing body’s responsibi­lity to come forward, given the Wallabies second-rower will more than likely adhere to the ‘‘what happens on the field stays on the field’’ code among players.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand