Punishment should fit crime regardless of the outcome

Why is an act of foul player no longer considered an act of foul play if just a minor or no injury is caused? This is a question that has always puzzled me and it has once again been evident this week as Kyle Sinckler walked away with just a seven-week ban for putting his hands near Michael Paterson’s eyes.

The excuse was he was only trying to remove Paterson’s scrum cap when his hand came close to Paterson’s eyes!

First, Sinckler has no right to remove another player’s protective kit, but even worse is the fact that every player knows that the face area is strictly off limits as even accidental contact normally results in a lengthy ban and possible serious injury to another player. What should also have counted against Sinckler was his continual denial to the referee when asked if he had made contact with the face area, when he obviously knew he had and tried to change his story.

He admitted his guilt only when it became evident there was a camera angle (that the referee didn’t have access to during the game) showing that he had committed the act of which Paterson had accused him.

Add the fact that the panel, after talking with Sinckler, came to the conclusion it was an intentional act and he had actually made contact with Paterson’s eye.

It’s not unusual for current England players to escape with little more than a slap on the wrist whereas a grassroot’s player would face a lengthy ban. What is more annoying is the fact the panel used the phrase, ‘but due to the absence of injury’ in reducing the length of Sinckler’s ban.

I used to sit on discipline panels and always found it difficult to understand why, if a player committed a sending off offence like a punch or gouging, different sentences were handed down dependant on injury caused.

I am not talking about a bit of ‘handbag waiving’ I am talking about a punch born out of frustration or anger, or gouging, or attempted gouging, for which there is never an excuse.

When a punch is thrown or a hand moves across the face searching for an eye, the intent is the same whatever the outcome, so why should the punishment be different?

If I aim a punch at someone my intent is to hurt them; if I miss it doesn’t change the fact that I was trying to hurt them and the same is true if attempting to gouge someone.

As none of us are blessed as mind readers, we cannot know if a hand moving close to someone’s eye is an attempt to gouge or not, but the laws state a hand coming in contact with the eye area is a ban – and a serious one – with a 12-week entry point.

In my opinion mitigation should be allowed only in cases of self-defence and previous good character, although I am not too sure I agree with the good character, as it might just be they have been lucky and not been caught.

If discipline is to work, it must be a deterrent as well as a punishment for the act perpetrated and not allow players to escape with lighter punishments simply because of their ‘status’ in the game.

“Mitigation should be allowed only in cases of self-defence and previous good character”