RFU make a rod for their back over Cipriani case
Were the RFU right to charge Danny Cipriani with ‘conduct prejudicial to the interest of the game’, despite him having already been punished by the Jersey magistrates, and by his club? The answer is yes, but with one important caveat.
Rugby has a set of core values, Teamwork, Respect, Enjoyment, Discipline and Sportsmanship, and if the game is to continue to prosper these have to be more than mere words. In addition, every club stresses their family values in some way. The message that is being promoted is that rugby is a game that parents can feel comfortable with their kids playing and watching. That means that players have to be role models – Cipriani’s former boss Steve Diamond commented that ‘you know you’re not employing the Pope’, when a player is signed, but there are expectations that go with the big salaries and the high profile.
The more the details of the Cipriani incident leak out, the more it becomes clear that it was even more minor than was thought, but keeping out of the courts and the tabloids has to be part of the job spec. There’s no point in blaming the Press for coverage of an issue – everyone knows what the risks are, so it’s only common sense to make sure that they’re given no fodder that can be sensationalised. The argument that if it was a lesser player then it wouldn’t have made the headlines is a fatuous one – it made the headlines precisely because of who was involved! People who don’t follow rugby wouldn’t recognise many players’ names, but the odds are that they’d know Cipriani’s.
Pleading guilty to common assault and resisting arrest has to be conduct prejudicial, and when it involves an England player then the RFU have a duty to become involved. However, here’s the caveat:
The RFU have now set their stall out, and declared that it has found certain actions to be unacceptable, so the onus is on them to apply them consistently. If an England player finds himself in court for drink driving, being drunk and disorderly, or cautioned for urinating in public, or is fined for jumping off a ferry, or hits the tabloid headlines for dwarf throwing – legal but unsavoury – then these are all things that I reckon are prejudicial to the interest of the game, and the RFU will be expected to act. Players may not be as squeaky clean as the Pope, but they now know that certain standards have been laid down, and need to be observed.
Head coaches must have a serious think about the wisdom of bonding sessions that involve alcohol. Rugby’s relationship with booze is a complex one, and while no-one is suggesting that players should all be teetotal, there needs to be recognition that some players handle alcohol well, and others less so. The onus is on the clubs to make sure that they know which are their high-risk charges, and to take the right actions to keep them safe and on the right side of the law.
I’m not alone in my belief that on occasion ‘player welfare’ has just been a phrase to be trotted out rather than truly being at the forefront of everyone’s minds. However, the partnership between Premiership Rugby and Hawk-Eye Systems looks like a genuine step forward. In the case of concussion we’ll no longer be dependent upon the officials or the broadcasters alone to spot worrying incidents, because we’ll have HawkEye cameras to help.
The clubs will pay for eight Hawk-Eye cameras to be in operation in every match, and for a Pitch-side Video Reviewer (PVR) to be in place specifically looking for potential head injuries. They’ll then be able immediately to alert the club’s medical team who can review the replay and quickly take action if required.
Sometimes concussions are obvious, and as a result the right action is taken, but the most worrying ones are where they go unnoticed, and the player carries on.
The HIA process was good as far as it went, but it only kicked in when something was spotted – now we’re likely to have even more HIAs, but I can’t see many complaints about that. This has to make sense for everyone.