BOAG COLUMN
Jack Nowell is right, disciplinary procedure in Prem is a joke
There is virtually universal support for the current clampdown on tackles involving contact with the head, but events last week must raise questions about whether the disciplinary process in the Premiership is working.
In the English judicial system an offender can sometimes get a reduced sentence for pleading guilty, and rugby’s disciplinary procedures have a similar feature, although the logic behind it is far less obvious.
In the real world the theory is that it reduces the impact of the crime upon victims, it saves victims and witnesses from having to testify, and is in the public interest in that it saves time and money on investigations and trials. That makes perfect sense, but I don’t accept that any of those reasons apply in a meaningful way to the RFU’s disciplinary hearings: there generally aren’t ‘victims’ in the same way there are for crimes, they don’t need to turn up to testify, and there’s still going to be a hearing irrespective of the plea.
Two such hearings took place last Tuesday, involving Terrence Hepetema of London Irish, and Gloucester’s Olly Thorley – both for dangerous tackles. Fans’ reactions to the two cases were very different: there seemed to be little argument that Hepetema deserved a red card, whereas there was a lot of discussion, even mystification, about the Thorley one – at the time even the TMO didn’t sound convinced.
Exeter’s Jack Nowell was one of many who were left scratching their heads at Matt Carley’s red card decision – some people thought it didn’t even merit a penalty! We
to have things called ‘rugby incidents’, the acceptance that people can get hurt but it’s no one’s fault – simply something that happens in a contact sport. Can there now be a rugby incident involving contact with the head, or is it automatically foul play?
At the hearings, Hepetema accepted the charge whereas Thorley opted to contest it. The result was that the former got six weeks, with 50 per cent mitigation for his previous clean record and for pleading guilty. Thorley, whose offence was considered by most people to be a lesser one, also got six weeks off, reduced to four weeks because the maximum mitigation allowed after contesting the charge was two weeks.
So, what seemed the greater offence attracted a shorter ban. However it’s dressed up, that’s madness, and Jack Nowell was succinct in his comment on Twitter, ‘JOKE !!!’ – that summed up a lot of people’s feelings.
The message this sends is clear cut: whether or not you believe you are guilty, be a good boy, don’t argue, and just accept whatever punishment we choose to dish out – that seems to me to be tantamount to bullying. If a player, and his club management, genused uinely believe the referee got it wrong they are surely entitled to argue their case, and not be punished for doing so?
Everyone is coming to terms with the new reality regarding contact with the head. Surely the more transparency there is on the issue, the quicker everyone will learn what is and isn’t acceptable? Welcoming such open discussions would be part of the ongoing education about the new application of Law 9.13, as we would hear more of the player’s side of the story, and if the panel ruled against him, we’d have a detailed rebuttal of his case.
Someone feeling they are innocent, but that they need to plead guilty to get a lesser ban, is daft, and arguably brings the game’s disciplinary processes into disrepute. Little wonder that so many people don’t have confidence in the way things are currently working.
We want everyone, players, coaches and fans, onside with these moves to minimise contact with the head, and part of achieving that is for the RFU’s disciplinary procedures to be widely regarded as open and equitable. Punishing a player for mounting a defence does not sit well with that.