IRB Concussion Training

The IRB have finally made the training in how to use their Concussion Regulations available; you can look at the regulations, with the modules in the top left of the screen, HERE.

The first thing I have to say is that they are very, very good.

The second thing I have to say is that if the aim is to make it easily accessible for everyone, I cannot for the life of me fathom why it should require registration and an IRB passport to be accessible.

That said, the format is very easy to follow, and very user-friendly. Anyone who has ever seen PADI's online e-Learning training for diving will find it very familiar in the combination of modular units, videos, and knowledge reviews. It was clearly put together at least in part during the recent Rugby World Cup in New Zealand; many of the participants have RWC2011 clothing on them, and the matches that can be seen on the screen behind the referees who talk in it, Bryce Lawrence and George Clancy, are (as far as I can see) from the RWC2011. It deals with the regulations, what the requirements under the regulations are, and how to deal with them. It is, in short, what I and others have been calling for; and it is a resource that anyone else, in any sport that uses the Zurich Consensus - be it football, NFL, GAA, whatever - would be well advised to look at as a model of how to do it.

Of interest for this blog are a couple of points. First, the IRB's website usage under their disclaimer appears to be governed by the law of England and Wales (that the IRB persistently drop the "and Wales" cannot do much for blood pressure west of Offa's Dyke).  However, the training is based not on E&W law of personal injuries, but Irish law. That is extremely interesting, and - as a practitioner in the area in Ireland - gratifying; it does mean, however, that the choice of jurisdiction as regards the IRB remains a very tangled web.

Secondly, it means that the IRFU has no excuses now not to roll out and enforce this training. Any suggestion that the Concussion Regulations did not change the status quo or that referees should not be using the Pocket Scat 2 Card (and amazing though this seems, the IRFU website openly states that, "[w]hile referees will see a reference to Pocket Scat2 in the iRB Guidelines, it is important to clarify that it is not necessary to attempt to use this to assist in the identification of suspected concussion.") can safely be dismissed when you hear Bryce Lawrence, on an IRB training guide under Irish law stating that referees should regard the Pocket Scat 2 Card as part of their on-field kit and use it. The same would, of course, apply to unions such as the WRU and SRU if they have not yet used this training.

Thirdly, the past failures of the IRB, IRFU and others are now thrown into sharp relief. Under these guidelines, the Morgan Parra and Will Genia incidents were, unequivocally, wrongly handled. The regulations put in place for player safety were not enforced; and that, under Vowles v. Evans, which would be good authority in Ireland, means potential liability.

In summation; a very good job, if late. To coaches and referees, I would say, simply; look at it, learn it, and always, always follow it - for your own sake, as well as that of the players.

HEC Round One - Citings & Tip-Tackles, Part II - Marty & Brits

The decisions in these two cases are now up on the ERC website.(I know Marty was in the Amlin Cup, but for shorthand in thread titles, HEC is it). You can read the David Marty decision HERE and the Schalk Brits decision HERE

And I would encourage everyone to do so, especially the Schalk Brits decision. It is a superb, categorical review of the laws and cases in the area in the "Discussion and Decision" section from page 8 of the decision onwards, including a very handy table of recent decisions on Law 10 (4) (j), the law about tip-tackles, between pages 12 and 14. Rod McKenzie is heartily to be congratulated on an exemplary piece of work; he has set out the history of the laws and memos in the area, the current state of the laws, the recent decisions, and then applied them in a very, very fair manner.

This is exactly how a judicial system should operate. The ERC have, to their credit, been at the forefront in this, and are to be congratulated; when a system starts to deliver consistent, clear, well-reasoned decisions like this, with a clear principle that can be taken from the judgement and applied on the pitch, it's a sign the system is working.

The decision, albeit long enough at 18 pages, is so immaculately clear that there really isn't much I can say about it; it speaks for itself. All I can do is encourage everyone to listen to it as it does; commentators, coaches, and players should all read it as a perfect guide to the Laws in the area.

It is noticeable between the two decisions that, as I noted, the ERC are taking a very clear line following on exactly from that set down in the RWC (the RWC decisions are cited, approved and followed in the two decision). I think it can now be stated, conclusively, that the Stephen Jones decision was, as I've said, the exception; it is so far out of kilter with the other decisions that it looks increasingly like a mistake.

The principle is now crystal-clear; if you lift a player, bring him down arse-first, or take the consequences (the discussion of the tackle technique taught in the Brits decision is particularly instructive on this front). Or, to be even simpler; don't lift in the tackle unless you KNOW you can bring him down safely. If in doubt, go low and trust the next man in to jackal. And, to repeat; when you can distill the principles from the decisions down to two one-line sentences that a coach can yell from the sidelines and that players can remember in the heat of the tackle and breakdown, that means the system is working properly.

So, in a phrase I don't write or say that often; well done, the ERC.

The only small quibble I have is this; the table refers to a written decision of the ML disciplinary system last year. Those decisions, unlike the ERC's, aren't published. Is it to much to ask now that after the ERC have gone to the trouble of putting this decision together that the general public be allowed to read those decisions as well, to see from exactly where the current rules have come? After all, as the ERC decisions show; transparency leads to consistency, which leads to the message getting across.

HEC Round Two - Citings and concussion.

After week two of the Cardiologists Association of Ireland sponsoring Ronan O'Gara, we're still waiting for the decisions from the first week to be posted.

However, given the citing and a straight red card from this weekend, for a dangerous high tackle and  a tip-tackle respectively, it looks like there's no let-up on the crack-down on safety in the tackle area.

Again, as soon as the decisions are up and available for discussion, I'll do so by updating this post.

One thing that was noticeable was in relation to concussion. Finally, a player who was clearly concussed - Peter O'Mahony of Munster getting an accidental knee to the head in a tackle at the end of another top-notch performance  - was taken off, even though he was vital to the team and had no like-for-like replacement possible (he was replaced by a hooker). It's not just my own provincial loyalties that make me glad Munster did the right thing; a player as good as O'Mahony is shaping up to be should not be risked for the sake of ten minutes extra while concussed. Nor, indeed, should any player's health; but that's another day's posting.

Update: Mike McCarthy got two weeks, Steven Shingler got four. The full decisions aren't available yet, but as soon as they are, I will go through them.

Further update: Steven Shingler is planning to appeal his sentence. He may well have a decent case for so doing.

The decision is HERE. Now, to point out the crucial thing from the off; this is not about whether or not  it was a red card offence. It was. Shingler said in his statement it was, and was asked himself at the hearing if he stood by the position that it was a fair sending off; he did. And he deserves a fair bit of credit for it.

But the key point here seems to be consistency. London Irish tried to introduce footage of the Stephen Jones tip-tackle that wasn't cited (which I dealt with HERE); they weren't allowed to, but it has no purpose at all except on the issue of consistency.

And, while the Judicial Officer, Roger Morris, largely followed the same ground as Rod McKenzie did in the excellent Schalk Brits decision (which I dealt with HERE), he took a very different view on the issue of a need for a deterrent. McKenzie, on pages 14-18 of Brits, was of the view that increasing the sentence for a deterrent purpose while setting the entry-level higher on the same basis, was effectively a double punishment and t be avoided. Morris, over pages 8 and 9, disagreed, based on the Disciplinary Regulations, and felt that the correct method was to increase the sentence as a deterrent, rather than the entry level.

Both give well-considered, well-reasoned judgements; yet they are inconsistent with each other. And though I've criticised such inconsistency in the past, it is no reflection on Roger Morris, or indeed Rod McKenzie to recognise this fact. Where there is a question of proper interpretation of an area that is the focus of many cases, as tip-tackles are at the moment, and two approaches are equally open, it is if anything the sign of a healthy and functioning system that this debate happens - but, crucially, it also requires that there is an appeal level to settle the question.

As I said, Shingler may well have a good case to make that it was the Brits decision that should be followed; but, after the appeal, we will know for certain. In essence, the ERC system has now thrown up what looks like its first test case on interpretation, while maintaining the drive for on-pitch safety (because it's still clear; this IS a red-card offence).

In its own way, that's a quiet triumph for the ERC; their judicial system works just like a real one should. That's no mean feat.

HEC Round One - Citings & Tip-Tackles.

I love the HEC. It's probably taken a decade off my lifespan, having to deal with that many ridiculous escapes by Munster, but I do love it.

And, while I will obviously parse decisions that come out, I must give the ERC credit; at least they put the decisions up.

There were four citings from this last weekend (including the Amlin Cup). Two were from two players (Shontayne Hape and David Cox) who, to be blunt, clearly got up each others nose and started getting niggly. It happens, it always has happened, and it always will happen in a game like rugby. It doesn't really worry anyone.

However, two were for tip-tackles; Schalk Brits of Saracens and David Marty of Perpignan. They both pleaded guilty, and have both just been suspended for those offences - Brits for three weeks, Marty for four.

The full decisions aren't out yet, and I will go through them as and when they do come out. However, I think it can now be said that the failure to cite Stephen Jones' tip-tackle on Tommy Bowe was the exception, not the rule. The crackdown that was on in the RWC is clearly still on in the HEC and Amlin Cup; and players would be well-advised to take that on board for this coming weekend.

Update; and, no sooner said than London Irish centre Steven Shingler got sent off by Jerome Garcés in the game against Cardiff Blues on the Friday.

IRB Concussion Training - Where Is It?

Back in May, when the IRB introduced the new concussion regulations, it promised that training would be rolled out.


Specifically, it said in its press release, that "the supporting education programme through the IRB and Member Unions will be rolled out this year." And the regulations themselves said: 

It is recommended that coaches, team managers, administrators, teachers, parents, Players, Match Officials and Healthcare Professionals associated with Rugby teams educate themselves in the use of Pocket SCAT 2 using the IRB online training programme available through www.irbplayerwelfare.com planned for release in Autumn 2011. [Emphasis added]

That was on June the 2nd. As I write this, it's November the 10th; give or take five and half months later. Autumn's over. It's winter in the Northern Hemisphere now.


There's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, most of it covered here. There have been the Berrick Barnes incidents, and Benson Stanley having to take an indefinite break from the game; the Will Genia incidents in the 3N; and Morgan Parra in the final of the RWC itself. Concussion, so far from going away, has kept itself in the light, even while tip-tackles have been doing their best to hog lead billing.


So, one would have thought that we'd have had the promised training by now; all the more so as the NZRU, the leaders in this, have training online, and are - and I state this from personal experience - wonderfully supportive in the way they allow the use of their materials of anyone trying to make the game safer worldwide. The training could, probably should, have been available straight away on that model.


And yet, we have nothing from the IRB. Some unions do it right - the 3N unions, and the RFU. Some don't seem to bother at all - and in this category, I'm sorry to say, belongs the IRFU. And between them, and the IRB, there are large areas of the game where there has been no training at all in the use of the concussion management protocols that are meant to protect the players in those areas.


This is a rule introduced into the game for player safety. Players have a right to expect that referees and other officials in the game will enforce those rules; and if they aren't then liability for any injuries arising from that failure becomes a very live issue (Vowles v. Evans, WRU & Ors).


Yet, six months after this rule for player safety was introduced, there is still nothing being done to make sure it's enforced, or that those tasked with enforcing it have even a notion what it involves. It's like changing the engage process in scrums to make them safer, not telling referees what the changes are or how to apply them, leaving them to get on with it, and somehow expecting that things will magically work out fine. And that, by the way, assumes referees are even told about the existence or requirement to apply the concussion regulations at all; if the referees aren't being told about, or to follow, the regulations then the union that fails to tell them is definitely smack-bang in the lawyers' crosshairs.


Back in May, the head of the IRB, Bernard Laplasset, said, "The safety and welfare of players is of paramount concern to the IRB and its Member Unions. At the inaugural IRB Medical Conference we identified concussion as a key priority for the Game."


So, would it really be too much to ask for that they would act on that fine sentiment, and produce the training to allow officials to keep players safe?


Update; it's now up - but you have to log in to look at it! I'll deal with it in THIS post.

Stephen Jones Tip-Tackle.

Stephen Jones of the Scarlets - the man once immortally described by Welsh fans as running like a robot monkey carrying a fridge - has, consistently, been one of the best NH outhalves around for the best part of a decade.

Which is all the more of a pity that he was in trouble for a tip-tackle on Tommy Bowe of the Ospreys in the West Wales derby in last weekend's RaboDirect Pro12.

You can see footage of the tackle in gifs of it HERE and HERE (with thanks to Gwlad); and stills of it HERE and HERE (again with thanks to Gwlad).

Jones was yellow-carded.

Now, following the Tipuric case, and the others at the RWC including Jones' own national captain, Sam Warburton, you'd expect that he'd have been before a citing committee. I've dealt with the background, and those judgements, HERE and HERE.

Except - he wasn't cited.

So, where we thought, finally, we had some certainty creeping in - that a tip-tackle where there was not an effort to bring the tackled player safely to ground was a red card - we now have near-complete uncertainty. And, let it be noted, complete inconsistency even within the RaboDirect Pro12 disciplinary system.

No matter whether this case, or the six others it contradicts, is the exception, this is not good enough. A system requires that it be systematic; that it be consistent, not arbitrary. And when it is this uncertain, it is once again edging so close to being arbitary as to invite action being take.

This issue won't go away until it is properly addressed. The sooner that is done, the better for the game.

50 Up.

A quick aside here before getting back into the swing of things.

This is the 50th post I've put up on this blog since starting, a bit over one a week. My heartfelt thanks to everyone who's read, and commented on, the posts; I'm pleasantly surprised at the level of interest on some areas.

To some extent, I wish there weren't so much interest, because that means there's an awful lot of interaction between a game and the law. That said, I'm glad I've been able to help highlight some issues, and that some of them are coming to the fore. Particularly, I notice I've been returning again and again to certain topics - liability for players' irresponsible use of social media; inconsistency in discipline; dangerous tackles; and improper management of concussion.

All of which are well worth pointing out; and all of which the game would be better off without. As I hope has become clear, I deeply love this game, and I deeply want it to be better; I know it can be better; and I know there's no reason at all for these problems not to be sorted out when all it really takes is proper efforts by those responsible for the game to deal with these problems.

It would be lovely if people would force me to go out and look for something new; that would mean the problems were being sorted out. Alas, experience is teaching me that's not all that likely.

Because, no sooner said, that the next three posts are going to be about Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu at it again on Twitter; Stephen Jones' yellow card for a tackle on Tommy Bowe in the West Wales derby; the lack of anything approaching training on concussion management in Ireland and elsewhere; and, just for luck,  a new case on liability for the condition of rugby pitches.

More to follow.

Morgan Parra & Concussion - update.

The blog of the Clinical Journal of Sports Management have picked up on this.

In essence, they, too, feel this raises very serious questions about how the IRB are dealing with concussion management.

You can read their blogpost HERE.

RWC Final - Aurélien Rougerie and Deadlines

About three days after the final whistle blew on the RWC Final, footage emerged of a ruck towards the end of the game. It was first shown properly on the NZ rugby show, Re:Union, and then it got picked up around the world. It showed Aurélien Rougerie, of Clermont and France, tussling with Richie McCaw, captain of New Zealand. It was claimed the footage showed Rougerie making contact with the area of McCaw's eyes (and if you think I'm being very neutral in my use of phrases; I am, deliberately so). 


You can see the footage, courtesy of Rugbydump.com HERE; a slow-motion gif HERE; and a screenshot from it HERE.


When you look at cases such as that of Richie Rees, it is hard to say that Rougerie does not have a case to answer on this - at the very least.


But, there's been nothing, even after this footage has come out. So - why not?


The Citing Commissioners hold their office for the RWC under the terms of the RWC Participation Agreement and the RWC Tournament Rules. They use the Tournament Disciplinary Code, which is based on - but not the same as - IRB Regulation 17 (this is with the caveat that, as I've commented on before, God forbid that we mere mortals who play, watch, and act as missionaries for the game be allowed to see them). So, they have office while the tournament lasts, but not after. The Judicial Officer (JO) is then appointed under the same TDC, and, again, that's only possible while the tournament lasts.

The citing window under Regulation 17 (and, so far as we know, the rules for the RWC) is open from 12 to 48 hours after the final whistle; outside that, on either side, you can't cite.

But, if the tournament ends less that 12 hours after the final whistle - and I include here the various ceremonies and dinners - can a citing for the final be made at all? If the tournament Citing Commissioner's powers end with the tournament, can he cite after the tournament has ended - which it did before the window opened? Even if he could, could the tournament JO hear after the tournament giving him his powers was over?


The mirror-image argument was raised in Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu's case, where he tried to claim that as Samoa had been knocked out of the RWC before the hearing, he was no longer subject to the tournament rules. It was rejected; at paragraph 25 of the decision, the learned Judge Blackett stated that "the tournament continues until after the final match".


But after the final match, it therefore follows the tournament ends - and so, it would seem, do the powers of the RWC Citing Commissioners.

In passing, this does raise a wider question; if those powers end after the final, (functus officio to use the technical jargon), before a citing for the final is possible, can there actually be any citings for the final at all? 


It would be interesting; but, as it happens, it's a bit academic. There has been no citing. And there now can be no citing. 


It may seem a bit unfair or arbitrary that an offence like this goes uncited. If proven, it's agreed it's about the worst thing that can be done on the rugby pitch. There is a good reason why this is so, though.


Any judicial system - not just rugby, but legal systems - tries to balance two things; comprehensiveness and finality. The first means it tries to get every dispute, or offence, dealt with; the second is the idea that there comes a point when, decided or not, it's time to move on. And, with a match each weekend, that's how it has to be in rugby; there has to be a time when the shutters are drawn down and it moves on to the next match. All such time limits are arbitrary, to some extent; there will always be cases where something crops up afterwards that changes the situation. But, if you could come back six months later and re-open matters, it would be open-ended; and that's as bad as nothing being punished.


So, here you have a case in point; what looks like a perfect case for a citing, but too late. Like a ref's decision on the pitch, sometimes you just have to accept that's that, and get on with it. 


That does not, however, stop anyone from having an opinion on the conduct in question. I think you can guess mine. I don't think I'm alone in it.


Update; the IRB have today issued a statement on this. You can read it HERE. It looks like things may be expanded; if they are, a bit of clarity mightn't go amiss - and  lot of openness.

RWC Final - Morgan Parra Part II

So, first off, congratulations to New Zealand. The hoodoo is dead.

Secondly, congratulations to France on playing a great game.

Thirdly, congratulations to François Trinh-Duc who came on for Morgan Parra and played an absolute stormer of a game.

The only problem being, of course, that he came on for him twice. Which should never, ever have happened.

Parra got concussed, clearly and visibly, by Richie McCaw's knee (a complete accident, by the way). He was down for an age (while play, dangerously, was continuing around him). He was wobbly-legged and stumbled getting up.

Now, let's remember at this point what the IRB Concussion Regulations say about when you have a suspected concussion:

If a Player shows any of the signs described in the Table (as a result of a direct blow to the head, face, neck or elsewhere on the body with a force being transmitted to the head) they have suspected concussion... Physical signs Loss of consciousness, vacant expression, vomiting, inappropriate playing behaviour, unsteady on legs, slowed reactions... [Emphasis added]

 Parra had a suspected concussion. He had to go off. He did.

It wasn't a substitution for blood; despite what he says HERE, no-one watching the game would see any evidence he was bleeding, as you can see HERE (it should be said, he himself says he was: but I cannot see any evidence of blood). Moreover, there's a specific signal for that, for which I was watching and - while I'm open to correction - I certainly didn't seeit  made.

So, once he went off, he had to stay off. The IRB Concussion Regulations are quite specific on this:

The Player MUST NOT resume play once removed from the field for suspected concussion.

And the Laws of the game say the same; it's Law 3, (more precisely, Law 3 (12) (a)), which says:

(a) If a player is substituted, that player must not return and play in that match, even to replace an injured player.

Exception 1: a substituted player may replace a player with an open or bleeding wound.

Now, Morgan Parra did not have an open or bleeding wound;  he was substituted, replaced by Trinh-Duc, because he was suspected of concussion. But, even assuming he was bleeding, he was certainly suspected of concussion under the regulations. So, either way, that was the end of his game.

Or should have been. Five minutes later, he was back on the pitch; five minutes after that, after shipping another knock, he was off for good.

This was a catastrophic failure on the part of the officials. The IRB Concussion Regulations, and the Laws of the game on injury, were thrown out the window in the most important match in the game. A player was put in danger - because, let's remember, a repeat trauma on top of a concussion is much more dangerous - by the FFR, and the officials, who let him back onto the pitch. As a result, he got injured again. If he suffers long-term consequences (and, please God, he won't), they will be liable, because they failed to enforce rules made for player safety.

It was inexcusable. Rugby claims to have gotten serious on concussion. I raised doubts about this over the manner in which the ARU was treating Will Genia's suspected concussion in August. Today, in the World Cup Final, concussion wasn't treated seriously; it was shrugged off. It was treated like a joke.

It looks more and more like the only way the IRB will really start taking concussion seriously is when it ends up in court, like the NFL. When it does, it can look back at how it handled concussion in the shop-window of the game to the world; and it will realise it only has itself to blame.

Update: I've added links to a Youtube clip HERE and screenshots of Parra just after he took the knock HERE and HERE. You may decide for yourselves if you see any blood on his face; I, for one, certainly cannot.

Further update; Interview with Morgan Parra himself HERE :

I was bleeding a bit, I took a knock and I was a bit dazed... I wanted to come back on...but my neck and head were hurting, and then I took another kick to it ... that's how it goes. [Emphasis added]

Now, even assuming he was bleeding, he was, by his own admission, dazed, had a sore neck and head, and yet nothing was done about enforcing the concussion regulations?

RWC Final - Morgan Parra

Just a very quick note as the final is being played - we have just seen the Concussion Regulation openly flouted, and a player who was clearly suspected of concussion going off the pitch and returning to play.

In the Rugby World Cup Final.

This is lunacy. It's the greatest showpiece of the game showing it really does not care about concussion. I'll follow this up; but this is the IRB pinning a big "Sue Me" sign on their back

And as I type this, Parra is down again.

RWC Part XV - Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu Decision.

It's hard not to feel sorry for Gloucester Rugby.

They have done everything right. They have a policy on social media, put in place after controversial Twitter posts. You can read the announcement on it HERE. And who do they have smiling happily at top left?

Yup. Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu. As most Shedheads have learnt over the last few years; when your luck's out, your luck's out.

The decision on Fuimaono-Sapolu's citing for bringing the game into disrepute is now out, and can be read HERE. What I want to deal with in this post is the effect of this on the player's employers, especially the question of defamation.

I raised this issue in a previous post. It turned out to be pretty on the money. To quote from paragraph 23 of the decision:

The suggestion that this is an exercise of free speech is specious – there are limits to what one may say about others and those who are maligned without justification can seek relief through defamation proceedings – the statements used here cross those limits.

Now, let's pause here and think who said this; His Honour, Judge Jeff Blackett. Judges do not use words like "can seek relief through defamation proceedings" lightly. Now, I may be putting two and two together and making five; if I am, I apologise to the learned judge. But it's highly significant, because it's bringing the spectre of a player being sued for defaming a referee into sharp focus.

And for a player's employer, that's a nightmare. Because, this is the issue I raised the other day - the issue of vicarious liability, an employer being held liable for the actions of an employee. This is what the learned judge had to say on the topic:

I have no doubt that they have acted responsibly and done all that they could to control their players... In this case the Player was intent on speaking out and I do not believe that the SRU could have done anything else to prevent his misconduct. Nevertheless the Union is vicariously liable for the acts of its players and I must mark that relationship with a sanction. 

So, an union - or, presumably, a club - is, in rugby terms at least, liable for what its players do. There's now a precedent, from a judge - again, not a man who would lightly use terms of art like "vicarious liability" -  that Twitter use is close enough to the job of being a rugby player to make an employer liable for what the player tweets.

At which stage, if you're running a club or union, you should start getting worried. Not only is it enough to have a social media policy - there was one at the RWC, as one can see from the decision - not only is it enough to do one's best - Samoa did, everyone agrees - if it happens, one can be liable.

Ex-Harlequins player Sam Stitcher passed THIS article onto me. While I have no link to AIG - nor, so far as I know, does Sam - it strikes me as a good idea. Social media insurance now seems to be a very prudent investment for a club with players who can get them into trouble. It's a belt-and-braces approach; but, if a club or union is vicariously liable for what's tweeted, then the whole reason for belt-and-braces comes to the fore. It's to prevent being caught with your pants down. Samoa don't have a lot of money; they could well have ended up being fined a lot of it due to Eliota Fuimanoa-Sapolu's tweets. At that point, you're either glad you have, or wish to God you had, insurance.

This is an area that is developing fast. But no club can afford to take lightly the combination of vicarious liability, defamation, and "ambassadors" losing the run of themselves on Twitter; until this becomes more certain, it would seem prudent not to risk having to pay out if a player lands you in the unpleasantness.

Meantime, poor Gloucester are waiting to see if their "ambassador" will ever play rugby again, or even turn up to training [update; from his Twitter feed, he has]. As I said; it's hard not to feel sorry for them.

But I suspect they won't be the last dealing with these problems.

RWC Part XIV - Sam Warburton Hearing Decision

As already noted, Sam Warburton got three weeks for the tip-tackle on Vincent Clerc for which he was sent off.

The Decision is now available and can be read HERE.

The Judicial Officer (JO) was Christopher Quinlan QC, who dealt with the other cases in the RWC that I've already covered here. Suffice to say, it's therefore not all that surprising that the sentence was on exactly the same lines as the others, and covered largely the same ground.

It's also fair to say that there's universal sympathy for Sam Warburton, even from the JO. People know he didn't mean to land Clerc on his neck, and would never do it deliberately; it's just that the risks are so high that there has to be a deterrent, as the JO observed.

And that approach has spread. I've mentioned Justin Tipuric's citing; he also got three weeks for a more innocuous tackle in the Munster-Ospreys game (I'd link the decision but, thus far, it looks like the new RaboDirect Pro12 is keeping the old Magner's League policy of not publishing decisions). So, the crackdown is definitely on, and it's worldwide. If  the tackled player is lifted, and comes down anything other than arse-first, the tackler is in trouble.

If (God knows, stranger things have happened), there are any professional players or coaches reading this, once piece of advice I would definitely give them is this; don't lift in the tackle. Just don't; it's too easy for something to go wrong, and if it does, you're going off. Instead, go for what has been one of the most successful defensive strategies this RWC; chop, drop and steal. Go low, bring the ball-carrier down, and the next man in jackals the ball. Ironically, Wales, with Warburton, have been one of the very best at this; but Pocock and McCaw have been superb as well. There's a piece by Shaun Edwards of Wales from the Guardian HERE that's well worth a read on this.

But, there's no question; the crackdown on tip-tackles is on, and will be for the next few months. Those in the game would be well advised to plan on that basis.

RWC Part XIII - Sam Warburton Red Card Part III - Transparency.

Wales is a country of people who know, and cherish, their rugby; always has been, hopefully always will be.

This blog is about rugby, and the laws of rugby, and how the laws of rugby and the law of the land intersect.

You might think that the Welsh, knowing and loving the game, would have less need of this blog than most.

Yet, at twenty past nine yesterday morning, the traffic on this blog went through the roof, almost all from one part of the UK. And that's because everyone in full Millennium Stadium was turning to each other and asking, "What the f*ck was that red card for...?" and hitting the web for answers. The leading Welsh rugby forum, Gwlad, has been tearing itself apart arguing over it since; yet Gwlad knows the laws better than most referees. And this is the problem; the people who know the game better than most are still finding it hard to find out what the laws of the game are.

I dealt yesterday with the background to this, and why Sam Warburton was, to a large extent, unlucky with that tackle at this time. But what I want to deal with now is why it seems so hard for the average rugby supporters to find out what the laws of the game are. And I do so as much as someone who loves this game to distraction as much as I do as a lawyer analysing a system.

Players and coaches have enough on their hands playing, and coaching. They need to know what the Laws are. They need to know how they're going to be applied. This blog, and others, can do our best to go through the citing decisions, and piece together patterns on discipline, and application of the laws, and hope it helps coaches, players, refs and those in citing hearings. But it shouldn't be up to us. It's not our job. It's the IRB's job. And they're failing at it.

Bluntly, it's not good enough that major rulings on the game come out not in the Laws, but as semi-private directives. It's not good enough that the rules on tournament discipline aren't available to the public, and that anyone trying to work out what they say has to piece them together from fragments in citing decisions, like rugby's answer to cracking the Enigma machine. It's not good enough that the citing decisions on many tests, and entire leagues like the RaboDirect Pro 12 aren't available. It's not good enough that, to find out about these, one has to trawl through the internet to see if a kindly referee society somewhere in the world has put these up. There is almost a culture of secrecy, that this information about the game is something to be hoarded, kept from the public, guarded safe from prying eyes.

And it's nonsense. It's as counter-productive as could be imagined. If you throw open the doors and let everyone see and access this information, then the nagging feeling that something is being kept from us (which it is) goes away. People stop yelling, "Why us, ref?" when they realise, "Damn, that's exactly what that other lad got done for the other day, isn't it?" They can accept it, because it's consistent, and clear. They explain why to others. They spread the word. People who are new to the game understand, and can enjoy the game for the thing of beauty it is.

But all of that is made impossible when the average supporter - indeed, international players who are commenting on games - have to go trolling through the bye-ways of the internet of a Saturday morning to find out why a clear red card is a clear red card.

The reason legal cases are reported is so that that people know how the law develops. That, in part, is what I'm trying to do here; to string together precedents in rugby, as one would in the law. That knowledge, that openness is what gives certainty to the law. It's what gives people certainty in their job; people know where the boundaries are, what they can and cannot do. It's what gives consistency.

Yet, when international players are baffled, and trying to work out what's going on; when a player, like the French player Estebanez, gets handed a decision coming into a citing hearing and given time to reconsider how he deals with that case because he has been so clearly taken aback by what he's being told the laws of the game are; then that certainty, that clarity, is missing. It's not just about the enjoyment of the game, by the way; this is about people's jobs, and the rules of those jobs are almost clandestine.

How can they have a fair, consistent disciplinary system when the rules that system enforces are half-hidden from them? The Judicial Officers try their best, but what can they really do in this impossible situation where baffled players appear in front of them, and men who play the game for a living are told, sorrowfully: sorry, no; the rules are different to what everyone thinks they are.

It's not enough for the IRB to now make its 2009 ruling available on the Rugby World Cup website. It should have done it before the RWC started. It should have shouted it to the world when it told managers and others during the RWC. It should have shouted it to the world in 2009; the world would have welcomed it. The clarifications on some laws that year are on the IRB website; some are now laws. But the important bit about how the game is played - drop a guy in a tackle, and you're off - that's not.

A test captain has a lot on his mind before any game. Going into a Rugby World Cup semi-final, he has a lot more. He should be able to know, simply, clearly, and for definite, what he has to do. He should be able to know: bring the tackled player down arse-first, or it's a red card. The people watching should know that, too. It should be all there for them to check, clearly and simply available.

And until it is, you'll get 60,000 people who're so dedicated to the game they'll get up at seven on a Saturday to go to a stadium to watch a game on the other side of the world turning to each other and going, "What the f*ck was that for?" And so long as that happens, the game won't grow as it should.

That's the IRB's job. It's past time it sorted it out.

RWC Part XII - Sam Warburton Red Card Part II

The IRB have released a statement on this.

AUCKLAND, 16 Oct. - The International Rugby Board has issued a statement of clarification regarding the Tip or Spear tackle. 

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:

- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)

- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

Regular directives to Unions, Match Officials and Judicial Officers have been issued to reinforce the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance regarding dangerous tackles and the promotion of player welfare.

The policy was again reiterated to team officials at a Team Managers seminar in Auckland two weeks before the start of Rugby World Cup and during the Tournament and there have been a number of other Tip Tackle cases at Rugby World Cup 2011.

IRB

You can read it HERE.

It largely reiterates what I covered in the last post HERE but it does add the interesting details about the team managers having been told in advance of the RWC.http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059102.html#irb+issues+statement+tip+spear+tackle

RWC Part XI - Sam Warburton red card.

First off, to repeat; hard luck, Wales.

Now, to deal with The Tackle (note capitals).

Nineteen minutes in, off the back of a lineout, Welsh captain Sam Warburton tackled Vincent Clerc. He lifted Clerc up, lost his grip or dropped him, and Clerc came down on his neck and/or upper body.

Warburton was sent off. Wales were by far the better team, but lost, agonisingly, by a point.

The relevant law of rugby is Law 10 (4) (j). It was inserted last December, and reads:

Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

Back in 2009, the IRB sent out a directive to referees and other stakeholders about tip-tackles. You can read it HERE.

The crucial part for dealing with Sam Warburton's case is this:

The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

As soon as Warburton dropped, or lost his grip on,  Clerc, he was in deep trouble. It's worth pointing out that this does not tell referees to work backwards from a red card, as I understand has been suggested; it says that that approach had been tried, had failed, and that instead of that approach, referees were to give red cards.

So, was it a freak, a completely inconsistent one-off refereeing decision?

Unfortunately, no. So far this RWC, there have been more citings for tip-tackles than any other kind of offence. The four have been Lekso Gugava of Georgia - decision HERE; Dominiko Waqaniburotu of Fiji - HERE; Sukanaialu Hufanga of Tonga - HERE; and Fabrice Estebanez of France  - HERE.

In each of the last three cases, the referee had seen the offence, but had not sent the player off. In each case, the referee was told by the Judicial Officer that he was wrong not to send the player off.

When you realise that the referee in Gugava was Alain Rolland, you realise just how significant this is; especially as Rolland has given a straight red for this in the recent past to Florian Fritz. In that case, he had not seen the offence; but referees were left in no doubt whatsoever that if they saw a tip-tackle, they should reach for the red card.

Four cases, and in each one the IRB made it clear that they believed that a tip-tackle should be a straight red. There is a clear crack-down on; and it would seem to be an international one, given Justin Tipuric's citing for this offence in the Munster-Ospreys game last Saturday.

Unfortunately, given all of the above, Sam Warburton could probably not have picked a worse time to get done for this offence, nor a worse match. As soon as the Frenchman came down shoulders-first, it was always likely to be a red card.

It is a real pity; but the signposts were there.

Update; Warburton got a three-week ban. I'll go through the decision, as soon as I have it.

To the Welsh - Part I

Hard luck.

I will do a proper post on Sam Warburton - I was holding back on the issue until I saw the decision in Tipuric's citing - but I'll try my best to get it up this evening so that you can look at the background.

In the meantime, I just want to say hard luck, because if "deserve" meant anything in sport, you'd be in the final.

RWC Part X - Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu Charge

As already commented on, Eliota Fuimano-Sapolu has been charged with bringing the game into disrepute following his outburst and attacks on referee Nigel Owens.

It's noticeable that in the last few days, including on the interview he attended instead of deigning to attend the hearing along with the Samoan RU he'd dragged into the mire with him, and especially on his Twitter feed, he's been changing his tack. The line now seems to be more that it was merely hyperbole to get the point across because it was his choice of expression.

Bluntly; that bird won't fight.

And looking at the history of recent decisions on this line should make it clear why.

This line was first raised by the Springbok team and management in the "Justice4" case, when, in the last Lions test in 2009, they wore armbands with "Justice4" written on them to protest about what they saw as an unjust suspension of Bakkies Botha. They were charged with bringing the game into disrepute, and heavily fined; the Springboks only narrowly escaped a suspended expulsion from this RWC. The decision can be read HERE. The "right to free speech" argument was rejected at paragraph 70 of that decision.

In January 2010 - when, by the way, Eloita Fuimaono-Sapolu was playing in England with Gloucester - Brenden Venter of Saracens stated in a post-match interview that "the referee was influenced at Half-time and that’s all I can think." The decision - and that it was in front of His Honour Judge Jeff Blackett, who will be hearing Fuimaono-Sapolu's case, might give Fuimaono-Sapolu pause - can be read HERE. 


The learned judge commented that: 

Robust debate about all aspects of the Game is healthy and the press has an important part to play in that debate. Directors of Rugby, and other representative should give live interviews to the media and must be free to express general concerns about the Game. However, when doing so they must be careful about what they say so that they do not offend the RFU’s Core Values which highlight the importance of teamwork and respect. Where specific concerns arise which might include criticism of individuals, they should be dealt with in private through the recognised channels (that have been agreed by the Premiership Clubs).

Venter had to make a public apology, and had a suspended sentence of four weeks imposed.

Alas that he didn't appear to learn his lesson; not only was he up in front of a hearing and appeal in May, 2010,  and was suspended for ten weeks (and, in passing, let me state my admiration for the exemplary way the RFU have their disciplinary judgements available on their website as a resource).

Dr. Venter then lost the run of himself in front of a microphone again after a HEC match against Leinster in October, 2010. After that outburst, he was charged by the ERC with misconduct. The decision can be read HERE. The "free speech" defence was raised; the ERC were of the view that:

The Committee agreed. They fined Dr. Venter €25,000, with €15,000 suspended.

Then, following the Amlin Challenge Cup final, Michael Cheika of Stade Francais lost it entirely with referee George Clancy (in passing, not the first time Cheika had been in trouble with a ref). The facts are in the decision, which can be read HERE.

The key part is the finding of the Committee: 

Whilst it was true that Mr Cheika's conduct near or towards the referee on the three occasions the subject of the hearing, had been wholly inappropriate, derogatory and insulting he had not directly threatened or swore at the referee itself and that was a significant factor which distinguished it from a number of the cases which had been produced by Mr Duthie. In terms of its seriousness, however, the Disciplinary Committee were keen to ensure that a severe and firm message is sent out that respect towards match officials and others involved in the game of rugby is at the forefront of its mind and accordingly a significant financial penalty should be imposed.

It should be very clear by now that, once you agree to take part in a tournament - player, coach, club or nation - you are bound by the rules of that tournament, including in how you express grievances. Once you agree to abide by the rules, you agree to limit what you say, and when; there's no crossed-fingers, no doubling back.

And it should be crystal clear that rugby takes any attacks on the honesty or integrity of referees very seriously indeed. And that any attack on a referee will be punished; and rightly so, because without referees, we don't have a game. Anyone who has ever played the game knows, from day one; the ref is sacrosanct.

Mr. Fuimaono-Sapolu's hearing has been adjourned to the 15th of October. He is a lawyer; he might like to consider the judgements before he commits himself any further. It might, all things considered, be a much wiser course than that he has followed to date.

RWC Part IX - Ghiraldini and Mitigation

Lorenzo Ghiraldini has been suspended for 15 weeks for going for Cian Healy's eye in the Ireland-Italy game last Sunday. The decision is HERE.

As regards the decision itself, I have to say I think it's on the light side as a sentence. I'd have started at 24 weeks, increased it to 30, as the Judicial Officer did, but I would have allowed no more than six weeks in mitigation. This offence needs to be stamped out.

That said, while I think the JO was wrong on that, the reasoning is transparent, and perfectly lucid. If it's an error, it's an error within jurisdiction, to use the legal terms; and that, I suppose, is as much as one can ask for before one starts moving from the realm of rugby law into that of rugby fan.

What I do want to highlight, however, is this comment towards the end of the decision.

In doing so [applying a 50% discount] I paused to note a 50% discount where all factors to be considered under Rule 12.4 are met does not follow as a matter of course. It is not prescribed in the Rules not is it a rule of practice as seems to be the perception in some quarters. What discount is applicable in any given instance is a matter for the discretion of the Judicial Officer concerned by reference to the facts and circumstances of each case as he finds them bearing on the issue of sanction.

Now, that may seem innocent enough; but when you look at it in the light of the recent slew of decisions where precisely this topic has come up at this RWC - and on which I've been commenting here - there is clearly an open debate taking place within the Judicial Officers at this RWC about exactly where, when, and how the maximum possible discount is to be applied. This is all the more so when that discount has been applied even in cases where some of the necessary mitigating factors are missing, and indeed even when the JO has held that it wasn't a case where a minimum on the sanction should not be breached before going right ahead and doing just that.

In that regard, this is welcome, because it brings that debate out into the open for all of us - lawyers, rugby supporters and those of us in both camps - to thrash out.

It'll come up again before this RWC is finished. It will be one I'll be watching with interest.

RWC Part VIII - Sapolu, Twitter, Defamation and Liability

After his last outbreak of sweet reason, Eliota Fuimaono Sapolu of Samoa was charged with breaching the IRB Code of Conduct by bringing the game into disrepute. Samoa were also charged with this, due to their failure to control him.

The disciplinary hearing was scheduled for today; except Mr. Sapolu decided he didn't feel like turning up (he was off doing an interview on an NZ radio show instead). The hearing was adjourned, until he does deign to turn up; and, as with any player who is cited, he remains suspended until his hearing is completed.

The Samoan RU accepted the charge against them of failing to control their player. It could not make the point clearer; teams need a policy on the use of social media, and need to enforce it. Or else they will suffer.

This is becoming a wider issue in the law. There are more and more defamation cases arising out of the use of social media, some of which involve sport; there are excellent articles HERE and HERE from the Guardian on the topic, including Chris Cairns the NZ cricketer suing the head of the IPL over an allegedly defamatory tweet, both of which articles I'd thoroughly recommend.

What is interesting is the question of vicarious liability; the legal concept that an employer will sometimes be liable for the actions of their employee. It can hardly be doubted that accusations of the kind made against a referee are defamatory; the only question is, if such an action were taken, would his employers be liable as well?

Given that, for many teams, interacting with fans through social media is now part of the players' duties, does their rugby-related Twitter activity fall within the boundaries of their employment? And, if so, does it mean their employer is liable for their actions? That their actions may be in breach of the laws of the game may well be irrelevant; in Gravil v. Carrol and Redruth RFC a player's foul play in punching an opponent was found to so closely conneted to what is involved in being a professional rugby player that the club was liable for it (not the least reason why this case is loved by everyone who's read it). 

The question would be, whether or not the Twitter activities of a player would be so closely connected to his employment as a rugby player in this day and age that his employer would be liable for him. Given that the Samoan RU accepts that it was responsible for his activities, it might be even easier in this particular case.

It would be interesting; and, as others have remarked, the last thing anyone wants to hear is lawyers saying something would be "interesting".

The lesson is, again; have a policy on social media, and enforce it, or pay the consequences.

Meanwhile, Sapolu's club employers, Gloucester, must be fit to be tied over this.

RWC Part VII - Delon Armitage - Updated

Were I to be sarcastic, then the current English team could be described as the best thing that ever happened to someone writing about rugby discipline. Hartley, Armitage, Cueto, Lawes - it's the gift that keeps on giving. And now, generous soul that he is, Delon Armitage has got himself in trouble again.

He's been banned for one game for a shoulder-charge into the head of Scotland's Chris Paterson in England's narrow win over the Scots last Saturday.

Many English fans and pundits consider this rough justice; many others consider he got off lightly.

Two things arise from this; first, I mentioned a while back about the IRB's directive about high tackles, which finally indicated to Citing Commissioners that such tackles would suffice for a red card for the purposes of citing hearings. Between Todd Clever, and this, the Citing Commissioners have been following through on this. It's worth noting that Armitage pleaded guilty. The IRB is to be commended on that; they took a position, made it clear, followed through on it, consistently, and as a result there is now some certainty in that part of the disciplinary process. I commended it at the time as being the way to avoid problems with challenges to consistency; and it looks like it's working in giving that consistency. It's an example to be noted and followed.

What isn't consistent is how someone who has already been suspendeded for a total of eleven weeks this year - better than one week in four in 2011 - can be given less than the minimum sentence prescribed in Regulation 17 when his disciplinary record is so clearly up for debate; and especially when at his last citing hearing, the sentence was increased because of that poor record. 

It would appear my fears about minimum bans not being minimum were right; to counter-balance consistency and certainty in one area of the disciplinary system, this clear-cut area has now been thrown into question. Swings and roundabouts.

I would love to go into the details of the judgements; but I can't, for the simple reason that the IRB has not published any of the decisions in the three citing results (Armitage, Estabanez of France and Gugava of Georgia) announced today. In that regard, the IRB have slipped back into a regrettable old habit, one that I hope is only temporary and to be cured by the release of those decisions as soon as possible.

Update; and I'm happy to say they now have the decision up (it may be time lag between getting the news out, and uploading the judgement, which is fair enough). And it's interesting that Armitage's record was considered an aggravating factor at his last disciplinary hearing is not mentioned; and that Michael Smith QC at 3.3 expressly asked the hearing to rely on a recent decision to go below the minimum where there were some, but not all, mitigating factors. That's the Tsnobiladze case; it is already being used as a precedent.

And what is truly astounding is that, at 3.4, the Judicial Officer found that he only had the power to go below the minimum in certain, very limited circumstances; that this was not such a case; and then proceeded to go below the minimum anyway and give him only one week.

That is, bluntly, farcical. To find that it's a case where the regulations require that the minimum sentence be imposed, and then impose less than it, is to ignore those rules. The rules disciplinary system are being openly flouted by those charged with imposing them.

RWC Part VI - Tsnobiladze and Minimum Bans.

Russian hooker Valery Tsnobiladze missed the last match of this RWC after he was cited for, and found guilty of, using his head on Seán O'Brien.


The decisions of HH Judge Jeff Blackett is HERE.


It's hard enough not to make contact with the head at times when rucking, and it does happen; but there's no place for using your head as a weapon in the game.


That said, that's not the main point I want to address in this post. What I do want to look at is the decision; contrast it with previous decisions; see what that tells us about the Disciplinary Regulations for this RWC (and if anyone sees these mythical beasts, I'd be obliged for a copy) and see what possible repercussions it may have for citings and disciplinary hearings outside of this RWC.


The starting point here is the Regulations. These run to just under 400 pages, but the one to look at is Regulation 17, which deals with discipline.


Appendix 1 of Regulation 17 sets out the sanctions; the sentences, or bans, for various offences. These are a range; entry-level, mid-level and higher-level. There is a bottom and top to each level. The bottom level is the minimum for that level. That's set out in Regulation 17.14.4 (b), which says (emphasis added for clarity):

In cases involving offending that has been classified pursuant to Regulation 17.14.2 as lower end offending, where there are compelling on-field and/or off-field mitigating features and a complete absence of on-field and/or off-field aggravating features, Disciplinary Committees and Judicial Officers may apply sanctions less than the lower end entry sanctions specified in Appendix 1 and in this respect only, the lower end sanctions set out in Appendix 1 are not minimum sanctions.

Now, this means that you can only go below the bottom end of the lower end-sanction for compelling reasons. That's what happened when the learned judge looked at Todd Clever's case, and found there were compelling reasons to impose no sanction - he repeated that phrase several times.


Now, let's see what the learned judge said in Tsnobiladze's case:

The entry point for Lower End offending under Law 10.4(a) is a suspension of four weeks. There are no aggravating features in this case. The agreed maximum reduction from the entry point, where there are no exceptional circumstances, is 50% but only where all of the mitigating factors listed in Disciplinary Regulation 12.4 are present. They are not here because the Player did not admit culpability. I therefore reduce the sanction from the entry point by one week to reflect the Player’s good record, his co-operation with the disciplinary process and good conduct at the hearing.

Now, one of two things arises here; either the IRB itself has stated that sentences can go below the minimum for the RWC, and not told anyone that they're altering bits of the disciplinary regulations on the hoof (which, if you think about it, would probably be less unlikely); or the learned judge, despite holding that there were no exceptional or compelling factors which would allow him to reduce the sentence below the entry point, proceeded to apply the normal rules on mitigation and reduce the sentence below the entry point.


If "compelling" now means "some, but not all, mitigating factors are present", then it's meaningless; and the regulation saying entry level is a minimum unless there are compelling factors is also a dead rubber. 

This is because a case is either compelling - in which case, you can go below the minimum, but it's not the normal discount rules that apply; or it's not compelling, in which case the normal discount rules apply, with the floor of the minimum. The learned judge applied the rules giving maximum discount of 50% for normal bans, which cannot take it below the floor of the minimum, to take it below that minimum floor. And the lack of a finding of a compelling reason is in stark contrast with the repetition in Clever (which, for the record, I'd consider a fair case of a compelling reason).

All cases could now be compelling ones. The minimum entry-level ban, as a matter of practice, might well be dead.

If this is the case, it could have a huge effect on how one approaches disciplinary hearings. First off, it would be a clear case where the IRB aren't following through on applying their own disciplinary rules; as it helps the player out, no player's likely to complain. It would not be the first time; the All Blacks were allowed break the rule on naming a suspended player in a team pending an appeal when Kevin Mealamu was named in their team against Ireland last November.

However, it would have an effect in practice for those dealing with disciplinary cases, because it would now add a massive incentive for players to plead guilty to an offence, regardless of whether or not they think they are innocent. If, by pleading, they could get below the minimum even where there are only some mitigating factors, a player would be daft, or very badly advised, to fight and risk getting the minimum ban when he could plead and be back playing sooner (or perhaps even where he pleads; after all, Tsnobiladze didn't plead).

How this pans out will be interesting to watch. At the very least, there now seems to be a precedent to be argued out there.

RWC Part V - Eliota Fuimanao-Sapolu, Nigel Owens and Twitter.

Eliota Fuimanoa-Sapolu is a player with Samoa. They played an absolutely cracking match against South Africa, which the Springboks won, 13-5; as a result, Samoa are now out of the RWC.

Nigel Owens was the ref. On an Assistant Referee's recommendation, and following a warning to both sides to stop face-slapping in the first half, he sent off the Samoan player for a strike to the face of Heinrich Brussow, after Brussow was attempting to stop Williams from holding him off the ball. That was with roughly 8 minutes to go in the game; John Smit was sent to the sin-bin approximately a minute later for a deliberate knock-down.

It was a hard, niggly, but wonderful game. It could have kicked off into an all-out brawl at any stage; that it didn't is a credit to Owens, and his Assistant Referees, Julian Terheege and Wayne Barnes. Owens had a very good game; when, after a game, both sets of fans are complaining he was hard on them, it's usually an indication the ref was fair.

But, afterwards, things got ugly on Twitter. People were saying that if Nigel Owens turned up in Samoa, he was a dead man.

At which stage, Eliota Fuimanoa-Sapolu hit Twitter, and things went pear-shaped in the grand fashion. One can understand being upset; but this went to entirely different levels. He started tweeting seriously aggressive comments about Nigel Owens, including retweeting the threats to cause harm to him if he appeared in Samoa; and including that "IRB is f*cked up arrd need to get new IRB officials and that Welsh ref if i was ay hitman i wud shot dat kient" (into which charming missive I've inserted an asterisk as I try to avoid mindless vulgarity when writing in a public sphere).


It can be seen in all its ghastly glory HERE. 


This is not the first time Mr. Fuimanoa-Sapolu has covered himself in glory on Twitter; after the Wales-Samoa match, he was claiming that for Samoa to have a shorter turn-around between matches  was: Unfair treatment, like slavery, like the holocaust, like apartheid. F*CK U. However, retweeting threats to cause a referee harm is a new low; and possibly a criminal offence.


What makes this even more astonishing is that not only should Mr. Fuimanoa-Sapolu know better - to be blunt, anyone with three braincells lined up in a row and talking to each other should know better  - but that he is, himself, qualified as a solicitor in New Zealand. The mind boggles.


What this, and other incidents such as the Brian Mujati incident, should show is that it is vital - not desirable, vital - that teams get a handle on social media. However much it may feel like a quiet private conversation, posting something on Facebook or Twitter isn't. It's more like conducting a conversation by megaphone across a crowded square; everyone gets to hear it. And record it. 


The lesson for any team is; get a policy in place about what can, or cannot, be tweeted or put on social media; tell the players; get them to sign up to it; and enforce it. Because otherwise, a team can be put on the sport because of an unbelievably crass comment that should never have been made. 


Whether or not Samoa, or Eliota Fuimanoa-Sapolu will be facing a disciplinary hearing remains to be seen. But the lesson for team management is clear; get your policies and procedures in place, before ever it gets to the stage of running that risk.


And the lesson for players is even more obvious: if in doubt, keep it to yourself, and have some respect for the game, and your own dignity.