Pascal Papé's behaviour

[goodNumber10]

It's the exact same thing.

it's not in this case, isn't it a hairline fracture?

 

[big ginger 8]

you are obviously not a doctor

Are you?

Vertebrae make up the spine and a fracture is a type of break. How fractured vertebrae can't be described as a broken spine then is beyond me.

 

[gaston le gaff]

because if he had a broken back he would not be playing rugby, i had two serious back injuries and was confined to a wheelchair for 4 months, a hairline fracture is obviously bad but it is not a broken back

 

[big ginger 8]

because if he had a broken back he would not be playing rugby, i had two serious back injuries and was confined to a wheelchair for 4 months, a hairline fracture is obviously bad but it is not a broken back

It's obviously not a particulary severe one of course but I'm pretty sure it still officially counts as a broken back. Although of course I could be wrong.

 

[The Jones Boy]

It's not a broken back or he wouldn't be walking.
It's not good though because he is gonna be out for a while.
Pape is a scumbag cheap shot artist.

 

[TommiG88]

That is your opinion, it is not that of the RFU. To be fair World Rugby's opinion may be different again, but I'm unable to find a copy of their guidelines to confirm.

Stamping / trampling has entry points from 2 to 9 weeks depending on severity. Striking with the knee has entry points from 4 weeks to 12.

PP struck a defenseless player in a place that could have caused paralysis, so I would argue that it was a top end offense. I would argue that stamping on an ankle / leg is more of a mid range offense (there are plenty more serious forms of stamping / trampling). Also, rightly or wrongly, you should bear in mind that these hearings consider the result of the offense when assessing severity - Heaslip has a broken spine, Cole wasn't injured (IIRC). You should also remember that these citings consider provocation - Cole was lying on the wrong side of a ruck slowing ball down, Heaslip did nothing to provoke PP's attack. Lastly, you should bear in mind both players' disciplinary record. I don't recall Healey having much if any previous at the time, PP on the other hand is one of, if not the worst disciplined players in the Top14.

Factoring all of the above in, I really don't see why anyone would suggest that the two incidents merit the same sanction.

I still don't see the value in comparing apples and oranges - each incident is unique and must be assessed on its individual merits within the framework I've alluded to above (again, assuming World Rugby work the same way as the RFU).

It's obviously not the same incident but it is not blatant Pape was being intentional although Healy was. Healy got a 3 week ban, on a stamp that could have broken an ankle. Heaslip got a knee to the back which wasn't obviously intentional and got a cracked invertebrate. The game is a contact sport, I didn't see intent but that's my opinion. I watched the game sober and couldn't see the problem until they showed it in slow motion from a certain angle. There looked to be no intent in his face and he wasn't looking, try running with out leading with your knee! I know I can't. It falls into the category of accidental/avoidable but not intentional. A sin bin and 6 week ban would have been more in line. Finn got a 2 week ban for a tackle in the air which could have ended biggars career.

My point is, nothing is transparent when it comes to the IRB. Before you say I know nothing, it's only my opinion. I believe citing is a great thing in rugby, however it is not consistent.

 

[RedruthRFC]

It's obviously not the same incident but it is not blatant Pape was being intentional although Healy was. Healy got a 3 week ban, on a stamp that could have broken an ankle. Heaslip got a knee to the back which wasn't obviously intentional and got a cracked invertebrate.

If Heaslip's invertebrate was cracked as well as fracturing (breaking) three of his vertebrae (part of the spine), surely the case against PP is even stronger!

The game is a contact sport, I didn't see intent but that's my opinion. I watched the game sober and couldn't see the problem until they showed it in slow motion from a certain angle. There looked to be no intent in his face and he wasn't looking, try running with out leading with your knee! I know I can't. It falls into the category of accidental/avoidable but not intentional.

Given the top end sanction and the popular opinion in this thread, it appears that you're in a minority in holding this belief although some of us have conceded that it's hard to prove conclusively. Part of my rationale for saying that it was deliberate is the fact that hitting a maul with your knee out in front of you is a terrible, weak body position. How do the vast majority of players manage to hit mauls week in, week out without getting penalised if it's so difficult to run without your knee becomming an offensive weapon?!? I take it you never hit a maul during your playing career?

A sin bin and 6 week ban would have been more in line. Finn got a 2 week ban for a tackle in the air which could have ended biggars career.

Eh! World Rugby's decision to ban both players is an admission that the referee got it wrong at time time and should have gone straight for a red. As I have said already, I don't agree with the result oriented style of these hearings, but it is a reality. Bigger was unscathed, Heaslip has three fractured bones.

My point is, nothing is transparent when it comes to the IRB. Before you say I know nothing, it's only my opinion. I believe citing is a great thing in rugby, however it is not consistent.

I certainly agree with that. Much of the discussion here could be cleared up if a summary of the hearing's finding was published as the RFU used to do (I can't seem to find them on the "new and improved" website).

There may be inconsistencies in bans, but in order to highlight them, you need to compare apples to apples, not oranges which nobody has managed to do so far. On top of all the other differences between the two cases you mention which make comparisons impossible, you need to know the recommendations at the time for the offenses in question. The eye gouging list is a decent starting point, the massive varience shows that either there are wild inconsistencies or that there is more to it than meets the eye. Anyone with a particular agenda can ignore these subtleties in an attempt to prove their point with isolated examples.

 

[goodNumber10]

There may be inconsistencies in bans, but in order to highlight them, you need to compare apples to apples, not oranges which nobody has managed to do so far.

I have

 

[RedruthRFC]

I have

See the rest of the paragraph you quoted.

 

[dasNdanger]

My point is, nothing is transparent when it comes to the IRB. Before you say I know nothing, it's only my opinion. I believe citing is a great thing in rugby, however it is not consistent.

We, as fans, need to have a bit of faith that WR knows what they're doing, and respect their decision on each individual case. I don't see any reason to think that this particular incident has been judged too harshly, or too lightly. Accident or intentional act, Pape was still reckless and fractured vertebrae in Pascal's back. They can't just sit back and shrug, 'Too bad, it's what to expect from a physical game.' In this case if they have erred in their decision, they erred on the side of caution. Had the punishment been too light it would have amounted to a wink and a nod to reckless play.

And I don't think World Rugby (IRB ) needs to be transparent with everything. Fans don't *need* to know all the details. Sure, it's nice to get all the inside dirt, but in the end the only ones who really need to know all the facts are the parties involved.

In the end there's no point debating bans vs bans, infringement vs infringement - each offense needs to stand on its own and punishment determined - not by a ban placed on a different player years ago for a totally different offense - but on the specifics of the incident currently up for review. They can't sit there and say, "Well, we only gave so-and-so X-weeks for a gouge (w/o injury), so we can't give this guy more than that - despite the injury - because a kneeing doesn't look as bad in replay as a gouge." A ruling has to be judged on the specifics of the individual case, and not in comparison to anything else.


das

 

[RedruthRFC]

And I don't think World Rugby (IRB ) needs to be transparent with everything. Fans don't *need* to know all the details. Sure, it's nice to get all the inside dirt, but in the end the only ones who really need to know all the facts are the parties involved.

No, we don't *need* to know the details, but by hiding them from us, the authorities are opening themselves up to the kind of allegations we see in this thread. If they have confidence in the process and nothing to hide, why not be up front?

 

[dasNdanger]

No, we don't *need* to know the details, but by hiding them from us, the authorities are opening themselves up to the kind of allegations we see in this thread. If they have confidence in the process and nothing to hide, why not be up front?

Because some of what goes on behind closed doors is none of our business. I don't think anything is being hidden from the public, and even if they released a word-for-word transcript of what was discussed, people would still throw around allegations and speculations about the motives behind the decision, only now they'd have a chance to nitpick every word and read all sorts of meanings into each sentence uttered. It's just the nature of the fanbeast. There will always be a percentage of fans who are never satisfied with anything, ever.


das

 

[Tony Manx]

Pape has appealed against punishment....hearing in London next week!

 

[Amiga500]

Pape has appealed against punishment....hearing in London next week!

Multiply it by 5. Get the message through to the dirty bstart.

 

[The Jones Boy]

+1
That nonsense has no place in the game.

 

[Tony Manx]

Appeal dismissed!

 

[dasNdanger]

Appeal dismissed!

As it should be! Pretty ballsy of him to have tried appealing in the first place.


das