I recently emailed Spiro Zavos about my concerns for the current system of suspensions used in rugby. Part of my email was as follows: “The John Smit-Brad Thorn incident illustrates the point that an act of foul play resulting in an injury normally leaves the victim on the sidelines longer than the perpetrator.”
“I’d like to make a simple suggestion – whenever an act of foul play results in both the suspension of a player and an injury to a ‘victim’, the suspension awarded would not commence until the victim was once again fit to play.
Until that time the guilty player would be stood down from matches.
In effect, all suspensions would consist of a standard suspension plus an additional suspension equivalent to the amount of time the victim is unfit to play.
Do you think this would be workable?”
Spiro kindly replied with a good point which I’d overlooked: “I see all sorts of problems with this. If a less than senior-very good player is injured by a key opponent, there will be an incentive to keep the inured player out of the game for as long as possible, and therefore keep someone like Brad Thorn out for a long time.”
I believe this could possibly be overcome by appointing a doctor of sports medicine to advise judiciaries at the time the incident is being reviewed.
He could give an estimated time that the victim would be out injured and his recommendation could be immediately added to the suspension period.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to how the judiciary could be changed to better provide justice to the victims of foul play and cheap shots?
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Benjamin
Guest
That depends if Cowan and Sivivatu are on tour.
The Answer
Guest
Spiro, given their off field behaviour I can certainly see why England tour with a QC. He must rack up some serious over time. The All Blacks should probably tour with a couple.
sheek
Guest
Spiro, You don't need lawyers if everyone accepts their responsibilty - the perpetrator, the club officials, the citing commission, everyone. The system fails because too many people involved in the process duck & weave.
Jerry
Guest
Spiro - players can be cited if they get a yellow during the game.
Sluggy
Guest
Spiro, Shalke Burger may not be the best candidate to use as an example, but in any event the system also breaks down when a citing officer fails to do anything - specifically referring to the BoD incident in 2005, or does do something just so he can be seen to be doing it. Specific instances might include Toutai Kefu being suspended in RWC1999 after his punch up with Trevor Brennan, in circumstances were Brennan had committed many illegalities and provoked the incident, and ought to have been the one cited.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
My feeling is that if the system is changed very much you will bring in the lawyers. And then we will get stuck in a legal minefield, a bit like the Olymoics. As it is England already travel with a QC, and the BNritish and Irish Lions under Clive Woodward too. The QC, from memory, earned his keep on the England tour by getting a player off the hook when the judicial committee had levied a couple of weeks off. On the Brad Thorn case, my understanding is that if he'd been yellow carded at the time - as he should have been - then the matter would have rested there. It was because foul play had taken place without any on-field punishment that required a trip for Thorn to the judiciary. There is always the problem, too, of provocation. There are photos of Butch James scrunching the eyes of Conrad Smith during the Test. Should this play be subject to a judicial review, and punishment if warranted? I think that the system works quite well. It breaks down when there is a rush to judgment on the part of a specific judicial officer. This happened in the 2007 RWC when Shalke Burger was unfairly put out for several games.
Benjamin
Guest
Sheek, I agree. Can't do the time...
sheek
Guest
Fragglelocker, In the past, there were times I would have agreed with you. In obviously blatant cases, where the recklessness of the perpetrator, irrespective of intent, resulted in serious injury, he should be out for the same period of time. In the Brad thorn scenario, what saved Thorn (& also Smit from serious injury) is that Thorn quickly realised what he was doing, & backed off, simply dropping Smit to the ground. Otherwise, it could have been very ugly. There are supposed to be specific penalties for specific misdemeanors, but there appears to be a lack of consistency, a lack of resolve, a lack of ethics, whatever. Then there's this plea bargaining. Come on, do the wrong thing, then be a man & accept responsibility. To me, it seems to boil down to everyone abdicating responsibility.
Benjamin
Guest
Fragglerocker, I agree with your premise in theory, however this sort of retribition/justice could invite all sorts of legal wrangles, for example - to cite the Thorn-Smit incident, is it provable beyond doubt that the dropping of Smit developed his injury? There is the potential for a lot of grey areas. Gouging and biting is responded to appropriately. As long as these incidents are few and far between I say let boys be boys.