Super Rugby has closed a judicial loophole that had previously counted bye rounds as part of a player’s suspension.
From this season, the system will be adjusted to ensure guilty players serve the proper length of bans they are issued, as part of a raft of changes to Super Rugby’s judicial process unveiled on Thursday by SANZAAR.
Queensland Reds prop Sef Fa’agase and NSW Waratahs hooker Tolu Latu both effectively served phantom suspensions last year after copping one-week bans the week before their teams had a bye.
The pair were officially considered to have been suspended that week from club rugby matches.
The inconsistency existed because, unlike most other sports, sanctions in rugby are given in weeks, not matches.
SANZAAR has also introduced a three-person foul-play review committee, which will scrutinise all red-card incidents, citing commissioner referrals and misconduct charges.
The panel is headed by senior judicial officer Nigel Hampton QC (New Zealand) and also includes former international players John Langford (Australia) and Stefan Terblanche (South Africa).
Other changes include a new warning for offences that do not quite meet the red-card threshold, as well as permission for incidents to be referred back to the citing commissioner for review if new evidence comes to light outside the existing judicial time frame.
“SANZAAR believes Super Rugby has unique challenges across six territories and 15 time zones and the enhanced Super Rugby judicial process will deliver a more streamlined and effective system for teams and a more consistent outcome for players and fans to identify with,” chief executive Andy Marinos said.
Phantom
Roar Rookie
Except that there was no eye gouge so therefore would not have been cited.
ClarkeG
Guest
superba ...your suggestion is not workable for the very reason Peter has pointed out.
superba
Guest
@PeterK I guess this would clean up rugby pretty quickly .Especially for that international you refer to.
PeterK
Roar Guru
the trouble with this is if a player is suspended for say 1 match during the last intl match of the year, they will miss every super rugby match. Take last year, say an aussie was suspended for 1 match for foul play against england their last autumn test. The next wallaby match is in june. So a 1 match ban at intl level means they miss all of super rugby, all club matches ie. all rugby for a year, they sure won't be picked for tests after 1 test if he hasn't played all year.
superba
Guest
Not the status quo as I understand it .Often a player gets a suspension at Super or International level and then " misses 2 club games then back into the Super or international level My argument is that if suspended at International level for say 2 matches he is out of all rigby at any level until his team has played 2 matches without him .
ClarkeG
Guest
But that is not what you said above is it. What you are now suggesting is the status quo. If a player incurs a suspension at whatever level then said player is unable to play at any level. This is the situation at the moment.
superba
Guest
@ClarkeG if an All Black gets suspended against the Lions , he would be barred from all rugby until his suspension had been fulfilled . Same at any level . This would go a long way to stopping the dirtbags in this game . Yes , I would be happy with this .
ClarkeG
Guest
"Other changes include a new warning for offences that do not quite meet the red-card threshold" I'm not sure that is anything new. That concept is already in place...it is referred to as a Citing Commissioner Warning.
ClarkeG
Guest
So if an All Black gets a suspension in Super Rugby he is still eligible to play against the Lions in June/July...you guys would be happy with that? or he could still play club rugby if not selected to play against the Lions...happy with that? If an All Black gets a suspension playing against the Lions he can return to Super Rugby for the final round and the finals and then resume his suspension in the Rugby Championship...you guys would be happy with that? What if a super rugby player gets a suspension in a club match ...he is still eligible to play Super Rugby?...you guys happy with that?
ClarkeG
Guest
Well it's always been 48 hrs actually but a good point on the timeline.
Hello
Roar Rookie
Agree Peter. I find it both good news and bad. I hope they still have some form of timeline that new evidence can be produced. I wanted them to increase the 12 Hrs ( I always thought it should be 36hrs)
PeterK
Roar Guru
This article has ignored the MOST important change. Now players can be charged if new evidence is found. Previously you had 12 hours to be cited , after that forget it. Case in point is Franks eye gouge. A video of a new angle was found after the 12 hrs which on the new rules he would be cited and suspended.
The Saint
Roar Guru
Agreed Superba and CUW.. this move should have been made ages ago.
cuw
Guest
To true. this is not rocket science and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. just look at how football has defined its bans. i think it is one of the best systems. these people who run rugger are more concerned about money than anything else!!
superba
Guest
The bans are quite inadequate. If a player gets a 2 week ban at Super Rugby level then that player should have to sit out 2 Super Rugby games . Same at international level . Many of these players don't play club rugby so sitting out for 2 club games is a farce.
Paul
Guest
They needed to get their house in order. With the new tackle laws I expect the might be kept pretty busy!!
Browny
Roar Rookie
Good move. Now to just get some real consistency in the suspensions handed out...