Former England captain Will Carling has called into question World Rugby’s judiciary committee after Tom Curry was banned for two World Cup fixtures on Monday.
Curry, who was shown a red card in the opening minutes for a front-on tackle against Argentina on Saturday, accepted a three-match ban that was reduced to two games for agreeing to go to tackle school for his high shot.
He will miss England’s Tests against Japan and Chili as a result.
“The player accepted that foul play occurred and that the offence warranted a red card,” a World Rugby statement read.
“The Committee noted that the offence carries a mandatory minimum mid-range sanction (six matches), and having considered the mitigating factors, including admission of foul play and correctness of the red card at the first opportunity, an exemplary disciplinary record, apology to the player and good character, reduced the sanction by the maximum mitigation of 50 per cent.”
Tom Curry has been banned for two Tests after colliding with Juan Cruz Mallia of Argentina at Stade Velodrome on September 09, 2023 in Marseille. (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)
Curry didn’t challenge the ban, likely believing it was more of a risk to challenge and lose and therefore miss their World Cup knockout matches than sit out Tests against Japan and Chili.
Yet, the decision has been slammed in some quarters.
Not only did Curry make head-on-head contact with a player returning from the air but the force was minimal.
Less than 24 hours later, head-on-head contact from an upright Jesse Kriel on Scotland’s Jack Dempsey was missed by onfield referee Angus Gardner.
Nor was it picked up by the Television Match Official or the post-match judiciary panel.
In many respects, the incident looked worse than the one that saw Curry had his yellow card upgraded to red.
While former England winger Chris Ashton said Curry had taken a risk by attempting a high body tackle from a man coming down from the air, former World Cup-winning coach Clive Woodward said rugby was in trouble if the back-rower was sent off for such an incident.
“It was just an accident. Curry’s head-on-head contact with Juan Cruz Mallia was what I call a ‘rugby incident,” Woodward wrote in the Daily Mail.
“The sport is in trouble in my opinion if those sorts of collisions are deemed worthy of a sending off. Whether or not there is intent in a player’s actions should not and does not impact a referee’s decision. I understand that.
“But I really do not know what Curry was supposed to do to not get into that position.”
Carling, a respected voice and former England captain, called into question the consistency given Kriel’s high shot wasn’t looked at while Chilean captain Martin Sigren didn’t have his yellow card upgraded.
“What rugby really needs is consistency and clarity when it comes to foul play,” Carling tweeted.
“To ban @TomCurry98 and not to ban two other players for almost identical incidents just leads to frustration and confusion. Not helpful when wanting to market the game.”
K.F.T.D.
Roar Rookie
God bless him
Bobby D
Roar Rookie
Well said awa. I just cannot believe what WR is doing to this sport. Attending Tackle School for a Test player? It's laughable and embarrassing and I don't know how grown men can introduce these type of things without having huge smirks on their dials.
Bobby D
Roar Rookie
Steve Finnane, now there's a name from the past. He was a team-mate of mine at Eastern Suburbs in Sydney during the 70's. He must be giggling to himself at WR rules and regulations these days.
Bobby D
Roar Rookie
Of course James, you are correct. I find it bewildering to find so much discussion (and waste of time) on all these accidental events - bear in mind no one player involved in these incidents has swung a punch, no one player has stiff-armed an opposition player, no one player has run into a ruck at speed leading with his head. Accidents happen, can't some of these people see that? The malicious and intentional foul play is mainly a thing of the past and that's great. It's so frustrating that some of these people want basic accidents treated as foul play and demand dismissal of "offenders". Curry is a classic example of a ridiculous outcome. How any judiciary could find him unworthy to play the next 2 WC matches is appalling. He had to plead guilty, he had no choice - conned by the system in place. And I'm no English supporter. An Aussie who has fallen out of love with this great game.
Bobby D
Roar Rookie
Spot on Dean. I would say that the judiciary is heavily concussed.
scrum
Roar Rookie
Have you actually read the framework. Even with correct outcomes you are not happy and contradict yourself. Firstly you say the framework is not the problem and now it is. I hope you are as perfect in life as you expect others to be.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
Tom Curry put himself in a position where head to head contact was inevitable. His job as a defender is to ensure that doesn't happen. You really, really don't want to understand that.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
It was an All Aus panel that cleared him
Jacko
Roar Rookie
well WR only appealed due to fan outrage. It that part of the framework?
scrum
Roar Rookie
WR has released an explanation. I saw it on a NZ website “Stuff”.
scrum
Roar Rookie
Well at the end of the day Farrell was suspended so the framework was upheld. The judiciary failed to take into account that mitigation cannot be applied to always illegal acts of foul play. That obviously was an error on their behalf but WR appealed and the appeal was successful. As a reminder in proper law courts decisions are also overturned. So the system worked. And as for the 2 other controversial decisions from this weekend WR has given a clear description of how those decisions are in accordance with the framework.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
So which "framework" did the judiciary follow for the pommie captain being let off? Was it the same framework they followed a week later when he was banned? The framework isn't the issue. The constant change around that framework is the issue.
CUW
Roar Rookie
ya right - see above :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
scrum
Roar Rookie
Read todays Stuff. There is an explanation of last weekends decisions. The framework was followed
Bio-Hack
Roar Rookie
Its not just the poms complaining cobber. Its so blatantly obvious to any rugby fan that has eyes, something is simply not adding up. The TMO chooses what to look at, the refs miss blatant cheating when it suits them, and god knows what is wrong with the side line people.
LuckyPhil
Roar Rookie
Tom Curry didn't move (braced himself but didn't lunge at him). Does the player catching the ball not also have a duty of care to ensure he doesn't come down, fall forward and hit the opposition in the head? It was way softer than the Chilean one, yet a harsher penalty.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
Duty of care means trying to tackle him in a way that doesn't cause a head on head clash. He failed so he gets punished. I don't get why this is hard for you.
Passit2me
Roar Rookie
The TMO looked all the angles and could not determine any foul play, meaning no head contact. I agree. Dempsey would have been in all sorts of pain after a head impact of that force, but he was fine. Kriel’s head goes past Dempsey’s, meaning no direct front on contact, but went to the side, and Kriel seems to bounce back off the ball.
Passit2me
Roar Rookie
adastra32
Roar Rookie
The fixation specifically with head contact and damage gives a contentious focus for the sport - but is illusory. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/aug/06/rugbys-problems-run-much-deeper-than-concussion-from-the-odd-big-hit