Centre of controversy: Adam Thomson
The International Rugby Board has confirmed that it will appeal what it strongly believes to be an "unduly lenient sanction" handed down to All Blacks flank Adam Thomson for stamping or trampling on the head of an opponent.
Thomson was suspended for one week after Independent Judicial Officer Jean Noel Couraud upheld the citing complaint for an alleged act of illegal and/or foul play contrary to Law 10.4(b) during the Scotland versus New Zealand match on November 11, 2012. The hearing process was run under the auspices of the Six Nations Committee.
"As custodians of Rugby worldwide, the IRB has a duty to protect its image, values and integrity together with the welfare of players at all levels in order that the sport can continue its unprecedented growth and welcome more men, women and children to the Rugby family," read on IRB statement on Wednesday.
"At the very heart of this mission is the universal application of the disciplinary process as set out in Regulation 17. This IRB Disciplinary regulation is intended to protect all players and the Game through the strict application of a sanctioning regime that acts as a strong deterrent against acts of foul play.
"This stance was reaffirmed by leading international players, coaches, referees and administrators attending the IRB Morality Conference in London in March this year who unanimously agreed that a tough and consistent stance on discipline is key to Rugby's integrity.
"After careful consideration and having reviewed the full written decision in the Thomson case well within the permitted 72 hours of receipt, the IRB strongly believes that the sanction of one week is unduly lenient for this particular act of foul play and not aligned with the sanctions handed down in similar cases.
"The IRB firmly believes it is in the best interests of the Game and its integrity to exercise its ability to appeal the Thomson decision. The right of appeal by the IRB (in defined circumstances) and for Host Unions and tournament organisers was introduced into the revised Regulation 17 effective on June 1 this year to uphold the integrity of the disciplinary process in appropriate cases."
Comments
Trader2 says...
Well thought he got off pretty lightly and should have got three or four weeks,but are they setting a dangerous precedent here. Just get it right the first time thats all the IRB have to do, pretty simple really. It has taken them a fair bit of time to appeal so what does that say, how far back can they go. Why not go back to 2005 Umunga and Meelamu (he is still playing), why stop with Thomson there are plenty of suspensions that warrant appeal, either for being too lenient or too harsh. This decision is really a joke and smacks of a new CEO trying to make his mark. All of us have worked for companies where that happens to the company's detriment.
They can obviously not rule before the weekend (can they) given it is now Thursday so look for Thomson to play his last game v Wales.
Posted 23:17 21st November 2012
Kent says...
He should have got six weeks for being dopey. ooh there's a head there that might be stopping quick ball so I'll just tap him on the head with my boot right in front of the touch judge. So don't forget kids it's alright to deliberately put your boot on someone's head as long as you didn't mean it, and I suppose a gentle head butt is OK as well.
@jmanngod - don't worry lads we can get away with dangerous illegal tackles 'cos we is hard men and bleat about injustice all day long
Posted 22:59 21st November 2012
new_j4a says...
This is descending into farce....may as well look into charging Strokosch for headbutting Thompson on the foot while they are at it.
Posted 22:47 21st November 2012
runnrugby says...
The IRB stepping in to change a ban that was already passed by them is a total joke and makes them look even worse than they did before. If they had sorted out their stupid judiciary system years ago none of this would have happened in the first place. "Protect their image and integrity" Haha nice going clowns.
Posted 22:46 21st November 2012
WTF123 says...
I think a bit of balance is needed here, the NZ bias is a bit frightening.
A stamp on the head is one of the worst things in rugby, arguably worse than gouging. 99.9% of rugby players will have at one time punched someone, but would NEVER purposely put their boot on another players head. It was luck that Strockoch was wearing a scrum cap, if he wasn't he would have painted the pitch red!!
makemehappy, I find it laughable that you are trying to say that a stamp on the head couldn't have injured...if its so innocuous, get your mate to put his football boots on and replicate this for us all, a youtube video with a link will suffice.
All of us play within the structures and precedents that have been set in rugby. We all know that tip tackles will now normally get a ban of 2-8 weeks, that is proven. We know that gouging will get you a ban of upto 6 months (or sometimes more).
Personally, I class this in the same league as gouging, there is a serious risk of life long injury.
I do not think that the rugby world (NZ fans excluded) would have been surprised with a ban of over 8 weeks. Also, I do not think the IRB would have bothered if he had been banned for even 4 weeks, especially in the same week that Etsebeth was given 6 weeks for a tackle.
However, the farcical ban of 1 week by the citing board has pushed the IRB to have to act, they have no choice.
Personally, I think that at least 16 weeks of a ban is warranted for this, and it is hopefully what he will end up with, along with a lot of rugby 'community service' with kids, pog_mahone will be first in-line to sign him up for a coaching session on why not to put your foot near another players head!!
Posted 22:44 21st November 2012
rabja795 says...
This has to be a joke! I vividly remember Hartley's fore-arm, Powell's clothes-line, Cooper's knee, and Rougerie's eye-gouge, all on McCaw go unpunished (& uninvestigated) but yet Thomson stupidly taps a guys head when the ball is directly under his head, now they investigate..
The fairness of the voting rights for the IRB needs to be investigated! Remember these same geniuses (from the Home Nations) didn't want a world cup!
Posted 22:14 21st November 2012
rugby_phile says...
Pathetic, I don't care what they call it, but that is appealing against themselves, like a company sueing one of its departments. Its creating headlines and resurrecting a dead story. really you could almost appeal every decision, including Simmons but the other way. And before people object, yes I do support the ABs and yes I do think the original ban was too lenient.
On another matter somebody mentioned Stephen Jones. I stopped reading what that clown writes years ago, if I want to read joke articles, there are much better comedians than him.
Posted 22:10 21st November 2012
hayj05 says...
@pog_mahone - No need...
"I don't care whether it was hard or not; or malicious or not - Strokosch was helpless."
And yet you don't have same opinion on the McCaw incidents? Funny that.
Posted 21:55 21st November 2012
Spartacus says...
1 game ban was a farce, appealing it is a farce, but the biggest farce was that touch judge called it as a yellow in the first place.Consistency please.
Posted 21:54 21st November 2012
kiwilad says...
Pog-mahone, thats a bit harsh old chap, most Kiwis posting on this site have stated the punishment was no where near harsh enough.
Do not Judge an entire race on the rantings of a few lunatics
Posted 21:13 21st November 2012
KiwiJoe says...
The word "integrity" comes up quite alot in this latest hypocritical IRB rant,
shame they don,t practice it themselves, turning a blind eye to far worse offences when it suits them.
To think that so called "coaches" of err, underage players (whatever that means) are dismissing these far worse offences, inferring it is OK for them to eye gouge etc is frightening. You need to see someone in a white coat, and quickly.
Things like this just make the All Blacks more determined, onwards guys.
Posted 21:10 21st November 2012
dangerous says...
Will the IRB appeal decisions made on the field by referees in fairness to the game. What's the point of having a judicial officer if the IRB are going to undermine their decision. By the way who responds to the appeal by the IRB? The IRB? In any case the all blacks won't miss Thomson anyway.
Posted 21:03 21st November 2012
makemehappy says...
@jmanngod - lol - very funny - Biggar one was a red card (as just about any press article suggests - in what way was it legal or safe), there are three others during the game at least that were more dangerous. Or do you think making Halfpenny stagger was funny, or grabbing a Welsh player around the throat with an arm was. Anyone who supports that is pathetic.
I know good tackling. The AB's do it. They cheat in many ways, but don't behave like thugs on the whole.
You need to watch more rugby.
Posted 21:03 21st November 2012
Euskadi says...
I can understand the appeal as I also think that the sanction was lenient although fair given the IRB's own guidelines. However this is the first that I have heard of the IRB appealing their own process, you can only interpret that the other sanctions handed out were in the IRB's view 'fit for the crime'
The only thing consistent about the IRB is their inconsistency
@ Pog - take off the jealousy glasses pal. I was there at Murrayfield, it happened in front of me, I was in the east stand section 16 Row R, plus I have seen the replays, Thompson did not punch him, he grabbed his head gear. You should encourage your players to keep watching the All Blacks, they'll become better and fairer players because of it.
Posted 20:27 21st November 2012
spartan1977 says...
IRB is a bunch of hypocrites. Where are the punishments for the multiple penalties by the Du Plessis brothers? Or the many others by the freakin Boks!!! Especially against McCaw!!! The Boks are the dirtiest playing team in Rugby, but when do they get called for it? Hmmm...
Posted 20:22 21st November 2012
missionary says...
IRB appealing their own decision? Bizarre. The original "sentence" was ridiculous to start with (should been 2 but possibly more for a stupid rather than a malicious act). But the after-match judiciary process is now a farce. And now I'm sure the IRB are fully aware of it. There have been so many incidents in recent years that beggar belief in terms of the crime and punishment. And I know I'm a NZ'er, but it seems that the Blacks get a pretty raw deal at times.
However, you would like to think OUR game (yes, it is all of ours), is not run by hacks like Stephen Jones, or even credible journo's like Mick Cleary - who I think is a great rugby reporter. The Chairman of the IRB should get off Twitter and concentrate on the job. This issue has been exacerbated by undue media influence including the same said media representatives using social media.
I wonder if the IRB reads this website? I bloody hope so.
Posted 20:21 21st November 2012
thermyan says...
To all the kiwi apologists let's say your son is playing rugby on the weekend and a young man from the opposition has seen Thomson trample on a defenceless man`s head, this young man then proceeds to turn your sons face into a jelly sandwich. The commissioner for rugby in your area gives the young man one week. Your son has facial reconstruction, fair? Yes it wasn't that bad this time but its the example that's being set that the irb are fighting not the crime itself (which really should have been four weeks minimum) and with gouging guys yes it should be punished but without evidence it is hard to pin the crime on anyone. A few years ago Brendan cannon got gouged at the bottom of a ruck- bigger bruises than richie- but the culprit never got found so who do you punish? Maybe individual unions need to be held responsible for cases of gouging with blanket fines.
Posted 20:02 21st November 2012
Chubbylugs says...
The only thing wrong with picking an isolated incident to challenge the nonsense disciplinary procedures is you get the one eyed supporter who feels a miscarriage of justice because of incident x
The fact is the whole system is crap and needs fixing, starting with a consistent approach. This should be welcomed, regardless of who. Lets face it he won't be starting for the kiwis anyway so does it matter?
Posted 19:55 21st November 2012
StunTheMullet says...
The IRB had better review the decisions over the whole year starting with Greyling and Higgenbotham.
In fact, why not go back to the non-citings of Gougerie, Hartley and Powell.
Otherwise it justs smells of the usual bias and hypocrisy when the All Blacks are concerned.
Posted 19:42 21st November 2012
mime says...
While I agree that one week wasn't enough for the act, it's not the first time this year that has happened this year.
Love the way they have now decided to pull the 'guardians of world rugby' line, what they really mean is 'scared of NH journilists'.
If they really think there is a problem then sort out the whole damn system, don't jsut piss on the one in place.
Posted 19:34 21st November 2012