Writing in The Guardian, Paul Rees mulls over the dilemma facing the IRB over Perpignan hooker Maruis Tincu's appearances while banned.
"The Tincu case has more profound implications for the IRB and its sub-committee already has a draw full of bulging files as it battles to maintain the system that means a player's ban covers all tournaments, not merely the one he was sent off in or cited.
"A problem with that is if a player is sent off playing for his country, his club suffers, and vice versa; a punishment should principally hit a player. Martin Corry was this week cited for alleged eye-gouging during Leicester's defeat at Ospreys last weekend: if found guilty, he would face a long ban, but anything less than nine weeks would see him free to play in the Tigers' next Heineken Cup match.
"Football's model is fairer and more logical, although punishments for drug offences are uniform. Rugby's disciplinary code was drawn up in the amateur era but livelihoods are now an issue. Whereas suspensions in football only exceed three matches in exceptional cases, bans in rugby are often measured in months, but when did soccer last have an eye-gouging case?"
RSS feed
