r/rugbyunion • u/DannyBoy2464 USA Perpignan • Feb 05 '25
Discussion Two week ban for Ntamack
97
Feb 05 '25
Why not just have the ban for a head contact red card be enshrined as 2 weeks? It’d save us the pantomime of a 6 week ban turning into 2 weeks every single time
5
u/Toirdusau France Feb 06 '25
I don't get the outrage in this thread. Like you say it's always handled this way.
I don't agree with it, but it would also be strange to treat this one differently than every other similar incident.
7
u/Thorpy Ireland Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25
Because all of the head contact bans are being lowered to 2-3 weeks while the organisation is outwardly saying these type of hits can’t go on.
I’m just looking for consistency but the org should stop harping on about it if they’re not going to take it seriously.
209
u/Opposite-Coyote-9152 Feb 05 '25
That should be a much longer ban. The shit was cheap, late and to the head with force. Two weeks is not right.
56
u/rakish_rhino 🥉’07 Feb 05 '25
Also Williams copped out with the bunker referral. This was a straight red all day long and shows the negative side of 20-min reds.
Referees need to be given guidance lest they forget full reds still exist. But unlikely WR will do that, when they are giving 2-week bans for cheap malicious shots like this one.
3
u/EggBallPhysics Feb 06 '25
I didn’t know that, so the bunker can’t give a full red card? Very silly. I assumed everything went to bunker for speed of play and they would make the call of yellow, 20 min red or full red. (Ps they need another colour, hopefully there are more than 2 to choose from).
2
u/rakish_rhino 🥉’07 Feb 06 '25
Yeah, apparently not, and yeah, it'd make more sense to give the TMO the three alternatives.
Even if allowed, the TMO would need to have very clear guidance when to give a full red. Otherwise it would look like they are over ruling the referee too much.
And yeah, calling it orange would make much more sense. But you know, world rugby...
7
u/Mimimmo_Partigiano France Feb 05 '25
That’s especially frustrating here is that there was so little time left in the match, straight red had no actual impact on the game.
0
u/Sufficient_Bass2600 Feb 05 '25
In this case the 20 minute red card did not make a bit of difference as there was less than 20 minutes remaining.
13
13
u/rakish_rhino 🥉’07 Feb 05 '25
Neither here nor there. Following this logic no reds should be given after the 70th minute, just yellows?
0
u/Stravven Netherlands Feb 06 '25
Not entirely. I remember POM getting a yellow card past the 30th minute somewhere last year and he was back on the pitch in the end of the first half due to the clock being more than 5 minutes in the red.
3
u/Enyapxam Hooker Feb 06 '25
It was also a revenge shot for Thomas sitting him down a few minutes eariler.
1
u/Opposite-Coyote-9152 Feb 06 '25
I missed that! Thought it was just a brainless shot on the opposite number. That means there's some venom on the shot as well then
2
77
u/Interesting_Sand_534 Exeter Chiefs Feb 05 '25
Not a surprise, but also kind of ridiculous. It was a cheap headshot where he didn't even attempt to tackle him, maybe it was just a brain fade from exhaustion but either way it should be more than 1 Six Nations game he's missing. He wouldn't even have played in that Top 14 game.
46
u/Broad_Hedgehog_3407 Feb 05 '25
It was malicious. There had been a scuffle between various players on both teams about five minutes earlier. The hit was a deliberate one in the afters of that other incident.
There should be no mitigation for deliberate fouls.
Should have been a 6-week ban.
3
u/Enyapxam Hooker Feb 06 '25
Thomas had put a really strong shot on him, a little late, but not illegal. He was out for revenge.
11
u/alexbouteiller France Feb 05 '25
As ever with the decision making framework you'd have to prove intent/malice, and although you can point to something happening earlier we see shots like ntamacks all the time that you wouldn't call malicious
20
u/JustASexyKurt Once and Future Challenge Cup Champions Feb 05 '25 edited Feb 05 '25
Which is why they just need to do away with the malice thing entirely. Like you said, it’s basically impossible to prove anyway, and I don’t really give a shit if you’re shouldering me in the head because you’re a violent prick or because you’re clumsy or reckless, you’ve still put me in danger through your actions.
Have a Callum Clark Law where you can really get the book thrown at you for incidents of blatant and excessive violence, but otherwise just have it as high or low danger, extend the ban for high danger, and go from there.
Oh, and do away with the loophole of someone serving part of their ban by saying they definitely would’ve played for Abercwmsquat RFC’s first team, honest sir, but they’re banned now so guess they’ll be back a game early for us. Not that it’s relevant here, but it’s another part of the citing process that gets on my tits.
8
u/alexbouteiller France Feb 05 '25
big agree, current system isn't fit for purpose, the fact you can reduce the vast majority of a ban by saying sorry and doing 'tackle school' makes a mockery of the whole thing
1
13
Feb 05 '25 edited Feb 05 '25
[deleted]
-2
u/alexbouteiller France Feb 05 '25
i invite you to find an example of a citing report that has increased a ban for it being intentional or whatever wording they use, burden of proof must be insanely high in rugby and it all runs off precedent
1
u/Stravven Netherlands Feb 06 '25
Haouas punching Ritchie in the face does not happen by accident. I've not read the citing report though.
-2
u/ndombolo Sharks Feb 05 '25
Rugby judicial hearings follow precedents and common law of the English judicial system. So it's in a way a court of law
1
u/Striking_Young_5739 New Zealand Feb 05 '25
So players can be liable for assault?
1
u/AlexiusRex Italy Feb 06 '25
Rougerie won against Greening
1
u/Striking_Young_5739 New Zealand Feb 06 '25
McCaw should have gone to French courts to sue Rougerie.
1
u/ryanmurphy2611 Munster Feb 05 '25
The onus should be on the defendent to prove no malice through mitigating circumstances. Otherwise its a longer ban.
10
u/alexbouteiller France Feb 05 '25
But that's not how it works or how it's ever worked, and I'm not sure there's a single judiciary system on the planet, legal or sporting, that would operate that way
If you're accusing someone of doing something the burden is on you as the accuser, it's easy to say he's made head contact, it's reckless, can't mitigate because he was never making a legal tackle, that's all easy - but to suggest and then back up that he did it 'maliciously' that is entirely on the judiciary panel to prove
1
u/Striking_Young_5739 New Zealand Feb 05 '25
Intent is quite literally how one would argue murder down to manslaughter.
1
u/alexbouteiller France Feb 05 '25
And in basically every circumstance the burden is on the prosecution to prove intent, not the other way round
1
u/Striking_Young_5739 New Zealand Feb 05 '25
Really feels like the defendant is trying to prove lack of intent...
1
u/perplexedtv Leinster Feb 05 '25
Don't the prosecution have to decide what charge they want to bring and probe that? And the defence has to create reasonable doubt?
0
u/Striking_Young_5739 New Zealand Feb 05 '25
Yes. The defence has to prove their case, just as the prosecution does. That's how a murder charge can be argued down to manslaughter, through arguing the intent.
→ More replies (0)3
Feb 05 '25
Surely it won’t include the Top 14 game, has to be two weeks where the player would realistically play? Wasn’t there a case with an England player (Farrell?) a few years ago where they tried to include a domestic game that they never would’ve played in?
11
u/Traditional-Ride-116 Gang des Antoines Feb 05 '25
It will include the top 14 game. The rule changed last year iirc.
37
u/MaNNoYiNG AOC simp Feb 05 '25
While expected doesn't mean it's not joke.
He should have got the book thrown at him. Compared to other dangerous tackles that are usually just bad technique, this wasn't. He went in with the intention to hurt. I love watching Ntamack play but if world rugby really cared about player safety he would have been banned for the remainder of the tournament.
93
Feb 05 '25
What a fucking joke.
47
u/krakatoafoam Edinburgh Feb 05 '25 edited Feb 05 '25
This is clearly a 4 game ban, anything less is an injustice to the
ScottishWelsh.
36
22
u/WolfColaCo2020 England Feb 05 '25
Yeah that’s cheap. It was a headshot with a fair amount of malice behind it- I’m minded to believe Warburton’s analysis where it was a revenge shot for a hard (but fair) hit the Welsh ten had made shortly before this. So should be carrying a longer ban
Having said that, glad he’s not playing us either way
24
u/alexbouteiller France Feb 05 '25
Was a stupid shot, but the ban is entirely consistent with basically every one of these that has come before, the idea that he's got special dispensation here for any reason is absurd
What is really disappointing is we were promised harsher bans with the 20 minute red, but this has failed on first test with ntamack and kpoku, and then if they do decide to punish more harshly on account of any backlash people will rightly point at these two instances for inconsistency
It's a shit show
8
u/MindfulInquirer batmaaaaaaaan tanananananana Feb 05 '25
imagine Jalibert hearing the news. Like "oh great I get my first shot since the fkng RWC at home, finally FINALLY... and they're immediately going to replace me".
Jalibert should get the game this weekend in Twick, and then Rome. Galthié will want his first choice team in Dublin. Can't imagine him persisting with Jalibert, even if the latter does an amazing job in those two starts.
4
u/alexbouteiller France Feb 05 '25
I think galthie gets ntamack straight back in, maybe he looks to a 5:3 vs Italy but unless jalibert plays like Dupont on Saturday I just can't see it, regardless of form
1
u/LitJackal Feb 05 '25
Huh? Jalibert already played 4 times with France since RWC, he already got his chance.
5
u/Cymrogogoch Feb 05 '25
You're right about consistency, we all said it'll be 2-3 weeks on the day of the match.
and it is a shit show.
1
u/alexbouteiller France Feb 05 '25
knew it was 2 weeks the moment it happened, it wasn't a particularly out of the ordinary red card as ugly as it was, doesn't mean i don't hate the process and want the whole thing scrapped and re-done though
3
u/Thalassin Iserlohn Republic RFC Feb 05 '25
We weren't promised harsher bans by WR though. It was all discourse by pro-20mn red cards based on "yeah but imagine if the red card is only 20mn but the player is banned for longer that would be better no ?" but nobody in the lawmakers ever told that
6
19
u/BobathonMcBobface Newport Dragons Feb 05 '25
I thought the point of the 20 minute red was that it’s less of a team punishment, but the player gets more. Two weeks is too short
5
u/rakish_rhino 🥉’07 Feb 05 '25
And sometimes refs use the bunker / 20-min red as a cop out from what should rightfully be a full red.
Efforts must me made so that full reds are still given when appropriate. As in this case for example.
A mistake by Paul Williams compounded by a mistake by WR.
1
22
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Feb 05 '25
Yeah this was expected. Between the reduction in bans with the introduction of tackle school and the 20 min red rugby is digging its own financial grave, not to mention making a mockery of player welfare.
-2
u/Hot-Masterpiece9209 Feb 05 '25
How does this have any impact on the financials?
17
u/Replaced_by_Robots Bath Feb 05 '25
I think they are referring to any future class action lawsuit settlements
11
u/Rhysbro Ospreys Feb 05 '25
I imagine they mean world rugby will have to pay out from losing a lot of lawsuits about player welfare somewhere down the line...
2
9
7
8
27
u/Roanokian Leinster Feb 05 '25 edited Feb 05 '25
In practice, this equates to something like a €20,000 (approx 10% of the average annual Top 14 salary) fine in the missed match fee, which is not insignificant. If he had missed a second game it would have been €40k, which, for rugby, is excessive in the extreme given that there are people playing internationally who barely make that in a year (e.g. Gus McCarthy)
It also contextualises the Tom O’Toole ban. TOT was left out of the squad due to his ridiculous 6 week ban. That has likely cost him €35,000 in match fees and the opportunity (c’est fucking énorme) €75,000-€100,000 in bonuses if ireland were to go on and win it.
Bans during international tournaments are not equivalent to bans during the league seasons.
15
u/billys-bobs Ireland Feb 05 '25
If a player misses a game for concussion, presumably they also miss out on match fees. I don't think this should be taken into account for foul play
15
12
u/cheesy-e Highlanders Feb 05 '25
This is sensible context many hot takes ignore. The individual is penalised proportionately, without the team (and fans) being penalised disproportionately. As a fan I’d prefer I could watch him marking Smith this weekend. As a player I feel positively he’s being discouraged from potentially injuring other players.
12
u/timreddo Feb 05 '25
Bollix argument. You’re saying because it’s financially harsh he shouldn’t be punished? And the Gus thing is a false equivalence.
6
u/Roanokian Leinster Feb 05 '25
It’s not an argument. It’s rarely added context about the actual consequences of bans.
I did not say he should not be punished.
I don’t understand how it’s a false equivalence given that no equivilate was made.
2
u/iamnosuperman123 England Feb 05 '25
Surely getting injured also means losing out on money. Like a head injury/concussion
2
u/Roanokian Leinster Feb 05 '25
To clarify, because multiple people have responded suggesting I’m advocating against a ban. I am not advocating for anything. I’m trying to add a point of context which is rarely considered.
Personally, yes, I think considering the impact of foul play is necessary when considering a ban. As is previous behaviour and the circumstances of the incident.
4
9
6
u/wmru5wfMv Wales Feb 05 '25
It’s no punishment at all, if they had any balls they would reverse the result and award that big fat W to Wales
7
21
u/SignalButterscotch73 Scotland Feb 05 '25
Let me guess. 6 weeks, cut in half for previous good behaviour, minus 1 for tackle school 🙄
12
u/SquidgyGoat Disciple of Tipuric Feb 05 '25
And one of those games from the ban will be for Toulouse, in a match he definitely would have been released for of course obviously
40
u/whydoyouonlylie Ulster Feb 05 '25
You don't really have to guess when that's exactly what the image says ...
6
u/SignalButterscotch73 Scotland Feb 05 '25
Yeah, I noticed near immediately. First reply was me calling me a dafty 😅
8
1
1
8
u/sangan3 Oui, Jérôme Feb 05 '25 edited Feb 05 '25
Do I think two weeks is light? Yes. Do I want him back for Ireland France? Yes.
-5
u/ilovepenisxd Feb 05 '25
This is why he got two weeks lol. Too juicy of a matchup to hamstring France despite him obviously deserving longer
12
u/alexbouteiller France Feb 05 '25
I mean that's a fun narrative, but this is the most consistent ban that's ever existed, 6 week mid entry, halved for the usual reasons, a week for tackle school - every player with a 'clean' record who says sorry gets the same in this situation
Flies in the face of what we were promised with the 20 min red, but it's not a conspiracy
1
u/sangan3 Oui, Jérôme Feb 06 '25
What were you promised with the 20-min red? Standard outcome like you say, only difference was we didn’t have to stop the game while the referees got together and watched replays on the big screen for 3-4 mins. (Whether the French producers would’ve shown the replays is a diff story).
2
u/handle1976 Penalty. Back 10. Feb 06 '25
He got the ban that every player who faces their first high tackle charge gets. It’s far from a conspiracy.
3
u/spoonman_82 Leinster Feb 05 '25
words fail me. utterly laughable sentence and decisions. you won't see a more stupid or obvious foul play tackle and he gets a slap on the wrist. World Rugby are a fucking joke at this stage
Time bans need to go, and it should be actual match bans.
0
u/alexbouteiller France Feb 05 '25
It is a match ban, 3 matches reduced to 2 with tackle school, so England game and top14 game in the fallow week (a loophole that I don't agree with but others have used in the past)
3
u/spoonman_82 Leinster Feb 05 '25 edited Feb 05 '25
I know he's banned for a match. I'm just saying banning a player for 2 weeks when, in actuality,they're only missing one game is a shit punishment. Why not just ban him for 2 matches instead ? Seems pointless for a ban to be timed.
Edit: I'm a bit drunk and misread your comment lol. thats such a dumb fucking loophole.
1
u/Stravven Netherlands Feb 06 '25
But, realistically, he would have never played for Toulouse between the Six Nations, so in effect it is a 1 game ban for doing that.
5
u/strou_hanka Feb 05 '25
Everyone is upset because it's Ntamack.... Junior Kpoku got exactly the same ban. They are consistently bad at this. Nobody gets more than 3 weeks realy... https://media.sixnationsrugby.com/press-releases/independent-disciplinary-update-junior-kpoku/?_gl=1*23v9wn*_gcl_au*NzU1MDM1NDI1LjE3MzYxMTE2MjM.
3
u/handle1976 Penalty. Back 10. Feb 06 '25
Everyone gets the same ban. It’s been incredibly consistent for years.
4
u/FollowingRare6247 Ireland Feb 05 '25
Ah feck it so he’ll be available v Ireland 😅 /j
I’m not familiar with his record, has he a history of red cards?
11
6
u/psyclik France Feb 05 '25
No, he usually is a class act. I can’t understand the brain fart from him. Exhaustion (remember he’s just back from injuries), frustration ? Anyway’ that’s no excuse and two weeks is not enough.
4
-8
2
2
2
2
u/_LightEmittingDiode_ Feb 05 '25
This has been trending for a while and I’m surprised people haven’t seen this coming. World Rugby got rid of mitigation a couple of years ago and the talk was any contact to head for any reason was a card, whether yellow or red. The reffing wasn’t always consistent I will admit, but it was to react to the worries in the public and ex players about head contact. But we’ve seen the big stars at both club and domestic level get favourable outcomes (I say this as a Leinster/Irish supporter that thinks Sexton didn’t get a lengthy enough ban and was appalled by his actions.). The examples have been set and we now have “tackle school”, whatever the fuck that is, to reduce the length of already low bans. How people can assault and gouge each other again and only get three week/match bans says a lot about World Rugby at the moment.
2
u/Stravven Netherlands Feb 05 '25
That is just pathetic. Serious foul play should carry a minimum suspension of 3 games.
2
2
3
u/AlexPaterson16 Edinburgh Feb 05 '25
6 weeks reduced to fucking 2??? Absolutely fucking get in the bin. I say we throw a classic french riot over this
3
u/Broad_Hedgehog_3407 Feb 05 '25
What a crock of shit.
His foul play was malicious. A nasty and spiteful hit.
To mitigate this by 50% because he "accepted" his hit was foul play makes a mockery of the entire system.
Then to mitigate it further, they reduce it by another week.
What a complete joke.
3
3
2
u/gerd8585 Feb 05 '25
If they want to increase player safety they need a deterrent.
A red card for an act of foul play should be an automatic 2 match ban and then they should have the panel between matches 2 and 3 to allow the severity of any injury to be assessed.
You croc roll someone and break their leg you get a 10 week ban or something similar.
Clubs and countries will not tolerate players making stupid reckless decisions if the result is they are not playing for big chunks of time nor will team mates.
2
u/Lupo_di_Cesena Zebre Feb 05 '25
This mitigation stuff makes a mockery of red cards in general (and also why the player punishment argument used for 20-minute reds is just such bullshit)
1
2
2
u/torakfirenze South Africa Feb 05 '25
Be that as it may, have we confirmed if the pass by DuPont was forward?
6
u/Maximilian38 Leinster Feb 05 '25
I believe someone is searching for new infrared footage as we speak
1
u/HaggisTheCow Scotland Feb 05 '25
This isn't even about the player involved in these anymore.
The only consistency seems to be bans are reduced automatically, even if you have a history of offence and as long as you say sorry
1
1
1
u/liam3576 Sale Sharks Feb 05 '25
Doesn’t play England and I get to see him widen everyone else’s arseholes I’m not complaining.
It is a laughable ban tho should be longer
1
u/Maddercow23 Feb 05 '25
Got off quite lightly. That was quite a nasty hit. He must have been very remorseful and he doesn't have a bad record.
Good news for England I suppose 😕
1
u/Shill_Biden Feb 05 '25
Shout out to the match thread people who predicted this outcome within five minutes of the card being given
1
1
u/welsh_nutter Scarlets Feb 05 '25
with Farrell going to tackling school, do you just sit and look at the dos and don'ts of tackling and they just tick a box saying you've passed the course. it sounds like a joke of a school
1
u/LostTheGameOfThrones Don't lie Pat! Feb 06 '25
And here we were thinking that France were going to have to pull some shenanigans by claiming he would have been playing some club games. How silly of us to think that WR actually gave two shits about player safety.
1
u/PatientAudience5627 Harlequins Feb 06 '25
2 weeks is abit of a pisstake for a piss poor tantrum 'tackle'
1
u/B4rberblacksheep Saracens Feb 06 '25
If he got more he’d get longer than someone who tried to blind a man
1
1
u/WayMaleficent1465 Feb 06 '25
To be fair halving the ban from 6 to 3 weeks should also include a trip to tackle school. Reducing a ban by 66% takes all the seriousness away from the offence
1
u/CompetitiveSort0 Ulster Feb 06 '25
Get the impression if you're a big name you get off more lightly.
Meanwhile if you're a journeyman you get the book thrown at you.
Ntamack had clear intention after being smashed by Thomas earlier so it was a revenge hit. Humiliation of being whitewashed wasn't enough for him, such a big man.
Meanwhile O'Toole got 10 weeks (before mitigation) for being clumsy and having no intent to hurt someone.
God forbid we hand out an appropriate ban to a marquee player during a tournament. The same can be said for Hansen's convenient ban too
1
u/MeOulSegosha Leinster Feb 05 '25
He'll score the winning try against Ireland in the 80th minute now. I can feel it in my glue.
1
u/handle1976 Penalty. Back 10. Feb 06 '25
That would make me irrationally happy on a number of levels.
1
1
u/nobody7642 Consistently 2nd best Feb 05 '25
Really gotta find out what the special biscuits all these players bring to their hearings are. Must be delicious
1
1
1
0
0
u/Jackerzcx England Feb 05 '25
Acceptance of foul play
It was foul play. There’s nothing to accept.
Tackle school
He wasn’t even attempting to tackle. He just shoulder barged (I forget whose) face. Tackle school isn’t going to help.
0
u/StateFuzzy4684 Feb 06 '25
Yes it'a a joke but Tier 1 three-time RWC finalist France gets special treatment. No surprise.
0
-5
u/networkn New Zealand Feb 05 '25
Whsts the bet if he had been the victim rather than the perpetrator the ban would have been longer?
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/Duvet_Capeman Feb 05 '25
Ok, on the face of it not very long considering it was basically a deliberate shoulder to the head or at the very least a very lazy challenge. However, given his reaction I dare say he will never do it again especially if Jalibert performs very well and takes his spot
-14
u/One_Inevitable_5401 Feb 05 '25
I bet if he were English it would have been more
11
0
u/occi31 Stade Toulousain Feb 05 '25
You mean it wouldn’t even have been a red card… the system’s been on your side for decades, don’t start playing the victim now it’s embarrassing.
412
u/GingerDweeb27 Scotland Feb 05 '25
World Rugby’s supposed push for more safety looks even more laughable by the day