In the past week or so we have seen Owen Franks go uncited for what appears to be an eye gouge on Kane Douglas in the Bledisloe Cup. We have also seen Cillian Willis start legal proceedings against former club Sale for alleged clinical negligence over a career ending concussion. Two very different cases about how the game goes off the field but with a common link. The common link is trust.
There has been a huge amount of disbelief over the Franks non-citing. Of course there is. The video here (complete with music to let you know how evil Franks is) looks very much to me like contact was made with the eye and that Franks was looking to do so. I'm not a hundred per cent certain that's a gouge but based on that angle, its reckless contact with the eye area, an offence that usually results in eight or so weeks off.
The magic words in the last sentence though were 'based on that angle'. We've all seen the cameras tell us one thing from one angle and another from another. You'd like to think SANZAR have more camera angles than just two to work with. Maybe on one of them there was clearly no case to answer. Certainly Poite had a fantastic view of the incident (as Kiwi fans keep telling me) and felt no need to even penalise Franks.
Once again though, we've all seen the ref stare directly at a big decision and get it wrong according to the citing committee. As such, I do not trust Poite - or any other ref - to have definitely got that one right. More crucially, I do not trust the SANZAR citing committee.
Why should I? Any rugby fan with a brain has grown wearily accustomed by now to the random nature of the sport's disciplinary process. An offence may garner a ban one week and nothing the next. Complaints of bias and political influence are common place. I say this not to indicate that I believe them but merely to indicate the perceived scale of injustice. Fans often find the calls so bewildering that its easier to believe in conspiracy than it is to believe in incompetence.
If Cillian Willis is to be believed, there's some of that incompetence going around Sale too. According to the BBC report, Willis was twice treated for a head injury in a game with Saracens in March 2013, but was allowed to keep playing.
Given how little we know I'd be hesitant to say Sale have been negligent but in general I support the case. The majority of rugby fans I've talked to have. Again, this is an issue of trust. It is very plausible to us that a professional rugby club have treated an injury with too little caution. There is a never ending litany of stories from the sport of clubs doing so. Often, it should be noted, with the connivance of the players. Players want to play. The buck stops with the club though. It is up to coaches and medical staff to say "You have to come off."
By and large, I don't think fans trust the clubs to do the right thing. Just like they don't trust citing committees to do the right thing. And this is a problem. A lack of trust is corrosive. Sometimes it takes a long time for it to cause problems but usually, sooner or later, it does.
It is up to the various bodies involved whether they want to act on this. Issuing a video of an angle clearing Franks would stop the story dead. Of course, it would introduce a new standard for citing committees where they explain their work properly, with failures to do so being incredibly suspicious, but I think only people on citing committees would see this as a bad thing.
Similarly, Premiership clubs could look at the introduction of independent medical examiners, or just accept that concussion is an issue where erring on the side of caution is safer. Or introduce annual fMRI scans instead of relying on the neurological tests that we all know players cheat. Rugby has improved its stance on concussion but there is a way to go as we can see from this.
Taking such measures would help restore the trust of fans. We will now see whether those involved had any appetite for doing so - or whether they just want to avoid being sued.
No comments:
Post a Comment