Top 14: IRB to investigate
Tincu affair after Perpignan hooker is cleared to play in
France
29 December 2008
The
International Rugby Board (IRB) has been dragged into the
ongoing Marius Tincu affair after his club Perpignan allowed
the Romanian hooker to play against Castres last week.
The
Catalans included Tincu for the Top 14 match despite the
player being suspended until March 9 by an earlier
disciplinary committee of the ERC. That 18-week ban stemmed
from an alleged eye-gouging offence against the Ospreys in a
Heineken Cup clash in October.
The
original punishment was upheld on appeal and Tincu was
subsequently sidelined from all rugby, with France’s Ligue
Nationale de Rugby (LNR) confirming the ban included Top 14
matches.
However,
Perpignan have backed their player’s claims of innocence
throughout and even threatened to withdraw from the Heineken
Cup over the matter. They say Tincu was punished without
concrete evidence and vowed to pursue the case through the
civil courts if necessary.
Before
that they made a representation to the Comite National
Olympique et Sportif Francais (CNOSF), claiming that Tincu
should not be banned from playing in the domestic French
league for an offence committed while playing in the
Heineken Cup.
Somewhat
surprisingly the
CNOSF agreed with the club
and said Tincu should be free to play in Top 14 league
matches, a decision which was then ratified by the LNR last
week.
“This
decision marks the first step in affirming the primacy of
French law over all other considerations within the
framework of the course of disciplinary proceedings,”
confirmed an LNR statement.
That
paved the way for Tincu to return to playing action, which
he did against Castres less than 48 hours later.
But it
now seems the IRB is less than impressed by the ERC’s ban –
which was not due to end until March 9 – being overruled.
It has
asked the Federation Francaise de Rugby (FFR) to make a
complete presentation of the chronology of the Tincu affair,
with all relative paperwork and procedures. It will then
decide on an appropriate course of action once in receipt of
the full facts.
An IRB
statement confirmed: "The universal application of sanctions
is a key element of the rugby specific sanctioning regime
developed to cater for the unique characteristics of the
sport and remains in operation under IRB and rugby
regulations worldwide."
Meanwhile, an article in British newspaper
The Sunday Times has questioned whether the act of
eye-gouging is on the rise in professional rugby, and
although it says the problem appears more prevalent in
France it also confirms that the Guinness Premiership is not
immune.
It
highlights that England squad player Dylan Hartley was given
a six-month ban for the offence while playing for
Northampton against Wasps. Fijian international Seru Rabeni
was also banned for 14 weeks in April for a similar offence
while playing for Leicester against Saracens, and most
recently Northampton’s Neil Best was banned for 18 weeks for
an attack on the eye of Wasps’ James Haskell in October.
RFU
disciplinary officer Judge Jeff Blackett presided over the
Tincu hearing and said it was impossible to back Perpignan’s
claims of their players’ innocence.
“To say,
as Perpignan have said, that there wasn’t a shred of
evidence is absolute nonsense. First, there was clearly an
injury to the eye of the Ospreys prop Paul James. He reacted
by punching Tincu and flooring him.
“The
video evidence effectively showed the punch. Now it was
clear something went on before this and the evidence we
heard was that James felt a finger in his eye, pushing. He
called it gouging.
“He felt
someone gouging his eye and he grabbed hold of the hand that
was gouging him and he clung on for dear life to the hand.
When everything had dispersed, the hand belonged to Tincu
and he punched him. Tincu said he didn’t do it. So the
direct evidence we had was James saying he did it, Tincu
saying he didn’t.
“We also
had the evidence of the eye, which was real and according to
objective medical opinion had been caused by a hand or nail,
and we also had the evidence that James had reported the
eye-gouging to the referee during the match.
“The
French made much of the fact that Tincu was wearing gloves,
something that James couldn’t remember. We had to decide on
the balance of probability and we believed James to be an
honest witness. We were convinced that it was Tincu who did
it,” he said.
Former
England international Jeff Probyn, who was on the same
disciplinary panel, said it was widespread throughout rugby.
“In relation to gouging, I wouldn’t say the French are any
worse that any other nations. I played games against the
Welsh, who stuck fingers in my eyes, the Irish, the
Scottish, the English at club level, and I think you want to
be careful.
“A slight jab in the eye
can cause less damage than a fractured cheekbone or a broken
jaw. The reality is that it’s a side of rugby that has
happened in the past and will continue to happen in the
future.”
|
