Tuilagi ban reduced for taking irrelevant course

[Rich_NL]

Sale's Tuilagi banned for at least three games

The England centre Manu Tuilagi receives a four-week ban for foul play, but could still feature in the Six Nations.

www.bbc.com

Manu Tuilagi was sent off at the weekend for "fending" a defender off with a forearm/elbow straight to the face. Clear red, no argument. He has previous, so 6 weeks, down two for pleading guilty and apologising...

... and an extra week off as long as he attends a tackle course?

Is it that obviously and cynically just to have him back on the pitch in time for the last 6 Nations match?

 

[chbg]

I suspect that the commonly-used course name is not entirely accurate as to the content.

 

[crossref]

I suspect that the commonly-used course name is not entirely accurate as to the content.

This seems to be it

World Rugby Coaching Intervention Programme changing tackle behaviour | World Rugby

World Rugby’s Coaching Intervention Programme has been adopted into regulation after an initial global pilot successfully demonstrated positive player and coach behaviour change.

www.world.rugby

 

[SimonSmith]

Sale's Tuilagi banned for at least three games

The England centre Manu Tuilagi receives a four-week ban for foul play, but could still feature in the Six Nations.

www.bbc.com

Manu Tuilagi was sent off at the weekend for "fending" a defender off with a forearm/elbow straight to the face. Clear red, no argument. He has previous, so 6 weeks, down two for pleading guilty and apologising...

... and an extra week off as long as he attends a tackle course?

Is it that obviously and cynically just to have him back on the pitch in time for the last 6 Nations match?

It isn't to get him back for the 6N.
It's for World Rugby to enable The Product to be as available as possible on the field.

He's been a professional player for how long? And been coached for how long by 'Elite' coaches. So he gets a week off his sentence for...more coaching.

It's a farce.

 

[crossref]

I dunno perhaps WR wanted every single player to take the course, but was unable to mandate it, and almost no player will volunteer...

So they are doing the one thing they can do .. make sure that at everyone who gets a RC goes on the course

The way RC are handed out nowadays it won't be long until a large proportion of players have been on it

 

[Rich_NL]

This seems to be it

World Rugby Coaching Intervention Programme changing tackle behaviour | World Rugby

World Rugby’s Coaching Intervention Programme has been adopted into regulation after an initial global pilot successfully demonstrated positive player and coach behaviour change.

www.world.rugby

"Under the programme, any player in elite rugby around the world* who has been sanctioned for the first time by a disciplinary panel for foul play involving contact with the head may apply to substitute the final week/match of their sanction for a coaching intervention"

Fair enough

And yet, at 32 years of age, "don't elbow people in the face" shouldn't be something he hears for the first time...

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

..BTEC Media Studies?

 

[BikingBud]

Couldn't see as I skimmed the link but how long is the programme?

Why is it a reactive intervention?

Why not proactive?

Elite players are full time professionals, get them all on the course and then when the incidents occur a more appropriate sanction can be applied.

For kids it might be appropriate but for professional players, continually advising them of the laws and how they are expected to behave does not indicate a system that wants the players to take responsiblity for their own actions.

 

[crossref]

Couldn't see as I skimmed the link but how long is the programme?

Why is it a reactive intervention?

Why not proactive?

Elite players are full time professionals, get them all on the course and then when the incidents occur a more appropriate sanction can be applied.

For kids it might be appropriate but for professional players, continually advising them of the laws and how they are expected to behave does not indicate a system that wants the players to take responsiblity for their own actions.

maybe WR would like it to be mandatory, but don't have the power to enforce that, and those who could enforce it (employers of players) all said 'nah, seems like a waste of time to me -- just a device to impose longer sanctions'

 

[didds]

For kids it might be appropriate but for professional players, continually advising them of the laws and how they are expected to behave does not indicate a system that wants the players to take responsiblity for their own actions.

aye.
Its rather like sending professional drivers (ie those that drive as part of their job) in a speed awareness course.
If you are that ignorant of the law and don't take professional steps towards keeping to it (eg a satnav that bleeps at you when you exceed the speed limit - ive got several on my phone!) that suggests an issue... etc
merely an example. Many other jobs will have similar analogies I am sure.

 

[Rich_NL]

WR could have said there's no reduction allowed (or e.g. a 3-week penalty) for players who *haven't* completed the course, and left it to teams who want to take the risk

 

[Volun-selected]

Do they just get this as a one off? So if/when they get another red this option is no longer available?

Or is there another course they can trot out?

 

[crossref]

Do they just get this as a one off? So if/when they get another red this option is no longer available?

Or is there another course they can trot out?

it's a one off reduction

 

[BikingBud]

Do they just get this as a one off? So if/when they get another red this option is no longer available?

Or is there another course they can trot out?

If you're in front of the beak again any expectation or consideration of mitigation or tugging your forelock should be wholly scorned upon. There should be an increase in sentence as clearly that haven't demonstrated good behaviour.

If they refuse the training then no mitigation for accepting to do it after being cited.

Seems fair and just.

 

[menace]

nevermind - next year in RFU land it will be 1 week less for taking the course "Anatomy101 - Know your ass, waist and sternum from your elbow"

(too soon?)

 

[crossref]

If you're in front of the beak again any expectation or consideration of mitigation or tugging your forelock should be wholly scorned upon. There should be an increase in sentence as clearly that haven't demonstrated good behaviour.

If they refuse the training then no mitigation for accepting to do it after being cited.

Seems fair and just.

They do have that, repeated offending is an aggravating factor

 

[BikingBud]

maybe WR would like it to be mandatory, but don't have the power to enforce that, and those who could enforce it (employers of players) all said 'nah, seems like a waste of time to me -- just a device to impose longer sanctions'

Bizarre thought. Not a device to modify dangerous behaviour?

They do have that, repeated offending is an aggravating factor

Not quite sure you got my message:
They're given mitigation but are refusing to do the training, why

If they haven't done the training in the first place fine but there can be no claim for reduction of sentence as clearly they have not taken all reasonable measures to prevent it happening.

As @Rich_NL mentions it is up to the clubs to manage the risk but the focus has to come onto correcting/eradicating dangerous play.

Do the training get cited and haven't learnt from training get normal sentence,

Don't do the training get cited lack of training becomes aggravating factor take a longer ban

 

[crossref]

Yes.

By all accounts the course is effective in improving tackle techniques

My guess is that WR would like every elite player to do the course .. but for whatever reason have not been able to mandate it

But as to why the players, and the players employers don't all sign up voluntarily to do the course, and thereby improve tackle techniques, reduce RC and make the game safer I can only speculate? Any ideas?

Perhaps it's as simple as the amount it would cost

 

[BikingBud]

Yes.

By all accounts the course is effective in improving tackle techniques

My guess is that WR would like every elite player to do the course .. but for whatever reason have not been able to mandate it

But as to why the players, and the players employers don't all sign up voluntarily to do the course, and thereby improve tackle techniques, reduce RC and make the game safer I can only speculate? Any ideas?

Perhaps it's as simple as the amount it would cost

Because the sanctions process is weak and it needs leadership to address it.

Do the training get cited and haven't learnt from training get normal sentence,

Don't do the training get cited lack of training becomes aggravating factor take a longer ban

 

[crossref]

Could be, yes.

But one might hope that everyone would want safer tackling and therefore would want every player to go on the course, regardless of the sanction regime ..