Chris Ashton has received a 10 week ban for eye gouging, or in the official lingo “making contact with the eye(s) and/or eye area”. The decision has, to put it lightly, caused a fair amount of debate on social media about whether it is harsh, or even lenient.
To get opinion out of the way early and to give some context to this article, I think it’s harsh – but please read on before you judge that opinion. He will miss the entire Six Nations for what amounts to a poorly judged – and certainly illegal, there’s no doubting that – bit of play, in which he tries to drag Luke Marshall to the floor initially by the chest and shoulders, before riding up to the head.
Did Ashton make contact with the eye area? Yes, he did. Did he mean to? No, not at all. Does that mean that he doesn’t deserve punishment? Of course not – it was a clumsy and potentially dangerous piece of play. Are you fed up of these rhetorical questions? Me too – let’s move on.
The issue comes in the rigidity of the citing procedure and the ban eventually handed down. Ashton’s offence was deemed to be at the low end of the spectrum, which carries a 12 week ban. This was imposed, another week was added as a deterrent (is there anyone out there still running around that thinks gouging is a good idea?), before three weeks were taken off due to his “good character and good conduct at the hearing”.
A quick tangent – pretty much every single disciplinary decision sees time knocked off for conduct and behaviour at the hearing. As far as I can make out this amounts to providing the biscuits, and getting an extra week off if they’ve got chocolate on them. Seriously though, do any players really walk into these things on anything other than best behaviour?
Back to Ashton though. Gouging was rightly cracked down upon in 2009 after the horrific Schalk Burger incident on the Lions tour. But that Burger incident, and Josua Raisuque’s last week, are not in the same league as Ashton’s, and yet they are judged by the same yardstick.
Bans for contact to the eye area can be anything from 12 weeks to 208 weeks – but if you’re going to have such a monumentally massive range of possible ban (the “top end” of the spectrum ranges from 24 to 208 weeks), why even bother with such a rigid lower limit of 12 weeks?
A little while ago, Matthew Rees was banned for seven weeks – reduced from 12 – for stamping on the face of Nick Easter. Rees’s offence was deemed to be at the top end of “stamping/trampling on an opponent”, which carries a sanction of nine to 52 weeks. The disciplinary officer selected 12, before reducing it to seven for a guilty plea. Rees’s stamp was to the face and eye area, a fact that does not seem to have been taken into account in the proceedings.
The lengths of these bans inherently imply that Ashton’s incident was worse than Rees’s when it clearly wasn’t. But because of the rigidity of the procedure, the disciplinary officer’s hands are tied – he has to start at a 12 week entry point.
The Saracens winger also pleaded not guilty, and because of this, his ban was not reduced. Raisuque pleaded guilty to his own gauging offence a week ago, and saw his ban duly reduced by a third. Raisuque’s was a much worse incident in which he deliberately put his fingers in a player’s eyes – admitted by the man himself.
In the end Ashton is deserving of a ban but when compared to recent incidents this one makes no sense. There is no nuance or consistency to the disciplinary procedure (as we saw time and again at the World Cup), no room for common sense to be applied, and that is what grates here.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
33 replies on “Ashton’s ban highlights inflexibility of disciplinary procedures”
“As far as I can make out this amounts to providing the biscuits, and getting an extra week off if they’ve got chocolate on them” 🙂
Agree partially – accidental contact with the eyes, through a clumsy tackle, must be seen as just that, surely, an accident that requires a penalty to be awarded to the other side, as with all other accidental offences that don’t risk serious harm. So, and I can’t believe I’m saying this about Twashton, I wouldn’t ban him at all for this.
Brighty as a side note an I ask why you hate Ashton so much? I see that loads of people hate him but I honestly don’t understand why he is so universally disliked.
Because he’s what I call a chunterer – lots and lots of talking on the pitch to the ref, to the oppo, to anyone who’ll listen to his whining. Can’t stand that. See also Sean OBrien and the former Dan Biggar – who now seems to have been reined in a bit by his team mates and coach but can still lapse
By the way, it’s not hate, I just think he’s a tool. The self aggrandising try dive all adds to the general unlikeability.
May I please add Peter O’Mahoney to the list of deeply annoying chunterers?
And Greig Laidlaw.
I didn’t see the game but if it was accidental then ban is rediculous. The problem is that these citing panels seem to have no flexibility and are chaired by non rugby personnel who don’t have a clue about the game.Ashton very unlucky to miss 6 nations!
Ashtons offense was clumsy rather than deliberate or malicious. The referee saw it and deemed it not worthy of a card. A 10 week ban is way over the top. However given the possible consequences of such offenses the players must obviously be brought to book in no uncertain fashion. Perhaps a common sense approach would be to allow the disciplinary panel to suspend all or part of a sentence as in a criminal case. The sentence to be imposed immediatley and in full in the event of a further citing during the period of suspension, which could be for a year or more.
Manu’s punch on Ashton only got 5 weeks. Ridiculous.
It is ridiculous. The first point should be was it reckless (yes, ok let’s start with a 3 game ban). Then ask the questions was it deliberate (no), did it cause injury (no), did it gain an unfair advantage (no) . If any of those were yes add a game ban. And then compare it with James Horwill who got away with GBH on George Kruis and you can see why there is not a good feeling.
And as for pleasing guilty, what a crock that is. It is amatuer justice in a professional world.
Your points were pretty sensible and then you went and ruined it with that idiotic comment on Horwill
How is it idiotic? Horwill knew what he was doing as would any player in the same position.
How was it idiotic? Let’s see. Perhaps describing a bit of play that at worse was reckless as GBH?
Had Kruis not been falling at the same time as Horwill went in, it wouldn’t have even been a penalty
Unlike Ashton’s. Whilst any eye contact may have been accidental, grabbing Marshall round the head and neck and pulling him to the ground was not only deliberate foul play but would have resulted in a card and possible citing irrespective of any eye contact
I’m not sure if you ever played the game Pablito at all, but I have for 25 or so years (at a pretty good level) and coached and also sat on county displinary boards.
What I can say, having been on the end of such an offence on a couple of occasions, and tbf having entered a few mauls in my time, Horwill will have known what the likely result of him entering that contact with an arm swinging in that fashion would have been. That is why it wasn’t reckless and although maybe not premeditated he would have known the high probability of injury occurring. If on the street you entered an affray (and I have also spent many years working doors) in a similar way and caused injury in this fashion, the police would have no qualms about charging you with assault, abh or GBH.
Ashton offence was clumsy, badly done and yes warrants a retrospective ban. But 10 weeks when compared to 14 weeks for a full on intentional gouge or nothing for Horwill offence is ridiculous.
Absolutely ridiculous to compare rugby to what happens in public. If Ashton went on a night out and pulled someone down by their face – I think the police would have something to say about it. You’re also not allowed to run up to people in pubs and tackle them at chest height.
Comparing anything in sport to GBH is just daft. With that logic boxers would be getting arrested every time they climbed out the ring.
Incorrect. In boxing you are allowed to hit, and you have protection etc in place. Therefore it is not subject to the same laws and rules as outside (same with contact martial arts.)
In every other sport if the laws/rules have any level of prohibition of violence then yes they can be subject to the rule of land. I’m sure if Kruis had been injured so badly that he lost his lively hood (and there is legal precedent for this) then a civil action and potentially a criminal action could have been taken.
Probably wasn’t a need to take the boxing comparison quite so literally, clearly the rules are different.
I’m unsure why you think Horwill’s is any different to Ashton’s in this regard. I’m sure you’ll protest otherwise if Marshall had his eyesight damaged on the back of Ashton committing a tackle out of the laws of the sport. Based on your above logic, I assume then Ashton would be subject to criminal action right!?
There are two.points:
1. The intention. Ashton clearly didn’t go intending to hurt the players eyes and rather it was a clumsy and accidental result. Horwill cannot claim that he didn’t expect to hurt the player. Entering the contact situation in the way he did had no other expectation than to hurt the player.
2. The result. Ashton did no damage whatsoever to the player. Horwill took a player out of the game.
I am by no means saying Chris didn’t deserve punishment. But so did Horwill. The fact that the respective punishments meted out were not consistent or representetive of the severity is the big issue.
Pablito, Horwill knocked out an 18 stone man with a swinging arm, but got nothing apart from a yellow card! Did he aim to hit Kruis’s head? No. He went into a ruck full of players with a swinging arm, and it happened to hit Kruis (entered seconds before) on the side of his head. Now that we all know the consequences of concussion damage, shouldn’t that hold just as much (or similar) a penalty as accidental contact with the eyes?
A swinging arm isn’t allowed on a rugby field, personally I don’t think it should be in the same bracket as gouging though. Mainly because gauging (actual gouging not Ashton’s nonsense ban) is so malicious. A swinging arm can happen from entering a ruck over-enthusiastically combined with a bit of carelessness.
Also – pretty sure a mans weight and his likelihood of being concussed don’t have any relationship?
Put it this way a common sense approach should have seen both Ashton and Horwill banned. Just Ashton for a lot less than 10 weeks (3 weeks tops) and Horwill for a bit more than 3.
You’re right Jacob, they’re not related. But the thought of me trying to knock out an 18 stone man seems much less likely somehow.
And you’re right swinging arms are not always malicious or intended, but Horwill clearly entered the ruck with the aim of hitting someone with his arm. He didn’t know Kruis’s head was going to be there, but that is not the point. The point is he shouldn’t have been swinging his arm when entering a ruck because of the consequences. Just like Ashton should not have grabbed Marshall round the head etc.
As I’ve said – not condoning swinging arms. But I do think the punishment he received was pretty fair. Considering some of the bizarre ban lengths we see, hardly even worth a mention.
Oh come on try to see the funny side of this……
Eddie Jones’ ‘New Broom’ England regime is starting in the same way as ‘House of Lancaster-the man who rebuilt English rugby’ ended ………….with a much heralded international and great red rose hope getting banned a length for some foul play.
Who do you think Jones will look to replace Ashton with?
I’d imagine he’d stick, start with Nowell and Watson.
Well Yarde, Roko are already in the squad, so not sure he needs to add anyone else considering Watson, Nowell are already in there also. That said Lewington is definitely worth a look. A shining light in a lacklustre Irish back three.
Also James Short is playing well at the Chiefs!
Yarde and Roko aren’t already in the squad, unless they’ve been added and I haven’t noticed but they have to be the first two in line to replace him.
apologies Yarde is Roko isn’t
I thought they’d both been included? Oh well Roko should be the replacement. But I wonder if Eddie will have a loot at Lewington instead. Roko is similar to Yarde, but Lewignton is more like Ashton.
I think Roko will be the replacement, personally I would have included him in the first place (can you tell I’m a Bath fan!!!) he’s strong and breaks tackles and has great footwork as well.
Rokodaguni’s bloody brilliant. He’d be in my starting matchday 15 if I were selecting the team.
Sorry, that was not very clear. I meant they’d been added since Eddie took over. Along with Daly, Devoto and Hill.