Why Michael Hooper's Ban Shows Gaping Holes in Rugby's Rules

It's happened again. Rugby’s disciplinary procedures have been made to look a laughingstock in recent days.

Australian flanker Michael Hooper was cited for striking Argentine fly-half Nicolas Sanchez in an off-the-ball incident during the Wallabies win in Mendoza last Saturday.

The Waratahs man was handed a one-match ban (reduced from an initial two for previous good behaviour) by the judicial officer Nigel Hampton QC.

But planetrugby.com’s Ross Hastie questioned the ban's validity given it was allowed to be served out in a club game:

"

Hooper and the ARU somehow managed to convince Hampton that Hooper was set to feature for local Sydney club Manly this weekend in a Shute Shield quarter-final against Randwick. Manly conveniently named their team with just one player - Hooper - on the bench in the day between the adjournment and the final verdict.

Smell fishy?

"

But the disciplinary laws came to Hooper’s rescue here, as theroar.com.au’s Spiro Zavos highlighted, quoting from Hampton’s judgement: "All matches are equal and if a player is scheduled to play, then the match should be included in the suspension if it has meaningful consequences to the player."

This result, of course, frees Hooper to play in the clash with New Zealand this weekend to decide the this year’s Rugby Championship destination. This gaping loophole has allowed one of Australia’s most influential players to effectively sidestep his ban by being named for that club match.

This isn’t the first time some sharp practice has been deployed in this way, as pointed out in the New Zealand Herald, which recalls a similar manipulation of the rules during the five-match ban for Andrew Hore after he lashed out at Wales’ Bradley Davis in 2012.

Rules are rules, though, and, as All Blacks legend Stu Wilson told the Herald, we shouldn’t blame Australia for exploiting the flawed system:

"

Good on the Aussies. You just have to point the finger at the International Rugby Board (now World Rugby) - the rules are a joke and they need to get it right.

If I was in the position of Australia, losing a key player, then I'd be trying to do everything to get him back in. So you've got to look at who makes the rules.

"

There is a simple fix World Rugby could quickly apply to this situation, and that would be to rule that any ban for an offence committed in Test rugby must be served at that level.

The second problem Hooper’s case brings back into the spotlight is the inconsistency in punishment. Going back to Hore’s case for a second, the All Blacks man got five weeks for something similar to Hooper’s moment of red mist, yet the Australian only ended up with one after Hampton deemed it at the lower-end entry point for punishment.

Bizarrley, SANZAR, the Rugby Championship's governing body, appealed the decision of its own judicial officer on the grounds that the ban was too lenient, with the ARU appealing back the other way, per the Australian Associated Press (via the Guardian).

It is a total mess that, not much more than a month away from the sport’s biggest showpiece, illustrates there is much to fix in the machinations of rugby’s disciplinary procedures.

It seems bizarre that a governing body such as SANZAR can appoint a judicial officer to deal with citing procedures and then have another level of authority whereby they can challenge their own decision-making process if they think it got the punishment wrong.

Iain Payten of the Daily Telegraph (foxsports.com.au) highlighted even more inconsistencies in recent cases:

"

This must mean [SANZAR] believe it is somehow the equal of Laurie Weeks’ flurry of closed-fist punches to the head of Jannie Du Plessis.

The Rebels prop was sent off and suspended for three weeks for landing 3-4 punches on the Shark’s head. This season Blues forward Hayden Triggs was suspended for one match after being sent off for punching Duane Vermeulen in the head with a closed-fist punch.

"

In the end, Hooper’s misdemeanour and the view on how severe it was is almost the side issue here. It’s the abuse of the ban and where it could be served that really stinks.

Another Australian franchise, the Brumbies, could, as Sam Worthington of Fox Sports points out, have pulled a similar trick to ensure the availability of wing Henry Speight, but they opted to forego having Speight sit out a club game and keep the spirit of the ban. But Worthington doesn't believe other clubs will follow in the Brumbies footsteps.

This whole, sorry saga has brought to light how easily rugby’s disciplinary policies can be abused, and that is something that needs sorting out.