'Moody's ban is complete hypocrisy'

'You can't accuse the RFU of inconsistency - they've been doing this for years'

We have had plenty of feedback regarding Lewis Moody's six-week ban for striking an opponent. It seems many of our readers believe that the RFU treat England players a little more leniently than others, and they point to the 11-week ban meted out to Fiji's Nicky Little as proof. Here are some of your views...

'IT'S A JOKE ... BUT IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY FUNNY'

It is interesting that English test players' bans always finish just before the internationals - it happened to Martin Johnson at least once, if not twice.  No wonder other countries feel aggrieved.
- Michael Ambler

Moody got a six-week ban for punching someone in the face, which used to be part of the game, not right but it still happened a lot. Nicky Little smashed someone's eye socket into 3 bits with a shoulder-charge (from what I read in the game report) and is lucky to be given only an 11 week ban.
- Gareth Stevenson

You can't accuse the RFU of inconsistency.  They seem to have adopted the same procedures for years.  If you play for England you get banned until the internationals. If you don't play for England you get an appropriate sentence.  Witness some of the decisions in respect of Martin Johnson over the years.
- Alex, Dublin

Ach, Planet Rugby. Same old, same old ... boo hoo - the Englishman got a tiny ban and the (insert any colonial nation) got a long one. What about Englishmen being sent off against the sacred All Blacks? Oh no, that must be fair. 

How about South Africans being banned for ages for Nandodrelene when Australians take diuretics to disguise 'roid abuse and then it's all quietly swept under the table. What a surprise!

At the end of the day, whether you editorial staff are Kiwis or Aussies, just remember ... England - Kings of Cricket, Kings or Rugby, our Queen rules your country. And that ain't arrogance, that's just a matter of fact, yer d*ckheads. - Alan Smith, UK

Wonder what would have happened if it hadn't been Moody but Carlos Spencer? After a international year that has shown England to be toothless in English and Lions jerseys, one should expect ridiculous rulings like this. If you can't beat them fair and square then play dirty. It has been happening for centuries where they are concerned and  will never change. Pretty pathetic if you ask me. Where is the pride?
- Graeme, South Africa

It is once again a case of learning to how to play the game (off the pitch). Oh and it also helps being critical for Englands chances to win any games this year. Let me think, England win, people support England, RFU get more money! Who cares about the Fijian finances, we have to look after our own. At least Saracens can appeal and probably get a reduced sentence. Like that will happen!
- Neil Evans, England and Sarries

It never has been equal by the RFU, they have always been mealy-mouthed hypocrites.

In the infamous Calcutta Cup incident in the 1980s, the SRU gave John Jeffrey a lengthy ban for his part of it (he had been planning to play in NZ over the European summer, but these hopes were dashed). The RFU just gave Dean Richards a stern warning.

My friends and I have always laughed about when it comes to England players (especially Martin Johnson, anyone remember him?) then the punishment/ban would always be that old mathematical favourite - N minus 1 (or in the RFU's case E minus 1) where N or E is the next date that England are due to play an important international against a 'big' team. The ban would always co-incidentally finish just shortly before this.

Just look back at all of the England bans over the past 20 odd years, anyone will find this correlation scarily accurate.

The RFU and the English media then have the hypocrisy to whine and moan about any other countries "dirty" players.

It's a joke, but to be honest if you are not an England fan, then it is not particularly funny.
- Peter Craven

Once again the conflict of interests between punishment and commercial interests raises it's head with the RFU, and once again the disciplinary system is made a mockery of.  How many times have we seen the likes of Back, Corry, Johnson and now Moody get lenient sentences for misdemeanours in order that they are available for selection for the National side, and at the same time we've seen long bans handed out to non-EU nationals Little and Robinson for similar offences?

While I understand that the RFU has commercial interests and wants its best players available on show, this two-tier disciplinary structure cannot exist, it's illegal for starters! There are two options available, either the RFU gets it's self a backbone and stops trampling over it's own rules for commercial interests, even the much maligned English FA have a policy of not picking a player for England duty if they are under suspension for Violent conduct at club level even though the player is not banned to actually appear at international level!  The RFU's answer is to give them a shortened ban so they can play!

It seems while the game has been professional for 10 years the disciplinary structure is a throwback to the amateur days. An entire overhaul of the disciplinary system which is really what is needed. For a sport supposedly lacking in discipline, Football has refined their disciplinary system over the past 100 years of professionalism and has it fairly spot on. By implementing two simple ideas from football we can avoid any more of these ridiculous internal wranglings at the RFU:

i) Any bans should be for a period or games rather than weeks. A six-week ban for one player could cover anything from 3 to 9 games, how is it a fair system when one player is banned for more games than another for the same offence?
ii) Keep club and international bans separate. Any bans arising from misdemeanours at international level should only be for international matches and vice-versa, why should a club suffer because a player is guilty of foul play playing for their national side? The club had no influence over the player at the time, were unable to substitute him if they thought he was getting wound up, but they are penalised none the less by him being unavailable for selection.

With these simple changes to the rules we'll hopefully avoid the ridiculous situation we find ourselves when one of the England boys does something a little bit naughty with an international insight!
- Stuart Turner

I think Moody is a GREAT player and do not wish him to be banned at all, my point is the bloody RFU. This is complete hypocrisy, it stinks and is typical of the RFU making sure they appear to be doing the right thing.

And this sh*t about the compensation payments to clubs being blocked is another pile. I know one of the players, he has said that the rest period after the world cup was a lot less and compensation to the clubs was not at all in question then so why now.

The RFU are a bunch of greedy buggers if you ask me, they should pay what's owed and put them selves in a bit of a better light with players and fans alike.
- JAK, Leicestershire

ENGLAND! This dos not surprise anyone!
- Hamish, New Zealand

I do believe that there is a double standard against overseas players. Last season Danny Grewcock and Martin Corry where given light sentences (a few weeks) for dangerous play so they could play for England and Mark 'Sharky' Robinson was given 14 weeks which finished him for the rest of the season.

Players need to be aware that disciplinary procedures are tough but the same for all. In last years premiership final the punch that Neal Back through for the who world to see should have been a life ban, if that had been in the streets he would have been arrested for GBH! Come on, RFU - the same for ALL!
- Willie

In this instance all animals are most certainly not equal; on the same offence Moody is allowed to play for England and Little not for Fiji, as Fiji is too 'little'  and insignificant to compete with the rugby aristocrats ... very unfair.
- T. Rogers, Washington DC, USA

I notice that is a bit of the English style. They always go on about other "dirty nations" but I happen to notice them throwing punches in all of the All Blacks matches on the lions tour, and none being thrown in return. They need to learn how to play hard fast rugby without loosing it.
- Wade Charman, NZ

Haven't seen either incident but judging by the difference in length of ban, Nicky Little's striking incident must have been more serious. We should remember that a players disciplinary record is also considered, I know that Punch & Moody's record was clean but am not sure about Nicky Little.  However, if the incidents are similar, then sympathy should be extended to Little and the questions asked why the difference in ban?  Regardless, I'm sure all the anti-English fools will be crawling out the woodwork and spouting the usual drivel - bias, little England etc etc....

Citing and disciplinary hearings is an area which is still on unstable ground.  If both these lads had been put up before a Southern Hemisphere citing commissioner they would have got of scot-free as is the norm these days. Brian O'Driscoll (Lions 2005), Richard Hill (Lions 2001) and Josh Lewsey (Eng v ABs, 2003) have all been at the crap-end of the stick with arguably one-eyed citing commissioners.

Incidentally - Nicky Little has 'previous' - he was banned for 3 games in Feb 2004 for striking an opponent.  So in answer to your question, all animals are equal, unless they've got 'previous'... 
- Scottie,  Englishman in Oz

You only got to go back through the archives to see that this is not the first time the RFU have done this, it comes as no surprise, if it was an Irish, welsh, french or Scottish player who's to say that they wouldn't get a longer ban off the RFU!
- Jason Clark

The Rugby Football Union must have put pressure on the citing panel for them to hand him with only a five weeks ban. That just shows how some old farts who make those types of decisions are so one-sided, unfair, bias, arrogant and favouring their England (Lewis Moody) players how about Fiji (Nicky Little), they are both very good players, but just one player missing from the squad gets them all worried, just to show how the coaching staff and management don't have confident in their other players who can step up and play his position.
- Glen Miller, Australia

Typical RFU! They talk a good game but when ever it comes to an England player who may miss out on an international match or an English Club involved in Europe, they act like the bunch of conniving tw*ts they are.
- Ken Pugh

Sadly the Little-Moody saga demonstrates the underhandedness and inconsistency of the RFU. One law for the rich and favoured another for the poor and those that do not fit in with RFU. These are the actions of a self interested pompous body unfit to govern the sport. Obviously embarrassed in the reasoning given for the lessor ban.

Have you ever known an England  International to miss an appearance for the national side because of a disciplinary ban? It has never happened! On an occasion a period of suspension has conveniently fitted with England's requirement for their captains presence. Funny how these things fit together. Self interest will always rule.

The game of rugby union has needed cleaning up for years, regrettably before we can get anywhere the governing body need cleaning up to be replaced by a body that can be seen to fair and impartial in their actions.

Many years ago Rugby League was formed by the breakaway from union for professional reasons. From what I have seen on Sky TV  the game is equally skilful, the difference is that it is properly run by a professional body. A thought maybe for investors, owners and players alike and certainly spectators.
- John Gwilt

As the rules of judicial conduct from virtually any jurisdiction provide, the appearance of impropriety is as damning as the actual conduct of impropriety.  Perhaps the RFU did not consider England's Autumn Tests when limiting Moody's suspension to 4 weeks, but in light of Little's 11 week's, it certainly appears as though the looming appearance of the All Blacks and Wallabies in London was, shall we say, "contemplate"   If there is to be any credibility to the citing system, it must be applied equally across the board - either a punch equals 4 weeks, or a punch equals 11 weeks -- it can't equal either depending on who threw the punch. 
- Bill Lowery, San Francisco, USA

How can the penalties handed out to Lewis Moody and Nicky Little differ so much. Surely it must be down to the fact that Moody is an England international and Little is a South Sea Islander!

The only reason I can possibly imagine in the huge difference between the penalties is the injury Little must have caused. If the injuries caused are similar then, these decisions are outrageously biased. I hope that Saracens complain bitterly.

On the note of foul play and the RFU getting tough, why haven't we heard of any citing of Saracens Mr Chesney. He really picked on someone his own size when he tried to make Worcester's Nicholas Le Roux a permanent feature of the side hoardings! His actions resulted in a huge melee in which players were sent to the sin bin. The incident was such that Rugby journalists writing in the national Sunday papers saw fit to comment on Chesney's aggressive actions.

Still, with the RFUs clear bias, any Welsh, Irish or Scottish International players plying their trade in the Guinness Premiership better keep their noses clean in the run-up to the 6 Nations.
- The Septicboil

There's two factors here that make the RFU disciplinary committee a farce:

1. Moody is an England player, Little is a Fiji player.
2. Moody plays for the RFU's favourite sons - Leicester; Little plays for Saracens who have are seen as flash newcomers.

They conspires to produce a ban double the length for Little compared to Moody for similar offences. Look at the various ban lengths that both the Martins, Corry and Johnson, have been given when they've committed thuggery - they always conspired to be available for England and Heineken matches.

However, if you're non-English, and non-Leicester (and perhaps one or two other clubs), then the full might of the bias on RFU discipline will fall on the players shoulders - just ask Mark Robinson of Northampton. Chris Chesney of Saracens is also currently looking at a citing committee hearing - it'll be interesting to see what he gets - but I bet it's quite a long time.  If he'd been Ben Kay it will have been a lot less.
- Tim Wood

This is typical of the RFU, how many times have English international players been found guilty of foul play only to receive inappropriately inadequate sentences that always seem to end just prior to a major international - this seems very similar to Martin Johnson's ban a few years back prior to the start of the 6 nations.  It's disgraceful that Moody has received 5 weeks less than Nicky Little for the same offence.  It's another convenient whitewash by the men in white!  And as far as I can tell is not in line with the IRB's new guidelines regarding harsher sentences for players in order to stop foul play.  On the other side, Fiji seem to be handing out harsh sentences to their own players for any kind of offence - at least one international side in white is cracking down on unacceptable behaviour.
- Chris Sheldon