TALKING POINT: Furlong citing will be keenly watched in SA for evidence of double standards

Rugby is an emotional game, and none the more so when a player is cited for doing something, let’s say…off the ball, so to speak.

So it isn’t surprising that the news that the Vodacom United Rugby Championship have decided to cite Irish test prop Tadhg Furlong for allegedly grabbing the testicles of Munster No 8 Gavin Coombes has become quite an issue.

And not just because it happened in an all-Irish derby. There are plenty of folks in South Africa that will be keenly watching what happens with the disciplinary process, especially after such a serious allegation.

There is so much more at stake here, including the integrity of the URC’s disciplinary process and how these sort of incidents should be handled. And on what basis a citing can be made.

The coincidence that it is the same disciplinary officer as in the Jan-Hendrik Wessels case - almost a year ago to the day, makes it even more interesting, and the outcome will be clearly watched.

Already there is an underlying current in Irish and URC circles that there is a different refereeing standard for Leinster as opposed to the rest of the competition. The success of the Irish juggernaut has not gone down well across the board and often you hear opposition coaches and players talk about the belief that Leinster get away with things that other teams don’t.

This is nothing new in rugby, but this incident and more importantly, how it is handled, will be scrutinised across the board as the rest of the rugby world looks for evidence of double standards in a decision that could have some far-reaching consequences for Irish rugby and the URC as a whole.

WESSELS INCIDENT WAS A PRECEDENT

So before we look at the Coombes incident, lets have a recap on what happened almost a year ago when Josh Murphy, the Connacht flanker, lashed out at a ruck at Jan-Hendrik Wessels, struck him in the head and earned himself a red card for this reaction.

Murphy claimed that Wessels grabbed him in the nether regions, and this was what prompted his reaction. Wessels denied this but the citing officer, the same Peter Ferguson, decided to Wessels after a conversation after the game with Murphy (he never spoke at all to Wessels) and on his own “eyewitness view” at the game.

He claimed to have seen the incident - which the TMO and referee could find no evidence of - from “about 20 metres away”.

The Bulls said this was impossible as Connacht’s new stand was 20 metres away and had not been opened to the public yet. The citing commissioner could only have been on the other side of the field - some 60 metres away from the alleged incident when it occured.

This all didn’t matter to the disciplinary committee, who accepted Ferguson’s version.

In the transcript of the hearing it emerged that Ferguson noted in his report that live observation and evidence—including Murphy's immediate reaction, consistent testimony, Wessels' head turning backward, and an unnatural movement of Wessels' arm toward the groin area—led him to conclude on the balance of probabilities that foul play occurred.

This was despite the denial of Wessels, no television footage or view from the referee, his assistants or the TMO and Wessels was subsequently banned for nine weeks, reduced to eight on appeal.

UNFAIR RESULT

The unfairness of it all enraged rugby supporters in South Africa and Wessels was forced to miss the Springboks November tour, and lost around R1-million in playing income because of the outcome.

Murphy - who had a patchy disciplinary record at best - and was cited for eye gouging in the past - had his red card rescinded and went scot-free.

To be fair to the URC, it wasn’t the tournament’s fault, as they outsource their disciplinary process to an independent committee and have an arms length distance from any disciplinary decision.

But a very similar incident with the same citing officer almost a year later to the day? What are the odds?

There are some differences in this case though, although you can’t blame rugby fans for asking if the same standard applies here?

Furlong has now been cited over an act of foul play under Law 9.27, which says a "a player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship including but not limited to grabbing, twisting or squeezing the genitals".

A statement from the URC said "arrangements for the disciplinary process are currently in progress and will be announced in due course".

SIMILARITIES IN CASE

Again in this case, neither the referee nor the TMO could find any footage of the incident in real time, which is challenging unless it is clear and direct, and so Coombes, Munster and Furlong (if he committed the act) know when it took place.

Since then a number of clips on social media have surfaced, and the citing says it took place in the 37th minute of the game.

According to some reports, Munster have “clear footage” of the incident, and would be making it available to the citing commissioner.

Munster coach Clayton McMillan has also backed his player in the post-match interview, believing the incident occurred.

“It’s one of those things that we leave in the hands of the powers that be,” McMillan said in the post-match press conference. “All I know is that I back our players 100 per cent that if they make an allegation like that.

“They wouldn’t do it lightly, and that’s not the sort of person Gavin is, so we’ll see where that goes.”

Leinster coach Leo Cullen had a different view, saying he believed Coombes had “changed his mind halfway through the accusation".

"That's the way it sounded, once the scrum was packing down," said Cullen. "But I don't know. Obviously, once that accusation is made, it becomes a serious matter for the citing commissioner.

"My comment is not going to help in any way here, but from what I've seen, I can't see anything."

DOUBLE STANDARDS?

The problem for a citing of this nature, because of the Wessels precedent that has been created, is that a player can be cited and convicted on the word of another player, without any evidence.

This is not something that will happen in a court of law, but then again, a disciplinary process is not a court of law. Still, fairness should be a key factor, and unless there is evidence, convicting on an accusation may be a step too far.

But the URC passed that a year ago when they used the “balance of probabilities” argument to convict Wessels and Furlong will be very aware of this fact as well. So will Andy Farrell, who faces the Springboks, Argentina and Fiji in the Nations Championship tests next month.

If there is deemed to be “clear evidence” then there is no issue, but the murky road that rugby has decided on going following a balance of probabilities can have some profound consequences and never leave anyone involved satisfied with the outcome.

So Furlong’s disciplinary will be keenly watched by South Africans, not just because of the sense of injustice surrounding Wessels’ but because it will be interesting to see if the same argument is followed, or if the precedent is ignored.

If the latter is the case, you can hardly fault fans for saying there are double standards in the game. But that is the corner Ferguson and the disciplinary panel have painted themselves into.