Wed 20 Jun 2018 | 04:03
Ross Moriarty gets inevitable ban after chokehold against Argentina

8
Comments

Wales number eight Ross Moriarty has predictably received a suspension for strangling Argentina flyhalf Nicolas Sanchez during their second Test last weekend. Wales won the game 30-12, but it was marred by the choke at full time.

Moriarty's case was heard by David Hurley (Chair), Beth Dickens (ex-Scotland international) and Becky Essex (ex-England international) on 17 June.

The 24-year-old former Gloucester number eight admitted the act of foul play, accepted the red card and apologised for his actions.
 
"Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, the Independent Judicial Committee deemed the offence to be at the mid-range scale of seriousness, which has an entry point of six weeks," said the independent disciplinary judicial statement.
 
"However, taking into account the aggravating factor that the player did not desist from his actions on the direction of the Assistant Referee (which resulted in an addition of an extra week) and mitigating factors including the player’s immediate apology and disciplinary record (which resulted in a deduction of three weeks), the player was suspended for a period of four weeks."
 
The suspension, based on Moriarty’s playing schedule, will end following the Dragons' first match of the 2018/2019 Pro 14 season.

WATCH: Dragons Lair - Behind the Scenes at the Dragons

Dragons head coach Bernard Jackman told the BBC that he would have liked Moriarty to be available for the pre-season programme.

"I did not think there was that much in the incident. He was trying to protect himself after being attacked firstly and I thought he showed good restraint. It is done now and he has apologised for it.

"We are looking forward to getting Ross on the field so he can show the type of form he demonstrated in Argentina where he was outstanding.

"Ross showed why he is one of the most exciting back-rowers in the world and he is still so young.

"The reason Ross is so good is he plays with such aggression and physical commitment and that is such an important element to rugby," said Jackman. "Over the last couple of seasons he has been on the right side of things and he will learn from this.

"It is important for us to create a good environment for him to get on with just playing rugby and being the physical imposing presence he is."

Original discussion and longer video here

8 Comments

  • drg
    12:03 AM 27/06/2018

    So... A cocky shit like Sanchez falls into Moriartys face and Moriarty in a rage takes exception and all of a sudden he's some wife beater, molested as a child, psychopath?

    Get over yourselves, in the hot weather he flipped his shit, don't create a backstory to things you know nothing about.

  • jamesste
    11:25 PM 25/06/2018

    I agree with katman, Sanchez gives him a bit of niggle on the ground, and Moriarty hoists Sanchez up in a WWF choke hold while whispering pleasantries into his ear. Oblivious to the touch judge and Argentine medic, shows malicious intent. The man clearly has serious issues beyond the game. For Jackman to claim that Moriarty was "trying to protect himself" is laughable.

  • drg
    6:27 PM 21/06/2018

    .... says the guy who I believes international team contained Schalk Burger and Bakkies Botha...

  • katman
    12:07 PM 21/06/2018

    Good. This was pretty psychopathic behaviour and an awful look for international rugby. That guy appears to have issues that go beyond the game.

  • drg
    12:06 PM 21/06/2018

    Would have got off Scot free had he been called Sherlock.

  • moo
    11:11 AM 21/06/2018

    Regarding the verdict though, personally I think this was a bit lenient. It could very easily have been interpreted that he instigated the whole daft incident with his charge through the ruck (which is how I saw it, as a neutral, even with the cheap shot from Sanchez) and then ignored multiple instructions from officials after the whistle.

    Actually, it's obvious, why didn't I think of it before.... they were lenient because he's English! ;)

  • pickay
    9:49 AM 21/06/2018

    I agree that the way these verdicts are explained using some seemingly random arithmetic formula can end up sounding a bit ridiculous at times, not to say unprofessional even.
    In this case the minimum (!) was 6 weeks, so he gets 4 weeks due to +1 but then -3, makes sense...
    On the other hand, I must say the upside of this process is that the specific circumstances of each individual incident can be taken into account. If you just define mandatory punishments then for instance Benjamin Fall would have gotten a lengthy ban, because it could not be taken into account that it was accidental. So I guess I basically appreciate the general approach, but I agree there is still room for improvement.

  • moo
    4:44 PM 20/06/2018

    Whatever you might think of the initial incident, this is yet another example of the usual ban calculation involving farcical arithmetic for turning up, staring meekly at the floor / saying sorry at the behest of the union-appointed, vastly-overpaid QC representing you.

    Other sports must look at the disciplinary processes and laugh out loud at the inconsistency and 'let's have a set of mandatory punishments that we then won't actually apply then take away the number you first thought of' approach of these things.

    (also insert obligatory comment about what he would have got if he were French / Tongan / Fijian / Samoan / etc.)