1
Ferris and Barclay lead the charge in questioning length of Fagerson ban compared to O'Mahony suspension
By Josh Raisey
Former international back rows Stephen Ferris and John Barclay have questioned the Guinness Six Nations ban handed down to Scotland’s Zander Fagerson compared to the suspension given to Ireland’s Peter O’Mahony the week before.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ex-Irish flanker Ferris said on Twitter that “this is all wrong” after Fagerson was handed a four-match ban for what he described as a “mistimed clean out” on Wales’ Wyn Jones last Saturday at Murrayfield, while O’Mahony was given a three-match ban for “an elbow to the face” of Tomas Francis in Cardiff on February 7.
Retired Scotland captain Barclay echoed the sentiments of Ferris, saying on Twitter that his compatriot Fagerson was “attempting to clear a jackler”.
There are many fans online in agreement with the former Test forwards. While few think that the Scot did not deserve a red card, the majority of people think that his offence was not as bad as O’Mahony’s.
But for every person that has questioned this decision, there has been someone emphasising that the bans were different because the Irishman pleaded guilty to his red card while the Scotland tighthead contested his.
Correct me if I’m wrong here. Zander Fagerson banned for 4 matches for a mistimed clean out. His red card has been widely debated.
POM banned for 3 matches for an elbow to the face of a player. Everyone in agreement it was a red card. THIS IS ALL WRONG @SixNationsRugby— Stephen Ferris (@StephenFerris6) February 16, 2021
Still feels all wrong
— Stephen Ferris (@StephenFerris6) February 16, 2021
POM – 3 weeks for clearing out a prone player at speed and hitting Tom Francis face
Zander Fagerson – 4 weeks for attempting to clear a jackler pic.twitter.com/mY93kC9H6h— John Barclay (@johnbarc86) February 17, 2021
“This was outlined in the hearing statement issued by the Six Nations: “He made contact with Wales prop Wyn Jones. Fagerson accepted that he had committed an act of foul play, but did not accept that it warranted a red card.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The disciplinary committee found that Fagerson had committed an act of foul play (an infringement of law 9.20(a) and that it had warranted a red card. The committee found that the act of foul play warranted a mid-range entry point (six weeks) and reduced that by two weeks to take account of mitigating factors (including his admission of foul play, good disciplinary record and remorse).”
Even when taking into account the reasoning behind the decisions, Ferris said it still felt wrong and again there were many that agreed with him. The fact that O’Mahony was deemed lucky to have avoided a ban earlier in the Guinness PRO14 season for a similar offence only makes this latest situation a harder one to comprehend.
The four-game ban means prop Fagerson will now miss the remainder of Scotland’s Six Nations campaign, although he has the right to appeal.
So so wrong. What are they trying to achieve here?
— Tim Visser (@timbovisser) February 17, 2021
…So Fagerson gets 4 weeks for his offence and O’ Mahoney gets 3 weeks for his ?????!!! – having seen both incidents and mitigation’s …I am totally confused with the consistency in sanctions issued by rugby disciplinary ??????
— Mike Friday (@MikeFriday09) February 17, 2021
For me Fagerson & O’Mahony were both reds. POM’s was worse and I can’t understand the bans that both players have received, especially since there was the tiniest possibility of mitigating circumstances around Zander Fagerson’s. Is there the same disciplinary committee for both?
— Tom May (@TomMay1) February 17, 2021
Thinking the same thing https://t.co/GHzOEG0zAI
— Nick Easter (@nick_easter) February 17, 2021
ADVERTISEMENT
This is just wrong! https://t.co/sRcEevEHrE
— Mike Phillips (@mikephillips009) February 17, 2021
