Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Kyle Sinckler banned for F-bomb, will miss England's Six Nations opener

England's Kyle Sinckler. (Photo by Dan Mullan/The RFU Collection via Getty Images)

Bristol prop Kyle Sinckler has been banned for swearing at Gallagher Premiership referee Karl Dickson and will miss the start of England’s Six Nations campaign on February 6 at home to Scotland.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Bristol prop appeared before an online independent disciplinary panel on Tuesday after being cited by independent citing commissioner Duncan Bell after his club’s 20-7 win at Exeter on Saturday took the Bears top of the Gallagher Premiership.

The 27-year-old was cited for “failing to respect the authority of the match official, contrary to World Rugby law 9.28″. Sinckler contested the charge but it was upheld by the independent disciplinary panel, comprising Richard Whittam (chair), with Becky Essex and Leon Lloyd, which gave the player a two-week suspension. He is free to play again on February 9.

Video Spacer

Ex-England hooker Brian Moore in conversation with Jim Hamilton

Video Spacer

Ex-England hooker Brian Moore in conversation with Jim Hamilton

The independent disciplinary panel said in its findings which were published on Wednesday: “Kyle Sinckler accepted that he used foul language at the referee. He did not accept the conduct warranted a red card.

“The panel viewed the live recordings of the incident and were satisfied that his shout of ‘are you fxxxxxx serious’ was:

  • Aggressive;
  • Was directed at the referee.  It followed almost immediately after the referee explained that he had determined that the Exeter player (Luke Cowan-Dickie) who had tackled Sinckler had attempted to wrap his arms. Sinckler turned his head towards the referee before he shouted at him;
  • On review with the TMO, the referee did penalise the player who had tackled him.

“The player was candid in his evidence as to why he had done so and regretted his actions.  The panel found that his actions disrespected the authority of the referee. It was in breach of a core value of rugby – respect of match officials – and warranted a red card.

“The panel determined that in all the circumstances it was a low entry point with no relevant mitigation.  The sanction is a two-week ban.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Sinckler is due to now miss the following Gallagher Premiership games: Bristol vs Bath on January 29 and vs Sale on February 5. For the second weekend of the ban, it was decided he must miss the Sharks game unless he is picked by Eddie Jones, in which case he should miss the Scotland match.

Sinckler had taken to Twitter on Saturday following the comment he directed at the referee, saying: “Want to apologise for my reaction today. Not the example I want to be setting. Heat of the moment stuff. Will make a conscious effort to improve. My bad.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

G
GrahamVF 21 minutes ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

"has SA actually EVER helped to develop another union to maturity like NZ has with Japan," yes - Argentina. You obviously don't know the history of Argentinian rugby. SA were touring there on long development tours in the 1950's

We continued the Junior Bok tours to the Argentine through to the early 70's

My coach at Grey High was Giepie Wentzel who toured Argentine as a fly half. He told me about how every Argentinian rugby club has pictures of Van Heerden and Danie Craven on prominent display. Yes we have developed a nation far more than NZ has done for Japan. And BTW Sa players were playing and coaching in Japan long before the Kiwis arrived. Fourie du Preez and many others were playing there 15 years ago.


"Isaac Van Heerden's reputation as an innovative coach had spread to Argentina, and he was invited to Buenos Aires to help the Pumas prepare for their first visit to South Africa in 1965.[1][2] Despite Argentina faring badly in this tour,[2] it was the start of a long and happy relationship between Van Heerden and the Pumas. Izak van Heerden took leave from his teaching post in Durban, relocated to Argentina, learnt fluent Spanish, and would revolutionise Argentine play in the late 1960s, laying the way open for great players such as Hugo Porta.[1][2] Van Heerden virtually invented the "tight loose" form of play, an area in which the Argentines would come to excel, and which would become a hallmark of their playing style. The Pumas repaid the initial debt, by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park, and emerged as one of the better modern rugby nations, thanks largely to the talents of this Durban schoolmaster.[1]"


After the promise made by Junior Springbok manager JF Louw at the end of a 12-game tour to Argentina in 1959 – ‘I will do everything to ensure we invite you to tour our country’ – there were concerns about the strength of Argentinian rugby. South African Rugby Board president Danie Craven sent coach Izak van Heerden to help the Pumas prepare and they repaid the favour by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park.

149 Go to comments
J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

149 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu suffers new injury setback Springboks flyhalf's latest injury worry
Search