Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Mike Brown might not be finished yet at Harlequins as he launches appeal against six-game ban

(Photo by PA)

Newcastle-bound Mike Brown might not have played his last match for Harlequins after it was decided to appeal the six-game suspension he received last week following his red card for stamping on Wasps’ Tommy Taylor at The Stoop. With a two-year deal agreed to join the Falcons for the 2021/22 season, ex-England full-back Brown was looking forward to a possible Twickenham final send-off with Harlequins after a 17-year stay at the London club. 

ADVERTISEMENT

That plan came unstuck, though, with Brown getting sent off by referee Wayne Barnes on May 9 for an offence deemed to be at the top-end of the foul play list by the independent disciplinary hearing committee that met to consider the player’s fate. 

Although the stamp wasn’t found to be intentional, the conclusion was that Brown should miss six matches, the maximum amount of games that Harlequins could potentially have in the rest of this season if they were to go on and reach the June 26 Premiership final. 

Video Spacer

RugbyPass is sharing unique stories from iconic British and Irish Lions tours to South Africa in proud partnership with The Famous Grouse, the Spirit of Rugby

Video Spacer

RugbyPass is sharing unique stories from iconic British and Irish Lions tours to South Africa in proud partnership with The Famous Grouse, the Spirit of Rugby

Brown missed last Saturday’s loss at Leicester and Harlequins have three more regular-season matches left before their likely semi-final appearance. The player’s appeal will be heard next week prior to his club’s next outing. 

An RFU statement read: “Harlequins’ Mike Brown is appealing his six-match suspension, which was given for stamping or trampling contrary to World Rugby law 9.12. The appeal will be heard on the evening of Wednesday, May 26, by a new online independent disciplinary panel comprising Philip Evans (chair), with Daniel White and Julian Morris. At the original hearing, Brown accepted the charge against him and was given the suspension by an independent panel of Matthew Weaver (chair), Rob Vickerman and Mitch Read.”

An eleven-page written judgment on the six-game suspension reported the evidence Brown presented in his defence at the hearing, while a postscript at the end of the document from panel chairman Matthew Weaver hit out at the social media commentary that surrounded the red card and the potential negative follow-up reaction to the ban. “As is clear from the decision above, the panel were unanimous that this was not a deliberate stamp by the player,” wrote Weaver.

“This decision was reached after a detailed review of video footage (from a number of angles and at various speeds, including frame by frame) and hearing from the player directly at length. The player was clearly remorseful and conducted himself throughout the process in a manner that does him much credit.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Whilst the panel understands that every rugby supporter is entitled to voice their own views on incidents within matches via social media, it is hoped that this decision provides sufficient information for any views expressed on this incident (and indeed on the player) to be informed and based primarily on the facts of the incident. Any abusive comments aimed at the player (whether generally or as a result of this incident) are plainly unacceptable, inconsistent with the values and core principles of rugby and condemned by the panel.”

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

J
JW 5 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.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Return of 30-something brigade provides welcome tonic for Wales Return of 30-something brigade provides welcome tonic for Wales
Search