1
Six Nations isn't over for Garry Ringrose despite his red card ban
By Liam Heagney
Garry Ringrose’s Guinness Six Nations campaign with Ireland isn’t over despite last Saturday’s red-carded tackle on Wales’ Ben Thomas. The midfielder was yellow-carded by referee Christophe Ridley in the first half in Cardiff, a sanction upgraded to a 20-minute red card by the Principality Stadium foul play review bunker.
ADVERTISEMENT
The sending-off resulted in a disciplinary hearing on Thursday morning and Ringrose has received a three-match ban that will be reduced to two if successfully completes World Rugby tackle school. This coaching intervention would shelve the third game of the Irish player’s suspension, freeing him for selection for the round five Six Nations finale away to Italy on March 15.
It would mean the only Test match Ringrose will miss with the title-chasing Ireland is the March 8 round four clash with France in Dublin, as this Saturday’s URC game for Leinster against Cardiff has been included as the first missed match of his ban.
Video Player is loading.
A statement read: “Ireland number 13 Garry Ringrose appeared before an independent disciplinary committee on Thursday morning via video link having received a 20-minute red card for an act of foul play contrary to law 9.13 in the match between Wales and Ireland last Saturday.
“The independent disciplinary committee was chaired by Matthew Weaver KC (England), joined by former international players Leon Lloyd (England) and Stefan Terblanche (South Africa).
Six Nations
P
W
L
D
PF
PA
PD
BP T
BP-7
BP
Total
1
Ireland
3
3
0
0
14
2
France
3
2
1
0
11
3
England
3
2
1
0
10
4
Scotland
3
1
2
0
6
5
Italy
3
1
2
0
4
6
Wales
3
0
3
0
1
“The disciplinary committee has upheld the red card issued to the player and by applying World Rugby’s sanctioning provisions, have determined that the mid-range entry point of six weeks/matches was appropriate.
ADVERTISEMENT
“In light of the player accepting he committed an act of foul play as well as other mitigating factors, they have applied the maximum 50 per cent reduction in sanction, thus reducing the final sanction to three weeks/matches.
“The suspension will cover the following matches:
- March 1 – Leinster vs Cardiff, United Rugby Championship
- March 8 – Ireland vs France, Guinness Six Nations
- March 15 – Italy vs Ireland, Guinness Six Nations*
“The player has additionally been given permission to apply to take part in World Rugby’s coaching intervention programme which will, if successfully completed, replace the final match of their sanction. The programme is aimed at modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play.”
To be first in line for Rugby World Cup 2027 Australia tickets, register your interest here
Instead of increasing the number of weeks ban, just automatically taking into account all potential matchs would avoid this difference of outcome, regardless of the week off.
Both players had an important role in their team anyway. For the past 5 years, Ringrose never played for Leinster during the 6 nations period.
The difference between Ringrose and Ntamack.
Ringrose WAS released. Ntamack wasn’t. (due to when fallow weeks arise)
Ntamack is the number one French outhalf, an indespensible player.
Ringrose was part of a centre rotation with Aki and Henshaw. There were also plans to develop his utility potential.
While I agree with you that Ringrose was unlikely to feature for Leinster, the evidence met the treshold for including that match in his ban. It didn’t meet it for Ntamack mainly because what would happen in the France-England game would affect his designation and this was unknowable.
So the correct verdict was reached. The way to solve the issue is to increase the base ban from 6 to 9 weeks for medium offences.
Galthie knew all this as he was coach for Willemse, quote the O’Mahoney case and also had access to the detailed verdicts for Ringrose and Ntamack.
I would guess part of his motivation was to embarrass Ireland before Saturdays match.
I think the ban should either be restricted to the competition in which it occurs, or remains multi-competition but automatically takes into account the matchs involving the club/nation the player belongs to, in order to avoid this kind of situation. Everyone knows never Ringrose nor Ntamack would have played these club matchs.
In 2024, Willemse’s ban included Racing 92 v Montpellier and Montpellier v Bayonne. This meant he was available for final two matches in 2024 six nations Galthie was manager.
Galthie also cited the cases Atonio (2023), Haouas (2023) and Danty (2024) where the FFR (just like Ireland) told those hearings that those players would be released to their clubs. Galthie also said he probably would have released Galthie after the England match.
Galthie tried to do exactly what Ireland did. They succeeded in doing it for their previous numerous red cards. The problem in this scenario was that the decision to release players now happens after the match before the fallow week. Ireland imnmediately released Ringrose. France couldn’t immediately release Ntamack therefore Galthie could not state with evidence that he would have been released that’s the difference.
Galthie didn’t fail because he was too honest.
The expert opinion I heard (Ugo Monye) is that extending the base ban from 6 to 8 matches will help.
Of more concern to me was the decision in Ntamacks case not to declare that he injured Thomas. Evidence showed that Thomas suffered a fractured and displaced nose break.
As far as I can see, if this is acknowledged Ntamack sees a big ban.
If this was enough to trick the disciplinary committee, I don’t even know what is their purpose. I guess it will be a lesson for Galthié that transparency/honesty won’t earn you anything with world rugby.
Turns out this was all much ado about nothing.
NTKs case notes states that O’Mahony (Ireland) was sent off in first match in 2021 and his club matches DID NOT count. Last year Willemse (France) was sent off in first match and two club matches DID COUNT.
Verdict below.
Galthie stated whether NTK was released to the club for the fallow week depended on his performance against England. Therefore NTK could not prove he was EXPECTED to play against Clermont, so the ban cant count there.
On the other hand IRFU RELEASED RINGROSE FOR THE CARDIFF MATCH. They provided documentation to prove it.
The bigger issue for me is why NTK was in the 3 ban category and not the 6 ban.
The Welsh doctor gave evidence that Thomas sufferred a fractured nose. yet teh report concluded ‘no injury’ allowing NTK escape the bigger punishment.
No. The detailed decision out today showing written evidence that Ringrose was released to Leinster for Cardiff and would have played. He was ‘expected’ to play. Ntamack wasn’t.
As it seems that the debate is not hot enough !! I inform you that the FFR has just sent a letter to World Rugby asking for explanations why both Ntamack and Ringrose cases were handled differently. According to Rugbyrama it would appear that both Leinster and Toulouse sent a letter to the discipline commission stating that Ringrose and Ntamack would play vs Cardiff and Clermont. But Ringrose never played URC during the fallow weeks whilst Ntamack was coming back from recent injury and likely to play as short of competition…
Here are recent 6N cases: look at press release or download full hearing to inform this debate:
https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/en/discipline
As I understand it France have a clear policy disbarring players from playing in club matches during the 6N. The other countries don’t, inluding Ireland. So the outlier case is N’Tamack’s and not Ringrose’s. The treatment for Ringrose is the norm.
As an aside, it is remarkable that N’Tamack and Ringrose both got the same match punishment. N’Tamack was a deliberate ‘revenge’ headshot happenning after an altercation with the player a few minutes before. Surely a straight red sanction?
If N'Tamack deserved a 3,4,5 or 6 weeks ban, why did'nt he got this kind of ban, and I should agree with that? Sorry, but your argument is irrelevant , he got the same ban than Ringrose who will not play 1 game and he did'nt play 2 games. It is totally unfair.
I don’t think you can prove it was a deliberate head shot. That’s an opinion. He may have intended to hit him hard and he may have been reckless, but that doesn't not mean he deliberately meant to hit him in the head. Ringrose also intended to hit his player hard and he was also reckless. Murky territory when you start trying to differentiate between one and the other.
The sanction is fair enough but they shouldn’t be patting themselves on the back believing they are protecting players. It’s obscene that Thomas wasn’t taken off for a mandatory HIA.
Thomas had a broken nose yet the verdict not only said the hit was ‘accidental’ but that ‘no injury occurred’. If an injury occurred France was looking at 6 games for NTamack.
Incredible the difference with N'Tamack.
What a shame.
So a game with Leinster , Ringrose would have never played, is OK for Ringrose, but a game with Toulouse did'nt count for N'Tamack…
But ,it's well knowned , french people are paranoiac….
Ringrose was released for the Cardiff match. The verdict says so. Ntamack couldnt establish this. What is more concerning is that Ntamack broke Thomas nose in a deliberate act. The broken nose was confirmed by the Welsh doctor. Yet the report showed that no injury occurred and that the hit was ‘accidental’.
“As such, the decision had been made to release the Player to Leinster to allow him to get game time before the Ireland v France match, in which he would have been expected to feature but for this red cards. In addition, Simon Easterby explained that part of the reason for releasing the Player to Leinster was to allow him the chance to play in a different position in order that Ireland can consider using the Player on the wing as well as in the centre. An e-mail sent by the IRFU to Leinster confirming that the Player was included in the list of Ireland squad players released to Leinster for the match against Cardiff.”
Note Ntamack had a fight before with Thomas on the ground. He shoulders him on the face and breaks his nose (Wales doctors evidence). But the verdict is “No injury” and “unintentional”. Are you concerned?
I also hope Thomas is given a break against Scotland.
As I understand it France have a clear policy disbarring players from playing in matches during the 6N. The other countries don’t. So the outlier case is N’Tamacks and not Ringrose’s.
Another example of World Rugby failing to deal with clear and obvious contradictions. Clowns could do a better job!
I haven't heard this story. Why didn't the game for Ntmack count, it should be the same. It's the same in NZ. Did World Rugby say no or was it French Rugby?
Agree, it is weird, bizarre, unfair (a lot of words in fact!) that both cases are not handled in the same way. A very bad image of our sport and it does not help to open it to new fans and other countries… will see if there is any reaction from other observers. Italy could file à complaint 😅