Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Thomas Ramos cops concurrent bans for striking and eye contact

(Photo by Jean Catuffe/Getty Images)

France full-back Thomas Ramos will be available for the start of the Guinness Six Nations after a disciplinary hearing committee decided that his five- and four-week bans arising from separate incidents in last Sunday’s European win by Toulouse over Sale should run concurrently.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 27-year-old, who was selected at No15 in all three of his country’s Autumn Nations Series games, was sent off in the 80th minute of the Toulouse victory over Sale in the Heineken Champions Cup. He then learned that he would also be cited for an earlier 56th-minute incident where was accused of making contact with the eye area of an opposition player.

Ramos copped a four-week suspension for the red card and a five-week ban for the eye contact. However, rather than add the two suspensions together and ban the Toulouse player for nine weeks, it was decided that the bans should run concurrently, meaning he will be sidelined for only five weeks and will be free to play on Monday, January 23.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

A statement read: “The Toulouse full-back, Thomas Ramos, has been suspended for five weeks following independent disciplinary hearings arising from his club’s Heineken Champions Cup round two match against Sale Sharks at Stade Ernest-Wallon.

“Ramos was issued with a red card by the referee, Andrea Piardi of Italy, in the 80th minute for striking the Sale full-back, Byron McGuigan, with his head in contravention of law 9.12. Ramos was also cited by the match citing commissioner, Ed Kenny of Ireland, for allegedly making contact with the eye or eye area of the Sale scrum-half, Gus Warr, in the 56th minute in contravention of law 9.12.

Related

“An independent disciplinary committee comprising Daniel White (England, chair), Donal Courtney (Ireland) and Bogdan Zebega (Romania) heard the two cases consecutively. The committee considered video imagery of the incidents and took evidence from Ramos and from Warr. It also took submissions from Ramos’ legal representative, Neil Robertson, from Stade Toulousain head coach Ugo Mola, from Stade Toulousain high-performance manager Jerome Cazalbou, and from EPCR disciplinary officer Liam McTiernan.

“Ramos accepted the red card decision. However, in relation to the citing complaint, he did not accept that he had made contact with the eye area of Warr. With regard to the citing, the committee upheld the complaint, finding that Ramos had made intentional contact with Warr’s eye area. It determined that the offence was at the mid-range of World Rugby’s sanctions and eight weeks was selected as the appropriate entry point.

ADVERTISEMENT

“As Ramos did not accept that he had committed the offence, the committee was not able to grant him the full 50 per cent mitigation, and it reduced the sanction by three weeks before imposing a suspension of five weeks.

“The red card decision was also upheld with the committee finding that Ramos had struck McGuigan with his head. It determined that the offence was at the low end of World Rugby’s sanctions and six weeks was selected as the appropriate entry point.

“Taking into account Ramos’ guilty plea, the committee reduced the sanction by two weeks before imposing a suspension of four weeks. The committee then decided that the two sanctions of five weeks and four weeks should run concurrently and Ramos is therefore free to play on Monday, January 23.”

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 Does South Africa have a future in European competition? Does South Africa have a future in European competition?
Search