Six Nations isn't over for Garry Ringrose despite his red card ban

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?

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.

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….