Moa "sanction" a wet bus ticket
April 16, 2009
It could be Taniela Moa's lucky day to go and invest in a Lotto ticket after the leniency handed him by the NZRU.
Moa fronted an NZRU disciplinary hearing in Wellington on Wednesday after his recent misbehaviour at an Auckland rugby club, throwing a bottle which went on to hit a woman at Marist's suburban club rooms.
Under the terms of the NZRU's Collective Employment Agreement, the national body has the power to suspend, fine and even terminate the contracts of those guilty of serious offences.
But on Wednesday the NZRU decided to hand out what appears a highly lenient punishment; a one-week suspension, a $1200 fine, complete an alcohol counselling programme and apologise to the woman who was the unfortunate recipient of his airborne bottle.
On top of that, Moa will partake in community rugby work and help out with teams from his former college.
Before fronting the NZRU misconduct hearing, he also appeared in court on a charge of assault, eventually being granted diversion.
Despite being handed a one-week ban, he will still feature in round 10 of the Rebel Sport Super 14, with the NZRU deeming his sidelining against the Lions last week while the incident was investigated would cover the suspension.
I am staggered at the leniency handed to Moa.
While his supporters will say he has copped it hard, with his reputation being damaged following the well-publicised incident, in reality he has received little more than a whack over the wrist with a wet bus ticket.
At a time when rugby bosses won't allow for the return of rucking as the sight of sprigs taking aim at players trying to kill the ball might not be good for the image of rugby; what sort of a message is Moa's 'punishment' sending?
Flying bottles can often cause worse injuries than a wayward spring.
Incidents of professional players misbehaving in both codes of rugby have become all too common. Thankfully, rugby's rap sheet isn't yet as bad as that seen from the weekly incidents involving league stars across the Tasman.
But if the NZRU was trying to send a message that it wouldn't tolerate incidents such as that of Moa, then I think they have failed badly.
There are two issues here;
One is that an act of bottle throwing is highly serious in its own regard and should have warranted a lengthy suspension.
The other is that the victim of Moa's actions was a woman; that in itself should have brought with it a far sterner response from rugby top-brass.
There is no way Moa should be running out onto Eden Park with his Blues team-mates on Friday night.
Instead he should have been scratched for a prolonged period, even up until the end of the Super 14.
And if you think I am over-reacting, take a second to consider how you would feel if one of your nearest and dearest had been struck with the flying bottle.
What do you think?
Has Moa got off lightly? Or is the incident being blown out of proportion?
Moa fronted an NZRU disciplinary hearing in Wellington on Wednesday after his recent misbehaviour at an Auckland rugby club, throwing a bottle which went on to hit a woman at Marist's suburban club rooms.
Under the terms of the NZRU's Collective Employment Agreement, the national body has the power to suspend, fine and even terminate the contracts of those guilty of serious offences.
But on Wednesday the NZRU decided to hand out what appears a highly lenient punishment; a one-week suspension, a $1200 fine, complete an alcohol counselling programme and apologise to the woman who was the unfortunate recipient of his airborne bottle.
On top of that, Moa will partake in community rugby work and help out with teams from his former college.
Before fronting the NZRU misconduct hearing, he also appeared in court on a charge of assault, eventually being granted diversion.
Despite being handed a one-week ban, he will still feature in round 10 of the Rebel Sport Super 14, with the NZRU deeming his sidelining against the Lions last week while the incident was investigated would cover the suspension.
I am staggered at the leniency handed to Moa.
While his supporters will say he has copped it hard, with his reputation being damaged following the well-publicised incident, in reality he has received little more than a whack over the wrist with a wet bus ticket.
At a time when rugby bosses won't allow for the return of rucking as the sight of sprigs taking aim at players trying to kill the ball might not be good for the image of rugby; what sort of a message is Moa's 'punishment' sending?
Flying bottles can often cause worse injuries than a wayward spring.
Incidents of professional players misbehaving in both codes of rugby have become all too common. Thankfully, rugby's rap sheet isn't yet as bad as that seen from the weekly incidents involving league stars across the Tasman.
But if the NZRU was trying to send a message that it wouldn't tolerate incidents such as that of Moa, then I think they have failed badly.
There are two issues here;
One is that an act of bottle throwing is highly serious in its own regard and should have warranted a lengthy suspension.
The other is that the victim of Moa's actions was a woman; that in itself should have brought with it a far sterner response from rugby top-brass.
There is no way Moa should be running out onto Eden Park with his Blues team-mates on Friday night.
Instead he should have been scratched for a prolonged period, even up until the end of the Super 14.
And if you think I am over-reacting, take a second to consider how you would feel if one of your nearest and dearest had been struck with the flying bottle.
What do you think?
Has Moa got off lightly? Or is the incident being blown out of proportion?
Post a comment
To post a new comment, you must Sign in first.