Why the delay? Insight into Grant Gilchrist hearing and comparing his ban to that of Mohamed Haouas

Is the Six Nations disciplinary process fit for purpose? I ask because it hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory these past couple of weeks. The process seems to lack consistency, with the punishment not always proportional to the crime.

Scotland's Grant Gilchrist was sent off against France by Georgian referee Nika Amashukeli. (Photo by ANNE-CHRISTINE POUJOULAT/AFP via Getty Images)

Grant Gilchrist appeared before an independent judicial committee via video link last Tuesday following his red card for a high tackle against France. No one disputed the sending off, indeed Gilchrist admitted prior to the hearing that his act of foul play warranted a red card. Why then did he have to wait six days for the result of the committee’s deliberations? The Scotland forward was given a three-week ban, which was reduced to two after he agreed to attend something that has been dubbed “tackle school” but which rugby’s high heid yins prefer to call a “Coaching Intervention Programme… aimed at modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play”.

Gilchrist’s suspension means he will miss Scotland’s final two Six Nations games, against Ireland and Italy. It’s tough luck on the Edinburgh lock who had never before been sent off and he must be looking askance at the ban handed out to France’s prop Mohamed Haouas, who was dismissed for a more serious incident in the same game. Haouas launched himself head-first at Ben White, connecting with the head of the Scotland scrum-half. His punishment was a four-week ban, reduced to three for attending the coaching course. Haouas now has the dubious honour of being the only player to be sent off twice in the Six Nations, having also been red-carded against Scotland three years ago for punching Jamie Ritchie. And just for good measure he was also sent off while playing for Montpellier against Lyon last season.

Haouas also benefited from learning about his ban on the day of his hearing. Unlike Gilchrist, he didn’t have to wait almost a week. Conspiracy theorists will point out that by leaving the decision until Monday, the judicial committee quashed Gilchrist’s hopes of last Saturday’s Edinburgh v Leinster game counting as the first match of his suspension, therefore freeing him up to face Italy. That would be to give the process too much credit. What apparently happened was that the three people who sat in judgement on Gilchrist couldn’t reconvene until Monday, leaving the player in limbo all last week.

The committee was chaired by Brenda Heather-Latu, a Samoan lawyer, and also included Becky Essex, a former England international, and Donal Courtney, a former Irish referee. The delay in delivering a verdict meant Gilchrist couldn’t be considered for the Leinster game and both the player and Edinburgh will feel aggrieved about that. Given he played only around seven minutes of Scotland’s defeat by France in Paris, they would argue that he could well have featured for his club in an important game they ended up losing.

There is also the matter of an Irish representative sitting on an independent judicial committee making a decision on a player’s availability for a Scotland v Ireland match. No-one is questioning the impartiality of Mr Courtney, but why put him in this position? A similar thing happened in the autumn when an Argentinian representative was on the committee which banned Richie Gray for Scotland v Argentina. If it wants its judicial committees to be truly independent, the Six Nations should not place those who sit in judgement in such invidious circumstances.