Queensland Reds 2025

[Braveheart81]

He tried to tackle him around the waist. He dropped his body height as he is supposed to do. He’s actually in the process of making a midsection tackle. Then the ball carrier dropped his height as well, but later, and Paisami had no chance to adjust. You’re essentially saying a tackler needs to be able to forsee the actions of the ball carrier and tackle for where he thinks he’ll end up. I get that it is relatively predictable that the ball carrier will drop their height, but I think what your suggesting is not a realistic expectation IMO. And that’s what my problem is with the decision. IMO it’s setting an unrealistic expectation on the tackler - regardless of the virtue of the outcome it is trying to achieve.

I disagree with that. I think Paisami tried to put himself between the player and the try line because that was the only conceivable option he had to prevent a try.

If it wasn't two metres out from the goal line then I don't think he puts himself in that position.

I think this is generally the way we're going to see these sort of incidents dealt with.

 

[TSR]

I disagree with that. I think Paisami tried to put himself between the player and the try line because that was the only conceivable option he had to prevent a try.

If it wasn't two metres out from the goal line then I don't think he puts himself in that position.

I think this is generally the way we're going to see these sort of incidents dealt with.

Paisami did put himself between the player and the try line. IMO he did so in a manner I believe is within the framework of the rules and I don’t think he can be expected to adjust for the late actions of the ball carrier if her is in position to make a legal tackle within that framework. The ref & TMO obviously agreed. The citing commission and judiciary clearly don’t.

I agree with your last sentence as I assume the judiciary outcome will influence refereeing going forward. in fact, I think there are plenty of examples where similiar things have happened resulting in yellow cards.

I am a bit perplexed though that he has got 3 weeks because, to me, that suggests the judiciary feel the tackle on its own was a red card offence, not just a second yellow resulting in a red. I think that’s neither consistent nor desirable.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I am a bit perplexed though that he has got 3 weeks because, to me, that suggests the judiciary feel the tackle on its own was a red card offence, not just a second yellow resulting in a red. I think that’s neither consistent nor desirable.

Definitely suspended for the tackle on the try line (ie a red card) and not for two yellows

The Super Rugby Pacific Foul Play Review Committee (FPRC) has found Hunter Paisami (Queensland Reds) guilty of committing a dangerous tackle in contravention of Law 9.13.

The tackle occurred in the 30th minute of the match between the Reds and Moana Pasifika at Suncorp Stadium on 21 February 2025.

 

[Major Tom]

They might have, had he not plead guilty.

Yeah, the challenging aspect is very odd.

 

[Ignoto]

The FPRC upheld the citing issued to Paisami and determined the mid-range entry point of six weeks/matches was appropriate. In light of the player accepting he committed an act of foul play as well as mitigating factors such as an exemplary disciplinary record, the FPRC applied the full 50 per cent reduction in sanction.



*Paisami was also given permission to apply to take part in World Rugby's Coaching Intervention Programme as a substitute for the final match of the sanction.

So, he cops 6 weeks and then they apply a 50% discount. i.e. drops down to 3 weeks.

Then he gets an extra week off to attend tackle school.

Why isn't it a two game suspension as the way they have written it, the tackle school is in addition to the 50% reduction.

 

[Braveheart81]

So, he cops 6 weeks and then they apply a 50% discount. i.e. drops down to 3 weeks.

Then he gets an extra week off to attend tackle school.

Why isn't it a two game suspension as the way they have written it, the tackle school is in addition to the 50% reduction.

Because tackle school is optional. He will obviously do it because he'd be insane not to but the judiciary has handed him a three game suspension, not a two game suspension.

 

[TSR]

definition of the law overlooks the stupidity of the implementation….. players are now in positions where they at times can’t avoid head contact or defend the line if the ball carrier simply ducks their head…

If the concern is on the head contact, then responsibility for protecting the head needs to shared with ball carriers…

We’re in trouble if they ever start applying this around rucks 2m out where a pick and drive results in head contact 75% of the time.

I believe there is already an exception in the laws Adam did head on head contact where players pick and drive.

 

[Ignoto]

but the judiciary has handed him a three game suspension, not a two game suspension.

But that's not how it reads?

He copped a 6 week suspension.

This was reduced to 3 weeks as he entered a guilty plea, had mitigating factors and a good record.

The last sentence suggests he can do tackle school in place of the last game.

So he either copped a 4 week suspension which tackle school drops down to 3 (which is not a 50% reduction) or he cops a 3 week suspension and it drops to 2 weeks with tackle school.

I do not think tackle school should be considered a "mitigating factor" nor included in how much of a reduction is given on a sentence. It just sounds like a cop out to help murky how long a tackle like this should be suspended and does not improve transparency on what a similar collision will also receive.

 

[JRugby2]

I believe there is already an exception in the laws Adam did head on head contact where players pick and drive.

In community rugby, specifically re: tackles above the sternum - that doesn’t yet apply to professional rugby (not because it’s illegal, but because the sternum law doesnt exist)

 

[Dctarget]

Morgs thinks he has already done tackle school.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Morgs thinks he has already done tackle school.

 

[Braveheart81]

But that's not how it reads?

He copped a 6 week suspension.

This was reduced to 3 weeks as he entered a guilty plea, had mitigating factors and a good record.

The last sentence suggests he can do tackle school in place of the last game.

So he either copped a 4 week suspension which tackle school drops down to 3 (which is not a 50% reduction) or he cops a 3 week suspension and it drops to 2 weeks with tackle school.

I do not think tackle school should be considered a "mitigating factor" nor included in how much of a reduction is given on a sentence. It just sounds like a cop out to help murky how long a tackle like this should be suspended and does not improve transparency on what a similar collision will also receive.

The FPRC upheld the citing issued to Paisami and determined the mid-range entry point of six weeks/matches was appropriate. In light of the player accepting he committed an act of foul play as well as mitigating factors such as an exemplary disciplinary record, the FPRC applied the full 50 per cent reduction in sanction.

*Paisami was also given permission to apply to take part in World Rugby's Coaching Intervention Programme as a substitute for the final match of the sanction.

Paisami has been suspended from all forms of the game for three weeks, which will apply to the following Super Rugby Pacific matches:

- Western Force v Queensland Reds, Saturday 1 March 2025

- Crusaders v Queensland Reds, Sunday 9 March 2025

- Queensland Reds v NSW Waratahs, Saturday 15 March 2025*

What's unclear here?

 

[Filipo Daugunu]

Dre Pakeho is a gun, played super well in that Wild Knights game. He should be the 12 while Paisami is out, need to give him opportunities. A future Wallaby 12 for sure.

 

[Ignoto]

What's unclear here?

I broke it down on how its not clear but I'll try again.

1 - Judiciary said starting point is 6 weeks.
2 - Mitigating factors such as Hunter said he's guilty and has an exemplary discipline record mean the judiciary apply a 50% discount.

Last time I checked, 50% of 6 is 3 weeks.

They then say, Hunter can do tackle school as a substitute for the final match.

Which is marked via the asterisked as being the Waratahs game.

So, does Hunter return for the Waratahs game because he was given 50% off his 6 weeks for mitigating factors AND does tackle school.

OR should it be the following

1 - Judiciary said starting point is 6 weeks.
2 - Mitigating factors such as Hunter said he's guilty and has an exemplary discipline record mean the judiciary reduce it down to 4 weeks.
3 - Hunter will do tackle school to reduce it to 3 weeks.

Which means Hunter returns AFTER the Tahs game.


So, which one is it?

 

[Braveheart81]

I broke it down on how its not clear but I'll try again.

1 - Judiciary said starting point is 6 weeks.
2 - Mitigating factors such as Hunter said he's guilty and has an exemplary discipline record mean the judiciary apply a 50% discount.

Last time I checked, 50% of 6 is 3 weeks.

They then say, Hunter can do tackle school as a substitute for the final match.

Which is marked via the asterisked as being the Waratahs game.

So, does Hunter return for the Waratahs game because he was given 50% off his 6 weeks for mitigating factors AND does tackle school.

This. If he does tackle school it replaces the final match of his three week suspension and he is eligible to play in that game against the Waratahs.

 

[JRugby2]

OR should it be the following

1 - Judiciary said starting point is 6 weeks.
2 - Mitigating factors such as Hunter said he's guilty and has an exemplary discipline record mean the judiciary reduce it down to 4 weeks.
3 - Hunter will do tackle school to reduce it to 3 weeks.

Which means Hunter returns AFTER the Tahs game.


So, which one is it?

Man, I have no idea how this could possibly be inferred from the statement they gave.

 

[Ignoto]

Man, I have no idea how this could possibly be inferred from the statement they gave.

It's a poorly structured press release.

The "foot note" they used straight after the paragraph on the the ban reduction suggests that the tackle school component was already part of the reduction.

Whereas, if they moved the explanation of the Asterix to be post the 3 games Hunter was "suspended" for, it would act as an explanation.

 

[dru]

Paisami did put himself between the player and the try line.

Shocking.

 

[JRugby2]

This annoys me.

a 50% reduction is massive - and it's a huge incentive to not bother challenging it at all - meaning we really don't know what the true outcome of this is. Morgs on BTP's last night says the conversations he's had with the referee group are that they believe the on field call was correct - so now we have the referee group and the judiciary misaligned on the application of law.

Keep the suspension period at 6 weeks for head contact by all means, but if the guilty plea discount was only a week instead of 50% of the suspension - we'd probably see more of these challenged and hopefully more consistent outcomes.

Having consistent 5-6 week suspensions would probably also do a hell of a lot more to discourage dangerous tackles than 3 weeks, as an added consequence.

Nick Wright in the Brisbane Times:

Reds coach Les Kiss also believed the incident did not warrant a suspension. He said he was shocked by the decision, given the attention paid to it by the referees without a penalty.
“We certainly feel for Hunter and our first thought was to protect Hunter. We considered a lot of things deep into the night; we asked for an extension about how we can approach this because we were keen to protect the situation and fight it.

“However, time pressures just get on top of you, and we probably didn’t want to take the risk going further with it.
“We did [believe the tackle was OK], and the referees did, but that’s the situation. There’s a right situation in place, and we follow the process, and it’s landed as it has.

“The independent referees we talked to around the globe certainly considered it was something that’s possibly into the space that it didn’t need to go where it did.

So this is basically it. Reds felt it was better to just plead guilty than fight it. That shouldn't be how the judiciary process is applied.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Nick Wright in the Brisbane Times:

So this is basically it. Reds felt it was better to just plead guilty than fight it. That shouldn't be how the judiciary process is applied.

Being already on a yellow card certainly complicates things.

If he was treated like Tom Banks and got a warning from the judiciary instead of the full red card he would still cop the 2xYC suspension anyway. So there was a fair element of risk to any defence.

Having said that, I wonder if this was Queenslander understatement, or if it accurately reflected the ref's view. No exactly backing him in with full force

“The independent referees we talked to around the globe certainly considered it was something that’s possibly into the space that it didn’t need to go where it did.