Lions v Waratahs - Round 16, 30 May 2015

[Shiggins]

May 31, 2015

Rob Horne banned for three weeks
ROB HORNE BANNED FOR THREE WEEKS
Duty Judicial Officer: Adam Casselden
Player: Rob Horne
Team: Waratahs
Position: Winger
Date of Incident: 30 May 2015
Nature of Offence: Law 10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Elapsed time in match when incident occurred: 27th minute

SANZAR NEWS RELEASE

The SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Adam Casselden has accepted a guilty plea from Rob Horne of the Waratahs for contravening Law 10.4 (j) Lifting Tackle, after he was cited following a Super Rugby match at the weekend.

Horne has been suspended from all forms of the game for three weeks up to and including Saturday 20 June 2015.

The incident occurred in the 27th minute of the Super Rugby match between the Lions and Waratahs at Emirates Airlines Park in Johannesburg on 30 May 2015.

SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Adam Casselden assessed the case.

In his finding, Mr Casselden ruled the following:

"After initially reviewing the video footage, Citing Commissioner's report and other relevant materials, I heard submissions from the player and his representatives, including his counsel Mr Anthony Black SC, and obtained their views of the incident. I then proceeded by establishing that the player accepted a breach for the cited offence and then identified the various factors involved in the incident.

"I considered the incident had an entry point in the low end range which starts at a four-week suspension for lifting tackles. I then added two weeks as a deterrent to send a further message that this type of tackle cannot be tolerated in the game due to the risk it poses to players.


"Mitigating factors included the player admitting guilt for the offence and demonstrating remorse for his actions. This, among other factors, entitles the player to a 50 per cent reduction, which results in a three-week sanction.

What a cock. This is out of Controll

 

[p.Tah]

It is utterly bizarre.

 

[Sully]

Funny how it was okay when Iaone was getting big suspensions for similar tackles a couple of years ago.
It not like this is new. The suspension are inline with the normal judgements handed down for the infringement.

 

[galumay]

Yep, instead of banging on criticising the refs or SANZAR, how about the f*ckwit players that consistently break the rules? Just stop lifting, tipping and driving players into the ground on their back/neck/head and you wont get carded, cited or suspended. Its not rocket surgery gentlemen.

 

[Dan54]

Well,although I said in earlier post I didn't think there was much in it, and as Horne pleaded guilty, I take it back, and perhaps I shouldn't comment without looking properly

 

[cyclopath]

Well,although I said in earlier post I didn't think there was much in it, and as Horne pleaded guilty, I take it back, and perhaps I shouldn't comment without looking properly

I think he pleaded guilty as he has prior, and was aiming at 3 weeks off, not 5 as it would have been. At least I'm guessing that was what his SC advised, given the "2 weeks added" rider that seems to have appeared recently.
Again, why the extra 2 weeks as a deterrent, when I thought judicial appearances and suspensions were designed to do just that? If they think the offence warrants a higher entry point, make it so. I'm concerned the application of the "extra 2 weeks" might become arbitrary, which would raise some questions about the consistency of the process, beyond what is already a wide perception.
Is this 2 weeks a SANZAR thing, or World Rugby? Anyone have a clue?

 

[Brumby Jack]

Wonder if they saw the Latu post game tweet

 

[Braveheart81]

There's a very clear message that you simply can't lift players in a tackle at all. The risk of getting suspended kicks in well before there is any risk to the tackled player.

Horne's tackle was basically a textbook front on tackle where he hit the ball carrier around the hips and drove up into him and plonked him on his arse. Given the treatment of these tackles in the last few years it isn't surprising that he has been suspended for it.

 

[Braveheart81]

In relation to Potgieter's yellow card, I completely understand what he was doing and that taking Whitely out with no arms in the tackle was a by-product of realising that he didn't have the ball but you just can't do that.

Once you commit to that level where you are going to run into the player, you just have to complete your tackle. If Potgieter makes a regulation tackle in that situation, sure he might get penalised but at least he isn't going to get a yellow card.

 

[Pete King]

As BH suggests above.: Horne has executed a textbook tackle, a attacking player at full speed entering a tackle and taken low will on most occasions be taken from his feet due to the opposing forces meeting and in response to the collision. The tackler (horne in this case) eithier a) purposely lifts him further and he ends up on his head or shoulders (penalty punishment should arise) or b) drives the player into the ground on his back or bum.

In the horne case such was the force of the hit that the player detached from him and landed safely on his back. (c)

The interpretation of the law now makes both illegal. Anyone who is banging on about "the fuckwit players" or the "stupidity" of Horne is barking up the wrong tree.

The spiral effect of this is if the players now react to these new interpretations they will have to be entering the tackle zone semi half hearted and are at a bigger risk of inurying themselves as a result. Dumb.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

How long before we see Ball Carriers "twisting" in the tackle to exaggerate the effect of the tackle to an extent that they end up temporarily over the horizontal with legs flailing to try to buy a Yellow Card?

 

[Pfitzy]

After looking at the incident with Horne, I have no problem with 6 weeks IF it is going to be used as a deterrent (reduced as per mitigating factors) AND we are going to see consistency

 

[Pfitzy]

 

[qwerty51]

I don't care if Horne got 10 weeks if that's what SANZAR want to do so be it. I have huge problems with the inconsistency of the rulings. Steyn got 2 more weeks for a tackle that is just exponentially worse.

 

[Pfitzy]

And this shit talk about "Oh that tackle just went wrong" or "he fell awkwardly" should in no way excuse these tackles. Fact is, the tackler has a duty to bring them to ground safely.

 

[Gnostic]

How long before we see Ball Carriers "twisting" in the tackle to exaggerate the effect of the tackle to an extent that they end up temporarily over the horizontal with legs flailing to try to buy a Yellow Card?

Not long at all. Indeed I think I've seen it already. IMO any sort of "gamesmanship" and carrying one ala Soccer needs to be met with very stiff penalties. Minimum 2 weeks entry point. It is not in the spirit of the game.

 

[boyo]

According to one of the commentators Phibbs was playing in the match.

 

[qwerty51]

Not long at all. Indeed I think I've seen it already. IMO any sort of "gamesmanship" and carrying one ala Soccer needs to be met with very stiff penalties. Minimum 2 weeks entry point. It is not in the spirit of the game.

Which is exactly why injuries should have zero factor in punishment.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think he pleaded guilty as he has prior, and was aiming at 3 weeks off, not 5 as it would have been. At least I'm guessing that was what his SC advised, given the "2 weeks added" rider that seems to have appeared recently.
Again, why the extra 2 weeks as a deterrent, when I thought judicial appearances and suspensions were designed to do just that? If they think the offence warrants a higher entry point, make it so. I'm concerned the application of the "extra 2 weeks" might become arbitrary, which would raise some questions about the consistency of the process, beyond what is already a wide perception.
Is this 2 weeks a SANZAR thing, or World Rugby? Anyone have a clue?

Pretty much my own thoughts after the suspensions of Skelton and Latu after the Crusaders' game. Refer to post 344 on Waratahs/Crusaders game thread.

'However, what concerns me more is that the law makers have stipulated a certain penalty for entry level infringement, which the judiciary then have the option to reduce due to mitigating circumstances. Presumably, the entry level penalty is what the law makers assess to be the suitable deterrence in respect of a first offence and it is up to the judiciary to implement the penalties prescribed. I don't see that it is the judiciary's role to essentially make new laws of the game by adding to the prescribed penalty. If some additional deterrence is thought to be needed, surely it is the responsibility of the law makers to change the prescribed entry level penalty.'

 

[mudskipper]

Jezz just as well he pleaded guilty, it would have been 6 weeks and end of season... Well I guess it could be anyway