Stormers v Brumbies Qualifier
- Thread starter Set piece magic
- Start date
- Status
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Just goes to show how much of a rewrite the whole lawbook needs.
He was charged with a)a dangerous tackle and b)lifting and driving into the ground.
Technically he didn't do either of those things, but the poor victim has still ended up being pile driven into the turf, and now we go through the ludicrous judicary and appeal process all because the laws don't actually say what is intended.
He was charged with a)a dangerous tackle and b)lifting and driving into the ground.
Technically he didn't do either of those things, but the poor victim has still ended up being pile driven into the turf, and now we go through the ludicrous judicary and appeal process all because the laws don't actually say what is intended.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
Not sure this is any better? The dangerous part and driving into the ground doesn't change - and they are the crucial parts IMO.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Yes, but this is SANZAR, and no SANZAR judicial process would be complete without an element of farce and inconsistency.
And speaking of inconsistency, IIRC the Brumbies and Steven Larkham in particular made quite a big deal about the Liam Gill "tackle" on Nic White. The Speight one is actually worse because the opposing player landed head first.
A lifting tackle is meant to carry a four-week suspension, but Queensland Reds flanker Gill was given a reduction for pleading guilty, having a good record and having played for Australia.
Gill picked up White at a ruck in Saturday's game, tipping him upside down before slamming him into the ground on his side.
"It was out of character. It was certainly dangerous and reckless, but Nic didn't land directly on his neck. It's all independently done and I've got full confidence in the process and happy with the outcome." said Larkham. (the outcome being a 2 week suspension)
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...rous-tackle-on-nic-white-20150316-1m098a.html
The IRB has issued a directive on this type of incident.
The International Rugby Board has issued a statement of clarification regarding the Tip or Spear tackle.
Law 10.4(j) reads: 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.
A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
A SANZAR Judicial Hearing has found Henry Speight of the Brumbies guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (j) Lifting Tackle, after he received a red card during a Super Rugby match at the weekend. Speight has been suspended for five weeks up to and including Saturday 25 July 2015, which translates into four matches.
The incident occurred in the 74th minute of the match between the Stormers and Brumbies at DHL Newlands in Cape Town on 20 June 2015.
The SANZAR Judicial Hearing was heard by Robert Stelzner SC via video conference at 4:00pm AEST, 6:00pm NZST, 8:00am SAST on 23 June 2015. Mike Mika was the former professional player who attended as a Judicial Technical Adviser. The outcome was delayed as Stelzner requested information of the player's forthcoming playing schedule in order to determine the sanction.
In his finding, Stelzner ruled the following:
"As the Judicial Officer, I considered all the evidence before me including the video footage of the incident, referee and TMO reports for issuing the red card and the submissions made for the player by his legal representative, Peter McGrath.
"After taking all relevant facts into consideration, I found that the referee's decision to issue a red card was correct. I found the incident to have a lower end entry point for breaching of 10.4 (j) Lifting Tackle which stipulates a four-week suspension.
"It was submitted on Speight’s behalf that the tackle was part of a legitimate attempt to clear Juan de Jongh from a ruck. The player tackled his opponent before De Jongh had joined the ruck. In my assessment, Speight did so in response to De Jongh impeding his access to the breakdown and joining the ruck which had been formed.
"The dominant movement of his right arm, the positioning of his leg under De Jongh and that of his left hand behind De Jongh’s neck together with Speight’s driving movement on to De Jongh, caused the player to make contact with the ground, head first, in a cartwheel movement. At the moment of impact with the ground, De Jongh’s feet had been raised off the ground by Speight which constituted dangerous play in contravention of Law 10.4(j).
"The tackle caused De Jongh’s feet to lift and his head to make contact with the ground first. It was not a legitimate clean out at a ruck and the player was fortunate not to have been injured. The offending was however not premeditated and occurred in reaction to De Jongh having impeded Speight’s progress. The momentum of the players may have contributed to the result.
“An aggravating factor is the ongoing need for a deterrent for dangerous play such as this which carries with it the real risk of serious injury. As a result, two weeks were added to the sanction.
"Mitigating factors included Speight's unblemished disciplinary record over a lengthy first class career for the Brumbies in Super Rugby and Waikato in New Zealand's provincial competition. Brumbies coach, Stephen Larkham, spoke to the outstanding character of Speight and his position within the team as a leader and his work in the community. This, amongst other factors, resulted in a reduction in sanction of two weeks.
"The player’s schedule is such that the Brumbies play in the Super Rugby Semi-Finals this weekend with the potential to play in the Final the following week. Speight is likely to be included in the Wallabies’ squad for the upcoming Rugby Championship with the first match to be played on 18 July 2015. If not required for the Final, Speight would play club rugby in Canberra for the Gungahlin Eagles and have leave the week thereafter when Gungahlin has a bye. If the Brumbies make it to the Final he would have played and still been rested during the week of the 11th. As a result, the player will have at least one rest week over the next five weeks during which no match is to be played. A five-week suspension up to and including the match between Australia and Argentina on 25 July 2015 will therefore result in him missing four matches.
"The player is found to have contravened Law 10.4 (j) and is suspended up to and including Saturday, 25 July 2015."
The incident occurred in the 74th minute of the match between the Stormers and Brumbies at DHL Newlands in Cape Town on 20 June 2015.
The SANZAR Judicial Hearing was heard by Robert Stelzner SC via video conference at 4:00pm AEST, 6:00pm NZST, 8:00am SAST on 23 June 2015. Mike Mika was the former professional player who attended as a Judicial Technical Adviser. The outcome was delayed as Stelzner requested information of the player's forthcoming playing schedule in order to determine the sanction.
In his finding, Stelzner ruled the following:
"As the Judicial Officer, I considered all the evidence before me including the video footage of the incident, referee and TMO reports for issuing the red card and the submissions made for the player by his legal representative, Peter McGrath.
"After taking all relevant facts into consideration, I found that the referee's decision to issue a red card was correct. I found the incident to have a lower end entry point for breaching of 10.4 (j) Lifting Tackle which stipulates a four-week suspension.
"It was submitted on Speight’s behalf that the tackle was part of a legitimate attempt to clear Juan de Jongh from a ruck. The player tackled his opponent before De Jongh had joined the ruck. In my assessment, Speight did so in response to De Jongh impeding his access to the breakdown and joining the ruck which had been formed.
"The dominant movement of his right arm, the positioning of his leg under De Jongh and that of his left hand behind De Jongh’s neck together with Speight’s driving movement on to De Jongh, caused the player to make contact with the ground, head first, in a cartwheel movement. At the moment of impact with the ground, De Jongh’s feet had been raised off the ground by Speight which constituted dangerous play in contravention of Law 10.4(j).
"The tackle caused De Jongh’s feet to lift and his head to make contact with the ground first. It was not a legitimate clean out at a ruck and the player was fortunate not to have been injured. The offending was however not premeditated and occurred in reaction to De Jongh having impeded Speight’s progress. The momentum of the players may have contributed to the result.
“An aggravating factor is the ongoing need for a deterrent for dangerous play such as this which carries with it the real risk of serious injury. As a result, two weeks were added to the sanction.
"Mitigating factors included Speight's unblemished disciplinary record over a lengthy first class career for the Brumbies in Super Rugby and Waikato in New Zealand's provincial competition. Brumbies coach, Stephen Larkham, spoke to the outstanding character of Speight and his position within the team as a leader and his work in the community. This, amongst other factors, resulted in a reduction in sanction of two weeks.
"The player’s schedule is such that the Brumbies play in the Super Rugby Semi-Finals this weekend with the potential to play in the Final the following week. Speight is likely to be included in the Wallabies’ squad for the upcoming Rugby Championship with the first match to be played on 18 July 2015. If not required for the Final, Speight would play club rugby in Canberra for the Gungahlin Eagles and have leave the week thereafter when Gungahlin has a bye. If the Brumbies make it to the Final he would have played and still been rested during the week of the 11th. As a result, the player will have at least one rest week over the next five weeks during which no match is to be played. A five-week suspension up to and including the match between Australia and Argentina on 25 July 2015 will therefore result in him missing four matches.
"The player is found to have contravened Law 10.4 (j) and is suspended up to and including Saturday, 25 July 2015."
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I think that's about right, it was ugly. I don't think Henry is a thug or that there was any malicious intent.
Realistically this is a four game suspension which definitely seems on the money to me. Speight is pretty unlucky that there isn't a game he could potentially be scheduled for the weekend after Super Rugby finishes otherwise he could have been back for the Pumas test.
FrankLind
Colin Windon (37)
So it's a window for the Taqele's pick to face ABs
I hope he starts against the ABs.
Completely unready for test match rugby with multiple holes in his game.
(he is a beast though)
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Sounds like Naholo
FrankLind
Colin Windon (37)
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Yep - you have to take a shot at the judiciary lotto.
Not sure if i am hearing correctly but I am hearing that unlike the other bans, this one was lengthened deliberately due to a bye game in the JID?
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
I'm pleased that the JO found it to be at entry level because there was certainly no foul play or intent to injure involved, and as the JO said in his judgement, JdeJ contributed by interfering with Henry as he was attempting to join the ruck/tackle. It might also be added that JdeJ was approaching the play from an off side position also, as the tackle had been made and he would have been required to enter from the Stormer's side.
I agree that the penalty was about right because of the risk of injury, although it's probably about time some similar action was taken against props who cause scrums to collapse. Although there is generally no foul play involved, every time a scrum is collapsed the opposing prop runs a similar risk of serious injury to head, neck or back. Both high or dangerous tackles and dangerous collapsing of the scrum pose similar risks and players have been seriously injured as a result of both types of infringements.
I can hear the cries of derision coming from many quarters to this proposition but I'll bet that any of the props injured in collapsed scrums over the years wouldn't discriminate between the risks involved in dangerous play at the tackle or the scrum.
And with BA widely regarded as being at fault in collapsed scrums involving the Brumbies or the Wallabies, I would reject any suggestion that might came as to bias on my part. Dangerous play is dangerous play wherever it occurs and although not foul play steps should be taken to avoid those situations occurring.
I agree that the penalty was about right because of the risk of injury, although it's probably about time some similar action was taken against props who cause scrums to collapse. Although there is generally no foul play involved, every time a scrum is collapsed the opposing prop runs a similar risk of serious injury to head, neck or back. Both high or dangerous tackles and dangerous collapsing of the scrum pose similar risks and players have been seriously injured as a result of both types of infringements.
I can hear the cries of derision coming from many quarters to this proposition but I'll bet that any of the props injured in collapsed scrums over the years wouldn't discriminate between the risks involved in dangerous play at the tackle or the scrum.
And with BA widely regarded as being at fault in collapsed scrums involving the Brumbies or the Wallabies, I would reject any suggestion that might came as to bias on my part. Dangerous play is dangerous play wherever it occurs and although not foul play steps should be taken to avoid those situations occurring.
mudskipper
Colin Windon (37)
Had to appeal at end of season... nonsense to punish players & clubs for extended weeks for appealing for justice...Gentlemen its not the middle ages!!! 5 weeks is outrageous & ridiculous as he swung the player and didn't set and lift a player... I note it also takes him pout of the Wallabies Boks game...
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
4 games.......... as expected.
So in regards to the RC he'll miss the first 2 tests only..........
He's really got some shit luck though when it comes to his test career...........
Has an extra year tagged onto his qualifying for playing some club rugby in NZ..............
Gets injured when he's finally eligible............
Is eligible, uninjured, but gets suspended..............
Oh well, a rest might be good for him........... not so much for the Brumbies.
So in regards to the RC he'll miss the first 2 tests only..........
He's really got some shit luck though when it comes to his test career...........
Has an extra year tagged onto his qualifying for playing some club rugby in NZ..............
Gets injured when he's finally eligible............
Is eligible, uninjured, but gets suspended..............
Oh well, a rest might be good for him........... not so much for the Brumbies.
Speight is pretty unlucky though, if you're going to throw a player on their head and not even get cited this is the correct procedure:
You must remember that's just "good hard rugby" and he never meant to hurt him, so it doesn't matter if a player lands on his head. At least that's what the comms said at the time, so it must be so.
Cue Kiwi defence in 5,4,3..............................
- Status