John Afoa cited.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/16480.php

Hoping he doesnt miss the Semi Final - was it dangerous?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NfO2jjNivyU

I remember the tackle and thought it was marginal - Jones did go below the horizontal but only be a few degrees. If he does get a ban amazed if it's more than week or two - would miss a couple Rabo games but be ok for semi

Mimimum ban is three weeks apparently. Might appeal on the basis he scrubs up well, our scrum coach thinks he's a good lad and he might captain Ulster one day

Flip!

To me it is very simple. He did something illegal and committed a dangerous tackle. However I would have thought a yellow sufficient.

He neither drove Jones downwards nor did he drop him - they are the key factors for a red card.

Hopefully Ulster will have him for the semis. I am quite bitter than Poite did not penalise him but I want to see Ulster win the thing.

It deserved a citing and low end would be fine. The rule needs consistency or it needs to be completely re done. He derseves to be punished for reckless play. Having said that, Zebo should be cited too for giving Jones a hospital pass!


Might be worth it including the Original Post, Dodger

Spoiler:

He has already captained Ulster Notch!

I will be holding my breath all day Thursday!

Thomond wrote:It deserved a citing and low end would be fine. The rule needs consistency or it needs to be completely re done. He derseves to be punished for reckless play. Having said that, Zebo should be cited too for giving Jones a hospital pass!


Might be worth it including the Original Post, Dodger

Spoiler:

Personally I don't think tackles like that should be penalised and the IRFU have to sort this nonsence out. Afoa hasn't dropped him or driven him so its not deliberately dangerous. That to me is a hard tackle and with textbook technique. The nature of Rugby means you are going to get these physical mismatches from time to time but the only way to avoid these scenarios totally is if Afoa pulls out of the tackle, which in my opinion goes against the whole ethos of the sport.

Its seem every time a player comes of the deck now it's deemed as dangerous play, which it may well be but it's only reckless and dangerous in the context that rugby is a tough contact sport.

I'm not surprised that Afoa has been cited but it is frustrating non the less.

Thomond wrote:It deserved a citing and low end would be fine. The rule needs consistency or it needs to be completely re done. He derseves to be punished for reckless play. Having said that, Zebo should be cited too for giving Jones a hospital pass!


Might be worth it including the Original Post, Dodger

Spoiler:

thanks.

Rodders, Jones is very close to landing on his neck. It deserves some form of punishement.

From a neutral point of view, I was expecting a citing. At full speed on first viewing it felt as if he lifted the man and drove him into the ground.

Definite ban in my humble opinion.

I agree with Thomond and I suspect it won't be treated lightly. Minimum of three weeks - possibly as much as five would be my guess.

No different to the Warbs tackle last RWC, and Davies tackle in the Wales/Ireland match. A ban will be required in the name of reffing consistency, even if it is a token gesture, that didn't look to be done with malicious intent though.

It's very different to those other two tackles. Warburton dropped Clerc as did Davies. Davies was the worst because it was off the ball. All deserve discipline, the first two did so we will see what happens.

AlastairW wrote:No different to the Warbs tackle last RWC, and Davies tackle in the Wales/Ireland match. A ban will be required in the name of reffing consistency, even if it is a token gesture, that didn't look to be done with malicious intent though.

Are you being serious? They were much worse.

Saying that though Afoa will probably get banned for this. Mostly on the back of this tip-tackle taboo that has developed since the RWC. Though he didn't drive him or drop him he did turn him which resulted in his legs above his shoulders.
As soon I saw it I jumped, and was surprised that the ref did't pick up on it.

Three week ban I say. Hope I'm wrong.

Tilting someone isn't illegal. If you do you have to ensure they hit the ground safely. Dropping someone is a big no no as you lose all control over the player (Warburton). I haven't watched it in detail however if the guy hit the ground safely and the head didn't hit the ground first there will (should) be no more to it.

I think he will get about 3/4 weeks off sadly for Ulster. We should fly St Keven of Mealamu over as a character witness.

JayMaster3000 wrote: Though he didn't drive him or drop him he did turn him which resulted in his legs above his shoulders.

Which is a tip tackle and he didn't drive him onto his back, he landed on his shoulder and neck. I agree with you completely that Warbs & Davies tip tackles were much worse, but according to the letter of the law a ban will be required or it sets a bad precedent.

As you say 3 weeks sounds about right.

There is no "letter of the law" regarding bans. A quick look suggests that he didn't drop him or drive him on his head. That's what was recommended for a red card.

HammerofThunor wrote:Tilting someone isn't illegal. If you do you have to ensure they hit the ground safely. Dropping someone is a big no no as you lose all control over the player (Warburton). I haven't watched it in detail however if the guy hit the ground safely and the head didn't hit the ground first there will (should) be no more to it.

Not exactly Hammer,

Law 10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and either dropping or driving that player's head and/or upper body into the ground whilst the player's feet are off the ground.

Under the IRB Recommended Sanctions for Offences Committed within the Playing Enclosure, Law 10.4 (j) carries the following penalties: Low End: 3 weeks; Mid Range: 6 weeks; Top End: 10+ to 52 weeks.

Portnoy wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Tilting someone isn't illegal. If you do you have to ensure they hit the ground safely. Dropping someone is a big no no as you lose all control over the player (Warburton). I haven't watched it in detail however if the guy hit the ground safely and the head didn't hit the ground first there will (should) be no more to it.

Not exactly Hammer,

Law 10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and either dropping or driving that player's head and/or upper body into the ground whilst the player's feet are off the ground.

Under the IRB Recommended Sanctions for Offences Committed within the Playing Enclosure, Law 10.4 (j) carries the following penalties: Low End: 3 weeks; Mid Range: 6 weeks; Top End: 10+ to 52 weeks.

Afoa didnt drop or drive him though. Although if your going by consistency he should get a ban

But the important part there is the,

"....and either dropping or driving...." bit.

That is the "red card" definition.

If they do not think it was a red card they would not uphold the citing.

I do however expect a short ban, just clarifying the threshold for citings.

Players have been banned this season for making identical tackles to that. It will be low end so entry point of 3 weeks. He will then get a week added as the IRB want to stamp out this sort of tackle, then will get a 50% reduction for being a good egg meaning it will be a 2 week ban.

He will therefore miss 2 Rabo games that he might have been rested for anyway and will return for the semi final against Edinburgh.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Players have been banned this season for making identical tackles to that. It will be low end so entry point of 3 weeks. He will then get a week added as the IRB want to stamp out this sort of tackle, then will get a 50% reduction for being a good egg meaning it will be a 2 week ban.

He will therefore miss 2 Rabo games that he might have been rested for anyway and will return for the semi final against Edinburgh.

Get that man on the judicial panel. i like that reasoning!

Wasn't it very similar to Ferris' tackle? We may have seen bans for similar tackles but we've also seen no bans for similar tackles.

Golden wrote:Afoa didnt drop or drive him though. Although if your going by consistency he should get a ban

Thats what I think too but I feel that it is wrong. This tackle is akin to Ferris on Davies and the rediculous one Stephen Jones got a red for on Bowe. Its a world away from Davies tackle on Ryan, which would have earned a disqualification in WWF wrestling or even Warburtons on Clerc, where Clerc was dropped.

There needs to be a distinction made from a tackle were a player is deliberately lifted and dropped/driven and a well executed strong tackle were the impact of the collision takes the player off the ground.

If there is contact with the upper body/neck/head first I think there should be a ban purely to discourage tackles where the player can't control the tackle well enough. However if they side on or land horizontal then nothing.

I agree Thunor.

Only saw it once,at actual speed.Thought it was an excellant tackle.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Players have been banned this season for making identical tackles to that. It will be low end so entry point of 3 weeks. He will then get a week added as the IRB want to stamp out this sort of tackle, then will get a 50% reduction for being a good egg meaning it will be a 2 week ban.

He will therefore miss 2 Rabo games that he might have been rested for anyway and will return for the semi final against Edinburgh.

I really do pray thats the case. Of course, who knows once you go into the lottery that is the disciplinary system?

Absolutely. You know my thoughts on the complete inconsistencies that there have been this season. The whole disciplinary process is a farce and requires a complete overhaul on a global level.

Thomond wrote:It deserved a citing and low end would be fine. The rule needs consistency or it needs to be completely re done. He derseves to be punished for reckless play. Having said that, Zebo should be cited too for giving Jones a hospital pass!


Might be worth it including the Original Post, Dodger

Spoiler:

I think Zebo needs to back himselft in those situations, there were a couple of times when he got into his stride where I was willing him to pin his ears back and either look to punch through or go outside - rather than slow down looking for someone to pass to and/or giving the defender the advantage of making the big hit

At the time i thought that he and Ulster were very lucky. They were having a player come back from the bin and were under extreme pressure so a yellow or a red card for him may have seen Ulster lose the game. I will be an honest Munster fan here and say that i was screaming for at least a yellow.

It looked bad but there was no real malice in it, going by the precedence set he will receive a ban but i hope that it is not a long one.

There needs to be a distinction made from a tackle were a player is deliberately lifted and dropped/driven and a well executed strong tackle were the impact of the collision takes the player off the ground

Once you remove a player from his feet it is your responsibility to but him down safely again. That does not involve sending him crashing to the floor shoulder first. Flat of back or on his ar$e are perfectly acceptable but shoulders, head and neck are not. It should be a low level ban because the player is neither dropped nor driven but it is still a dangerous tackle.

Hoping he gets 4 weeks cut in half for good behaviour so he would miss 2 games but be back for the semi final.

I can see a maximum of two weeks as well. Just wish he had seen yellow during the game as then i think that Munster may have won

Yes i am aware that i am saying Munster needed a little bit of extra help

When is the hearing? Before or after this weekend?

I'd prefer a system where the player is banned for a certain number of games in the same competition as the offence occurred, in much the same way as football. Sure, the current system is simpler and more flexible, but it fails to set any real disincentive for dangerous play.

It bothers me somewhat that a player can commit a pretty heinous challenge in an HC game in January, get banned for eight weeks, and then be available to play in the quarter finals.

In effect, assuming that Afoa gets a two week ban, the IRB are admonishing Afoa for a dangerous tackle, but still providing him the opportunity to repeat his offence in the next round.

Also, don't get me started on reducing the length of bans for good conduct during the hearing...

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:When is the hearing? Before or after this weekend?

Tomorrow. It's in the OP link, As.

IanBru wrote:I'd prefer a system where the player is banned for a certain number of games in the same competition as the offence occurred, in much the same way as football. Sure, the current system is simpler and more flexible, but it fails to set any real disincentive for dangerous play.

It bothers me somewhat that a player can commit a pretty heinous challenge in an HC game in January, get banned for eight weeks, and then be available to play in the quarter finals.

In effect, assuming that Afoa gets a two week ban, the IRB are admonishing Afoa for a dangerous tackle, but still providing him the opportunity to repeat his offence in the next round.

Also, don't get me started on reducing the length of bans for good conduct during the hearing...

Ian, next round, but i take your point. The only problem with your suggestion is internationals which happen relatively infrequently. I'd like a 'match' ban rather than a 'weeks' ban, but don't think you could make same competition work

Quickly edited, Asbo, old chum!

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:When is the hearing? Before or after this weekend?

Tomorrow. It's in the OP link, As.

Thanks, Portnoy, should have looked up

I have a preference for a match ban which must be served on at a level which is at least that at which the event occurred. That way a player banned for example 8 weeks in an international misses that number of games.

Equally clubs could not run down bans by playing them in meaningless stuff like the LV.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

There needs to be a distinction made from a tackle were a player is deliberately lifted and dropped/driven and a well executed strong tackle were the impact of the collision takes the player off the ground

Once you remove a player from his feet it is your responsibility to but him down safely again. That does not involve sending him crashing to the floor shoulder first. Flat of back or on his ar$e are perfectly acceptable but shoulders, head and neck are not. It should be a low level ban because the player is neither dropped nor driven but it is still a dangerous tackle.

No I don't accept that. That depends on the trajectory and angle of the impact. Landing on the back is every bit as dangerous as landing on the side or upper arm.

This sort of tackle is less dangerous than collapsing a scrum, tackling a player in the air, a high tackle, clearing out a ruck aggressively and any number of other aspects of the game legal or otherwise which don't warrant a ban.

It was textbook technique from Afoa and it is unfortunate for Jones that the impact has lifted him off his feet. The IRB can't seriously expect Afoa to pull out of the tackle, which is the only way to avoid this sort of thing totally.

It's a tough game and if you want to eliminate all risk then you should play another sport.

IanBru wrote:I'd prefer a system where the player is banned for a certain number of games in the same competition as the offence occurred, in much the same way as football. Sure, the current system is simpler and more flexible, but it fails to set any real disincentive for dangerous play.

It bothers me somewhat that a player can commit a pretty heinous challenge in an HC game in January, get banned for eight weeks, and then be available to play in the quarter finals.

In effect, assuming that Afoa gets a two week ban, the IRB are admonishing Afoa for a dangerous tackle, but still providing him the opportunity to repeat his offence in the next round.

Also, don't get me started on reducing the length of bans for good conduct during the hearing...

Well you would do wouldnt you that way he would miss the Edinburgh game

IanBru wrote:I'd prefer a system where the player is banned for a certain number of games in the same competition as the offence occurred, in much the same way as football. Sure, the current system is simpler and more flexible, but it fails to set any real disincentive for dangerous play.

It bothers me somewhat that a player can commit a pretty heinous challenge in an HC game in January, get banned for eight weeks, and then be available to play in the quarter finals.

In effect, assuming that Afoa gets a two week ban, the IRB are admonishing Afoa for a dangerous tackle, but still providing him the opportunity to repeat his offence in the next round.

Also, don't get me started on reducing the length of bans for good conduct during the hearing...

You make it sound like you think there is thought going into the offences. Like they would think "Yea I'll go for a full tip, I'll only miss a few Rabo games". I see absolutely no reason to keep the bans limited to the one competition. The threat of missing HC games compared with rabo games will have no effect as a further deterrent at all. Nonsense.

The thing is, in the heat of a game, the harder/fiercer the tackle, the less chance of an offload, more chance of a spilled ball. For Afoa to think "hold on, I better let him down gently" is effectively saying "I'll allow him time to look round for an offload".

Its hard on the players. I personally dont agree with the horizontal technical detail. I don't think that tackle was dangerous. I've said it before, if we wanted to eradicate danger you wouldnt allow to players to challenge for a catch in the air.

Basically, by the letter of the law, he SHOULD BE CITED, I just dont agree with the letter of the law...

clive, i think that in driving up during the tackle, Afoa probably ensured that Jones's body was going to breach the horizontal at some point - i think it will depend on their view of that in all honesty

IanBru wrote:I'd prefer a system where the player is banned for a certain number of games in the same competition as the offence occurred, in much the same way as football. Sure, the current system is simpler and more flexible, but it fails to set any real disincentive for dangerous play.

It bothers me somewhat that a player can commit a pretty heinous challenge in an HC game in January, get banned for eight weeks, and then be available to play in the quarter finals.

In effect, assuming that Afoa gets a two week ban, the IRB are admonishing Afoa for a dangerous tackle, but still providing him the opportunity to repeat his offence in the next round.

Also, don't get me started on reducing the length of bans for good conduct during the hearing...

So you are saying that Calum Clarke should be available for the England Summer Tour then and that Bradley Davies should have been allowed to play for the Blues as soon as the 6 Nations was over?

The point in the citing process is to punish the offending player and take him away from the game for a time. Bans have to remain for all competitions. The "number of games" thing is reasonable although could be open to abuse. Maybe the off season should not be counted as "weeks".

Was it ignored by the ref due to the knock on seconds before hand? If it warrents a citing then surely the game should have been stopped?