Scarlets tight-head prop Samson Lee has been cited

I really think it should have been red, if you watch the replay it looks very bad.

I disagree - its a rake not a stamp and does not look intentional. Yellow seems right to me

TJ wrote:I disagree - its a rake not a stamp and does not look intentional.  Yellow seems right to me

Sorry I didnt know its now ok to rake your boot close to the eye area, as long as it wasnt a stamp then. ( oh dear!)

Has anyone got footage. Rucking players with the boot isn't technically legal anymore so whether It's a stamp or a rake will not take away from the fact It's intentional contact with the head using the boot. That should always be a red card.

Yellow card and a week or two off I think

Was this the incident he received the YC for?

If so I thought his foot came down on the ball - a long way from the Quins players head - then bounced/raked backwards towards the face. I did not feel there was any intent at all and actually thought that the YC was harsh. Sometimes accidents happen - and I felt there was no intent nor was it especially clumsy, just unlucky - sometimes accidents happen. I was in a very small minority to think this though.

If it is this one then wasn't it reviewed by the TMO?

This is what citing is for though, surely. Its the start of the process not a conviction. If there is doubt but potentially there was foul play then it should be checked out. If, as is more than possible, it was an accident then no more action will take place.

It was reckless but it clearly wasnt intentional. He nearly rucked the ball loose (nowhere near Care) but as he was then being grappled with his boot came back and did hit Cares face. Clearly no intent but reckless and I thought the ref did well with it.

I'm not certain on what punishment needs decided as rear the letter of the law but I thought it was well dealt with on the pitch.

Clumsy at worst, players must take Care where they put their face.

Anyway is stomping on Danny Care not a public service?  

Only if it helps sort out his haircut

To be honest I am glad he has been cited, as I believe that any contact with a boot and the head/face needs to be investigated further, but I do honestly believe that a yellow card is punishment enough.  And I would be saying that even if he was an Ospreys player!

There are a few things that really make me believe that there was nothing in it.  First was the fact the Samson had his foot on the ball, and was trying to drag the ball back.  His foot sliped off and made contact with Care.  If you watched it (or the replay) you would have see that Samson was looking at the ball and the opposition side of ht eruck, and didn't see to even notice that Care's head was there.  Granted this could be a clever bit of subdefuge (sp?), but I don't think Samson has enough up top to be sneaky like that.

Secondly if there was anything malicious in it then there would have been a hell of a reaction from Care/Quins forwards.  These incidents, especially violent ones, do not go passed without screams or punches being thrown afterwards.  This was not the case.

Finally, if there was intent, then there is no chance in hell Danny Care would have got up without a mark on him.  He would still be picking his head out of the turf.



Also I am crying FIX after reading the Beeb article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24551036 wrote:Lee's boot came into contact with Quins scrum-half Danny Care's face at a second-half ruck.

The uncapped 20-year-old's hearing is in Dublin on Thursday, 17 October.

If found guilty of an offence more serious than a yellow card, Lee could miss their second-round clash against Racing Metro on Saturday.

French citing commissioner Jean-Claude Legendre referred the incident to European Rugby Cup's disciplinary officials.

Irish referee John Lacey sin-binned Lee and Lee's case will be considered by Scottish judicial officer Rod McKenzie.

The International Rugby Board's recommended minimum sanctions for foul play are two weeks for a low range offence, five weeks for a mid range, and nine to 52 weeks for a high end.

A Frenchman citing him, must be they are worried the Scarlets are going to beat Racing this weekend

Lee has been banned for 2 weeks

Beeb wrote:McKenzie determined Lee was going for the ball, but in doing so, the player's boot "made contact with Care's face in a reckless manner, and that in his opinion, the offence warranted a red card".

An ERC statement read: "He [McKenzie] found that the act was at the low-end entry point of the IRB's [International Rugby Board's] sanctioning regime [two weeks] and although there were no aggravating factors, and although Lee had a clean record, the player had pleaded not guilty and therefore, no mitigation was possible in this case."

Honestly shocked that he has picked up a band for it. I am not too sure how he could have avoided it happening, bar the obvious of not attempting to win the ball, so I really can't see how it is a ban. I have a feeling it is another case of not punishing the incident, but punishing someone for the sake of looking like your doing something.

Shocked and actually disappointed by that decision.

Surely not a fix though as the decision to ban was made by a Scot.

Not overly shocked, as I know that the whole citing system is iffy. I thought he should have been cited so that it could be cleared up, and that it could be made official that he did nothing malicious and that some time things happen that can not be helped. But the truth is as soon as it goes in front of the panel it all depends on who is in the seat, and whether they are more concerned about getting things right, or sending out a message with a harsh ban, or what sandwiches are being laid on for after the hearing.

That's just another shocking call. Par for the course really

It wasn't intentionnal, on the other hand that Clermont winger intentionnally knocked out a player with his knee and got away with it. Shocking.

The word 'reckless' in McKenzie's report is the reason for the ban. If a player's head is anywhere near the ball then others going for the ball need to be aware of the chance of contact with the head.

Whether Lee meant it or not doesn't matter.

Hound of Harrow wrote:The word 'reckless' in McKenzie's report is the reason for the ban. If a player's head is anywhere near the ball then others going for the ball need to be aware of the chance of contact with the head.

Whether Lee meant it or not doesn't matter.

I know what you mean, but if you watch the incident then you will see that Lee has his foot on the ball, a distance from Care's head, then Lee is cleared out (well attempted) by a Quins player and looses his ballence (as he was only on one leg) and puts his foot down to steady himself. In that circumstance I dount you would find a single player who would even be considering if there was a players head in the path their foot takes to the ground.

That said the ban has been given, and that is that. Personal beliefs whether it is right or wrong don't really matter. Also the commision must have decided it was the most minor of boot/head offences as they have given it such a short ban.

Ah well, SS, at least a promising young player now knows where the disciplinary line is drawn.

This is true. I aways laugh when the citing panel say "and although Lee had a clean record", he played next to nothing in a career, so that is not really a reason to reduce a ban length etc.

The players are also caught between a rock and a hard place. In this case Lee pleaded 'not guilty' presumably because he genuinely felt he had done nothing wrong. But because of the plea, there is no room for mitigation - reducing a ban if found guilty.


The disciplinary panels seem to operate on a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' basis.

Not sure why there's surprise about the suspension. He's looking down at Care and the ball when he goes to kick the ball out the ruck. He knew where Care's head was and whilst I doubt it was intentional he's lucky that's not a red and a longer ban. Stupid and dangerous play that was unnecessary.

He's a young man and I doubt he'll be that foolish a second time.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Ah well, SS, at least a promising young player now knows where the disciplinary line is drawn.

Actually the problem is the opposite, players and their coaching staff have little clue as to what is acceptable and what is not. The laws of the game are administered in a subjective manner. There have been a number of incidents of players feet coming into contact with other players head in the game recently:

Tipuric in the 6N (can't remember which game) missed by the Ref and not cited. Coombs in the Rabo recently (looked far worse that the Lee incident) picked up by the video ref and touch judge. Yellow carded but no citing.

Greater consistency is clearly needed, if players are and handling the ball in the ruck or lying on top of the ball the Ref must blow immediately. Also any contact by the boot with the head must also be punished, and a red card is probably the right action.

Sadly the correct decision within the vague frame of what is considered consistency of punishment.

Lee has been in superb form this season, hopefully this uncharteristic blip will make him a better player.

Personally I do not see what he actually did that was wrong and against the laws. That his foot eventually made contact with Care was an accident and certainly a long way from being reckless.

I understand they want the game to be safe - but this was a long way from dangerous. That he gets no mitigation because he refuses to plead guilty is for me the worst part. It is if they are saying do what you like and if you plead guilty we halve your sentence. How is that fair?

Finally as this was reviewed by the TMO who deemed it merely a YC - I assume he has been hauled over the coals too for getting it wrong?