PaarlBok
Rod McCall (65)
Digby Ioane
Saru
Luke Braid
Saru
Saru
The SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron has accepted a guilty plea from Digby Ioane of the Reds for contravening Law 10.4 (j), Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground is dangerous play, after he was Cited following a Super Rugby Match at the Weekend after he lifted Marcell Coetzee in a tackle and drove him backwards so Coetzee hit the ground in a dangerous position.
Ioane has been suspended from all forms of the game for five weeks up to and including Saturday 21st April 2012.
The incident occurred in the 40th minute of the match between the Sharks and Reds played in Durban at Mr Price Kings Park on Saturday 17th March.
SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron assessed the case.
In his finding, Mr Heron ruled the following:
Digby Ioane was cited for a dangerous tackle made in the Reds v Sharks match on 17 March 2012. He was given a yellow card on the field, and the incident was referred to the citing commissioner (white card). The matter came to me as Duty JO.After reviewing the relevant material (including footage and reports on the SANZAR intranet), I followed the Duty JO process via telephone calls with the player, his coach and the Reds team manager. At the end of that process, I gave an indication of penalty of five weeks' suspension. After having time to consider that, the player accepted that suspension. Accordingly, Digby Ioane is suspended from all forms of the game for the five weeks to and including Saturday 21 April 2012 (that includes four scheduled Super Rugby matches and the bye week).My reasons are as follows:The tackle involved the player lifting the opposition player, tipping him beyond the horizontal and driving him backwards into the ground, in one motion. The Sharks player broke his fall with his right arm and landed on his back. The tackle was dangerous, although it appears from the footage that Ioane attempts to control the opposition player by keeping hold of him until he was brought to ground. That was not achieved safely in the circumstances and I find that the tackle was in breach of Law 10.4(j). The player accepted that the tackle was executed poorly and was in breach. His coach also accepted that and explained that the tackle occurred in a dynamic manner, in a critical defensive play for the Reds.I reviewed the match footage, the citing commissioners report and the reports from the referee and assistant referee. I find that the tackle was executed deliberately in the sense that he intended to lift the player and drive him backwards. The player was tipped beyond the horizontal and driven backwards to the ground (and objectively assessed was clearly dangerous). I accept, however, that there was no intention to injure the player or to drive him forcefully into the ground. Rather, Ioane has executed the tackle with poor technique and was reckless as to the danger caused. In all the circumstances, I find that the tackle was mid-range and warrants an entry point of six weeks.I note that the Sharks player received attention on the field and continued to play. The medical information I received indicated that the Sharks player received bruising to his neck, although I do not have further information as to the precise cause or seriousness of this.Digby Ioane has two previous disciplinary matters relating to dangerous tackles, albeit from the 2008 season. The player accepted that he had been suspended for similar tackles in the past, but explained that he had altered his technique in subsequent seasons without further incident. The previous incidents are aggravating, although one has to take care not to punish the player twice. In light of their rather historic nature, in my view they warrant an addition of a further week to the penalty.There is also the need for deterrence which again is present in respect to these tackles (refer IRB memorandum of June 2009). A further week suspension is warranted for reasons of deterrence.Matters in mitigation include the players immediate acceptance of his wrong, his remorse for the same (expressed to me) and his plea of guilty. He received a yellow card, which in turn adversely impacted on the Reds during the game. The player does have a recent misconduct matter although it is not related and warrants no further mention. He is a talented international player who appears to have played several seasons without significant incident.To recognise and acknowledge the immediate guilty plea and remorse, and other mitigating factors, I am prepared to reduce the sanction by three weeks, resulting in an ultimate sanction of five weeks. I have considered the relevance of the bye week in the course of my deliberation. I do not adjust my penalty to take account of that, given that the suspension is from all forms of the game and is intended to be meaningful but expressed in weeks. I appreciate that this suspension covers four scheduled matches rather than five, but note that this is coincidental, and does not in my view materially alter the substance of the suspension.Accordingly, Digby Ioane is suspended from all forms of the game for the five weeks to and including Saturday 21 April 2012.
Luke Braid
Saru
The SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron has accepted a guilty plea from Luke Braid of the Blues for striking an opponent, in breach of Law 10.4 (a), after he was Cited following a Super Rugby Match at the Weekend.Braid has been suspended from all forms of the game for three weeks up to and including Friday 6th April.The incident occurred in the 62nd Minute of the match between the Stormers and Blues at DHL Newlands Stadium on Friday the 16th of March.SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron assessed the case.In his finding, Mike Heron ruled the following:Luke Braid was cited for striking a Stormers player during the match on 16 March 2012 in Cape Town. The Citing Commissioner cited him for a breach of Law 10.4(a) for striking the Stormers player twice, to the back of the neck and head. The matter came to me as Duty JO. Due to the travel commitments of the Blues, Braid and his coach asked for further time to complete the Duty JO process. I granted that and spoke on the telephone to the player and his counsel on 20 March, the morning after the Blues returned to Auckland. After following the Duty JO process (in Rule 7), I gave an indication of penalty to the player (and Mr Lloyd his counsel) of three weeks suspension. After taking time to consider that, the player accepted that penalty. Accordingly, the player is suspended from all forms of the game for three weeks, until and including Friday 6th April 2012 (which includes two scheduled Super Rugby matches and a bye week).My reasons in summary are:The footage showed Braid struck the Stormers player twice, the first with his forearm to the back of the neck, the second with a part-open hand to the head. The Stormers player was lying on the ground and not able to avoid the blows. I find the striking (on both occasions) to be deliberate and dangerous. I accept however the submission for Braid that the force was not severe and the impact in the circumstances was not significant. The player accepted the conduct was intentional, but explained it resulted from his frustration with the Stormers player and his belief that the player was infringing at a critical time (and place) in the match. Braid accepted, however, that the conduct was inappropriate and he was remorseful. His explanation (of frustration and trying to get the opposition player to stop impeding the ball) does have some support from the footage.In those circumstances, I find that the entry level for the conduct is mid range, resulting in a starting sanction of five weeks suspension.In the circumstances I do not find any material aggravating features. The impact on the Stormers player was mild despite the vulnerable position and there was no impact on the game. The player accepted guilt immediately and expressed sincere remorse. He has no other citings, and no yellow cards for any similar incidents (the one yellow card in Super Rugby is for an unrelated matter). This is his 5th season of professional rugby and he is an accomplished member of the Blues side. His frustration and remorse at the situation were clear from his dealings with me and the submissions of Mr Lloyd.In light of the mitigating features, I am prepared to reduce the sanction by two weeks, to a final penalty of three weeks suspension. I note that the Blues have a bye week during that time. I have considered whether I should increase the penalty to reflect that, but have decided against that. The suspension is required to be meaningful, but is to be expressed in weeks, and covers all forms of the game. The scheduling of the bye week is not within the control of the Blues or the player and is coincidence. In all the circumstances, I do not find it necessary to increase the suspension.Accordingly, the player is suspended from all forms of the game for three weeks, until and including Friday 6th April 2012 (which includes two scheduled Super Rugby matches and a bye week).