Rebels v Drua

[Braveheart81]

You can get 6 weeks for a careless head high tackle and they have now aligned actions like this with someone tackling with poor technique.

But you don't.

6 weeks is a long suspension.

The only suspension SANZAAR has handed out longer than that in recent years is 7 weeks to Lachie Swinton last year for a late, high hit on Jake Strachan. He was a multiple repeat offender so received less mitigation.

Darcy Swain received 6 weeks for destroying Quinn Tupaea's knee in the Bledisloe Cup but likewise he'd had a foul play suspension the year before for a head butt against England.

There was a 5 week suspension for Sam Gilbert for a tip tackle in 2022.

Beyond those there hasn't been a suspension longer than 4 weeks in at least the last four years.

 

[Tex]

Maybe that's the problem.

So much discourse in rugby and adjacent media about player safety. Rules are being rewritten annually to better protect the wellbeing and safety of game participants, specifically related to concussion and head knocks.

The sanction framework exists for consistency and has been applied consistently, but here we are with a lenient result for a serious act.

Perhaps the sanction framework is the problem?

 

[Braveheart81]

So much discourse in rugby and adjacent media about player safety. Rules are being rewritten annually to better protect the wellbeing and safety of game participants, specifically related to concussion and head knocks.

It's obvious that this is where the focus needs to be though. These are the incidents we see a lot more of and are a real threat to the long term viability of the sport (and of all contact sports).

 

[Proud Pig]

Marley Pearce got 4 weeks for what was effectively an accidental head clash, although very clumsy. The judiciary have basically stated that Lomani's actions are just a little worse, not much, a little. It is actually an obscene decision and completely undermines player safety.

 

[Braveheart81]

Marley Pearce got 4 weeks for what was effectively an accidental head clash, although very clumsy. The judiciary have basically stated that Lomani's actions are just a little worse, not much, a little. It is actually an obscene decision and completely undermines player safety.

Well it's a 50% longer suspension so I'd say on that basis it's considered 50% worse.

Also, we've seen a clear change in the last few years where we're looking at the fact that there's no decrease in the potential long term effects of concussion because the incident is caused purely by accident or clumsiness.

 

[Dan54]

There should be no mitigation

Well I assume the fact he was being taken out without the ball?? Or did Lomani have the ball? And no I not saying it ok, but I trying to see what mtigating circumstances would be used?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Well I assume the fact he was being taken out without the ball?? Or did Lomani have the ball? And no I not saying it ok, but I trying to see what mtigating circumstances would be used?

Mitigating factors are all off-field factors

(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of
culpability/wrong-doing by the offending Player;
(b) the Player’s disciplinary record and/or good character;
(c) the youth and inexperience of the Player;
(d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing;
(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his conduct to the victim including the timing of such remorse; and
(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee
or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.

 

[Braveheart81]

The on-field factors go into determining the seriousness of the charge.

(a) whether the offending was intentional;

(b) whether the offending was reckless, that is the Player knew (or should have known) there was a risk of committing an act(s) of Foul Play;

(c) the nature of the actions, the manner in which the offence was committed including part of body used (for example, fist, elbow, knee or boot);

(d) the existence of provocation;

(e) whether the Player acted in retaliation and the timing of such;

(f) whether the Player acted in self-defence (that is whether the Player used a reasonable degree of force in defending himself);

(g) the effect of the Player’s actions on the victim (for example, extent of injury, removal of victim Player from the game);

(h) the effect of the Player’s actions on the Match;

(i) the vulnerability of the victim Player including part of victim’s body involved/affected, position of the victim Player, ability to defend himself;

(j) the level of participation in the offending and level of premeditation;

(k) whether the conduct of the offending Player was completed or amounted to an attempt; and

(l) any other feature of the Player’s conduct in relation to or connected with the offending.

 

[Dan54]

On the headbutt, didn't Swain get 2 weeks for same?

 

[Braveheart81]

On the headbutt, didn't Swain get 2 weeks for same?

Yes. That was a World Rugby decision not SANZAAR.

The wording is almost identical though.

Independent disciplinary process update: Darcy Swain (Australia) | World Rugby

Australia second row Darcy Swain has been suspended for two weeks after appearing before an independent Judicial Committee via video link, having received a red card for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.12 (a player must not physically abuse anyone) in Australia’s test match against England...

www.world.rugby

 

[Rebel man]

This is really disappointing.
I don't care about the headbutt it was stupid but not particularly dangerous, 2 to 3 weeks for that seems fine.
Lomani on the other hand intentionally delivered the point of an elbow to the back of someone's head who was not in a position to defend himself. How you get away with 6 weeks for a non-Rugby violent act of this nature is simply beyond me.
You can get 6 weeks for a careless head high tackle and they have now aligned actions like this with someone tackling with poor technique.
In my opinion the rules of the judiciary need to change, intentional non-rugby acts should have no mitigation in the eyes of the judiciary and no leniency for an early guilty plea.

100%

 

[Rebel man]

Canham misses this week as a result of the hit. Absolutely pathetic to let that grub play again this season.

 

[Rebel man]

Well I assume the fact he was being taken out without the ball?? Or did Lomani have the ball? And no I not saying it ok, but I trying to see what mtigating circumstances would be used?

It doesn’t matter. His actions are not acceptable in the sport of rugby period.

 

[Slim 293]

By my calculations, Lomani will return for the final round match against…

Let’s see…

Oh boy.

 

[LeCheese]

It doesn’t matter. His actions are not acceptable in the sport of rugby period.

Glad you and the judiciary are finally in agreeance!

“In providing the Player the Sanction, the Foul Play Review Committee emphasised that this sort of incident is not tolerated in any form of the game.”

 

[Rebel man]

Glad you and the judiciary are finally in agreeance!

6 weeks is piss week. He should not take the field again this season and I would have zero sympathy when he gets his comeuppance. His actions had the potential to permanently injure a defenceless player and it was not a rugby incident at all. It reflects poorly on his character as a person. It’s the act of a coward. Anyone who strikes someone in the back of the head is a grub.