Brumbies winger Henry Speight has been banned for five weeks by the judiciary for a lifting tackle in the Canberra-based side’s win over the Stormers in Cape Town.
Speight’s tackle on Stormers centre Juan De Jongh occurred in the 74th minute of the match and saw him receive a red card at the time of the incident.
WATCH THE TACKLE IN THE VIDEO PLAYER ABOVE
Speight will miss the Brumbies’ final campaign and the first week of the Rugby Championship for the Wallabies.
Judicial Hearing Chairman Robert Stelzner SC requested more information on the incident earlier today, before handing down his verdict.
He said there were both mitigating and aggravating factors about the tackle, and it warranted a five-week layoff.
“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,” Stelzner said.
“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.”
It leaves Brumbies coach Stephen Larkham in the difficult position of trying to contain Julian Savea without his gun winger.
Tah Mate
Guest
5 weeks for that tackle mistake is total overkill. It's a contact sport & sometimes players end up in dangerous positions. Spear tackles can be accidental but still the direct result of the tackler. Speights tackle which resulted in a cartwheel was no fault of his own. It was simply the result of momentum.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
If you have a look at the World a rugby site it has some video examples that explain what is going to be pinged & what is not.
Brawlsinmauls
Guest
I think 5 weeks is too harsh. However I am a bit concerned with the amount of yellows in the u20s championships in regards to high tackles, I hope it is not a sign of things to come.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
“He and the Brumbies chose to defend it.” Well yes Mark that is exactly what happened. It was reported that they would contest the charges. From stuff.co.nz. "The Brumbies have said they will fight the charge in a bid to have the Wallabies winger available for the semifinal in Wellington on Saturday. Brumbies chief executive Michael Jones said Speight wanted to clear his name as he felt he didn't lift De Jongh in the incident." Also I'm not sure that the player is not aware of the sanction at the initial hearing as you say. I quote from a SANZAR judicial statement. "All SANZAR disciplinary matters are in the first instance referred to a Duty Judicial Officer hearing to provide the option of expediting the judicial process. For a matter to be dispensed with at this hearing, the person appearing must plead guilty and accept the penalty offered by the DJO." The key words are "penalty offered". This implies that the player would be aware of the sanction.
Ken
Guest
Mad Mick if you think Speights tackle was worse than Tuqiries on MaCcaw about 2010 ..Well... I just give up.. Anyway one last thing to ponder..Their are more brain injuries in head clashes, heads hitting hips and knees when tackling someone ,collasped mauls, collasped scrums, and forerms to faces Mick.. The whole tip tackle pandemonium is rediculous, it`s just gone over way over the top..Give me all brain/ neck injuries over the world compared to my selection of alternative causes. .Lets just ban RUGBY AY ??. .Thanks for the educatiional spiel anyway...
Shane D
Roar Rookie
My point is that there are laws in place to reduce the risk of injury in scrums just as there laws in place around dangerous tackles. The 'rugby safe' training that takes place in NZ, the u19 scrum laws & laws around competent front row players have all acted to reduce the injury risk. Rugby is a collision sport & that in itself means there is a danger of injury. Laws are in place to reduce the risk through acts of foul play.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
You can describe the Speight incident whatever way you like. The thing is both tackles were dangerous.
Mad Mick
Guest
Your last point is a very god one. Who decides who has the right to jump or not jump. If the chaser decides to jump and is tipped up who is in the wrong?
Matthew Skellett
Guest
I think Mr Speight got off lightly with only 5 weeks instead of 5 matches -his brain explosion is just as inexcusable as the Waratah's players ones. Yet we have the whiney white-private-school-priviledge voices telling the world that "stoppages are ruining the game "-translation -"how dare the authourities expose our sins to account". These same people should man-up , take a tablespoon laden with cement/humility and HTFU . The solution is easy -stop committing such stupid acts that impress no one and you won't get punished -simples tch ;-)
Mad Mick
Guest
Ken I think you are getting a bit confused with the potential injury that can result. If I’m a kiwi or a Japanese makes no difference to the severity of the potential injury. Traumatic brain injury or a closed head injury can occur when the head is subjected to a direct external impact. Also, injury can occur when the head is subjected to a sudden acceleration and then is suddenly stopped. A sudden acceleration then deceleration often follows a violent movement of the head. Condensed to its most simplistic, there are three major mechanisms which contribute to traumatic brain injury. These include: (a) impact of the brain against the skull; (b) shear between layers of the brain; and (c) cavitation. (a) Depending upon how the impact occurred, the head starts its movement to the rear while the brain resists, thereby leaving a space at the back of the skull. As this force progresses, a centrifugal force lifts the brain leaving spaces between it. Both inertia and centrifugal force causes the brain to hit the skull. This impact may cause damage to the brain. While the skull provides considerable external protection because of its strength, its inner contours are not smooth and are characterized by sharp, bony proturbences. A blow to the head flings the brain against these bony proturbences and it is bruised and torn, resulting in brain damage. (b) Another type of brain injury is a shear. Shear is based on rotational acceleration/deceleration, and a sliding effect of one layer of the brain upon another. Shear occurs within the brain because of the difference of density in layers. Axonal shearing can occur where an axon transverses between two or more layers of the brain which are subject to shearing forces. Often, damage to the axons is diffuse and degeneration happens throughout the brain rather than in specific clusters. Diffuse axonal shearing is a common cause of mild Traumatic Brain Injury, and is rarely visible upon imaging. (c) Cavitation occurs when mass moves rapidly through fluid. The pressure in front of the mass is high and the pressure behind the mass is low. Vapor filled bubbles form in low pressure. When a mass returns in the opposite direction, the bubbles collapse. If this occurs often, the brain can be injured. Often, injuries are found opposite the point of impact. This type of injury is called the "countre coup", a French term meaning "against the blow". All of these types of brain injury are contributed to by the centrifugal forces similar to those that were apparent in the tackle by Henry on Juan De Jongh. No body want to see these injuries in rugby no matter which nation you are from. Best Regardrs.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Sorry. The total suspensions is 10 5 of those have had 2 weeks added as a deterrent
taylorman
Roar Guru
yep thats the plan...I'm tired of attritional World cup knock out matches that everyone so easily puts down to 'pressure, caution' etc I think the occasion, the physical and emotional rollercoaster the players go through by just being part of the event, leaves them spent as the knockouts go on and are in survival mode by the time the final rolls around, and thats made worse by playing the best team right through the pool. We need to be smarter. The key is to be as fresh as a third test in a series, when most sides are at their peak. There's no way any of the final sides in 2011, 2007, 2003 were in peak form when they got to the final.
Phillnz
Guest
I can't see how my premise is flawed? They still try to bore in or on go in on an angle , the scrum's still collapse. They still push up any amount of illegalities happen. Srummaging is basically a controlled wrestling match 4 foot off the ground for 10 seconds and your job is to defeat the opponent thru strength , technique and brute force. My point being it's still occurring throughout all rugby which makes it dangerous or a possibility of serious neck injuries. I don't have any figures to compare , I guess another person can find that out. I do know from experience the amount of people in NZ being killed or having broken next has decreased dramatically since the late 70's and 80's for amateur players. What I really struggle with is world rugby seeing what they think is dangerous and then outlawing it but the very nature of the game is dangerous. Both Rugby codes are dangerous sports to play , now that players are bigger , faster and the collisions are not going to have a lessor impact why not they come out and say the codes are dangerous? I expect tougher rules for amateur players but not professionals , they earn a lively hood out of the game , the glory and respect. Amateur's do it for the love of the game
Old Bugger
Guest
T-man I concur. I think it is highly conceivable that Shag plays his top team in one pool game only against the Pumas and then chop and change as bench warmers, for the remaining pool games. He has already indicated his intentions how he intends to approach the finals series during EOYT 2014, by going with the same 23 players as far as he can to minimise those downsides that you've mentioned i.e. injury, YC/RC and lethargy. AB's bonus will be to have 23 refreshed players at finals kick-off while their opponents will probably be fielding players that played more than one pool game, to secure a finals run.
taylorman
Roar Guru
...and I know in 2007 we didnt play our top sides every match, but it is the manner in which we utilise pool play to maximize the sides fitness in the knockouts that we can focus on. In 07 we just played out the matches using the whole squad to qualify. Here managing players in pool play has more of a purpose- to specifically accommodate a high octane approach to the knockouts- not reckless, but certainly high paced- thats where the ABs are strongest.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Jameswm, as I have said the aggravating factor part of the equation (which includes deterrence) is open and not necessarily imposed. So that would imply that it is not necessary for all lifting tackles suspensions to have deterrents added or the same deterrent added. Regarding the halving of the total sanction after the deterrent, only once has this appeared to happen. It was the Rob Horne case. He had a total of 6 weeks reduced to 3 weeks. The reduction can not be greater than the entry point which in this case was 4weeks. So on the surface of it you would have thought the suspension would be 4 weeks (i.e. 4+2-2=4). I recall commenting at the time in this forum that Horne may have got away with a week. Did the Judicial Officer make a mistake? That would be fair question to put to him. Maybe there is some perfectly good reason for this. There have been 9 suspensions under the lifting tackle law in Super Rugby so far this season. 4 of those have had 2 weeks added as a deterrent. 2 of those have had 1 week added as a deterrent. 2 of those had incurred no deterrent. 1 of those (Steyn) no information available. The 2 that incurred no deterrent (Skelton, Gill); valid reasons were given. The two that incurred 1 week (Prior, Coetzee); Prior was one of earliest at which point the standard may have been 1 week. In Coetzee case it was specifically stated that the need for deterrent in these circumstances of this incident was 1 week which implies there were circumstances that warranted 1 week as opposed to 2. So as to reinforce that the deterrent period is open I quote from Duty Judicial Officer, Nigel Hampton QC, latest judgement; "There have been a number of decisions relating to lifting tackles this year with a deterrent increase of this size being added. An increase to this level of deterrent may be required in the future as the additional two-week increase to sanction does not seem to be having the required effect of getting rid of these tackles." , The above information is the best I have been able to gather from information that has been made public. I don't guarantee its completeness and accuracy.
taylorman
Roar Guru
The other advantage of that is purely the numbers- by having less presence in the pools by our top 15 we reduce the relative risk of injury, cards as well as lethargy in the knockouts. We need to use our advantages of an easy pool and a generally fitter side smarter than we have before and go into the quarters ready to explode. Ireland and France play the 'avoid the ABs' match last in their pool so they will both be going hard out to avoid us, and we will be there to pick up the pieces.
AlBo
Guest
Very good point. Absolute possibility.
taylorman
Roar Guru
I have a different theory on it in that we play largely our seconds (ie a split side) versus Georgia and namibia and take advantage of having a fully fit, fresh squad for the quarters, rather than a match hardened side. 2007 taught us that the big scores gave us nothing in terms of prep for France. We'd have been better playing each other in the carpark. I think that was Hansens thinking with the EOYT last year- Scotland- in that he wants the back up players to stand up in the minor matches, preparing our side to be fit enough to run those who in pool play faced more attritional battles than us and run them off the park in the quarters and so on. I also think its the reason for flat low scoring finals- that's sides are stuffed after giving it all for seven matches. I don't buy the 'pressure' of finals so much as the two sides are just hammered physically and mentally. AB's were exactly that in the 2011 final. The biggest single advantage we can take from pool play is to preserve our best side as much as possible without losing touch of matchplay, then run sides ragged. Putting our top side against namibia and Georgia is a complete waste of time. We just need the win and any combination of our squad would get that. And in case of injury, those seconds will also be match hardened to step up.
Ken
Guest
No..You`re wrong . Umaga on O`driscoll .Tiquiri on Mccaw, Hoare king hitting an irishman from behind or Richard Loe smashing Paul Carroza`s nose across his face with a late elbow/foream and him eye gouging his own countryman.. We`ve seen worse or you must be a Kiwi mate..