Reds' Faagase cited for foul play

Bonehead from the young Reds front rowers. After the 1 week ban, the coaches should bench them. Or at least Sef.

i think its the second. as far as i know , all cards are reviewed and considered if the punishment is adequate or warrants further punishment. the importance is given to reds more than yellows - usually reds attract bans (but can also be overturned)

he got one week :D

so he says he didn't mean to do it... surprise surprise

Clarke, the suspension is expressed in terms of a period of time, not number of games: "Quote: Faagase has been suspended from all forms of the game for one week" http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/faagase-banned-for-a-week/ If he was scheduled to play 10 games in that week, he would have been suspended for all of them. Whether it's expressed as number of games or weeks, it's not ideal, there will always be anomalies and some gaming of the system.

Surely Faagase had to be scheduled for a club game. Other wise he is not missing a game in which case they would extend the suspension to a certain date to cover the next round of super rugby.

Train I do not agree with your view of this. Gill could blame himself for not getting back in defence because he was more interested in appealing to the referee than showing urgency in retreating.

TWAS, I think it's not quite that clean an exoneration. Noting the words "I accepted the players admission that he did not intend to deliberately strike his opponent" and "I considered the incident, the submissions made by counsel and the explanation proffered by the player and formed the view that the video footage supported the player’s explanation", it suggests he thought the video COULD REASONABLY be viewed as supporting the admission and that he saw nothing that clearly contradicted the player's explanation - ie, "benefit of the doubt" might be closer to the mark. If he thought it was CLEARLY not deliberate he would probably has used stronger words to that effect. Out of interest, I googled the citing commissioner. His is a specialist in administrative law, a central tenet of which is a decision maker should be very careful about making adverse findings based on assumptions about the evidence. A useful quality in a citing commissioner.

So the citing commissioner has concluded that it was not deliberate by Fa'agase?

Quote: "After reviewing the video footage and Citing Commissioner's report, I heard from the player and his counsel Mark Martin QC. The player admitted that he had breached Law 10(4)(a) by striking his opponent with his knee. He denied that he had done so deliberately and explained that it had occurred when a scrum collapsed. "I considered the incident, the submissions made by counsel and the explanation proffered by the player and formed the view that the video footage supported the player’s explanation. I considered the offending to be at the low end. I accepted the players admission that he did not intend to deliberately strike his opponent, the fact that there was no great force applied and the fact that his opponent was not injured as certain of the factors relevant to determining the level of seriousness of the offence. This carried a recommended entry level sanction of three weeks' suspension. "I did not consider there to be any aggravating factors to take into account. The player’s admission, his show of remorse for the offending and his clean record entitled him to a 50% reduction in sanction, which would have resulted in a two week suspension if it were rounded up. The offending was however such that I considered two weeks to be wholly disproportionate with the level of offending. I accordingly applied a two week reduction to the recommended entry point sanction of three weeks. This resulted in a one week suspension being considered appropriate." http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/faagase-banned-for-a-week/

I can't believe he got just 1 week either

certainly not an intelligent argument to put forward by Ready. I just think that they got the cards wrong - I thought ready deserved a penalty (maybe yellow) because of the position he is in as a hooker - I though faagase should have been a yellow straight up and no one could argue with a red (deserved red as per the citing commission) but I am not used to seeing many refs give a red. I am still surprised that he only got 1 week

The citing commissioner either considered Ready to have no case to answer for, or merely agreed with the YC being adequate.

PeterK and/or TWAS, how does the situation work with Ready's YC? Does he escape the citing commissioner because he was already looked at by the TMO/ref and YC'd, or does it imply that the citing commissioner didn't think Ready was up for a red card?

hello Hello I watched the replay again last night and I am certain Ready went out of his way to knee him in the head. His left leg would have hit the player in the torso had he not at the last moment pointed his kee outwards and targeted his head. plus interesting in the aftermath that all Ready tried to debate was that 'he shouldn't have been there' ...at no stage did he say to the referee it was accidental. this type of thuggery needs to be stamped out. They are both as guilty as each other. Both were lucky not to get a red card and the accompanying citing. Hope the culture in queensland falls in line with what the game needs or does not need. both Ready and Faagase need to be made aware of there responsibility to protect players lying on the ground... there are mums and kids watching.. if we want to grow the game there is no place for this foul play. I also agree with whomever said that Guilford should be in trouble for his clear and obvious rucking. Its 2016 not 1986.

Hi Ray I was not using he should not have been there as an excuse or argument but as a statement of fact. a hooker has very little choice but to drive and really does not chose the direction. The prop as I said is a different story and I am a bit surprised it is only 1 week (he should have been carded)

Yeah that was a joke. I believe my comment at the time was "every team does this".

The law specifically says obstruction is to prevent a tackle of the ball carrier which implies he had to be in a position to make the tackle on a ball carrier. If you want to stretch it to any support player that may be a ball carrier and no degree of obstruction mentioned then if a winger 40 metres away if he was pushed in the back like hooper did and 5 passes later the ball sweeps to his side and a try is score then by your logic that is obstruction.

I wonder if all the faux outrage will happen like it did with a tahs player when this happened, at least Latu was scheduled to play a club game

Chivas, did Holloway score the try? Gill potentially could have got back quicker to tackle a support player had he not been shoved out of the defensive line.