Queensland Reds prop Dane Zander will miss three rounds of Super Rugby Pacific for a dangerous tackle while Brumbies ace Tom Banks has escaped with a warning from the SANZAAR judiciary.
While Zander will be sidelined until April 23, Banks is free to line up against the Reds in Brisbane on Saturday, when he matches up against Queensland fullback Jordan Petaia in a Wallabies shootout.
Zander was red carded for a high tackle in the 30th minute of Queensland’s 32-20 win over the NSW Waratahs and submitted a guilty plea to the foul play review committee.
They deemed it a mid-range offence, which has a penalty of six weeks, but this was reduced to three after taking into account his clean record and plea.
As well as the Brumbies match Zander will miss out on clashes with the Melbourne Rebels and the Hurricanes.
As a first-time offender Zander can apply to have the final week of the sanction substituted by undergoing a “coaching intervention” which addresses tackle technique.
Meanwhile, Banks received an official warning after his red card for a high tackle during the Brumbies’ win over the Western Force.
Banks clashed heads with Toni Pulu as he tried to stop the Force winger scoring a first-half try.
The review committee dismissed the red card and issued Banks with a warning.
In his finding, Foul Play Review Committee Chairman Michael Heron QC ruled the following:
“Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and additional evidence, including from submissions from the Player, the Foul Play Review Committee dismissed the Red Card and instead issued a Warning”
“With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee found the act of foul play did not breach the Red Card threshold due to mitigating factors. The Foul Play Review Committee found that initial contact was shoulder to shoulder, there was an effort to wrap in the tackle and the tackled player contributed to the contact with a sudden and late change in direction.
The Foul Play Review Committee did believe that the offence was close to the Red Card threshold and as a result issued a Warning (the equivalent of a yellow card).””The player is therefore free to resume playing.”
They found the initial contact was shoulder to shoulder, there was an effort to wrap his arms in the tackle and Pulu contributed to the contact with a sudden and late change in direction.
Coker
Roar Rookie
I'll give you AA. Naisi wasn't an incumbent Wallaby. So that's 1 out of 5.
Coker
Roar Rookie
In Australia?
PhilL
Guest
London Irish have had 3 players red carded in their last 4 matches, 1 of which was overturned. Declan Kidney their coach said “Referees are having to stick at it because the world we live in now, they are the adjudicators of what goes on. It is a difficult task that they have and we just have to work our way around it. There is no point backing off it [the clamopdown] now otherwise we are not going to encourage kids to come into the game.” These are the facts head contact has to be reduced. Banks was poor technique, direct head contact, red card everyday of the week for me!
piru
Roar Rookie
Exactly what I'm thinking.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
If Banks had stuck his arm out and got him round the neck when he changed direction, Has this created a precedent ? My tackle would have been fine except he changed direction. Could be used in a range of situations.
piru
Roar Rookie
haha, yep
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
When a winger changes direction - and that creates such a conundrum that there's no way a fullback could possibly cope. Then the game has gone to the dogs.
piru
Roar Rookie
That direction can be made on future events without hanging the ref (who by any account acted correctly) out to dry and overriding his decision. How about a quiet direction to the refs to consider a late change of direction as a mitigating factor in future? I feel that would achieve the desired result without all the drama
piru
Roar Rookie
I think if we are at the point of measuring reactions times and metres per second the game has truly gone to the dogs
piru
Roar Rookie
He is an expert in rugby Surely that's more important
piru
Roar Rookie
– I have sympathies for the on-field refs, who followed their processes perfectly and all agreed the mitigation wasn’t enough. – But, they had to reach that decision in a matter of minutes – the Foul Play Review Committee can take as long as they want and look at as many reaplys as many times as they need to, to reach their decisions. Remember when sometimes you'd get a call and sometimes you wouldn't and you just shrugged and got on with it? Those days are gone, clearly This is the end result of fans refusing to accept decisions - officials trawling through hours of footage after the fact trying to find any hint of a mistake
Lukas
Guest
This is certainly how penalties function in rugby, that's for sure. They're definitely not always a "sanction" rather they can be a reward for good/bad play. And you could argue that certain types of yellow card fit into this bucket. But I don't think what you're saying holds water for red cards. To me they are clear sanction/punishment designed to detter a certain kind of action. So that being so, it's quite reasonable for us to question the relative demands being placed on players, and thus whether or not said detterrant is likely to be successful. If it's not working as a detterrant, than to me the punishment is too severe to be just be about good/bad play.
piru
Roar Rookie
The end result was the same, penalty try, Banks doesn't return, effectively all this does is clear his record. However it has the knock on effect of weakening the authority of referees and eroding confidence in their decision making.
piru
Roar Rookie
no because that is a far more active movement than any Banks did, if an arm is thrown out then that causes the head high, Banks was holding his line Not really, the argument is that changing line caused the collision and that was a mitigating factor. Throwing your arm out is no more illegal than hitting someone head first.
piru
Roar Rookie
And he was the only one to get hurt so it really wasn’t a dangerous tackle Only by the definition of a dangerous tackle in the law book, yeah
piru
Roar Rookie
That's all well and good, I don't have a problem with reviews, I have a problem with referees being overruled after the fact. They're supposed to be the sole judge of law
PeterK
Roar Guru
Tupou's at worst would have been a yc according to the tribunal (he got off the rc citing, can't remmember if it was deemed yc), ref ignored it, not even a penalty. So at worst missing a yc is not that big an error. Banks was a rc instead of a yc but he was injured, a rc can be replaced after 20 mins , so once again not that significant an error especially considering Banks was off injured anyway.
piru
Roar Rookie
The tribual got both the banks and tupou decisions right, refs were wrong. So what action do you feel should be taken with these referees, given they've both made major errors (according to the tribunal) that had the potential to drastically change the outcomes of their respective games? I mean it was pretty well accepted that Gardner at least (I can't speak too well on the other) went through the correct process on field.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
And? Neither example would be a good reason to hit another player in the head. Petaia has provided some great recent examples of dominant tackles by a fullback and he's managed to do it without hitting anybody in the head. The notion that an outside back changing direction is somehow strange or unexpected is truly absurd. Banks should be embarrassed that his lack of skill is being used as a defence.
scrum
Roar Rookie
I have been around footy a long time. Banks should not have been so high so close, the adjustment should have been made earlier, it’s not difficult. Other players have done it regularly, not asking Banks to do anything out of the ordinary. If he gets stepped and a Try scored, is that not the very essence of the game. Your use of timings are a red herring and technicality used by lawyers to escape punishment. And your earlier arguments that ball carriers should also be held responsible. So what are we going to legislate against, swerving, side stepping, changing pace or bracing for contact. It’s the tackler who has the most control of the outcome, better technique will not totally eliminate head contact but will reduce it. And I am aware that tacklers get concussion but how much of that is down to poor technique. I am not against mitigation to go from Red to Yellow but in this case Banks was so reckless and careless and so deliberate in his actions- when he had other safer options and time to implement- that not for me in this particular case