John Afoa cited.

First topic message reminder :

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/16480.php

Hoping he doesnt miss the Semi Final - was it dangerous?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NfO2jjNivyU

They can take no action should they decide that it does no merit it MrsP, but the test of whether it warranted a red card is not applied by the panel, that is applied by the citing commissioner.

MrsP wrote:I'm not sure that is correct Rodders.

I think you mean Ozzy?

roddersm wrote:

MrsP wrote:I'm not sure that is correct Rodders.

I think you mean Ozzy?

You are right, I did!

Unlike the Ferris case, this appears fairly clear-cut: the tackler lifts and turns the tackled player and does not return him safely to the ground (as the tackled player lands on his back and shoulder). Doesn't look particularly intentional, more a case (as with the Warburton one, at least with regard to the initial impact of the tackle) of a powerful player making a big hit on a lighter and more upright ball carrier, resulting in driving the ball carrier up and backwards.

I would also say that Afoa 'drives' his man down to the pitch in a slightly dangerous position - again, not with any intent to harm, but because that was the action of the tackle.

So, to the letter of the law, this was a tip tackle that under the current interpretation should have received at least a yellow card and is likely to receive a short ban - the 3 week entry point seems reasonable to me.

Now, the question of whether a tackle like this should be an offence is a different matter - I said before, in the case of Warbs, that for me making this type of tackle illegal is incorrect. Rugby is a contact and impact sport, and in both of these cases the 'tipping' was a consequence of a big impact rather than any intent in the actions of the tackler to tip the player.

In RL, this would not have been penalised, although League has had a serious clamp down on 'spear tackles' - the distinction is that a spear tackle requires intentional movement on the part of the tackler to turn the tackled player over and drive or drop them to the ground in a dangerous inverted position.

The issue I would have with Warburton is he dropped him but we're not gettign into that debate again.

Thomond
I had no intention to re-open that discussion. The only point I was trying to make was that in neither tackle did the tackler go in with the intention of lifting the ball carrier off their feet and over, it was simply the weight of the tackle that did this. You are correct that Afoa does keep reasonable control of his man, although I don't think you can describe his actions as returning the tackled player to ground safely - I think the general consensus on the board is about right, he'll probably get a low end ban (3 or 4 weeks), knocked down to 2 weeks for previous good behaviour, contrition in front of the panel and bringing a bunch of flowers for the wife of the citing commissioner.

Yeah 2 weeks or so would do it, it was dangerous but not too bad.

From reading some of the above,I cant help but think that ones experiences in the game detrmine what kind of comments we make about Afoa's tackle.

For those who say that this type of tackle is new or recent to the game come from a different environment to me.What Afoa did was nothing but a regular common every day tackle as much as forty years ago in Auckland rugby.

Whats new and recent to the game is the over the top laws that were dreamed up 2 or 3 years ago and invented the tip tackle, a tackle which has sanctions and penalties that far outway any possible offence.

I had a good think about this last night. If Afoa gets suspended i would normally have been really bitter that the ref (or his assistants) did'nt take immediate action on the field and yellow card him. As at the time Munster were in total control and Ulster were hanging on with one player just returning from the bin so another yellow card probably would have seen Munster take control of the match and go on to win it.

I wont be bitter because i have seen the tackle several times in slow mo and it looks ok to me and to be honest, i am really happy for Ulster. I know that sounds weird since Munster just lost but i really am so happy for Ulster and their great fans that they have a big chance to make it to the final. Good luck to you all

Billy Bacon you are a gentleman sir

I agree with Aukland.

I've made similar points to Laurie both earlier on this thread and on the Warburton thread - when I was playing, making a tackle like this was applauded and was definitely not a penalty offence. However, lifting and turning someone intentionally, as Bradley Davies did, or gang tackling and lifting and dumping a player (BOD) would still have been considered an offence as dangerous play.

You're welcom rodders. Take a pint for me when you are watching Ulster play Edinburgh

Even If as you say it's not a bad tackle, I'm glad it got cited.

I hope that the citing commision say Afoa has no case to answer, but any tackle that is a bit dubious should go to the citing commision and they investagate.

Like Ferris's card against wales, commision came back and said it wasn't even a penelty.

Commisions need to be fair and even handed.

I think that there may be too many citings to be honest. I dont see the point in a fair tackle being cited only to be dismissed.

ferris was cited because of his yellow card, nothing was given to Afoa.

Kingshu wrote:Even If as you say it's not a bad tackle, I'm glad it got cited.

I hope that the citing commision say Afoa has no case to answer, but any tackle that is a bit dubious should go to the citing commision and they investagate.

Like Ferris's card against wales, commision came back and said it wasn't even a penelty.

Commisions need to be fair and even handed.

Kingshu, just in case there is any confusion, this is actually what the Commission said: -

"Having considered that the referee had the opportunity of observing the tackle only in real time, and having to make an instantaneous decision, we cannot say that his decision at the time and in those circumstances was wrong or outwith the reasonable range of responses."

http://press.rbs6nations.com/6_Nations_DC_SPEPHEN_FERRIS_8_2_12.pdf

eirebilly wrote:I think that there may be too many citings to be honest. I dont see the point in a fair tackle being cited only to be dismissed.

ferris was cited because of his yellow card, nothing was given to Afoa.

That doesn't make sense. The reason Ferris was cited was because the citing offical thought it may have required a red card. If he thought it was just a yellow then it wouldn't have been cited. If Ferris hadn't got a yellow or even gave a penalty away the citing official would have been MORE likely to cite him not less.

HammerofThunor wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I think that there may be too many citings to be honest. I dont see the point in a fair tackle being cited only to be dismissed.

ferris was cited because of his yellow card, nothing was given to Afoa.

That doesn't make sense. The reason Ferris was cited was because the citing offical thought it may have required a red card. If he thought it was just a yellow then it wouldn't have been cited. If Ferris hadn't got a yellow or even gave a penalty away the citing official would have been MORE likely to cite him not less.

How does that not makes sense? He was cited because he recieved a yellow card, ok maybe i should have put that they thought that it deserved a red but he was cited because of his yellow card.

I am simply saying that if Afoa recieves nothing then what was the point in citing him in the first place since the ref took no action on the field?

Why was he cited because of his yellow? There's no automatic citing like there is for reds. It would have been the same tackle if it was missed or just penalised. It was cited bacause the citing official thought it might have been a tip tackle. Yellow had nothing to do with.

As for Afoa, there are two aspects for citing. One is for extended punishment for acts that recieved the maximum on field sanction (red card). The other is for things that weren't dealt with on the field, either missed completely or not dealt with strong enough. I thought that was commonly understood

Maybe i am not making myself clear to you Hammer, i am sorry.

My point is that Ferris recieved a yellow card. The citing panel looked at it and deemed it worthy of further investigation. We agree on this dont we? He was let off but the citing was worth while.

Afoa recieved nothing on the field but was cited and i feel that if he gets let off then i see no reason why he was cited in the first place.

By all means be very condescending though

After a hearing this morning the ERC Disciplinary Committee have handed John Afoa a four week ban...

The Judicial Officer upheld the citing complaint and found that the offence warranted a red card, and employing the IRB recommended sanctions for Law 10.4(j), he determined that the offence was at the mid-range entry point of six (6) weeks. In reference to the IRB's directive on this pattern of offending (tip tackles), he then added a further one (1) week as a deterrent.
Having then considered the mitigating factors, including the player's clean record, good character, age and experience, the Judicial Officer allowed a reduction of three (3) weeks, before imposing a suspension of four (4) weeks.
Afoa will be free to play on Monday, 7 May . Both the player and ERC have the right to appeal the decision.


Ulster Rugby is disappointed with the outcome, and John Afoa himself is very disappointed, particularly in view of his outstanding disciplinary record where he has never previously received a yellow or red card during his professional career.

John looks forward to returning to play after 7th May

Afoa has received a 4 week ban after his citing from the munster game

http://www.ulsterrugby.com/news/10382.php

A four week ban for that tackle is an absolute joke. I am sorry but that is a very poor decision.

Feic.

I really didn't think that it warranted a 4 week ban, possibly 4 reduced to 2 because of previous good record.

How can Hartley with a questionable record receive less than the minimum for biting and yet Afoa gets this?

It does seem harsh, although I suspect the Edinburgh front row will sleep alittle easier in the coming weeks.

Shame though, I don't want Ulster fans using this as an excuse when you lose

Outrageous and well worth an appeal.

Gutter! Not just for Ulster but for big John as well.

I haven't watched any of Edinburgh, what's their scrum like?

What was it about the tackle that warrented a red card? Am i really missing something when i watch the tackle as it looks to me a good clean hard hit.

1F'sgonnagetya! wrote:I haven't watched any of Edinburgh, what's their scrum like?

Cross, Ford and Jacobsen. All internationals, but as a scrummaging unit in no way destructive. Managed to hold out against Toulouse, but down to technique more than power. All active players in the loose though, which is their real strength.

Afoa would have caused them problems.

I think our scrum will still match Edinburgh but it won't dominate them as we would of with Afoa.

1F'sgonnagetya! wrote:Gutter! Not just for Ulster but for big John as well.

I haven't watched any of Edinburgh, what's their scrum like?

1f, you wouldn't call it their strong point, altho they did a decent job against Toulouse. But scrums seem less important these days, so the loss of Big John's contribution in the loose may be harder felt?

True - Afoa was up there with Ferris, Muller and Cave when it came to defence against Musnter, well up there.

Sugar.

Without Afoa, we might well not get our third try bonus victory of the season against Edinburgh...

Just winding. I am [more] concerned now. Do appeals ever come off? When was the last successful one?

Indeed. Our reserve tightheads are Adam Macklin and Declan Fitzpatrick- one is a young tyro with little in the way of experience and the other is a good scrummager but has struggled with fitness and is coming back from a very long injury lay-off...

I think we should move Tom Court over to tighthead and bring in Paddy McAllister. That would leave Court with two games to acclimatise to the position and most importantly we'd have our most mobile, ball carrying prop on the pitch at loosehead.

Notch wrote:Indeed. Our reserve tightheads are Adam Macklin and Declan Fitzpatrick- one is a young tyro with little in the way of experience and the other is a good scrummager but has struggled with fitness and is coming back from a very long injury lay-off...

I think we should move Tom Court over to tighthead and bring in Paddy McAllister. That would leave Court with two games to acclimatise to the position and most importantly we'd have our most mobile, ball carrying prop on the pitch at loosehead.

Woah, I thought that experiment was consigned to the 'Don't ever go there again' pile after the England game?

I think that's a good shout notch, it might give Court a chance to recover from his last experience at tighthead.

Macklin would not be bad for the scrum, but it's a big game to make a rare start.

How about Brady?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Notch wrote:Indeed. Our reserve tightheads are Adam Macklin and Declan Fitzpatrick- one is a young tyro with little in the way of experience and the other is a good scrummager but has struggled with fitness and is coming back from a very long injury lay-off...

I think we should move Tom Court over to tighthead and bring in Paddy McAllister. That would leave Court with two games to acclimatise to the position and most importantly we'd have our most mobile, ball carrying prop on the pitch at loosehead.

Woah, I thought that experiment was consigned to the 'Don't ever go there again' pile after the England game?

Court can play a reasonable level at TH, he's just nowhere near international level on that side. Although Cross isn't exactly wonderful at TH either. I can't see Court getting moved over although... Reckon McLaughlin will try and get Deccie Fitz fit in time with young Macklin on the bench. They'll both get time this week against Connacht and then next week vs Leinster...

Thank you to Mr Warburton and Mr Roland, especially Mr Roland, that has led to this ridiculous ban.

Told you all. Just because of the hype that has revolved around the tip tackle since the RWC Afoa was gonna get a ban.

Complete Bull.

I think training exclusively at loosehead and then coming in at tighthead off the bench against a world class scrum is different to training for two weeks at tighthead and starting there against an ok scrum.

Court, Best, Fitzpatrick is our best scrummaging front row.
McAllister, Best, Court is our best front row in the loose.

Court, Best, Afoa pretty much has it all but isn't an option barring a surprise appeal.

So the question is; what do we want to do tactically in this game?

If that tackle is a sending of offense then the game has the potential to turn into a farce. Surely to gawd the movement and momentum of the player being tackled has to be taken into consideration in these things!!

It was weird. They gave him six weeks for a red card offence. Then they added a week for it being a tip-tackle (which was the red card offence?). Then they deducted three weeks for him being a good lad.



Sometimes I feel like this process makes little sense

If there is an appeal and we do appeal, could that lead to a longer ban if it's turned down?

Yes its happened before, didnt Attoub or Dupuy get an extension on their bans for appealing?

Notch - on the tactics question, you know what's coming from Edinburgh. A fast-paced off-loading game. If you won't be able to assemble a dominant scrum, then you may as go with a mobile outfit. At least that's my view.

This ban was based on what the commission thought should have been a Red Card.
I don't understand it.
I thought for it to be a red card offence the player had to be dropped or driven into the ground. Neither of these two things happened

I don't see a lot of point in moving Court across as a makeshift TH, especially as he needs a rest this weekend.

Far better to let the specialist tightheads Fitzpatrick and Macklin share the game time in a straight shoot-out for the semi-final start, both are capable in the scrum and good in the loose. Add to that if Court did start the next three games at TH and then had to go off early, the benchman would have had no recent rugby which would be disasterous in such an important game.

I am actually sad about this.

That tackle was a perfectly good tackle in my books, hardly a 4 week ban.

With bans like this and the simulation tactics i saw from Parra on the weekend, the game is fast going to pot.

The fix is in.

Sam Warburton got 3 weeks.

How is Afoa's tackle 25% worse when Warburton dropped his guy?

MrsP wrote:Sam Warburton got 3 weeks.

How is Afoa's tackle 25% worse when Warburton dropped his guy?

Exactly MrsP, this sticks, absolutely stinks! I'm very close to shouting accusations of bribery! It just doesnt add up!