Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Three-week bans for all four punished players making no sense to fans

By Josh Raisey
Reece Hodge lines up Fijian Peceli Yato in Sapporo (Photo by Shaun Botterill / Getty Images)

So far in this World Cup, four players have received bans for high tackles and the fact that all of them have been suspended for three-weeks has left many fans confused. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Australia’s Reece Hodge, Samoa’s Rey Lee-Lo and Motu Matu’u and the USA’s John Quill have all copped punishments and while that was in the order that the offences occurred, it is probably the order of their severity too. 

The Wallabies winger was not punished during the game for his high shot on Fiji’s Peceli Yato and there have been people who have argued for and against him being punished since his upheld citing. 

Meanwhile, the Samoan duo both received yellow cards – although many felt they were red card offences – and Quill received a straight red card for his shocking shot on England’s Owen Farrell. The decision to give both Hodge and Quill the same length ban has left fans on social media bewildered. 

There seems to be a gulf between the two tackles, with Hodge seemingly caught off guard by Yato stepping in to bounce him. It certainly wasn’t legal, but few would argue that it was comparable to Quill’s shoulder charge to the head of Farrell as he was off balance and it was after the whistle had blown. 

(Continue reading below…)

Video Spacer

Both players received six-week bans that were reduced to three based on their character, which seems to be the standard practice at the moment. 

Some have speculated why the American’s punishment was so lenient. The fact he received a red card in the game might have had some effect, but Farrell was also able to play on as opposed to Yato who was forced off the field with concussion and missed Fiji’s next game. 

ADVERTISEMENT

That really should have no bearing on the decision, though, as the tackled player’s capacity to receive an illegal tackle should not be relevant.

Based on the new tackling framework set by World Rugby, it is understandable why all of these players were banned and they cannot really have any complaints. The length of the bans, however, is proving to be problematic. This is what has been said:

ADVERTISEMENT

https://twitter.com/Stephen05937711/status/1177517145195864064?s=20

After these decisions, some players will feel very hard done by if they receive anything more than a three-week ban unless they have done something truly egregious. Likewise, there will only be more uproar on social media if that happens as well. 

WATCH: Reece Hodge’s disciplinary hearing excuse doesn’t wash with fans

Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | Full Match Replay

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 9

James Cook | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

New Zealand victorious in TENSE final | Cathay/HSBC Sevens Day Three Men's Highlights

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

F
Flankly 7 hours ago
The AI advantage: How the next two Rugby World Cups will be won

If rugby wants to remain interesting in the AI era then it will need to work on changing the rules. AI will reduce the tactical advantage of smart game plans, will neutralize primary attacking weapons, and will move rugby from a being a game of inches to a game of millimetres. It will be about sheer athleticism and technique,about avoiding mistakes, and about referees. Many fans will find that boring. The answer is to add creative degrees of freedom to the game. The 50-22 is an example. But we can have fun inventing others, like the right to add more players for X minutes per game, or the equivalent of the 2-point conversion in American football, the ability to call a 12-player scrum, etc. Not saying these are great ideas, but making the point that the more of these alternatives you allow, the less AI will be able to lock down high-probability strategies. This is not because AI does not have the compute power, but because it has more choices and has less data, or less-specific data. That will take time and debate, but big, positive and immediate impact could be in the area of ref/TMO assistance. The technology is easily good enough today to detect forward passes, not-straight lineouts, offside at breakdown/scrum/lineout, obstruction, early/late tackles, and a lot of other things. WR should be ultra aggressive in doing this, as it will really help in an area in which the game is really struggling. In the long run there needs to be substantial creativity applied to the rules. Without that AI (along with all of the pro innovations) will turn rugby into a bash fest.

24 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING England seek out overthrown head coach to spark attack England seek out forgotten head coach to spark attack
Search