Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

'Apologetic, remorseful and ashamed' Annett banned after red card

(Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

New Bath hooker Niall Annett has been banned for two matches following one of the most bizarre non-debuts ever in the Gallagher Premiership last weekend. The front-rower was red carded for getting involved as an unused replacement in a melee against Bristol at Ashton Gate and was red carded by referee Tom Foley.

ADVERTISEMENT

That match took place without the rare use of the TMO due to the fixture’s eleventh-hour rescheduling from Friday night to Saturday afternoon, so the referee was unable to review any incidents during the match. He left Annett red-carded on the basis of what the referee saw happen in real-time and the player has now learned his disciplinary fate.

An RFU statement read: “The case of Bath Rugby player Niall Annett was heard yesterday [Tuesday] by an independent disciplinary panel chaired by Sam Hillas (chair), sitting with Daniel Gore and Olly Kohn.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

“Annett received a red card for acts contrary to good sportsmanship, contrary to World Rugby law 9.27, for running some distance to get involved in a melee during the match against Bristol Bears on September 10.

“Annett accepted the charge. He received a two-week ban and will miss the following two games: September 17 vs Sale Sharks, September 23 vs Wasps.”

Following his sending off, the 31-year-old who joined Bath from Worcester in the summer tweeted: “Just want to apologise to everyone associated with @BathRugby. Not how I saw my first game going and deeply embarrassed and disappointed in myself. Players, staff, fans and everyone else associated, sorry for my actions.”

The referee’s report in the ten-page written judgment from the disciplinary hearing stated: “I decided that the actions of Bath 16, although not serious in themselves, were unwarranted and unnecessary from a substitute and therefore decided that a red card was the most appropriate course of action.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Annett, who was supported by character references from Bath boss Johann van Graan, his former Worcester boss Alan Solomons, and his Bath and Worcester teammate Gerrit-Jan van Velze, submitted a written statement to the hearing.

It read: “The player filed a written statement for the hearing in which he confirmed that, as a new member of the Bath Rugby squad (this was his first game for them), he was nervous and anxious to make a positive impact. He was apologetic, remorseful and ashamed of his actions, which had no malicious intent.

“He confirmed this was out of character and something he would not repeat. During the hearing, the player reiterated the above. This match was a big day for him, for his family and the club and he feels he has let them all down. He has played over 100 games in England and this is the first time he has been involved in any unacceptable action.”

  • Click here to read the full Niall Annett disciplinary hearing outcome
ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

146 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search