Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Atonio banned after accepting tackle should have been a red card

(Photo by Brendan Moran/Sportsfile via Getty Images)

France prop Uini Atonio has been banned following his citing for foul play during last Saturday’s Guinness Six Nations match in Dublin. The front-rower was yellow carded on 26 minutes for a high shot on Ireland’s Rob Herring, a decision that ignited controversy as many felt referee Wayne Barnes had got it wrong and should have instead brandished the red card.

ADVERTISEMENT

Atonio was cited on Monday for the tackle and he has now received a three-game ban that can be reduced to two if he successfully completes tackle school. Successful completion would free him for selection in the final France match of the Six Nations, the March 18 game at home to Wales.

A statement read: “France prop Uini Atonio appeared before an independent judicial committee via video link having been cited for an act of foul play contrary to law 9.13. The independent judicial committee consisting of Judge Mike Mika (chair, New Zealand), Leon Lloyd (England) and Stefan Terblanche (South Africa) heard the case, considering all the available evidence and submissions from the player and his representatives.

Video Spacer

Has tackle school thrown Owen Farrell off his game | Offload

Video Spacer

Has tackle school thrown Owen Farrell off his game | Offload

“The player admitted that he had committed an act of foul play worthy of a red card. Having reviewed all the evidence, the committee accepted the player’s admission that the tackle on Ireland No2 was foul play. His shoulder made contact with Ireland No2’s neck/face as described in the citing commissioner’s report and therefore reached the red card threshold.

“On that basis, the committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head. This resulted in a starting point of a six-week suspension.

Related

“Having acknowledged there were no aggravating factors and mitigating factors including the player’s immediate admission of guilt, his exemplary disciplinary record and genuine remorse, the committee reduced the six-week entry point by three weeks, resulting in a sanction of three weeks (to be served as the following given the player’s upcoming schedule):

  • February 26 – France vs Scotland;
  • March 11 – England v France;
  • March 18 – France v Wales.

“The player applied to take part in the coaching intervention programme to substitute the final match of his sanction for a coaching intervention, which was granted by the committee. The programme is aimed at modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play. The player has the right of appeal within the working days of the issuing of the full written decision.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

3 Comments
J
Joseph 675 days ago

Barnes didn't "get it wrong". He deliberately reduced the severity to yellow in order to avoid himself being pilloried for ruining the game between the two top teams, which it undoubtedly would have done. So let's not minimise his wilful tort by calling it a "mistake" - it was a perversion of rugby justice. Rassie was right - this clown should retire and go spend time with his wife. And have someone go to Wales and persuade Nigel to come back for at least a couple of seasons.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 1 hour 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.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks' 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks'
Search