Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Banned Robinson explains his 'hung me out to dry' tackle on Biggar

(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)

One-time England prospect Sean Robinson has suffered a double punishment for his red-carded tackle on Wales out-half Dan Biggar during the season-ending Newcastle defeat at Northampton in the Gallagher Premiership on June 4. He has been banned for three matches for the foul – and he also fractured his cheekbone in the incident and will need surgery to put it right.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 31-year-old was an England call-up for last year’s Summer Series but he sustained a medial collateral ligament injury at national team training, opening the door for Bath’s Josh McNally to get called up instead and go on to make a Test debut against the USA at Twickenham.

Robinson returned to action with Newcastle at the start of the 2021/22 season, making 22 appearances in total, but he will be absent for the early matches of the 2022/23 campaign following his ban which the Falcons are looking to reduce to two games by enrolling the player on the World Rugby coaching intervention programme.

Video Spacer

The Breakdown | Sky Sport NZ | Episode 17

Video Spacer

The Breakdown | Sky Sport NZ | Episode 17

An RFU statement read: “The case of Newcastle Falcons player Sean Robinson was heard by an independent disciplinary panel on Monday, June 13. It was chaired by Gareth Graham with Becky Essex and Olly Kohn.

“Robinson received a red card for dangerous tackling contrary to World Rugby law 9.13 for an incident during the game against Northampton Saints on June 4. Robinson accepted the charge and received a three-week ban which will be reduced to two weeks if the player completes the World Rugby coaching intervention programme.

Related

In the ten-page written judgement accompanying the statement, Robinson explained what had happened when Newcastle played at Franklin’s Gardens. “These are my recollections of the incident: Northampton had made a line break and were attacking our left-hand side of the field about ten metres from our line. I was covering across from midfield and found myself with Dan attacking our line with two players outside of him. I had outside of me Mateo Carreras.

“Normally in this situation I would talk to Mateo, asking him to stick with Dan until I had got him covered so that he could then slide onto the next attacker and then when I had past Dan, the same thing would happen again or alternatively, Mateo would fly in anticipating Dan getting the ball and take man and ball.

ADVERTISEMENT

“However, in this instance, as Dan passed the ball to the player outside, Mateo stepped in late to make the tackle on Dan. This hung me out to dry, and with Dan doing what you would expect in this situation, straightening up to square the defender(s), and with myself travelling at speed to cover the necessary distance quickly, I had no time to adjust and nowhere to go.

“Mateo went low, which meant I couldn’t. I tried to avoid a heavy collision by trying to push Dan away but found my right leg across his body as we collided. The back of his head caught my cheekbone. When he passed the ball I was about two metres from him travelling at full pace. The whole incident happened in a fraction of a second and was a complete accident in the sense that there was no intention to cause a collision.

“I immediately apologised to Dan because between Mateo and me, we had got it wrong, more so Mateo than me. I had defended conventionally and Mateo had neither stepped in to take man and ball or slid out. Had there been an element of recklessness about what I had done I would certainly hold my hand up to it but my own player went out of the system which caused the collision.

“At the point of contact, we are all looking at where the ball has been played. As a result of the collision, I have a fractured cheekbone which will require surgery at the end of the week.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The panel accepted this was a reckless act of foul play, stating that Robinson didn’t reduce his tackle height in the dynamic incident but there was no evidence that he had intended to make contact with Biggar’s head.

“This was a reckless act of foul play in which the player made direct (and forceful) contact with the head of No10. Where an act of foul play results in contact with the head/neck, a mandatory minimum mid-range entry point applies,” the panel explained, adding that the six-week entry point would be reduced to a three-week suspension.

“At this stage, the club only has limited information as to its fixtures over the summer. The club is to liaise with the RFU once the player is fit to return to play following his surgery and once the club’s fixtures are known so that the RFU can assess which fixtures ought to be taken into consideration by way of meaningful sanction.

“The player is to remain suspended from playing until the fixtures to be taken into account have been confirmed. The club indicated its intention to apply to World Rugby to access the coaching intervention programme. The panel gave permission for the club to apply.”

  • Click here to read the ten-page written judgement. 
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

f
fl 17 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

46 Go to comments
f
fl 32 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

46 Go to comments
J
JW 36 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Generally disagree with what? The possibility that they would get whitewashed, or the idea they shouldn't gain access until they're good enough?


I think the first is a fairly irrelevant view, decide on the second and then worry about the first. Personally I'd have had them in a third lvl comp with all the bottom dwellers of the leagues. I liked the idea of those league clubs resting their best players, and so being able to lift their standards in the league, though, so not against the idea that T2 sides go straight into Challenge Cup, but that will be a higher level with smaller comps and I think a bit too much for them (not having followed any of their games/performances mind you).

Because I don't think that having the possibility of a team finishing outside the quarter finals to qualify automatically will be a good idea. I'd rather have a team finishing 5th in their domestic league.

fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen.


The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime.

46 Go to comments
J
JW 54 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Well I was mainly referring to my thinking about the split, which was essentially each /3 rounded up, but reliant on WCs to add buffer.


You may have been going for just a 16 team league ranking cup?


But yes, those were just ideas for how to select WCs, all very arbitrary but I think more interesting in ways than just going down a list (say like fl's) of who is next in line. Indeed in my reply to you I hinted at say the 'URC' WC spot actually being given to the Ireland pool and taken away from the Welsh pool.


It's easy to think that is excluding, and making it even harder on, a poor performing country, but this is all in context of a 18 or 20 team comp where URC (at least to those teams in the URC) got 6 places, which Wales has one side lingering around, and you'd expect should make. Imagine the spice in that 6N game with Italy, or any other of the URC members though! Everyone talks about SA joining the 6N, so not sure it will be a problem, but it would be a fairly minor one imo.


But that's a structure of the leagues were instead of thinking how to get in at the top, I started from the bottom and thought that it best those teams doing qualify for anything. Then I thought the two comps should be identical in structure. So that's were an even split comes in with creating numbers, and the 'UEFA' model you suggest using in some manner, I thought could be used for the WC's (5 in my 20 team comp) instead of those ideas of mine you pointed out.


I see Jones has waded in like his normal self when it comes to SH teams. One thing I really like about his idea is the name change to the two competitions, to Cup and Shield. Oh, and home and away matches.

46 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Yes I was the one who suggested to use a UEFA style point. And I guessed, that based on the last 5 years we should start with 6 top14, 6 URC and 4 Prem."

Yes I am aware that you suggested it, but you then went on to say that we should initially start with a balance that clearly wasn't derived from that system. I'm not a mind reader, so how was I to work out that you'd arrived at that balance by dint of completely having failed to remember the history of the competition.


"Again, I was the one suggesting that, but you didn't like the outcome of that."

I have no issues with the outcome of that, I had an issue with a completely random allocation of teams that you plucked out of thin air.

Interestingly its you who now seem to be renouncing the UEFA style points system, because you don't like the outcome of reducing URC representation.


"4 teams for Top14, URC and Prem, 3 teams for other leagues and the last winner, what do you think?"

What about 4 each + 4 to the best performing teams in last years competition not to have otherwise qualified? Or what about a UEFA style system where places are allocated to leagues on the basis of their performance in previous years' competitions?

There's no point including Black Lion if they're just going to get whitewashed every year, which I think would be a possibility. At most I'd support 1 team from the Rugby Europe Super Cup, or the Russian Championship being included. Maybe the best placed non-Israeli team and the Russian winners could play off every year for the spot? But honestly I think its best if they stay limited to the Challenge Cup for now.

46 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Jamie Cudmore: I want to help rescue Canada from a 'slow agonising death' Jamie Cudmore: I want to help rescue Canada from a 'slow agonising death'
Search