Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

England No8 Sarah Beckett banned after leg-breaking croc roll tackle

England's Sarah Beckett (Photo by Morgan Harlow/The RFU Collection via Getty Images)

England No8 Sarah Beckett will miss the next three rounds of the Guinness Six Nations after she was given a ban for her red-carded tackle on Italy centre Michela Sillari.

ADVERTISEMENT

The English forward was yellow carded 11 minutes into last Sunday’s opening-round match in Parma, but her foul play was upgraded to red five minutes later following a review by the TMO bunker.

Losing a player to a sending-off so earlier in the game wasn’t pivotal as eight-try England went on to win the match 48-0.

Video Spacer

England Women’s coach John Mitchell on the Red Roses squad

Video Spacer

England Women’s coach John Mitchell on the Red Roses squad

However, Beckett is now unavailable to John Mitchell’s side for the upcoming fixtures against Wales, Scotland and Ireland following the tackle that left the Italian midfielder with a broken leg.

A Six Nations statement read: “England No8 Sarah Beckett appeared before an independent disciplinary committee via video link having received a red card for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.20 (d) in the match between Italy and England on March 24.

Fixture
Womens Six Nations
Italy Womens
0 - 48
Full-time
England Womens
All Stats and Data

“The independent disciplinary committee consisted of Juan Pablo Spirandelli (chair, Argentina), Jamie Corsi (Wales) and Bogdan Zebega (Romania). The player admitted that she had committed an act of foul play but contended that it had not been worthy of a red card.

“However, the disciplinary committee – having considered all the available evidence and submissions from the player and her representatives – upheld the red card decision.

ADVERTISEMENT

“As for sanction, by applying World Rugby’s mandatory sanctioning provisions, the disciplinary committee determined that the incident warranted a mid-range entry point of six weeks suspension.

“Mitigating factors (the player’s remorse, good character and exemplary conduct at the hearing) were applied, reducing the six-week entry point by the full 50 per cent to three weeks.”

The Sarah Beckett suspension covers the following matches:
March 30 – England vs Wales, Six Nations
April 13 – Scotland vs England, Six Nations
April 20 – England vs Ireland, Six Nations

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

9 Comments
B
Brian 268 days ago

I think it is a dangerous path to go down to ban a player for the same period that a player they injured takes to recover. Players would be afraid to tackle anyone. I once tackled my best friend at school in a practice match and sprained his ankle. I paid for it by having to play fly-half instead of full-back for the rest of that season’s fixtures.

R
Richie 268 days ago

What remorse? She claimed that her dangerous tackle wasn’t worthy of a red! She should be compensating the injured player for loss of earnings at the minimum. Her ban should include the recovery time of the injured player as well as the paltry 3 match ban.

D
Disfish 269 days ago

What is criminal is she acts like it's no problem her actions have have cause the Italian player to lose her playing career, lose salary, if she did this in day to day life she would be in jail, she is a complete thug!!!

C
Chris 269 days ago

If your act of foul play leaves someone with a broken leg it's pretty trashy to them say that it wasn't really red card bad.
Suspensions for injuring a player through foul play should be as long they're out injured plus a penalty on top of that.

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 Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search