Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Frank Lomani lands six-week ban for red card incident

Frank Lomani warming up for the Fijian Drua. Photo by Pita Simpson/Getty Images

Fijian Drua halfback Frank Lomani will miss all but one of his team’s remaining Super Rugby Pacific contests during the 2024 round-robin stages after being handed a hefty ban for foul play.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 27-year-old was guilty of a shocking elbow strike to the back of Melbourne Rebels lock Josh Canham’s head in the round seven matchup at AAMI Park.

He was subsequently red-carded and faced an anxious wait ahead of hearing his punishment. During the judicial process, the halfback entered an early guilty plea and was rewarded for it with a discounted suspension.

“Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and additional evidence, including from the player and submissions, the Foul Play Review Committee upheld the Red Card and found the Player to have contravened Law 9.12,” FPRC Chairman Stephen Hardy ruled.

“The entry point for the offence was 10 weeks (assessed as Top-End range for intentional and deliberate physical abuse of striking with an elbow to the back of the victim player’s head and causing injury, where the victim player was in an incredibly vulnerable position with limited ability, if any, to defend himself).

“The Player was given a discount for entering an early guilty plea (and other relevant mitigating factors), reducing the suspension from 10 weeks to 6 weeks.  The Player is therefore suspended up to and including 26 May 2024.

“In providing the Player the Sanction, the Foul Play Review Committee emphasised that this sort of incident is not tolerated in any form of the game.”

Related

Lomani’s return will come in a home game in the final round of the regular season, awkwardly against the Rebels.

He wasn’t the only Drua player to see red in the contest though, with prop Jone Koroiduadua being sent from the field after a head butt following a scrum late in the game.

A two-week suspension was deemed appropriate for the prop’s foul play, with stated mitigating factors including his clean record, “limited contact with the head”, and “off-field mitigating factors”. Said factors reduced the suspension from its six-week entry point.

“The FPRC deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point of 6 weeks primarily given that the Player and victim player were “head to head” prior to the incident, and that the Player’s head appears to have made limited contact with the head of the victim player and rather made contact with the chest area of the victim player.   There was also no injury to the victim player,” Hardy said.

“The Foul Play Review Committee emphasised that had there been more forceful head contact made, the entry point may well have been higher than low-end. The entry point for the offence is 6 weeks.

“The Foul Play Review Committee applied a discount of 3 weeks for entering an early guilty plea (and other relevant mitigating factors including the Player’s otherwise unblemished disciplinary record), reducing the suspension from 6 weeks to 3 weeks.

“Further, where a matter is determined to be low-end offending, there are off-field mitigating factors, and the sanction would be wholly disproportionate to the level and type of offending involved, a sanction below 50% of the sanction may apply.

“To that end, the Foul Play Review Committee considered a sanction of 3 weeks would have been wholly disproportionate to the level and type of offending involved, and applied a further reduction of 1 week to the sanction, resulting in a total sanction of 2 weeks.”

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

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 31 minutes 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
TRENDING
TRENDING How the Black Ferns Sevens reacted to Michaela Blyde's code switch Michaela Blyde's NRLW move takes team by surprise
Search