Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Gloucester suffer blow as Savage picks up ban

Gloucester lock Tom Savage. (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

Gloucester lock Tom Savage has picked up a suspension following an RFU Disciplinary hearing on Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Savage was cited for dangerous play at a ruck in Gloucester’s 30-15 home defeat to Sale on December 28th when he made contact with Robert Du Preez’s head during the second half.

He had a four week ban reduced to two due to his guilty plea, good record and “other mitigating factors”.

Savage’s absence is a blow for the Cherry and Whites, he’s rated as the eighth best lock in the Gallagher Premiership according to the RugbyPass Index, with an RPI of 72. His numbers at the lineout are particularly impressive, with a lineout take score of 84 and lineout steal score of 82.

Continue reading below…
Watch: Beyond 80 – Knocked – RugbyPass documentary looks at concussion in rugby

Video Spacer

In advance of the hearing decision Gloucester had omitted Savage, who can also play flanker, from their 23-man squad to take on Leicester in the Gallagher Premiership on Saturday, with Gerbrant Grobler and Franco Mostert named in the second row.

He will also be missing for Gloucester’s crunch Champions Cup game with Munster on January 11th at Kingsholm. Pool 2 is finely poised with Gloucester bottom, however Johan Ackermann’s side are just four points behind leaders Munster.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a statement the RFU said: “Tom Savage of Gloucester Rugby appeared at an independent disciplinary hearing this morning.

“Savage was cited by independent citing commissioner Paul Hull following the match Gloucester Rugby v Sale Sharks on Saturday 29 December 2018. This was for dangerous play in a ruck, contrary to Law 9.20 where Savage was seen to make contact with the head of Robert Du Preez of Sale Sharks. The incident occurred in the second half of the match.

“The player accepted the charge and was banned for two weeks. He is free to play again on Tuesday 15 January 2019.

Gareth Graham sitting as a sole judicial officer, said: “It was accepted that the player had attempted to make a legitimate clear out at the ruck. The player’s left arm was used to bind onto his opponent; his intention was to use his right arm to wrap Du Preez around the midriff. On the balance of probabilities, it was accepted that this was not a case of the player “charging” into the ruck. As a result of the Sale player being tackled moments before by another Gloucester player, the point of contact was to his (the Sale player’s) head.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The player accepted that this was an act of foul play which passed the red-card threshold. The mandatory entry point where there is dangerous play in a ruck, where contact has been made above the line of the shoulders and to the head is mid-range, in this case four weeks. The player was entitled to maximum credit for his plea, good record and other mitigating factors and is therefore suspended for a period of two weeks.”

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

G
GrahamVF 13 minutes ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

"has SA actually EVER helped to develop another union to maturity like NZ has with Japan," yes - Argentina. You obviously don't know the history of Argentinian rugby. SA were touring there on long development tours in the 1950's

We continued the Junior Bok tours to the Argentine through to the early 70's

My coach at Grey High was Giepie Wentzel who toured Argentine as a fly half. He told me about how every Argentinian rugby club has pictures of Van Heerden and Danie Craven on prominent display. Yes we have developed a nation far more than NZ has done for Japan. And BTW Sa players were playing and coaching in Japan long before the Kiwis arrived. Fourie du Preez and many others were playing there 15 years ago.


"Isaac Van Heerden's reputation as an innovative coach had spread to Argentina, and he was invited to Buenos Aires to help the Pumas prepare for their first visit to South Africa in 1965.[1][2] Despite Argentina faring badly in this tour,[2] it was the start of a long and happy relationship between Van Heerden and the Pumas. Izak van Heerden took leave from his teaching post in Durban, relocated to Argentina, learnt fluent Spanish, and would revolutionise Argentine play in the late 1960s, laying the way open for great players such as Hugo Porta.[1][2] Van Heerden virtually invented the "tight loose" form of play, an area in which the Argentines would come to excel, and which would become a hallmark of their playing style. The Pumas repaid the initial debt, by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park, and emerged as one of the better modern rugby nations, thanks largely to the talents of this Durban schoolmaster.[1]"


After the promise made by Junior Springbok manager JF Louw at the end of a 12-game tour to Argentina in 1959 – ‘I will do everything to ensure we invite you to tour our country’ – there were concerns about the strength of Argentinian rugby. South African Rugby Board president Danie Craven sent coach Izak van Heerden to help the Pumas prepare and they repaid the favour by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park.

147 Go to comments
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.

147 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING The Waikato young gun solving one of rugby players' 'obvious problems' Injury breeds opportunity for Waikato entrepreneur
Search