Northern Edition
Select Edition
Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Heavy price paid by Springboks centre Esterhuizen and England prop Obano following Premiership red cards

(Photo by Getty Images)

Eleven weeks worth of suspensions have been handed down following last weekend’s red cards in the Gallagher Premiership, Harlequins centre Andre Esterhuizen receiving a six-week ban and Bath prop Beno Obano banned for five weeks. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Springboks midfielder Esterhuizen was shown a red card by referee Matthew Carley in the 48th minute last Saturday versus London Irish for striking with the elbow. He contested the charge but it was upheld by the independent disciplinary panel comprising Jeremy Summers (chair) with Rob Vickerman and Becky Essex.

In evidence, Esterhuizen claimed he had walked over to assist a teammate involved in the scuffle. Irish’s Curtis Rona then “had a go” and they had both grabbed jerseys. Esterhuizen gave Rona a small push and then another push. He had not intended to strike Rona and it was just a push. Contact was low level and was with the forearm not the elbow, Esterhuizen further asserting that his arm had been raised because Rona had raised his arm under him. 

Video Spacer

Beauden Barrett talks about England coach Eddie Jones

Video Spacer

Beauden Barrett talks about England coach Eddie Jones

RFU legal counsel Angus Hetherington rejected Esterhuizen’s submission, asserting that the incident was clearly a strike and noting video footage to illustrate that Rona had not raised his arm as alleged and that the referee had been correct to send the South African off.

The panel unanimously found that Esterhuizen has intentionally struck Rona with his right forearm in the face and that the red card decision was correct. He will now miss a half-dozen matches, the five remaining regular-season games that Harlequins have and potentially a semi-final if they progress.

 

England prop Obano, meanwhile, was shown a red card by referee Ian Tempest in the 73rd minute of Bath’s defeat at Wasps on Sunday for dangerous tackling. He accepted the charge and will be free to play again on June 8 at the latest. His suspension starts with this Saturday’s Challenge Cup semi-final versus Montpellier. He will miss the final if his team progresses.  

In evidence, Obano said he had expected Ben Morris to step inside him and he had shaped for that contact. Morris then took an outside line and this had led to Obano being in the wrong position. He accepted he had gone too high and that his actions had warranted a red card.

ADVERTISEMENT

The panel opted for a ten-week top-end starting point, explaining: ‘The injury sustained by W6 was a significant feature, distinguishing this case from other similar incidents of dangerous tackles that have come before RFU panels this season and was such as to require a top-end entry point.” Full mitigation of 50 per cent was then applied, bringing the ban down to five weeks.  

ADVERTISEMENT

KOKO Show | July 22nd | Full Throttle with Brisbane Test Review and Melbourne Preview

New Zealand v South Africa | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

USA vs England | Men's International | Full Match Replay

France v Argentina | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

Lions Share | Episode 4

Zimbabwe vs Namibia | Rugby Africa Cup Final | Full Match Replay

USA vs Fiji | Women's International | Full Match Replay

Tattoos & Rugby: Why are tattoos so popular with sportspeople? | Amber Schonert | Rugby Rising Locker Room Season 2

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

N
NH 22 minutes ago
'The Wallabies need to convert much better - or Melbourne could be much worse'

Nice one as always Brett. I think the stats hide a bit of the dominance the lions had, and they would look alot worse in that first half when the game was more in the balance. You mention it here but I think it hasn’t been talked about enough was the lineout. The few times the wallabies managed to exit their half and get an opportunity to attack in the 1st half, the lineout was lost. This was huge in terms of lions keeping momentum and getting another chance to attack, rather than the wallabies getting their chance and to properly ‘exit’ their half. The other one you touch on re “the will jordan bounce of the ball” - is kick chase/receipt. I thought that the wallabies kicked relatively well (although were beaten in this area - Tom L rubbish penalty kicks for touch!), but our kick receipt and chase wasn’t good enough jorgenson try aside. In the 1st half there was a moment where russell kicked for a 50:22 and potter fumbled it into touch after been caught out of position, lynagh makes a similar kick off 1st phase soon after and keenan is good enough to predict the kick, catch it at his bootlaces and put a kick in. That kick happened to go out on the full but it was a demonstration on the difference in positioning etc. This meant that almost every contested kick that was spilled went the way of the lions, thats no accident, that is a better chase, more urgency, more players in the area. Wallabies need to be better in who fields their kicks getting maxy and wright under most of them and Lynagh under less, and the chase needs to be the responsibility of not just one winger but a whole group of players who pressure not just the catch but the tackle, ruck and following phase.

17 Go to comments
J
JW 38 minutes ago
Competing interests and rotated squads: What the 'player welfare summer' is really telling us

Thanks for the further background to player welfare metrics Nick.


Back on the last article I noted that WR is now dedicating a whole section in their six-point business plan to this topic. It also noted that studies indicated 85-90% of workload falls outside of playing. So in respect to your point on the classification of ‘involvements’ included even subs with a low volume of minutes, it actually goes further, to the wider group of players that train as if they’re going to be required to start on the weekend, even if they’re outside the 23. That makes even the 30-35 game borderline pale into insignificance.


No doubt it is won of the main reasons why France has a quota on the number of one clubs players in their International camps, and rotate in other clubs players through the week. The number of ‘invisible’ games against a player suggests the FFRs 25 game limit as more appropriate?


So if we take it at face value that Galthie and the FFR have got it right, only a dozen players from the last 60 international caps should have gone on this tour. More players from the ‘Scotland 23’ than the more recent 23.


The only real pertinent question is what do players prefer more, health or money? There are lots of ethical decisions, like for instance whether France could make a market like Australia’s where their biggest rugby codes have yearly broadcast deals of 360 and 225 million euros. They do it by having a 7/8 month season.

68 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING 'No regard for what anyone’s done in the past': Verdict on Pollock from inside Lions camp 'No regard for what anyone’s done in the past': Verdict on Pollock