Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Leicester's Jasper Wiese becomes third Premiership player red-carded this weekend for shoulder to the head shot

(Photo by Matthew Lewis/Getty Images)

Jasper Wiese of Leicester became the third player to be red-carded for a shoulder to the headshot in this weekend’s Gallagher Premiership round ten action after he was sent off on 27 minutes in the Tigers’ home game with Wasps on Saturday. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Gloucester prop Val Rapava-Ruskin was red-carded in the ninth minute on Friday night at The Rec following a forearm-led challenge to Bath lock Josh Bayliss’ head. And Bath lock Mike Williams departed midway through the third quarter after a shoulder-led high hit on Gloucester full-back Kyle Moyle. 

These two Premiership sending-offs were followed the next day by the dismissal of Leicester No8 Wiese for the collision his right shoulder made with the head of Wasps’ Ben Morris who went off for a head injury assessment. The play had continued and Leicester had thought they had scored a try through Cyle Brink to move 16-3 ahead and were ready to take a conversion. 

Video Spacer

Who were the best players in round two of the Six Nations?

Video Spacer

Who were the best players in round two of the Six Nations?

However, referee Craig Maxwell-Keys consulted with his TMO Claire Hodnett about the collision involving Wiese and the Leicester try was chalked off following a video review and a red card shown to the Tigers forward. Here is how the decision was reached, with the BT Sport commentary of Austin Healey interspersed with the dialogue of the two officials: 

CH: Just getting the far-side angle, Craig. We need to review that, please.

CMK: Time off. His left arm is there but you are right, that reverse angle is the one we are going to have to look at again because if that arm is tucked then he is always illegal. Let’s just check the facts, I agree. Foul play, there would be with a tucked arm, he is always illegal… and then we just need to check where the contact is before we go any further.

AH: I’m sorry but this is going to be a red card for Wiese. Watch the clear-out. Morris is over the ball. It’s shoulder, his arm is tucked under, onto the head, it’s a red card. Very similar to last night. He’s gone. 

CMK: So his arm is across his chest, do you agree Claire? 

ADVERTISEMENT

CH: Craig, his arm is always tucked and he is not in a position to make a tackle. 

CMK: Or he is not in a position to bind onto the player he is rucking out of the way.  

CH: No. 

CMK: So he is always illegal. We have established we have foul play. So that angle again please and let’s just pinpoint the point of contact… so it is indirect, chest riding up, or is it direct contact with that shoulder to that head/neck area?  

ADVERTISEMENT

CH: Point of contact is direct to the head. 

CMK: And it’s a dominant clear-out so there is no mitigation, it’s a red card. 

CH: Agreed, Craig. 

CMK: We are talking about a ticked arm so always illegal so we can’t mitigate as it is always illegal, shoulder direct to head and it’s clearly a dominant clear-out as the player goes flying out the back of the ruck. It’s a red card. 

AH: They are all right, they are all 100 per cent correct decisions. Unfortunately, particularly at the ruck, the ruck is about body height, about hitting low and getting underneath. The two last night, again the same. If you have got time to adjust your height you have got time. If you haven’t got time I understand the mitigation but there is no mitigation to that. It’s a red card. 

 

 

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 38 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.

152 Go to comments
J
JW 7 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.

152 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Ex-Wallaby explains why All Blacks aren’t at ‘panic stations’ under Razor Ex-Wallaby explains why All Blacks aren’t at ‘panic stations’
Search