Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

The disciplinary hearing evidence presented by red-carded Beno Obano

Beno Obano leaves the field at Twickenham following his red card (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

The RFU have published the seven-page disciplinary hearing written verdict that confirmed a four-game ban for Beno Obano, a sanction that can be reduced to three if the prop successfully completes tackle school. Last Saturday’s Gallagher Premiership final had stopped in the 22nd minute so that referee Christophe Ridley and his officials could review the collision that had taken place when Bath front-rower Obano tackled Northampton’s Juarno Augustus.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ridley decided that what Obano did with his shoulder to the head of Augustus merited a red card and that left Bath a player short for the remainder of a match they were to lose 21-25 following Alex Mitchell’s converted 73rd-minute try. The sending-off then resulted in a midweek disciplinary hearing chaired by Matthew Weaver with Leon Lloyd and Mitch Read.

At it, Obano admitted an act of foul play but disputed that it reached the red card threshold. “The panel upheld the charge and the player received a four-match ban which will be reduced to three if he makes an application to World Rugby to undertake the coaching intervention programme (CIP).”

Video Spacer

URC Head of Match Officials Tappe Henning reveals some stunning red-card statistics

Video Spacer

URC Head of Match Officials Tappe Henning reveals some stunning red-card statistics

The RFU statement announcing the ban was accompanied by the written disciplinary verdict which included the evidence presented at the hearing by Obano. It read: “The player firstly expressed his regret at the incident and was plainly remorseful. He accepted that his actions amounted to foul play and did not seek to dispute that he made direct contact with the opposition player’s, Juarno Augustus (JA), neck/chin area.

“He confirmed that, on reflection, he would have wanted the tackle to be better executed but when questioned by the panel on the specifics of what he would do differently, he was extremely honest and confirmed that whilst there is, in his view, no ‘perfect tackle’, he did not consider that he could or should have done anything differently. That said, he was clear that he regretted the outcome of the tackle.

Penalties

13
Penalties Conceded
10
0
Yellow Cards
0
0
Red Cards
1

“The player described the build-up to the tackle and the tackle itself. He confirmed that he was chasing a kick off and was moving at speed. He saw JA catch the ball and evade a tackler to the player’s inside. It was clear at that stage, that JA was running towards the player.

“As such, the player described that he ‘put the brakes on’ and dropped his height by bending at the knees and hips and also through the back. As a result of lowering his height in this way, the player was looking at JA ‘through his eyebrows’.

ADVERTISEMENT

“He observed that JA was upright and his intention was to make contact with the ball when making his tackle. He recalled targeting the ball, dropping his head to make the tackle and then realising that he had made contact with something other than the ball, at which point he began to attempt to reduce his momentum.

“The player confirmed that his last sighting of JA before the tackle was JA in an upright position and recalled thinking that he could not attempt to tackle JA’s legs as they were too far in front of the player.

“Had the player attempted to tackle JA’s legs, he concluded that he would have had to have been off his own feet, making the tackle reckless. He stated that his movement in the tackle was forward rather than upwards. 14. After the match, the player shook hands with the opposition players including JA.”

A summary of the evidence presented at the hearing by referee Ridley was also included in the written verdict. “The referee’s evidence was that he considered, as he always does, the various factors concerning head contact, namely whether there was head contact; whether there was foul play; and any mitigation. He was of the view that whilst the player was low, he was not low enough and could have dropped his height further to make the tackle legal.

ADVERTISEMENT

“As such, he concluded that there was foul play. He then considered mitigation and concluded that the player had a clear line of sight to JA prior to the tackle and that there had been no sudden and significant drop in height on the part of JA or any significant change in the dynamics of the incident.

“He was specifically asked whether he considered the height of the tackler when making his assessment and he confirmed that he did, as part of his assessment as to whether the head contact was avoidable and, therefore, whether the tackle was an act of foul play.

“When asked about his comments at the time of the player ‘hitting up’ in the tackle, he confirmed that he had identified this but, on reflection, now considered this to be an irrelevant consideration as the key question for him was whether the player started at a height which rendered the tackle an act of foul play.

“The referee was cross-examined by the player’s counsel on whether he took account of the player’s attempts to lower his body height. Whilst the referee did not initially identify the tackler’s height as a relevant mitigation consideration, he confirmed that he considered all circumstances of the tackle when arriving at this decision to issue the red card and that he was familiar with the World Rugby head contact process guidelines (the HCP guidelines), having viewed them ‘more than one hundred times’.

“When it was put to the referee that he did not take account of the player’s attempt to lower his body height when assessing mitigation, the referee stated that he always considers all mitigation factors whether or not he expresses that in his conversation with the TMO and other match officials. His ultimate aim is to establish to what extent the dangerous tackle was avoidable.”

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 3 hours ago
'Passionate reunion of France and New Zealand shows Fabien Galthie is wrong to rest his stars'

Ok, managed to read the full article..

... New Zealand’s has only 14 and the professional season is all over within four months. In France, club governance is the responsibility of an independent organisation [the Ligue Nationale de Rugby or LNR] which is entirely separate from the host union [the Fédération Française de Rugby or FFR]. Down south New Zealand Rugby runs the provincial and the national game.

That is the National Provincial Championship, a competition of 14 representative union based teams run through the SH international window and only semi professional (paid only during it's running). It is run by NZR and goes for two and a half months.


Super Rugby is a competition involving 12 fully professional teams, of which 5 are of New Zealand eligibility, and another joint administered team of Pacific Island eligibility, with NZR involvement. It was a 18 week competition this year, so involved (randomly chosen I believe) extra return fixtures (2 or 3 home and away derbys), and is run by Super Rugby Pacific's own independent Board (or organisation). The teams may or may not be independently run and owned (note, this does not necessarily mean what you think of as 'privately owned').


LNR was setup by FFR and the French Government to administer the professional game in France. In New Zealand, the Players Association and Super Rugby franchises agreed last month to not setup their own governance structure for professional rugby and re-aligned themselves with New Zealand Rugby. They had been proposing to do something like the English model, I'm not sure how closely that would have been aligned to the French system but it did not sound like it would have French union executive representation on it like the LNR does.

In the shaky isles the professional pyramid tapers to a point with the almighty All Blacks. In France the feeling for country is no more important than the sense of fierce local identity spawned at myriad clubs concentrated in the southwest. Progress is achieved by a nonchalant shrug and the wide sweep of nuanced negotiation, rather than driven from the top by a single intense focus.

Yes, it is pretty much a 'representative' selection system at every level, but these union's are having to fight for their existence against the regime that is NZR, and are currently going through their own battle, just as France has recently as I understand it. A single focus, ala the French game, might not be the best outcome for rugby as a whole.


For pure theatre, it is a wonderful article so far. I prefer 'Ntamack New Zealand 2022' though.

The young Crusader still struggles to solve the puzzle posed by the shorter, more compact tight-heads at this level but he had no problem at all with Colombe.

It was interesting to listen to Manny during an interview on Maul or Nothing, he citied that after a bit of banter with the All Black's he no longer wanted one of their jersey's after the game. One of those talks was an eye to eye chat with Tamaiti Williams, there appear to be nothing between the lock and prop, just a lot of give and take. I thought TW angled in and caused Taylor to pop a few times, and that NZ were lucky to be rewarded.

f you have a forward of 6ft 8ins and 145kg, and he is not at all disturbed by a dysfunctional set-piece, you are in business.

He talked about the clarity of the leadership that helped alleviate any need for anxiety at the predicaments unfolding before him. The same cannot be said for New Zealand when they had 5 minutes left to retrieve a match winning penalty, I don't believe. Did the team in black have much of a plan at any point in the game? I don't really call an autonomous 10 vehicle they had as innovative. I think Razor needs to go back to the dealer and get a new game driver on that one.

Vaa’i is no match for his power on the ground. Even in reverse, Meafou is like a tractor motoring backwards in low gear, trampling all in its path.

Vaa'i actually stops him in his tracks. He gets what could have been a dubious 'tackle' on him?

A high-level offence will often try to identify and exploit big forwards who can be slower to reload, and therefore vulnerable to two quick plays run at them consecutively.

Yes he was just standing on his haunches wasn't he? He mentioned that in the interview, saying that not only did you just get up and back into the line to find the opposition was already set and running at you they also hit harder than anything he'd experienced in the Top 14. He was referring to New Zealands ultra-physical, burst-based Super style of course, which he was more than a bit surprised about. I don't blame him for being caught out.


He still sent the obstruction back to the repair yard though!

What wouldn’t the New Zealand rugby public give to see the likes of Mauvaka and Meafou up front..

Common now Nick, don't go there! Meafou showed his Toulouse shirt and promptly got his citizenship, New Zealand can't have him, surely?!?


As I have said before with these subjects, really enjoy your enthusiasm for their contribution on the field and I'd love to see more of their shapes running out for Vern Cotter and the like styled teams.

287 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Michael Hooper reacts to Scott Barrett’s controversial late-game call Michael Hooper reacts to Scott Barrett’s controversial late-game call
Search