Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Three-week bans for all four punished players making no sense to fans

Reece Hodge lines up Fijian Peceli Yato in Sapporo (Photo by Shaun Botterill / Getty Images)

So far in this World Cup, four players have received bans for high tackles and the fact that all of them have been suspended for three-weeks has left many fans confused. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Australia’s Reece Hodge, Samoa’s Rey Lee-Lo and Motu Matu’u and the USA’s John Quill have all copped punishments and while that was in the order that the offences occurred, it is probably the order of their severity too. 

The Wallabies winger was not punished during the game for his high shot on Fiji’s Peceli Yato and there have been people who have argued for and against him being punished since his upheld citing. 

Meanwhile, the Samoan duo both received yellow cards – although many felt they were red card offences – and Quill received a straight red card for his shocking shot on England’s Owen Farrell. The decision to give both Hodge and Quill the same length ban has left fans on social media bewildered. 

There seems to be a gulf between the two tackles, with Hodge seemingly caught off guard by Yato stepping in to bounce him. It certainly wasn’t legal, but few would argue that it was comparable to Quill’s shoulder charge to the head of Farrell as he was off balance and it was after the whistle had blown. 

(Continue reading below…)

Video Spacer

Both players received six-week bans that were reduced to three based on their character, which seems to be the standard practice at the moment. 

Some have speculated why the American’s punishment was so lenient. The fact he received a red card in the game might have had some effect, but Farrell was also able to play on as opposed to Yato who was forced off the field with concussion and missed Fiji’s next game. 

ADVERTISEMENT

That really should have no bearing on the decision, though, as the tackled player’s capacity to receive an illegal tackle should not be relevant.

Based on the new tackling framework set by World Rugby, it is understandable why all of these players were banned and they cannot really have any complaints. The length of the bans, however, is proving to be problematic. This is what has been said:

ADVERTISEMENT

https://twitter.com/Stephen05937711/status/1177517145195864064?s=20

After these decisions, some players will feel very hard done by if they receive anything more than a three-week ban unless they have done something truly egregious. Likewise, there will only be more uproar on social media if that happens as well. 

WATCH: Reece Hodge’s disciplinary hearing excuse doesn’t wash with fans

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

O
Oh no, not him again? 2 hours ago
England internationals disagree on final play execution vs All Blacks

Okay, so we blew it big time on Saturday. So rather than repeating what most people have all ready said, what do I want to see from Borthwick going forward?


Let's keep Marcus Smith on the pitch if he's fit and playing well. I was really pleased with his goal kicking. It used to be his weakness. I feel sympathy for George Ford who hadn't kicked all match and then had a kick to win the game. You hear pundits and commentators commend kickers who have come off the bench and pulled that off. Its not easy. If Steve B continues to substitute players with no clear reason then he is going to get criticised.


On paper I thought England would beat NZ if they played to their potential and didn't show NZ too much respect. Okay, the off the ball tackles certainly stopped England scoring tries, but I would have liked to see more smashing over gainlines and less kicking for position. Yes, I also know it's the Springbok endorsed world cup double winning formula but the Kiwi defence isn't the Bok defence, is it. If you have the power to put Smith on the front foot then why muzzle him? I guess what I'm saying is back, yourself. Why give the momentum to a team like NZ? Why feed the beast? Don't give the ball to NZ. Well d'uh.


Our scrum is a long term weakness. If you are going to play Itoje then he needs an ogre next door and a decent front row. Where is our third world class lock? Where are are realible front row bench replacements? The England scrum has been flakey for a while now. It blows hot and cold. Our front five bench is not world class.


On the positive side I love our starting backrow right now. I'd like to see them stick together through to the next world cup.


Anyway, there is always another Saturday.

7 Go to comments
C
CO 2 hours ago
Scott Robertson responds to criticism over All Blacks' handling errors

Robertson is more a manager of coaches than a coach so it comes down to intent of outcomes at a high level. I like his intent, I like the fact his Allblacks are really driving the outcomes however as he's pointed out the high error rates are not test level and their control of the game is driving both wins and losses. England didn't have to play a lot of rugby, they made far fewer mistakes and were extremely unlucky not to win.


In fact the English team were very early in their season and should've been comfortably beaten by an Allblacks team that had played multiple tests together.


Razor has himself recognised that to be the best they'll have to sort out the crisis levels of mistakes that have really increased since the first two tests against England.


Early tackles were a classic example of hyper enthusiasm to not give an inch, that passion that Razor has achieved is going to be formidable once the unforced errors are eliminated.


That's his secret, he's already rebuilt the passion and that's the most important aspect, its inevitable that he'll now eradicate the unforced errors. When that happens a fellow tier one nation is going to get thrashed. I don't think it will be until 2025 though.


The Allblacks will lose both tests against Ireland and France if they play high error rates rugby like they did against England.


To get the unforced errors under control he's going to be needing to handover the number eight role to Sititi and reset expectations of what loose forwards do. Establish a clear distinction with a large, swarthy lineout jumper at six that is a feared runner and dominant tackler and a turnover specialist at seven that is abrasive in contact. He'll then need to build depth behind the three starters and ruthlessly select for that group to be peaking in 2027 in hit Australian conditions on firm, dry grounds.


It's going to help him that Savea is shifting to the worst super rugby franchise where he's going to struggle behind a beaten pack every week.


The under performing loose forward trio is the key driver of the high error rates and unacceptable turn overs due to awol link work. Sititi is looking like he's superman compared to his openside and eight.


At this late stage in the season they shouldn't be operating with just the one outstanding loose forward out of four selected for the English test. That's an abject failure but I think Robertson's sacrificing link quality on purpose to build passion amongst the junior Allblacks as they see the reverential treatment the old warhorses are receiving for their long term hard graft.


It's unfortunately losing test matches and making what should be comfortable wins into nail biters but it's early in the world cup cycle so perhaps it's a sacrifice worth making.


However if this was F1 then Sam Cane would be Riccardo and Ardie would be heading into Perez territory so the loose forwards desperately need revitalisation through a rebuild over the next season to complement the formidable tight five.

28 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Everyone is saying the same thing after agonising England loss Everyone is saying the same thing after agonising England loss
Search