Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Weird disciplinary verdict sees Brits banned for longer than van der Merwe

Bulls' Schalk Brits gets a red card from referee Mike Fraser during Super Rugby match against the Sharks in Durban (Photo by Steve Haag/Gallo Images/Getty Images)

Schalk Brits has been suspended for four weeks, one week more than Akker van der Merwe after the pair were involved in a Super Rugby fist fight last Saturday that was instigated by the latter player. 

ADVERTISEMENT

A SANZAAR judicial committee hearing decided on Tuesday that Bulls’ Brits was guilty of contravening Law 9.12: A player must not physically abuse anyone after he was issued with a red card during a Super Rugby match at the weekend.

Brits has been suspended for four weeks, up to and including May 4. This suspension covers the period of the player’s next four Super Rugby matches. The incident occurred in the 58th minute of the match between the Sharks and Bulls played at Kings Park in Durban.

Judicial committee chairperson Helen Morgan, who conducted the hearing via video conference, ruled: “Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and additional evidence, including from the player and submissions from his legal representative, Gert van der Merwe, the judicial committee upheld the red card under Law 9.12.

“With respect to sanction, the judicial committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid-range entry point of six weeks due to the World Rugby instructions that dictate any incident of foul play involving contact with the head must start at a mid-range level. 

“The evidence demonstrated the player contacted the opposing player’s head with more than one punch. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the player’s demonstrated remorse, extensive experience, the fact the player’s actions were in self-defence and the player has pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, the judicial committee reduced the suspension by two weeks.  

“The judicial committee was conscious of the fact that the player was not the instigator of the incident, but due to the player’s previous two periods of suspension for striking offences, the judicial committee were unable to provide the full 50 per cent discount for the sanction. This leads to a sanction of four weeks.”

ADVERTISEMENT

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

Where? I remember saying "unders"? The LNR was formed by the FFR, if I said that in a way that meant the 'pro' side of the game didn't have an equal representation/say as the 'amateur' side (FFR remit) that was not my intent.


But also, as it is the governing body, it also has more responsibility. As long as WR looks at FFR as the running body for rugby in France, that 'power' will remain. If the LNR refuses to govern their clubs use of players to enable a request by FFR (from WR) to ensure it's players are able to compete in International rugby takes place they will simply remove their participation. If the players complain to the France's body, either of their health and safety concerns (through playing too many 'minutes' etc) or that they are not allowed to be part in matches of national interest, my understanding is action can be taken against the LNR like it could be any other body/business. I see where you're coming from now re EPCR and the shake up they gave it, yes, that wasn't meant to be a separate statement to say that FFR can threaten them with EPCR expulsion by itself, simply that it would be a strong repercussion for those teams to be removed (no one would want them after the above).


You keep bringing up these other things I cannot understand why. Again, do you think if the LNR were not acting responsibly they would be able to get away with whatever they want (the attitude of these posters saying "they pay the players")? You may deem what theyre doing currently as being irresponsible but most do not. Countries like New Zealand have not even complained about it because they've never had it different, never got things like windfall TV contracts from France, so they can't complain because theyre not missing out on anything. Sure, if the French kept doing things like withholding million dollar game payments, or causing millions of dollars of devaluation in rights, they these things I'm outlining would be taking place. That's not the case currently however, no one here really cares what the French do. It's upto them to sort themselves out if they're not happy. Now, that said, if they did make it obvious to World Rugby that they were never going to send the French side away (like they possibly did stating their intent to exclude 20 targeted players) in July, well then they would simply be given XV fixtures against tier 2 sides during that window and the FFR would need to do things like the 50/50 revenue split to get big teams visiting in Nov.

307 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Tupou Vaa'i gives first impression of 'big unit' Fabian Holland Tupou Vaa'i on 'big unit' Fabian Holland
Search