1
World Rugby statement: Andrew Porter citing complaint dismissed
By
Liam Heagney
Referee Wayne Barnes has had his decision to only yellow card Andrew Porter last Saturday in Wellington vindicated as the citing complaint brought against the Ireland prop has been dismissed for failing the red card threshold. Numerous commentators felt that the loosehead should have been sent off for his head-on-head collision which left Brodie Retallick with a fractured cheekbone.
ADVERTISEMENT
However, unlike fellow prop Angus Ta’avao who was red-carded the previous week when the All Blacks lost the second Test to Ireland, a decision that resulted in a three-week ban for the Kiwi front-rower, Barnes believed the foul play involving Porter in the third Test only merited a ten-minute sin bin – a verdict that has now been backed up by the outcome of a judicial hearing.
A World Rugby statement read: “A citing complaint against Ireland prop Andrew Porter for an act of foul play has been dismissed by an independent judicial committee on Tuesday. Porter was cited for an act of foul play contrary to law 9.13 (a player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously) in Ireland’s final test match against New Zealand on July 16.
“The independent committee, chaired by Adam Casselden (Australia) and joined by former international player Stefan Terblanche (South Africa) and former international coach Frank Hadden (Scotland), heard the case and considered all the available evidence, including multiple broadcast angles and submissions from the player and his legal representative, Aaron Lloyd.
“The player admitted that he committed an act of foul play but maintained that the red card threshold had not been met and that the yellow card issued at the time by the match officials was correct in the circumstances.
“Having considered all the evidence, the independent committee applied World Rugby’s head contact process and agreed with the match officials’ on-field decision that the player’s act of foul play for a breach of law 9.13 did not meet the red card threshold due to the absorbing nature of the tackle. On that basis, the independent committee deemed the act of foul play did not merit further sanction, and the citing complaint was dismissed.”
That is why there should be 20 mins red card. Only fully sent off red cards for fully deliberate tackles at the head(or thuggery incidents). Ta'avao's incident was not intentional .His tackle should've been yellow. Porter should've received red. Just like what other people are saying. The committee should look at past incidents in the series the teams are playing in. And if Ta'avao's tackle was a red then this one should be as well.
Inconsistent unfair and lacking any logic. Who do they think they are fooling as no one can consider this to be unbias treatment. Barnes who infamously let the French get away with a forward pass in a world cup match was defended at that time also. Time for the judiciary to stand up for the safety of players not Referees reputations. He is not the only guilty party as each week we see a different set of rules wheeled out .The Lions v All Blacks 3rd test was a great example of officiating run amok.
Consistency is all that rugby fans are asking for! If this case doesn't warrant further action then similarly other cases of this nature also don't warrant further action.
Absorbing means Retalick's cheek bone absorbed it and was cracked. Its a farce. The guy had to leave the field and has a very serious injury. It could even have been worse, such a shot to the face with a large concrete head. The independent committee Steph Terblanch, Frank and Andrew obviously are short of brain cells.
Haha..World Rugby Cartel is an absolute farce. Had a South African player been cited for hurting a precious All Black they would’ve upped his punishment to the death sentence!
I think the difference is that Ta'avao was in more of a forward motion when the contact took place whereas Porter's movement was more neutral or slightly going backwards at the time of contact. Having said that Porter could still easily have been sent off given how hot the rules now are on any kind of head contact
I just wish that these independent committees would tell us idiots exactly what the difference is between the 2 incidents so we can stop questioning them.....