Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

World Rugby statement: Retallick cops ban after his red card

(Photo by Getty Images)

All Blacks lock Brodie Retallick has copped a ban following his red card in the 66th minute of his country’s win last Saturday over Japan in Tokyo. The 31-year-old was given his marching orders after he clattered into the back of the neck of Kazuki Himeno with a shoulder at a ruck.

ADVERTISEMENT

After watching video footage of the incident, Georgian referee Nika Amashukeli told Retallick: “You have come from a distance with a tucked shoulder and you have made a contact with the player’s neck. That’s a high degree of danger with no mitigation. That’s a red card.”

Three days later, Retallick has learned that he has been banned for the remaining three matches of the All Blacks tour, their upcoming games against Wales, Scotland and England. However, he can become available for that last game versus the English at Twickenham on November 19 provided he successfully comes through the World Rugby coaching intervention programme.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

That would reduce his suspension to two games and free him to make his 100th Test appearance in the high-profile match against England – the first time the All Blacks will have played their rivals since the 2019 World Cup semi-final in Japan.

A World Rugby statement read: “New Zealand second row Brodie Retallick has been suspended for two matches subject to the successful completion of a coaching intervention programme, having received a red card for an act of foul play contrary to law 9.20 (a) (charging into a ruck or maul) in New Zealand’s international match against Japan on October 29.

Related

“Retallick appeared before an independent judicial committee via video link today [Tuesday]. The independent judicial committee, chaired by Wang Shao-ing (Singapore) and joined by former international referee Donal Courtney (Ireland) and former international player Leon Lloyd (England), heard the case. They considered all the available evidence, including multiple broadcast angles, the referee report and submissions from the player and his representative.

“The player accepted that he had committed an act of foul play but did not accept that the offence was worthy of a red card. Having reviewed all the evidence, the committee applied the head contact process and upheld the red card under law 9.20(a).

ADVERTISEMENT

“In particular, the committee noted that the player admitted that the clean out of the opponent was executed with his arm trailing at the point his shoulder made contact with the back of the opponent’s head and/or neck.

“On that basis, the committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid-range entry point of six matches given the direction by World Rugby that ‘any act of foul play which results in contact with the head and/or the neck shall result in at least a mid-range sanction’.

“Taking into account the player’s excellent disciplinary record and the mitigating factors under regulation 17, the committee granted the player full mitigation of 50 per cent, resulting in a sanction of three matches. The committee also approved the player’s application under the head contact process – coaching intervention programme.

“The player will miss New Zealand’s next matches against Wales and Scotland. Subject to the successful completion of the coaching intervention programme, he will be free to play in New Zealand’s match against England on November 19.”

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

G
GrahamVF 9 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.

147 Go to comments
J
JW 6 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.

147 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