Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Zach Mercer red 'wrecks' Champions Cup thriller

The MHR No.8 was sent off.

Montpellier’s Zach Mercer was shown a red card by referee Andrew Brace for a tackle on Exeter Chiefs’ forward Christ Tshiunza in today’s Heineken Champions Cup match at Sandy Park.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mercer made fleeting contact with the head of the Chief’s lock in the 49th minute and it was enough for the call to be sent ‘upstairs’ for TMO Joy Neville to review.

Brace determined that there was “no mitigation” for the tackle, despite Mercer’s protests that Tshiunza had already dropped his height.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

The decision has caused a stir on social media, with many fans and pundits questioning the call. Some argue that there was a lack of force in the hit, and that Tshiunza appeared to be lowering his height as a result of an initial tackle, with Mercer being a secondary collision.

Sunday Times columnist Stephen Jones wrote: “Red card for Zach Mercer at Exeter reveals the silly side of new framework. At time of contact Mercer hardly moving. Way more of a graze than an impact.”

One, more reasonable, Tweeter wrote: “Personally thought the red card from Mercer was VERY unlucky . Thought Serfontein tackled the player first causing a slight dip making it high, was not with a lot of force so I was thinking penalty if he was lucky or yellow at most,” while another wrote: “Sorry but that is not a red. Tackler is passive, doesn’t accelerate into him, secondary tackler. Bad bad call.”

Rugby journalist Jon Cardinelli wrote: “I don’t see any mitigation,” says the ref. But Mercer isn’t the initial tackler, and yhe ball carrier is brought down lower before making contact with Mercer…”

ADVERTISEMENT

Another account queried why a HIA wasn’t mandatory in the situation given the decision implied there was significant force in the head contact. “Another great game, wrecked by another needless red card,” wrote lineout nause. “Zach Mercer very unlucky for me. There wasn’t a high level of danger. And if there was, why isn’t a HIA mandatory?”

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 57 minutes 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.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Return of 30-something brigade provides welcome tonic for Wales Return of 30-something brigade provides welcome tonic for Wales
Search