Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Zander Fagerson's Six Nations campaign is over following 4-game ban

(Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)

Scotland tighthead Zander Fagerson has become the second red-carded player in the 2021 Guinness Six Nations championship to be given a hefty ban, the forward’s four-match suspension ruling him out of the remainder of his country’s campaign plus one club match with Glasgow Warriors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Fagerson was sent off in the second half of last Saturday’s Murrayfield defeat to Wales and he will now miss Scotland’s matches versus France, Ireland and Italy along with one further fixture that is still to be determined. His costly suspension follows the campaign-ruining ban handed down to Ireland’s Peter O’Mahony for his red card the previous week versus the Welsh, the Irish flanker getting ruled out of three of his country’s matches. 

A Six Nations statement announcing the Fagerson ban on Tuesday night read: “The Scotland No3 Zander Fagerson appeared before an independent disciplinary committee via a Zoom call on Tuesday.

Video Spacer

The latest Le French Rugby Podcast features a Scottish takeover

Video Spacer

The latest Le French Rugby Podcast features a Scottish takeover

“Fagerson had received a red card in the match between Scotland and Wales for an infringement of law 9.20(a) (a player must not charge into a ruck or maul; charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul) and 9.20 (b) (a player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders).

“He made contact with Wales prop Wyn Jones. Fagerson accepted that he had committed an act of foul play, but did not accept that it warranted a red card. The disciplinary committee, which comprised David Hurley (Ireland), Becky Essex (England) and Stefan Terblanche (South Africa), heard evidence and submissions from Fagerson, Scotland head coach Gregor Townsend, and legal counsel Bruce Caldow (as well as from the Six Nations’ legal representative). 

“The disciplinary committee found that Fagerson had committed an act of foul play (an infringement of law 9.20(a) and that it had warranted a red card. The committee found that the act of foul play warranted a mid-range entry point (six weeks) and reduced that by two weeks to take account of mitigating factors (including his admission of foul play, good disciplinary record and remorse).

“Fagerson is therefore suspended for four weeks. Given his playing schedule, he will miss the three Scotland matches in the Six Nations against France, Ireland and Italy, and one further match to be determined. He was reminded of his right of appeal.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Questions will now be asked, though, as to why the Fagerson red card merited a longer suspension than the O’Mahony red. In the panel decision last week for the O’Mahony suspension, the statement read:  “The player admitted the act of dangerous play in a ruck and that the offending merited a red card. The player did not seek to challenge the referee’s decision. The committee considered all the relevant evidence, including the player’s oral evidence, together with the clips of the incident.

“The committee determined that the entry point was mid-range, which for this offence is six weeks. It was accepted that there were no off-field aggravating factors and the disciplinary committee concluded after careful consideration of the player’s record and conduct in the hearing that the player was entitled to a 50 per cent reduction of sanction in mitigation.”

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 3 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.

144 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING 'Tom has the potential to be better than a British and Irish Lion' 'Tom has the potential to be better than a British and Irish Lion'
Search