Emory suspended for 4 weeks; Rugy 365

NEWS: HIGHLANDERS CENTRE JASON EMERY HAS BEEN SUSPENDED FOR FOUR WEEKS BY A SANZAAR JUDICIAL HEARING ON MONDAY AFTER A DANGEROUS TACKLE ON SHARKS FULLBACK WILLIE LE ROUX ON SATURDAY.

The 22-year-old was found guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (i) Tackling, tapping, pushing or pulling an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play, after he was red carded in the 12th minute of the Highlanders' 15-14 Round Nine defeat to the Durban-based side in Dunedin.

Emery's action warranted a six-week suspension, but following his apology to Le Roux, his guilty plea and and clean record taken into account in representative matches, he was given a two-week discount on the recommended sacntion and will be out of action until Saturday, May 21.

The SANZAAR Judicial Hearing was heard by a Judicial Committee of Jannie Lubbe SC (Chairman), De Wet Barry and John Langford.

In their finding, the Judicial committee ruled the following: 

"Jason Emery appeared before a SANZAAR Judicial Committee having been red carded in the match between the Sharks and the Highlanders for a breach of Law 10.4 (e).

"During the hearing the charge was amended as a breach of Law.10.4 (i) and Mr. Lloyd, acting for the player, raised no objection. 
"The player pleaded guilty to the amended charge.

"After careful consideration of the available evidence and the very helpful submissions of Mr Lloyd the offence was categorised as mid-range which carries a six weeks suspension.

"The Committee took into account as mitigating factors the player's exemplary clean disciplinary record after seventy first class matches, his apology in person to Willie le Roux immediately after the match and on social media, his guilty plea and the fact that the tackle was rather reckless than deliberate.

"The player was therefore given a two week discount on the recommended sanction of six weeks.

"The player is accordingly suspended from all rugby until May 21 2016 which effectively is a three match Super Rugby suspension.

"We were provided with proof that he would have been selected to play in a club match on May 21 2016, a match which the player will also miss as a result of the suspension."

 Willie was a really good sport about this & if he saw the videos he would have been shocked himself as it looked like it could have been a really life changing injury. Fortunately this was not the case.

 Emery's action warranted a six-week suspension, but following his apology to Le Roux, his guilty plea and and clean record taken into account in representative matches, he was given a two-week discount on the recommended sacntion and will be out of action until Saturday, May 21.Beinga a true kbbs Emory will take his two week discount as harsh treament JW!
On and on it goes every incident proving Beeno is correct yet again!

 Ag FFS, Beeno. Give it a rest. Had it been an SA player on a Kiwi, and had the sentence been six weeks, you would have been the first out of the blocks, bleating that it was an  accident and unintentional and that he has apologised, and that it was just the bent down-under officials who were out to nail that Saffer, blah di blah di blah, ad f@kken infinitum.

 I just wish the biased reviews would give it a rest cerudunce windpomp.  I recall you commending bryce lawrence's performance against the Boks so no surprise here!A pong has arrived on the boa rd 

 Commended?  Really?  You are sinking to the same levels as ComradeMike, mate. 

 Glad Willie is ok.

Hope this incident highlights the need for serious review of the rules around high ball chases. It's one very small part of the game yet holds the potential for horrible injuries. And i still stand by my view that it is much to easy to fake "unintentional".

My change to the law would be...

If both players are in motion IE running towards the same high ball then the old laws stand.

If one player is waiting and the other chasing then...

a) If the chaser causes the waiting jumper to land in any way off his feet, regardless of whether he is going for the ball or not, it's yellow.

b) If chaser causes the waiting jumper to land in any kind of way that could cause an injury, regardless of whether he is going for the ball or not, it's red.

If these rules apply we will actually see high balls being properly contested with both players actually going for the ball. It will also mean that kicks will be less deep since the kicker will want to give his team the best possible opportunity of regaining possession.

The worst case scenario for the attacking team is that they gain ground in that the chaser slows down, waits for the receiver to catch the ball and tackles him, a ruck is formed and the attacking team gains ground.

With the rules as they currently are, a chaser can completely destroy the receiver as long as he is making an effort to get the ball. The chaser has all the advantage because he knows exactly where the receiver will be. The stationary player has ZERO momentum and will always be knocked out of the air, very often landing horribly. There isn't a more dangerous scenario anywhere else in rugby. It needs to change.

"a) If the chaser causes the waiting jumper to land in any way off his feet, regardless of whether he is going for the ball or not, it's yellow."

If the causes the waiting jumper to land in any way off his feet, he could come down badly and break his leg. IIRC, that was how Conrad Jantjes broke his leg. So, your scenario in a) could potentially result in..... "....that could cause an injury....", which under your suggestion would have to be a red card.

What I am trying to say is that, by definition, even your "rule" a) should then actually also be a red card.

Thing is that it is just impossible to formulate laws that caters for each and every possible event in a rugby game. I am 100% sure that there was no malicious intent in Jason Emery's tackle on Le Roux and more important, neither does Le Roux himself. It was, however, dangerous and reckless and deserves to be sanctioned. Fact is that there are literally 100s of games played per play day and  how often do we have incidences like this? Do we really have to run in and change the law book because of the odd time that it does happen?

If that was the case and we needed to stamp out anything that could be dangerous we would have to change the nature of the game in total. Even a normal scrum could potentially be dangerous. I cringe every time  a scrum goes down. I can remember watching schools  rugby when my sons were playing. They were both hookers and I just turned away every time those farking scrums went down. Fortunately none of them  ever suffered a serious injury. My eldest started playing again over here in England and played until he was 33. Still playing hooker and I still had those fears every time I watched him played over here as well.

 Well yes Cera...if a) occurs and results in b) then it is a red card.

If a) occurs and the landing is benign yet off his feet then a yellow card is the result.

It's really not that difficult.

And yes, we do have to change the laws. The laws have been amended for much less dangerous and far less frequent occurrences. Why not this?

Saying that, if we change this law then we need to change all the rules so much that rugby will be a different game, is a complete exaggeration. I forget the name of that argument type. We are talking about one of the most dangerous aspects of the game. The other two culprits for neck injuries are scrums and high tackles and the laws are very strict around both of those. Operating under your premise none of the laws would ever have changed. Yet they have, and it STILL rugby.

Your argument amounts to an appeal to tradition. Here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

But you've not given solid reason why the rules should not change. 

 Ceradunce
"Commended?  Really?  You are sinking to the same levels as ComradeMike, mate." 

Be happy in lowlife achioevement - nobody can ever achieve the snakelike low you have achieved.

 @Plum. Mate, you seem to think that whenever I disagree with something that you say, or even not fully agree with it, that I am launching an attack on you in person. I have not done so and I have in no way insulted you in any way. I just gave you my view on what you have said.

Having said that, I really do think that by far the biggest issues that we have with the laws as it stands are down to a number of things. People (a) do not understand the laws or (b) do not know the laws and (c) do not understand how to distinguish between the different sanctions in the laws. In addition to this there is also a fourth dimension, i.e. the policing of the laws.

We had a previous discussion about red and yellow cards which I just decided to walk away from because we were going nowhere real fast and that was also probably due to the perception that I was rubbishing you in person when I actually just disagreed with your point of view.

Now, to get back to this  incident and your suggested changes to the law. In this case the incident was handled exactly in line with the law and I think the referee did well. The law as it currently stands says:

Law 10 Foul Play:
10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a line-out or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

That is as simple as it gets. Now, as I have said in a previous argument, there is no prescribed sanction of a yellow or red card. There are however law clarifications as well as guidelines from World Rugby on certain aspects of the law, and this particular type of transgression is covered by that. Referees have the obligation to deal with this in a very serious matter, which is way they have come under the spotlight in recent years. The refs are bound to follow these guidelines but this is where the matter of policing comes in. Not all refs deal with them in the same way, hence my remark about the policing side of it.

In the Le Roux/Emery incident, the ref actually dealt with the incident exactly with it in the way that you have described in your "(b) option". Le Roux was tackled illegally and it was deemed to have led to a potential dangerous and possibly live threatening injury. That did not happen and Le Roux even stayed on th field for the remainder of teh game, bar the period that he was off for the concussion test. The ref took the exact correct action, within current laws and guidelines. Emery was correctly red-carded. Why do we need a change in the law? We just need the correct policing of the laws.

In addition to correct policing of the laws, there is also another component. The farking players also need to abide by the laws and stop doing the dangerous sh1t.

As to my "change all the laws" remark, to which you also seemed to have taken exception to, I was only trying to point out that if we were to try to remove all danger from rugby by amending the laws, we would have to change the entire nature of the game. There are already voices to try and remove the tackle out of the game.

As far as the scrums go. Yes, there is a great emphasis on the scrums but the policing of it is still BS. We want the scrums to be safe, yet we p1ss about the number of reset scrums. Those scrums are reset because they are not safe. A matter of damned if you do and damned if you don't. There is a reason why the ball cannot be put in unless the scrum is straight and stable. There are massive forces on the backs and necks of those two front rows which in itself is already a dangerous situation. It becomes even more dangerous when those forces goes in on a twisted neck or spine. When you do squats with weights, it is of utmost importance and with reason that you do it with a straight back. The same goes for scrumming. Why would we take care to do squats with a straight back, but it is OK if a prop goes into a scrum with his spine in all directions? The only way to eliminate all possibility of serious injury is to either remove scrums in total or police the laws correctly. When a scrum goes down it has to be stopped  and the guideline for "going down" is only one knee of one of the props touching the ground, but that is not policed properly. How many times do we not see a prop with a knee  on the ground and  then the scrum goes on?

So, to come back  to our "little altercation". I do not believe in the wholesale changes in the laws to try and cater for each and every eventuality or potential eventuality. I would rather see the laws policed as it should be and the players adhering to the laws without any risky and uncalled for BS when they are playing.

"@Plum. Mate, you seem to think that whenever I disagree with something that you say, or even not fully agree with it, that I am launching an attack on you in person."

Has anyone got any idea what Ceradunce is bleating about? I've read Plum's post a few times searching for something that might have started Ceradunce snivelling and feeling all sorry for himself but I can't a single thing that could be construed as a personal attack on him.

Either I'm missing something or else Ceradunce is being even more paranoid and defensive than usu al . . . and that hardly seems possible!

 I think the laws are fine, but they should apply sterner sanctions for some dangerous play. 4 weeks are nothing for a possible broken neck. That was just plain reckless. A 4 month ban would make players think twice...those capable of thinking.

a reasonable punishment.

@brother beeno,
in an effort to placate ur unreasonable hurt feelings, dont forget that pigmarck du plessis also received 4 weeks for what was IMO a much more serious offense of deliberately booting micheal leitch in the face.

funny though, i tried looking up a clip of that incident on youtube, and where there was once at least 10 different youtube clips of the incident, there is now not even one,
looks like the du plessis fan club have b een working overtime, lolz,

 plum,

"a) If the chaser causes the waiting jumper to land in any way off his feet, regardless of whether he is going for the ball or not, it's yellow.

b) If chaser causes the waiting jumper to land in any kind of way that could cause an injury, regardless of whether he is going for the ball or not, it's red."

dr win is correct, the laws as they stand regarding the high ball are fine.

biggest problem i see with the law revision u want to see implemented is that A) would leave the door wide open for serial divers in the game.
waiting player could jump up in the air and if contested in the air by the chaser, only needs to fall down once contact is made. ref would have no choice but to yellow card.

imagine a chaser jumping up catching the ball in a clean take, bumps into waiting jumper and knocks him off his feet. a yellow card for that would be ridiclous.

willie le roux IMO is a serial offender when it comes to diving in rugby, and while hes not the only one who dives (even though he is the worst), ur rule would only encourage that ugly line of sportsmanship.

Naruto I see your concern about diving. But, currently the opposite occurs. A player can jump right into the receiver and as long as his arms arms up as though he wants to catch the ball and he glances at the ball at some point, then he can pretty much do as he pleases. So we put all the advantage with the player who has the most potential to do the most harm. And ultimately, the rules should first protect the players...and then the game. I believe that is what the rule book tries to do anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong. PS Are there any divers who who hail from New Zealand? My guess is no. Never has been and never will be. Right?

 Did you actually see the Willie incident Sushi. He was well up in the air, uncontested. He certainly dove, but only because he was turned upside down by having his legs flipped up. He landed on the nape of his neck, having missed the ground with his supporting arm, because he was rotating.
If he had rotated a bit less and landed on his head, he would probably be paralyzed now...it's the most dangerous fall I've seen.
 So no, he is not a diver....he was taking high balls well shortly after the incident....showing real guts. Your comment is wrong and insensitive.

 Brother Narut ou  you are an insensitve brute high on smoking heavy stuff!
The good Dr Mz has summed up how insensitive you are so please take heed.

@plum,

"I see your concern about diving. But, currently the opposite occurs. A player can jump right into the receiver and as long as his arms arms up as though he wants to catch the ball and he glances at the ball at some point, then he can pretty much do as he pleases."

i disagree. IMO the rules as is are sufficient enough to protect the receiver attempting to catch the ball.

ur view is based on the theory that players are trying to deliberately take out defenders going for the high ball and in this professional era theres no reason for anyone to do that, cos the repercussions are just too severe. im not talking about the card and the match bans either, im talking about the ramifications on their reputation, which can translate to their value to their team and possible future teams.

"So we put all the advantage with the player who has the most potential to do the most harm."

i just dont see this advantage to the attacking player chasing the high ball.

ins saying that, im sure there plenty who have tried, not for malicious reasons, but to give their team an advantage, but the referees IMO have for the last few years been very good in officiating this area, and jason emerys red card is testament to this.

i cant really recall anyone in the games ive watched commit this offense and get away with it, but i know ive seen players get  pinged for it nearly every weekend.

"PS Are there any divers who who hail from New Zealand? My guess is no. Never has been and never will be. Right?"

ur guess like ur opinion that emerys red card incident was deliberate is wrong.

i know south africans look to us kiwis as ur rugby betters (which statistically speaking we are), but allow me to squash a myth which nearly 99.9% of saffas believe,,,
NZ rugby players are not immortal supersayian spartans born on the planet krypton. our players are infact human and make the same errors as the rest of the rugby playing world, mistakes like diving,

@mozzie,
"Did you actually see the Willie incident Sushi. He was well up in the air, uncontested. He certainly dove, but only because he was turned upside down by having his legs flipped up. He landed on the nape of his neck, having missed the ground with his supporting arm, because he was rotating.If he had rotated a bit less and landed on his head, he would probably be paralyzed now...it's the most dangerous fall I've seen."
im not going to lie mozzie, im very disappointed in u, while we have very different rugby philosophies and opinions, those differences are not normally due to ur inability to properly read and intepert comments.

i never said willie took a dive where emery was red carded, what i said was,,,

"willie le roux IMO is a serial offender when it comes to diving in rugby, and while hes not the only one who dives (even though he is the worst), ur rule would only encourage that ugly line of sportsmanship."

"So no, he is not a diver....he was taking high balls well shortly after the incident....showing real guts. Your comment is wrong and insensitive."

au contraire mon frere, willie le roux is serial offender when it comes to diving. just think back at all those times willie gets hit or makes mistake and ends up staying on the ground for an x amount of time incapable to get up straight away.

he does it often enough that its noticeable as long as ur not wearing south african tinted glasses.

Dear brother beeno,

while i am forever grateful to u for introducing mr spiffy blue overalls to the uzumaki clan where he has become an integral valuable member, i would formally like to request u please cease to use him in ur posts.

the value of awesomeness of mr spiffy blue overalls, is severely diminished when ever others see him in ur not so sane posts.

urs trully,
naru and mr spiffy blue overalls.

@ Nurato So Bizzie's is a pig. Willie is a diver(the worst of all divers). Any other Bok players who are cheats and don't play in the spirit of the game? Clearly cheating is as much a part of the Boks as perfection is the ngrained in tye ABs. Please do feel free to complete this list. Of course it won't cause us to be bias when interpreting your bias. And just to try and make this a little clearer for you... If the chasing player is making at attempt to get the ball then HE IS ABLE TO KNOCK THE DEFENDER OUT OF THE AIR AND WILL NOT GIVE AWAY SO MUCH AS A PENALTY. That is the what the current rules allow for. I can't make it any clearer than that. And yes, players in all sports cheat all the time. So I'm not sure exactly what the point is that you're trying to make. The aerial advantage I am talking about which is on the chasers side...momentum. The defender will far more often than not come.off worse wince he has no momentum. Again, I can't make it any clearer.

 Sushi loves talking down to us ignorant Bok supporters....makes him feel like a big fella.

@plum,

"So Bizzie's is a pig."

u better believe it. his deliberate kick to micheal leitches face was a dog act. i cant believe he only got 4 weeks for that, he should have gotten 4 months.

add to that his history eye with gouges and all, and an ugly picture is painted of a thuggish pigmarck du plessis.

FYI i stilll consider pigmarck the best hooker in the world in terms of ability, but hes a dirty player.

"Willie is a diver(the worst of all divers)."

he sure is, and while ur sth african tinted glasses aided in ur (& mozzies) ignorance on the matter, u will now see for urself in future games, just how many times the serial diver lies for extended amount of times.

"Any other Bok players who are cheats and don't play in the spirit of the game?"

between the illegal substance abuse and deliberate foul plays, theres a ton, but im not going to list them all, as i dont have that kind of time to waste.

i will say i am very pleased to see u are keen for me to educate u though my bru, i might even make u my apprentice if u continue to show that level of eagerness to learn,

"Clearly cheating is as much a part of the Boks asperfection is the ngrained in tye ABs."

sigh, i see ur confusion, but once again let me reiterate and squash that myth u and many othe saffas believe. All Blacks are not perfect, it just feels like is cos we kick so much butt.

this perfect image the All Blacks have cultivated is something i blame on south african mothers, who use the All Blacks to scare their children into eating their vegetables and going to bed...sigh....

"And just to try and make this a little clearer for you...

If the chasing player is making at attempt to get the ball then HE IS ABLE TO KNOCK THE DEFENDER OUT OF THE AIR AND WILL NOT GIVE AWAY SO MUCH AS A PENALTY. That is the what the current rules allow for. I can't make it any clearer than that."

about time u stuck to the topic at hand instead of showing me how much i annoyed u with some of my comments, lmao,

ur explanation of the current status of the high ball is IMO simplistic and wrong.

u have watched the highlanders/sharks game, the referee deemed that emery was attempting to go for the ball and he knocked willie out of the air.
is ur definition of "and will not give away so much as a penalty" a red card???

guess we have to agree to disagree, but im willing to say ive seen far more people get pinged for taking players out in the air while attempting to get the ball, then u have seen not get pinged.

"The aerial advantage I am talking about which is on the chasers side...momentum. The defender will far more often than not come.off worse wince he has no momentum. Again, I can't make it any clearer."

u prepared to provide evidence to back that claim, "The defender will far more often than not come.off worse wince he has no momentum." or is this a brother beeno like cos i said so comment???

valid point with momentum on the chasers side which is a factor u have only now mentioned (could it be in ur struggle u just came up with it for this latest post, ), but the current rules in place are still IMO perfectly sufficient and its an area of the game ive seen referees officiate efficiently and consistently.

@mozter,

"Sushi loves talking down to us ignorant Bok supporters....makes him feel like a big fella."


oh mozzie, u carck me up so much,
u need to stop being such a woman mozzie, i point out ur mistake in my post and u resort to insulting insinuations.
stick to the merits of the topic at hand buddy, i know u can do that better then u can argue about the merits of matfields return to the Boks, bawahahahaha,

and FYI, i dont talk down to ignorant Bok suopporters, i talk down to ignorant stupid people, kapish???
its very lucky u lot have rooy, saffex, mikey and oimatey arguing the merits of SA rugby, as they are able to do so in an enlightening and articulate manner filled with commonsense and a deep understanding of the game of rugby, 

Here's some of captain fantastic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsP3Y1dDcb0

Many of those fouls are clear and deliberate and totally outside the spirit of the game. Please find me a highlight reel of any SA player committing so many fouls over such a short space of time. Also, do please find me another player who intentionally spoils a game as much. Of course, in your mind, none of these are fouls and it's all great play and very becoming of a captain. Nah bud. It's dirty play and it's cheating.

"Playing at the limit of the laws." Yeah right. The greatest flank in history, yet has no idea when he is playing the ball from from an offside position or that he is on the ground scooping the ball back.

What great games we would watch if everyone played the game in that spirit.

It's very easy to throw stones.

Now. Do we start referring your great sipper as a "Pig"? Nah. We have a touch more class than that.

Education? Yes, it does seem you need one. Firstly, please educate yourself by going out and finding for us all a highlight reel of SA being as cynical.

You can't and you won't.

"and FYI, i dont talk down to ignorant Bok suopporters, i talk down to ignorant stupid people, kapish???"

Awe, how sweet. Somebody watched some mafia movies and has now made their lingo part of his vernacular . Good on ya clever boy. "Your a'mama musta be so'a proud.