Le Roux handed a one-week ban; Planet Rugby

Springbok full-back Willie le Roux is suspended for one week after pleading guilty to a charge of breaching Law 10.4 (i), during Saturday’s Test match between South Africa and Ireland in Port Elizabeth on Saturday.

Le Roux was cited by commissioner James Absaloms of Kenya for making contact with Ireland full-back Tiernan O’Halloran in the 11th minute of the match as they both leapt in the air for a high ball.

The Ireland player somersaulted and land heavily on his upper body and head as a result of the aerial collision. The Sharks player accepted the citing complaint.

Judicial Officer Terry Willis of Australia heard the case in Port Elizabeth on Sunday and found that the relevant entry point for the offence was at the lower end and accepted the submission made by Advocate Attie Heyns on behalf of Le Roux that a one-week suspension was appropriate.

Le Roux is suspended for the match between the Sharks and the Lions on July 2 after which he will be free to play.

Could have been worse for O'Halloran & worse for the Boks. Some called for red card.

 The fact that he now got a suspension is, by definition, actually proof that it should have been red card. The fact that he was not already red-carded in the game makes his punishment "softer" for both the Boks and himself.

 To me this was a replica of the Zas red card....called a yellow this time. I agree with the Willie call, but frankly expected a red.
We seem to be seeing a rash of players upended in the air and falling on their upper backs....necks. Sometime soon somebody may be paralyzed. What appears to happen is player rotates as he comes down, negating the supporting arm.

It's damn dangerous but it's hard to conceive a clear rule that allows a challenge and protects the primary receiver.

 I will reserve my judgement until my ol' mate Beeno has given his insightful assessment of the ref as he is recognized as being the harshest judge of kiwi refs & the ref in this game was a kiwi

 Both players were only intent on winning the ball. What this all shows is that you cannot compete in the air. The rules should be amended to clearly reflect this.
Naholo is a serial offender yet of course got away with his nonsense against Wales as is usu al with transgressing wee abs!

 JW nz refs are capable of reffing correctly is they choose to. However as soon as SA is playing Oz or nz teams they become fiends. Second time I have told yo u this but always a pleasure!

Yes, Beeno your usual sweeping generalizations with no facts or evidence or relevance to the case being discussed 
Beeno staggers around until he finds the usual "solution"
Picture provided to aid comprehension

I think the correct decision was made- even though the application of the laws seems wrong
Skye showed a comparison of the tackles.  CJ Stander was never going to catch the ball- but Leroux almost did catch it. This was the difference. CJ standard was reckless because he could not have competed for the ball. 
By the letter of the law- there should have been no yellow card. The yellow seemed to be a compromise because he still could have injured the other player- even if it is not a rule. 

I have a question, if Le Roux had done exactly the same thing, and the Irish player had fallen in exactly the same way, but Le Roux had gotten his hand onto the ball and played it backwards, would there have been any sanction? 

 according to the law, re. tackling a player in the air (this has nothing to do with CJ stander's who was trying to charge down a kick):

Law 10.4 (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

At a meeting in April 2015, the Laws Representation Group (LRG) of World Rugby (previously the International Rugby Board) considered the areas of the Game where, it had been agreed that Law amendments were not required but that current Law was to be enforced by match officials including:

Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4 (i)

The options given were:

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on

Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down

Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side

Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in my view, Le Roux arrives late,.... that's why he jumped very horizontal (instead of jumping high to try to catch the ball) and that's why he "tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball".

So there's not a fair challenge and "the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder" very dangerously,...... it should have been a red card

But what you are proposing it's almost impossible to happen (if not impossible at all),..... the Irish falls so badly because he's hit on his legs what makes him give a 180º turn in the air,.... to make possible for Le Roux to reach the ball he should have jumped with the correct timing and higher in which case he would have hit the Irish trunk and this last wouldn't have turn 180º in the air.

If "Le Roux had gotten his hand onto the ball and played it backwards", it would have meant that he wasn't late and that both players contested the ball colliding with their trunks (instead of Le Roux trunk hitting the Irish legs), so the Irish wouldn't have landed on his neck . In this case is very probably that not even a penalty would have been called.

Thanks AB, very thorough explanation. Accepted.