Samu Manoa Huge Hit on Billy Twelvetrees


Why you should always tackle low


Brian O'Driscoll Breakdown Masterclass


Ben Flower red card for vicious punches


Female Streaker has no regrets


Just how fast is Carlin Isles?


The Human Hurdle Attempt


Springboks edge All Blacks in thriller


Sam Burgess breaks cheekbone, plays on

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Faan Rautenbach banned for three weeks for stamp

Faan Rautenbach banned for three weeks for stamp

London Irish prop Faan Rautenbach was cited following a yellow card he received for stamping on the head and shoulder of Munster's David Wallace on the weekend. Earlier today he was found guilty, facing three weeks on the sideline.

Former Springbok Rautenbach was adjudged to have stamped on Wallace during London Irishs 28-14 loss at Thomond Park. He was sent from the field with a yellow card as the incident was spotted right away, but citing commissioner Francois Guers made a complaint against him, leading to todays hearing.

The 34 year old front rower faced the independent disciplinary hearing a few hours ago and after taking into account his clean record and guilty plea, a five week ban was reduced to three by judicial officer Robert Williams.

Under Law 10.4 (b) a player must not stamp or trample an opponent the offence was deemed to have fallen in the Mid Range category, but Rautenbach will sit out for only the Low End punishment. Top end is 9 to 52 weeks.

Florian Fritz was due to apper before the same disciplinary panel. Well update here when we hear more. Feel free to tweet @rugbydump if you hear soon.


Time: 01:11

Posted at 9:33 pm | 52 comments

Viewing 52 comments

GS January 27, 2011 8:58 pm

If he's cited and banned then it should of been red. Any contact with the head is red

· Reply · Report

Mike January 27, 2011 9:29 pm

I wonder what the 'extenuating circumstances' were?

Does anyone else think it should have been red? I would not have thought so, but thinking about it, raking or stamping a player's head is pretty dangerous. And dirty.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 27, 2011 9:29 pm

Any contact of a boot to the head should be a straight red card... surprised to say the least

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 27, 2011 9:30 pm

how the fuck can someone get off with a 3 weeks ban for STAMPING on someone's head in FRONT OF THE REF while Julian Dupuy from Stade franai paris got about a YEAR for an alledged eye-gouge??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

· Reply · Report

J January 27, 2011 9:42 pm

South African players are so much dirtier than other Southern Hemisphere players, it's ridiculous.

This was a definite red..

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 27, 2011 9:49 pm

RED CARD OF COURSE!!!

· Reply · Report

Ice January 27, 2011 9:49 pm

*sigh*...amazing how much rugby has changed.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 27, 2011 10:13 pm

I'm just wondering why some French fans said the card was a joke and the ref was being pro-Irish... this is a red card offense, not a yellow card offense. He got lucky.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 27, 2011 10:35 pm

To me that looks like a red card tbh... very dangerous and shouldn't be seen in the game... sometimes a scrape of the studs is needed on the body to show a referee a flanker is lying over it (being a flanker i know we're a bunch a cheating c**ts)but this kind of contact with the head is not acceptable

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 27, 2011 10:48 pm

Stamping to the head should be a straight red! However as a London Irish supporter it is disappointing to see one of our players doing something so stupid. At least he didn't complain and just went straight off, unlike Fritz who decides swearing is funny.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 27, 2011 10:59 pm

Yeah, he was on the wrong side, but he wasn't acting the fool.

Yellow was down to the ref not wanting to ruin the game early on (0-0 after 15 mins), so he went soft knowing it would be caught by the citing board.

Sad to say that the laws of the game are left open to political and therefore whimsical application.

· Reply · Report

Canadian Content January 28, 2011 12:07 am

Ice said...

*sigh*...amazing how much rugby has changed


Are you kidding me? You miss those days? This would lead to serious injury and in my opinion is a very cowardly act.

Straight red, refs need more guts for this type of call.

Raking is rarely justified, but this incident certainly had no provocation whatsoever. Wallace made the tackle and got trapped under the ruck, he wasn't even trying to interfere.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 12:09 am

'Alleged eye gouge'?

Ha ha! Try two of the most obvious actual eye-gouges in history, on live television!

· Reply · Report

Link January 28, 2011 4:16 am

Just to go along with what Canadian said,

Im not 100% on this, but didn't a player recently lose an eye because he was stamped on the head?

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 6:56 am

Cheap

· Reply · Report

(u-p)rick January 28, 2011 7:22 am

By letter of the law it's red, by viewing it, it didn't look that bad. No doubt it hurt but it didn't look so redworthy....I'd assume the instant red is due to 'what can happen' so I understand it.... Mean the ref saw him hit the should rather that head...

It actually to me looked more like a rake than a stamp... Wallace had only just hit the deck and was moving out the way but it looked like the prop had an old school moment.

Why is there such a large influx of trolls on RD? I mean there was always a few, now it seems to be the majority...

· Reply · Report

Malcolm Bradbrook January 28, 2011 8:00 am

My word anonymous is busy. Come on people; strap a pair on and stand by your thoughts

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 8:00 am

Red, no doubt...

· Reply · Report

Flipje January 28, 2011 8:21 am

Just a proof supporting the overall inconstency in refereeing nowadays....


You can set up as much rules as you want, it is still up to the referee opinion to give.....a penalty, a yellow or a red.....

But ok , stamping on the head is pretty reckless....well 3 weeks for that, Faan should be pretty relieved.

· Reply · Report

fry January 28, 2011 8:54 am

I think raking is something that ought to be allowed more often than it is, but not stamping. It's sometimes hard to differentiate between the two (this seemed more of the former, to be honest), so I understand when the ref errs on the side of caution; we don't want to see a bunch of JPR Williams-AB moments, I suppose.

While I don't think Rautenbach went for Wallace's head (so I don't agree with the ban), any raking near the head is risky and you're just asking to be pinged by the ref.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 9:01 am

Only 3 weeks !!!!!!!!!!!!!
So obvioulsly VERY dangerous

· Reply · Report

Greg15 January 28, 2011 10:52 am

This clip is just the exact thing that i wanted to see in order to shut the mouths of some supposed "irb rules" amabassadors.

when florian fritz does a cathedral tackle who doesn't injure the player, it's a red card! and some pepople say, it's harsh, but u know, it is written in the new irb rules, so no complain

and when rautenbach clearly stamp a player on the head, he just takes a yellow as he should have taken a red

comon! it just means what the rugby is about: rules are rules but at the end, it's the ref interpretation. in both cases, it was bad and too quick calls by the refs

· Reply · Report

Greg15 January 28, 2011 10:54 am

ps: rautenbach should be pretty happy with this ban, erc could have been more severe.

· Reply · Report

granite January 28, 2011 11:33 am

My first reaction is that it should be a red. Credit to the ref that he didn't draw it out and make a big deal of it, or conversely let it slide and ask everyone else what they saw.

Perhaps the card was little lenient since he doesn't make contact with the player's face? Don't think it should make that much of a difference, but its all i can think of.

· Reply · Report

Richard January 28, 2011 11:50 am

Def red.

A team mate of mine recently had to have plastic sugery on his ear because of the exact same thing.

It ripped the back of the ear away from the head and tore a chunk out the top.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 1:15 pm

SO what are they saying.. its better to stamp on someones head than to eyegouge some one?

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 1:23 pm

Could we have rugby law experts opinion. What is the law for a delibarate head stamping ?????

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 1:26 pm

SHAMEFUL !!!!

There's 2 justices, one for Brit and one for French.

Fritz have taken a red card for a tackle without danger for wandel, and he's gonna banned for long time...

Picamoles took a yellow card in the same match after got a punch by the wasps player...

Cudmore took 40days for a punch, Wandel 0...

SHAMEFUL.

What about Dave Attwood who took just 8 weeks to have torn the face of a french player from la Rochelle ? I missed to puncture an eyes !!
And One year for dupuy for a little Eye Gouge...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJMQE1oBGNc

Brit you're very LUCKY....

· Reply · Report

jimmymc1 January 28, 2011 1:28 pm

Faan looks like something out of the texas chainsaw massacre

· Reply · Report

GET LOST TROLLS January 28, 2011 1:49 pm

'''how the fuck can someone get off with a 3 weeks ban for STAMPING on someone's head in FRONT OF THE REF while Julian Dupuy from Stade franai paris got about a YEAR for an alledged eye-gouge??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????'''

Stop this nonsense YOU TROLLS. Possibly the most blatant eye gouge I've ever seen and he went in for seconds. Ferris had to come off the pitch his eyes were so sore. GET THE FUCKING FACTS RIGHT TROLLS.

AND IT WAS 6 MONTHS. THE PROP GOT THE LONGER BAN.

And thats the difference, Dupuy did it when the ref wasn't looking and checked where the ref was before helping himself to more of Ferris' face. Rautenbach wasn't directly aiming for Wallace's head. Munster fan.

· Reply · Report

TB January 28, 2011 1:49 pm

Personally, I would like to go back to the days when players (me included)lying on the wrong side of the ball got absolutely shredded.

Have all you guys been playing rugby for <5 years? Getting the boots to the body really looks much worse than it feels. I'm not arguing for free shots to pinned players, but the player on the ground should be motivated to get up ASAP.

That said, it's never okay to step on somebody's head or balls. This guy should sit maybe one week.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 1:54 pm

"Rautenbach wasn't directly aiming for Wallace's head"

hahahahahahahaha

Joke of the day !!!!

· Reply · Report

Greg15 January 28, 2011 2:01 pm

to anon trolls,

don't compare what shouldn't be compared
i'm french and i'm seek to listen french moaning about dupuy accident. it was coward and very shameful.

but, yes, Attwood and Rautenbach should be very relieved with their bans, i agree

i understand your desire of justice, but u can't compare 2 completly different cases.
For Fritz, let do ERC and then, everyone will have his word on it.

Personnaly, i don't think he will take a huge ban as he haven't receive long bans before and if he pleads guilty for his nervous reaction, i don't think he will receive a long ban.

let the caravan pass

· Reply · Report

Greiffel January 28, 2011 2:06 pm

@ (u-p)rick, with 1.5mil page views a month, it's bound to happen.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 2:33 pm

Look, it was a stamp. Was it a red card, no. Did he deserve a ban, yes. Anyone comparing it to Dupuy's attempt to blind Ferris is delusional though. Dupuy gouged him twice in a cowardly (big surprise from the French) attempt to injure another player. Rautenbach had a rush of blood to the head and turned a rake into a stamp. But raking the head is also illegal. So ban justified. And Fritz didn't do a "cathedral tackle" it was a spear tackla and he deserved the red. However, there wouldn't be half as much fuss about it if he hadn't acted like a petulant little girl afterwards.

· Reply · Report

Mike January 28, 2011 3:33 pm

Greg15 - what is your point? That the ref who sent of Fritz has balls, but this ref does not?

You are probably right. I think he was lucky to get only a 3 week ban. I also think David Attwood was also very lucky with the short ban he got for his stamp against La Rochelle.

· Reply · Report

Billy January 28, 2011 4:13 pm

No doubt at all in my mind that this deserved a red and a longer ban...I love all this old school talk and the way the game has changed!

As a former player and present referee I think that what he did took place nowhere near the ball and it was a cowardly cheap shot!!

· Reply · Report

orange January 28, 2011 5:14 pm

Well said, TB.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 5:16 pm

Mike: now it's aboutluck not law ?

LOL !

· Reply · Report

Andr Catarino January 28, 2011 5:16 pm

For me should be a red card!

· Reply · Report

Maximus January 28, 2011 5:39 pm

Can't wait to compare it to the ban fritz will get.

Just to see if stamping on or raking (whatever) somebody's ear is worse than showing your finger to a crowd picking on you after a ref overreacted to your tackle (my opinion about this, of course).

· Reply · Report

Mike January 28, 2011 6:25 pm

Anonymous above: if a guy gets a shorter ban than I think he derserves, I think he is lucky. It is a figure of speech in English. If your English is not so good, then I apologise for confusing you.

· Reply · Report

Owen January 28, 2011 11:02 pm

Are you fucking shitting me?! 3 weeks for that and Richie Rees gets 12 weeks for stroking Dylan Hartley's face, and thats not an exaggeration! It's farsical

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 28, 2011 11:45 pm

I dont condone malicious stamping, however a little gentle reminder like this is not worth a penalty even. rugby has gone soft, thanks to irb interfering with a game played by men. of course players need protection from dirty play and dirty players but this is not dangerous stamping.

i swear all the whinging comments are coming from soft backline players.

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 29, 2011 9:19 am

@ anon. Jan 27 11:13: wtf? why would any French fan talk about that the guy's from London Irish... take your head out of your *** sometimes

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 29, 2011 9:23 am

'u-p)rick said...
By letter of the law it's red, by viewing it, it didn't look that bad. No doubt it hurt but it didn't look so redworthy...'

hahahaha that's sometihng...just about a week ago everyone said "by law, Fritz's tackle's a red therefore it should be a red" now, "by viewing it", STAMPING ON SOMEONE'S HEAD doesn't look that bad....man, I'd LOVE French clubs to BAN H CUP for a year or two, our players play way too often anyway, and there'll never be fair referreeing for us....

· Reply · Report

(u-p)rick January 29, 2011 2:53 pm

Ummmmm actually 'anonymous' when I saw fritzs tackle last week I thought 'by the letter of the law, it didn't look like a red!'. So interesting comment you made there.

The simple fact is I don't view this as a red or a ban and I didn't view fritzs tackle as a red and definately no ban!!!

So you trying to troll my personal view on something is quite sad....

· Reply · Report

Anonymous January 29, 2011 5:28 pm

anon @ January 29, 2011 10:19 AM

Because the French are always trying to demonstrate that they are being conspired against and particular sides e.g. the Irish are being supported by referees.

· Reply · Report

Gav January 30, 2011 12:58 am

Ah yes, the mighty giants of Ireland, bullying poor little France...wait a minute - isn't France about 15 times bigger than Ireland in population?

Since when has the little team been able to bully the big team? If anything, the influence is against Ireland and for France (remember Thierry Henri and his magical hands, for example?).

Too much trolling here. I wish only genuine rugby fans could comment. Anonymous comments should not be allowed.

· Reply · Report

Gav January 30, 2011 6:19 pm

Oh yeh, and I'm a gay footy supporter.

· Reply · Report

paper_tiger January 31, 2011 10:45 am

This a YELLOW and Richie Rees gets 12 weeks for an 'unintentional' offence.

Justice? Pah.

· Reply · Report

Commenting as Guest | Register or Login

All comments are moderated and will be removed immediately if offensive.
 
Site Meter