Do Not Sell My Personal Information
RugbyDump RugbyDump
Tuesday Nov 24, 2015

Matthew Rees facing lengthy ban after red card for vicious stamp on Nick Easter's face

Matthew Rees facing lengthy ban after red card for vicious stamp on Nick Easter's face
21
Comments

Cardiff Blues hooker Matthew Rees will face a disciplinary hearing in London tomorrow (Wednesday 25 November) following the straight red card he received for stamping on the face of Harlequins number eight Nick Easter in round two of the European Challenge Cup.

Replacement hooker Rees was sent off after Easter brought it to the referee’s attention, following a stamp that came very close, but due to good luck more than anything, didn’t take out his eye.

Referee Alexandre Ruiz was clear in his decision, sending the former Wales captain from the park.

Blues coach Danny Wilson felt there was no maliciousness meant though, saying it was accidental.

“There’s definitely no malice in it. It looks possibly like a clumsy situation,” said Wilson. “Matthew is not that type of player. He’s a very diligent professional with an extremely positive record behind him, which hopefully will go with him when it’s discussed.

Law 10.4 (b) Stamping/Trampling on an Opponent carries the following sanction entry points – Low End: 2 weeks; Mid-Range: 5 weeks; Top End: 9 to 52 weeks.

Replays showed that Easter was very lucky to not be badly injured, as Rees’ stud came extremely close to damaging his eye. We’ve seen less dangerous eye-gouges be punished severely, so you can be sure that 34-year-old Rees could face at least 5 weeks on the sideline.

London Irish scrumhalf Brendan McKibbin was recently banned for three weeks for a similar, albeit slightly less dangerous, offence.

Easter tweeted after the match that his eye is fine, and thanked fans for the messages of concern.

Harlequins picked up a 32-20 bonus point win to move to the top of Pool 3.

UPDATE: Rees has been suspended for seven weeks.

“In upholding the red card decision, the Judicial Officer found that Rees had stamped on Nick Easter and determined that the offence was at the top end of World Rugby’s sanctions and selected 12 weeks as the appropriate entry point,” the EPCR statement read.

“He then reduced the sanction by five weeks taking into account Rees’s guilty plea, timely expression of remorse to Easter and clean disciplinary record, before imposing a suspension of seven weeks.”

21 Comments

  • drg
    9:41 PM 25/11/2015

    Confused by first instance and second instance... :/ He was initially banned for 12 weeks, this was then reduced to 7 because of a clean previous record and a guilty plea... Is the second instance talking about Christmas period etc? I don't know if the ban is literally done in weeks, or whether it's done in playing weeks... I've not read up yet..

    Reply
  • tintin
    4:02 PM 25/11/2015

    ..MR got 7 weeks (first instance...meaning sencond instance 3 to 4 weeks) It is really a joke. Some continental players are getting more for less...

    Reply
  • drg
    3:46 PM 25/11/2015

    Hahah, siiigh, couscous indeed! I do get annoyed by the holding on sort of crap (annoyed is a calm way to put it..) But what I saw here wasn't a big deal, he was part of the initial contacts, he had hold of a secondary tackler, rucked them out the way as the ball carrier and tackler went down and he just waited there. That secondary tackler looked more than happy to chill out on the ground for a moment. He then held Le Roux (after Le Roux held him...), the arm slap thing was a bit silly, but Le Roux was stepping back. The prop (I believe) then went for either a little trip or indeed his own kick... in so much as a "don't slap me you knob" kind of way... All I saw was Le Roux give him a kick back in the 'foot area' with a "Don't kick me, YOU knob"... then neither player really gave a toss what happened from then on...

    Reply
  • colombes
    3:08 PM 25/11/2015

    I keep the couscous but throw up the quinoa. Absolutely don't agree on Le Roux supposed provocations And much more annoyed by John holding and then trying to trip... Any comment on the 8 scarlets playing the ball on the ground? That said, Le Roux would deserve a 1 week ban + a bonus of kicks in the ass by his racing mates.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    1:50 PM 25/11/2015

    *you're I think that is the first time in my entire life I've made that error. Self-flagellation awaits.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    1:44 PM 25/11/2015

    Get back to your couscous and organic quinoa pal. ;) Surprised your not with me on this DrG, seeing as Le Roux is guilty of your most hated rugby crime; ie holding opposition players and preventing them from contesting a breakdown situation. And I've never held any hardman views on stamping. Rucking yes, should definitely be brought back. Stamping, no. Even if it is just a petulant flickywicky type.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    1:33 PM 25/11/2015

    Yes, I thought that was a nice touch!

    Reply
  • stroudos
    1:30 PM 25/11/2015

    From Only Fools & Horses, circa 1988 I think: "Which do you prefer Rodney? Grass or Astroturf?" "I don't know, I've never smoked Astroturf".

    Reply
  • rugbydump
    12:33 PM 25/11/2015

    'Whoever'

    Reply
  • drg
    10:25 AM 25/11/2015

    ....RD, some tutu wearing pansy has hacked Stroudos' account.

    Reply
  • drg
    10:19 AM 25/11/2015

    It's all to do with maintenance. Some grounds have hybrid stuff or half and half, where the real grass grows through gaps in the fake stuff... It's all easier to maintain, if you get a particularly bad weather game it doesn't get torn up like standard turf... That being said, I prefer grass!

    Reply
  • 10stonenumber10
    8:55 AM 25/11/2015

    I have torn my achilles twice. Both times on fake turf, both times doing the exact same movement I do 100x a session on grass. I also got my worst concussion on fake turf... the bounce of the turf adds acceleration and a second impact to the brain within the skull rather than just the initial impact. I still walk with a limp, I still get headaches 3 years later. Grass has been around since the beginning of time, why change it?

    Reply
  • larry
    10:36 PM 24/11/2015

    I agree. If one looks at the past too many incidents were not punished harshly enough. Now it seems any incident is, whether intended or not. And with slow motion replays, any foul play ending up looking worse than it really is much of the time, and that is what needs to be taken into consideration by those officiating what is becoming an over-officiated game, like American football already is!

    Reply
  • stroudos
    10:31 PM 24/11/2015

    I think the red is excessive, but Le Roux was the one doing the provoking here. Round the side of the ruck, clearing two players from an illegal position and preventing them from contesting the ruck.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    10:30 PM 24/11/2015

    Rees - looked down at Easter and lined him up before deliberately bringing a boot down in the bloke's face and very very close to his eye. Deliberate, cynical and incredibly dangerous. Hope they throw the book at him. Had no idea he was a dirty f***er either. Le Roux - first time I've seen him without his helmet, he doesn't look how I'd pictured him. Anyway, here's my step-by-step analysis of "The Le Roux Incident" (sounds like it should be a culinary-themed espionage thriller): - First of all he misses the point of the ruck, so is essentially "not entering through the gate". Penalty to Scarlets. - Le Roux then pins John to the ground and illegally (because he's offside) clears Ken Owens, preventing both of these players from being able to contest the breakdown. Penalty Scarlets. - Le Roux continues to pin John down, John reacts to Le Roux's provocation with some kind of grab, Le Roux responds with a quite effeminate slap, John goes for a comedy trip. No sanction for either player, these are just fun and games at the breakdown. - Finally, Le Roux does that stampy flickykicky thing. Whilst accepting that the motive was puerile petulance and not aggression, a stamp is a stamp and it's on the exposed shin of a bloke who's lying on the ground. I think a yellow would have been sufficient, probably just a penalty even, but I don't have a problem with the red because of the cheating in the run-up to it.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    10:03 PM 24/11/2015

    Angry Mike Brown has already handed down the sentence via Twitter: https://twitter.com/mikebrown_15/status/667456050593943552

    Reply
  • danknapp
    8:34 PM 24/11/2015

    Has he been on twitter to apologise? No? Then he's clearly a monster, and deserves a hefty ban.

    Reply
  • drg
    5:11 PM 24/11/2015

    Then again, Le Roux is French... **** it, ban him for the rest of the season for that horrendously senseless act of violence!

    Reply
  • drg
    5:06 PM 24/11/2015

    This is probably a copy of what I normally say... I'm just lost in this era, I don't really know what anything is worth card wise anymore.. I initially only saw a gif of the incident and it didn't look intentional, this video though, shows quite a bit more and Rees appears to be looking down at Easter momentarily before the movement, my assumption was that he was trying to get Easter (the tackler) to release and roll away, but didn't locate his boot in an ideal position. I'm somewhat happy with the red card. As for the ban, I'm not really into the lottery, so guessing numbers of weeks based purely on the basis that they may get picked at random doesn't quite do it for me... As for Le Roux... it pains me to watch this...we know deep in our hearts what is right and what is wrong, we also know in our hearts that right and wrong on a rugby pitch is not so black and white, especially when punishment options aren't black and white. If being good = no card, being bad = red card, the game wouldn't ever have many players finishing the game, but at least we'd all try our best to be good. But it doesn't it has varying degrees of on field punishment which should be used with a level of common sense. By the letter of the law (don't ask me which law or which letter), Le Roux probably should have been given a red card, but really? I mean REALLY? We're playing a collision sport where things happen. This incident is like that kick in the backside your dad gave you for clowning around, it wasn't a deeply thoughtful outrageous incident, it shouldn't leave a scar on a persons mind or body, it's simply "don't be a clown"... therefore the punishment should be in accordance with mums rule, "ERM, excuse me boys, kicking is not very nice, even if he was clowning around, now 'dad' apologise for kicking and son, apologise for being naughty".... end of.

    Reply
  • tintin
    3:03 PM 24/11/2015

    Please no excuse or whatever... A player could have lost an eye.. The red card of Le Roux is a joke - Twice provocated he shouldn't have react - Yellow card more appropriate what about the player provacating?

    Reply
  • colombes
    2:08 PM 24/11/2015

    Vicious? not sure, Very dangerous surely. But be assured that a clean bans record, good character, excuses and lawyer bullshits will save his ass. 1 month ban bet. On a side note, Le Roux has been also cited for.. that. https://youtu.be/wQimAFOt8LU

    Reply


Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Amateur

View All

Player Features

View All
Matthew Rees facing lengthy ban after red card for vicious stamp on Nick Easter's face | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos