Do Not Sell My Personal Information
RugbyDump RugbyDump
Tuesday Mar 14, 2017

Nicolas Sanchez banned for dangerous challenge after only being penalised

Nicolas Sanchez banned for dangerous challenge after only being penalised
21
Comments

Jaguares number ten Nicolas Sanchez has been suspended for a week following a dangerous challenge he made during the round three Super Rugby match against the Lions. At the time he was only penalised, much to the dismay of the Lions and commentators.

Test capped flyhalf Sanchez chipped ahead then followed up with a leap into the air, despite Anthony Volmink clearly having caught the ball. His knee or arm made contact with the Lions player’s face, giving him a bloodied nose that needed treatment.

Sanchez was only penalised, even though it appeared like a reckless bit of play worthy of a card.

He faced a disciplinary hearing and was charged with contravening Law 10.4(g) Dangerous charging. He was suspended for a period of 1 week.

In his finding, the Judicial Committee Chairman Robert Stelzner SC ruled the following:

“Having considered the citing commissioner’s description of the incident and the available video footage the Committee amended the charge to Law 10.4(g) Dangerous Charging and accept the player’s admission in respect of that contravention.

“Having further considered all the available evidence, including the player’s own account, and submissions from his legal representative, Aaron Lloyd, the Judicial Committee found the player’s actions to have breached the red card threshold.”
 
“With respect to sanction the Judicial Committee deemed the act of foul play to merit a low end entry point of 2 weeks. Taking into account various mitigating factors, including the Player’s excellent record and early guilty plea, the Judicial Committee reduced the suspension to 1 week.”

Shortly after the halftime break Sanchez made another challenge that could have been deemed worthy of at least a penalty, while others felt it was simply a clumsy low tackle.

credit: justrugby2017

21 Comments

  • rugbydump
    4:29 PM 20/03/2017

    Thank you kindly. Might need to print and frame a screenshot of that win - it doesn't happen often. :) GC

    Reply
  • katman
    2:50 PM 20/03/2017

    Indeed.

    Reply
  • im1
    9:56 AM 20/03/2017

    Mocking the rule as its a load of sh*t

    Reply
  • katman
    9:37 AM 20/03/2017

    Are you being serious or are you mocking the rule? Clearly Volminck caught the ball without having to jump. And clearly Sanchez never had a chance of getting to it.

    Reply
  • katman
    9:35 AM 20/03/2017

    This ref was atrocious the whole game. When Sanchez committed his second cardable offense and still stayed on the field it was pretty clear that he had no business refereeing a match at this level.

    Reply
  • drg
    12:04 PM 16/03/2017

    It's been my understanding in the past that during the game, referees are to judge the actions of a player, not the intention.. intent is for the citing mob to decide on when they consider the size of a ban... Player punched in the face, red card. Ends up in front of the citing mob where he pleads he didn't mean to, he is terrified of bees and if you look closely he's actually trying to swat away a bee when the opposing players nose gets in the way... "Ah ok, no intent, no ban" or some shit like that. The problem nowadays is the laws have twisted themselves into a corner where by referees are now judge jury and executioner... Referees now have to look at the build up to the incident, the incident itself, the outcome of the incident and whether a player meant to do it or not... We've seen players red carded when running eyes on the ball in the air and someone jumps into them and over them, there is no intent there....But they get carded.. People like to say "was he in a position to catch the ball?" Well, yes, take the other player out of the equation, the trajectory of the ball is right into his hands.... So why is he still carded... It's a mess...

    Reply
  • andymelb
    11:47 AM 15/03/2017

    Putting aside the law for a moment, which is a mess, the trouble here is that there's no consistency. This was clearly a yellow/red card situation yet two weeks ago Fekitoa was yellow carded for a borderline incident which given the run of the match probably cost the Highlanders the game and hence 4 competition points. So this lack of consistency really has to be addressed. But more generally there are some major issues with this law. It seems right now that intent has disappeared from the law. That means that even if a player has eyes for the ball, has feet touching the ground and is basically stationary, they are still deemed guilty if a player jumps into and over them! But if you're going to be logically consistent about this, then a player from the same team could perform exactly the same action and "cause" such a collision - are they now potentially guilty? Can a player from the same team get a yellow card? If intent is irrelevant why not? It seems now that the key criteria is that offending players have a duty to watch for incoming participants in an aerial contest and compute complex vectors on the spot and pull out when necessary. Referees are often heard to comment "it's your responsibility to ensure the player is safe"...But hang on, surely that means all players have to be scanning the contact zone prior to collision to avoid dangerous situations, not just the (un)lucky one who ends up not getting hurt. In the Fekitoa case for instance, why isn't the Crusaders player who was upended also responsible for ensuring a safe contest? My other reservation about this law esp in the Fekitoa case was that the aerial contest involved 2 players from each side; there were multiple potential outcomes with multiple forces vectoring all over the place at the time of contact. I can't see how Fekitoa was ever going to forsee what happened in the split second he had, so the alternative was to pull out of the contest altogether. But do we want that in rugby?

    Reply
  • im1
    9:32 AM 15/03/2017

    That's exactly right. World Rugby is doing the equivalent of banning bludgers. The muggle equivalent of Umbridge would be Allyson Pollock No need to pretend you are reading Harry Potter to your kids Dan....

    Reply
  • stroudos
    9:06 AM 15/03/2017

    I notice someone with an awesome sense of humour described this on Facebook as "Dirty Sanchez leaves opposition player's face a mess"... Hats off to that person. ;)

    Reply
  • stroudos
    8:11 PM 14/03/2017

    Oi! I resemble that remark. Definitely up for the watching two grown men smack the shit out of each other - can I propose Michael Gove v Jeremy Hunt for the inaugural bout? And they're not allowed to stop until they've both been thoroughly knocked out and/or maimed.

    Reply
  • danknapp
    7:52 PM 14/03/2017

    AAAARGH! I'm trapped in a horrible World Rugby induced circular rule-discussion clusterfuck! All these sensible people making sensible points about completely ridiculous directives... I'm reading Harry Potter to my eldest, way above Stroudos' reading age sadly, but World Rugby's directives increasingly remind me of Dolores Umbridge. New mental rule every ten minutes. I know they're doing it for the best of reasons, but we're just spiralling out of control. I've been changed from someone who wants to see loads of safety to someone who wants to see two grown men smack the shit out of each other, and the laws can go fuck themselves. This is what World Rugby have reduced me to. I used to be so... nice. Now I want to see the world burn.

    Reply
  • im1
    7:06 PM 14/03/2017

    Completely agree, I just want the law changed so that the referee is allowed to use his/her own judgement on whether he/she feels that the offence warrants a yellow/red/no card and I think this shows an example where a ref could actually have sent off Volmink and claimed he/she was reffing to the letter of the law (as it appears to be interpreted)

    Reply
  • reality
    6:22 PM 14/03/2017

    Jesus that is terrible. More than that rat Sanchez though I hope that the referee gets in big trouble for this display of total incompetence. Just mistimed his jump? Give me a break.

    Reply
  • drg
    6:08 PM 14/03/2017

    The only issue with that argument im, is that it then takes into account the red players actions or non actions as if he was a tackler... If we said he literally stood still with arms out to catch the ball, Sanchez jumps and catches it, but collides and breaks red players nose, then is it really in the spirit of the game to send off the red player.... We see it in other aspects of the game where players are not inclined to move out of the way for players chasing a kick.... I'd push for that ideal in these scenarios, if you are realistically running to catch a ball and eyes are on the ball then I don't believe you should be held at fault if some silly tit decides to jump at your face....

    Reply
  • im1
    4:33 PM 14/03/2017

    fully agree with you, I'm just being (a bit) argumentative, as I hate the outcome based guidance for red/yellow/pens for aerial challenges and feel this example is not far off a red for the defender. If Sanchez had been a bit quicker, or the ball had hung in the air a bit longer then it could have been a red.

    Reply
  • guy
    4:27 PM 14/03/2017

    Before that he also ran an obstructional (is this a word?) line.

    Reply
  • dancarter
    4:24 PM 14/03/2017

    I don't think you can jump into a relatively stationary player who got to the ball first and complain about how you land.

    Reply
  • im1
    3:08 PM 14/03/2017

    Is that allowed to be taken into consideration though? If the red/yellow/penalty decision is purely made on the outcome, then its a red.

    Reply
  • facepalm
    2:59 PM 14/03/2017

    Was Sanchez ever in a realistic position to compete for the ball?

    Reply
  • im1
    2:45 PM 14/03/2017

    Ball in the air, Sanchez goes up. Volmink takes him out. Sanchez lands on head. To the letter of the law, why isn't that a red card for Volmink?

    Reply
  • stroudos
    2:22 PM 14/03/2017

    Red card all day long. Christ knows how the ref could review the same footage and not arrive at the same conclusion. I would like to add that I'm not happy with the Lions scrumhalf here. Yeah, I understand you want to get on with the game, but to completely ignore your team-mate writhing on the ground right in front of you is pretty piss-poor form.

    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
Nicolas Sanchez banned for dangerous challenge after only being penalised | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos