Do Not Sell My Personal Information
ADVERTISEMENT
RugbyDump RugbyDump
Tuesday May 19, 2015

Reggie Goodes suspended as clean out badly injures Michael Allardice knee

Reggie Goodes suspended as clean out badly injures Michael Allardice knee
22
Comments

Hurricanes prop Reggie Goodes has been suspended for a week for a charge into a ruck that put an end to Chiefs lock Michael Allardice’s season. Goodes pleaded guilty to the offence that left Allardice with a ruptured medial ligament in his left knee.

Goodes contravened Law 10.4 (h), Dangerous Charging, as he came in from the side and took out the knee of Allardice. The Chiefs lock was visibly in pain but the incident wasn’t picked up by the referee or TMO at the time. After the citing, it was viewed as a red card offence.

Law 10.4 (h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.

SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Robert Stelzner SC said that after reviewing the footage at different angles, as well as the medical report and submissions from Goodes’ representative, he found that Goodes was attempting to bind and clear out Allardice in a legal manner. 

However as his position changed slightly, Goodes ended up missing his intended point of contact. “There was an element of recklessness involved in the manner with which the clean out was attempted, but there was not a reckless disregard for the other player’s safety.

“This was a clean out that started as a legitimate attempt and went wrong in a matter of seconds with unfortunate consequences which the impact of another player may have contributed to,” said Stelzner. Read the full disciplinary hearing statement

Allardice will be out of action for up to eight weeks, which makes his expected return date somewhere around the time of the Super Rugby final. Despite the injury, the promising 23-year-old has been retained by the Chiefs, signing for another two years.

In his finding, SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Robert Stelzner SC ruled the following:

“I reviewed footage of the incident from different angles, still images of the incident that were relevant to what occurred and a medical report detailing the injury to the Chiefs player, Michael Allardice.

“I heard submissions made by Mr Aaron Lloyd on behalf of the player admitting the breach of the law as charged and what it was he was attempting do when he committed the offence.

“Goodes entered the breakdown intending to bind with his left arm on to the Chiefs player in order to clear him out and away from the ball. However, split seconds before making contact, the player slightly changed his position so that he bent further down towards the ball and moved slightly away from Goodes.

“This resulted in Goodes missing his intended point of contact on the upper body of his opponent and instead made contact with the knee. The different point of contact meant Goodes did not bind or grasp his opponent when making contact.

“Goodes submitted that it was not his intention to strike his opponent on the knee, but to grab him around his shoulder to remove him from his position over the ball. The incident occurred in a matter of seconds and the actions involved from both players resulted in the changed point of impact from upper body as intended to the knee. The video and still images support this submission.

“The action resulted in a serious injury to his opponent which was possibly aggravated by the action of another Hurricanes player, Ben Franks, who attempted to clean out Allardice at the same time from the other side of the breakdown.

“The offending was a lower end breach of Law 10.4 (h) and was not intentional or deliberate in my view.

“The player should have been aware of the possibility of not being able to bind onto his opponent properly given their body position and there was an element of recklessness involved in the manner with which the clean out was attempted, but there was not a reckless disregard for the other player’s safety.

“This was a clean out that started as a legitimate attempt and went wrong in a matter of seconds with unfortunate consequences which the impact of another player may have contributed to.

“I found there to be no aggravating factors to be taken into account. Mitigating factors that I took into account include the player’s good record, his culpability and full cooperation and making concessions where required for his actions in committing the breach and the remorse he expressed at the fact his opponent had been injured.

“As a result of these mitigating factors, I reduced the suspension by 50 per cent to a one week suspension which was accepted by the player. Therefore, the player is suspended from all forms of rugby up to and including 23 May 2015.”

ADVERTISEMENT

22 Comments

  • drg
    1:56 AM 22/05/2015

    Fair enough, I just figured that perhaps hitting at the knee as he did and then wrapping may do even more damage/equal damage. Very unpleasant either way!

    Reply
  • vladimir
    4:29 PM 21/05/2015

    I do. When you wrap you distribute your strengh into the shoulder, the arm and perhaps the wrist. When you shoulder charge, your arm is stiff and you hit with the bone of your shoulder. Wrapping is meant to counter the opponent's momentum by overpowering him ; shoulder charging to hit (and hurt) him.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    11:19 AM 21/05/2015

    CAPE TOWN (AP) -- It has emerged that SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Robert Stelzner SC was high on meth when he reviewed video footage of Reggie Goodes's clean-out on Michael Allardice. SANZAR Chief Executive Officer Greg Peters has invited Mr Stelzner to sit in a darkened room for 24 hours and then have another go at making a credible decision based on the evidence available.

    Reply
  • drg
    9:40 AM 21/05/2015

    Out of interest, do you think that would have had a better outcome had the guy actually wrapped? I can't see it being any better.. (not defending the guy by the way...)

    Reply
  • drg
    9:37 AM 21/05/2015

    Oh don't get me wrong, he came in from the side and an injury occurred as a result... Dailymail mode (Stroudos :P) A drink driver runs over someone and claims it was an accident... whilst I doubt he actually intended to run over anyone, he shouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place.. Same thing here...minus the uh, drink...and the car... and the person getting run over by the car... I just think the conclusions drawn by the judicial lot make no real sense. Hate to say it, but I sort of agree with Phill below. Based purely on the judicial report, I would say the guy shouldn't be suspended.

    Reply
  • mattyp
    5:57 AM 21/05/2015

    I was responding to "In the end he should not of been suspended." This is right and wrong, for the reasons that I stated.

    Reply
  • 1:12 AM 21/05/2015

    Just as bad, red deserved

    Reply
  • vladimir
    8:05 PM 20/05/2015

    Another NFL charge (I can't call it a 'tackle', it is a shoulder charge): one injured knee, red card. Good call. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qtznl_john-aikman-laisse-son-genou-sur-la-pelouse_sport?start=34

    Reply
  • phillnz
    6:34 PM 20/05/2015

    Where am I wrong? All I did was quote what the judiciary officer mentioned in his report. So your saying the Judiciary officer was wrong , therefore his ruling should be overturned and a heavier ban be imposed? "SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Robert Stelzner SC said that after reviewing the footage at different angles, as well as the medical report and submissions from Goodes' representative, he found that Goodes was attempting to bind and clear out Allardice in a legal manner. " "but there was not a reckless disregard for the other player's safety. This was a clean out that started as a legitimate attempt and went wrong in a matter of seconds with unfortunate consequences which the impact of another player may have contributed to." Thats the facts written by an independent judiciary officer.

    Reply
  • drg
    5:47 PM 20/05/2015

    Phill does make a good point (as have others) regarding the official wordings. I mean yes Matty, as you said, there are multiple offences, but none have really been picked up in a manner that justifies the punishment... Highlighted the side entry - but that was just deemed as 'meh' No arms therefore charging was highlighted, but deemed accidental.. I guess if you had no video evidence and simply the report to read, you might question why someone is being punished for what has been accepted as an accident.. But you are indeed right in that it's a drop in an ocean of crap calls!

    Reply
  • stroudos
    2:13 PM 20/05/2015

    Brilliantly put MattyP.

    Reply
  • eddie-g
    1:02 PM 20/05/2015

    You're right, marginal wasn't a good choice of word - what I meant was he didn't miss a legal entry by much (often the case with three/four person rucks, where the point for a legal entry is not big and refs offer a bit of leniency to the attacking side). But on replay it is clearly from the side, so for the JO to say "This was a clean out that started as a legitimate attempt", that's just bollocks. Even if he had hit him on the shoulder as he said he intended, it was still side entry. Maybe there's some legal sense in this ruling that I've missed, but seems they've made a meal of explaining what should have been a simple ruling, and created bad precedent with this weird standard for assessing recklessness.

    Reply
  • mattyp
    11:38 AM 20/05/2015

    Haha. You are right but... you are wrong. You are right in so far as their given rationale doesn't justify the suspension. You are wrong, because as an objective observer the facts clearly justify a much harsher sentence. He breach multiple laws - side entry, no binding, hips below shoulders, dangerous play - even without attributing that he actually he intended to make contact with the lower leg and cause injury. At best he was reckless, which at law is generally sufficient mental state for assualt based crimes. Personally, as a neutral, this was blatant thuggery, far worse and more likely to injury than many more highly punished acts, and the judiciary's blatant kangaroo court attitude and fitting the narrative to the requested slap on the wrists is high farce.

    Reply
  • phillnz
    10:24 AM 20/05/2015

    Just reinforcing the hypocracy of the judgement. In the end he should not of been suspended.

    Reply
  • rugbydump
    10:05 AM 20/05/2015

    The entire thing is on page 2 here, PhillNZ. The link is in the article.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    9:14 AM 20/05/2015

    Eddie-g:He joins from the side. It is marginal, but the rules aren't ambiguous. It is an illegal clear-outNot even marginal in my view mate. He's about a metre or two away from a legal entry position. And the elephant in the room here of course is that if you were still allowed to trample all over a bloke on the wrong side of the ruck, I have no doubt he would have come in "through the gate". Not having a go at the Chiefs player, (the tackler). He's only there momentarily and the ruck itself hadn't yet formed, but the way to get a legal bind on Allardice would be to walk directly over this bloke. Personally I'd rather see that - or tacklers getting out of the way very quickly after making tackles - than blokes having to go around the player on the deck and entering rucks from the side. Rather a few stud marks up the back than wrecked knee ligaments.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    8:43 AM 20/05/2015

    I'll tell you who's showing "a reckless disregard for the other player's safety" - the bloke throwing a horrible looping hospital pass around the 0:13 mark....

    Reply
  • finedisregard
    2:02 AM 20/05/2015

    Ugly. I don't understand these citing commissions at all.

    Reply
  • 12:29 AM 20/05/2015

    Agreed, this football style ruck has to be eliminated.

    Reply
  • vladimir
    10:04 PM 19/05/2015

    At last, one gets punished for this 'shoulder-charge' cleanout! Every weeks I see players cleaning rucks by diving at full speed leading the shoulder right into the opponent's knee. It is high time this get seriously watched over by the referees and the citing commission. The ban should be much much higher. The cleaning is illegal (side-entry, no bind, diving), with complete disregard for the other player's safety (targeting the knee with the shoulder) and with obvious recklessness (no grasping but hiting at full strengh).

    Reply
  • eddie-g
    8:47 PM 19/05/2015

    This is an amazing decision, and who knows what sort of precedent it sets. The ruling here states three things: 1. The attempted clear-out was legal; 2. There was no disregard for the other player's safety; 3. There was an element of recklessness in the clear-out. Point 1 is flat wrong. He joins from the side. It is marginal, but the rules aren't ambiguous. It is an illegal clear-out, whether he attempts to bind or not. This is so obvious it hurts to point it out. Points 2 and 3, together, are legal mumbo-jumbo. If Point 2 is true, how can Point 3 be true as well? Specifically, if I hit a ruck with proper regard to other players' safety, what else can I possibly have done to have not been reckless? I can only think of one answer - do not hit the ruck too hard. If the suits want to take a line against people joining rucks like this - and as someone who has blown out knee ligaments, I'd have no issues with it - just say so. Call an illegal side-entry which blasts a guys knees dangerous and reckless, a cardable offence, every player on the planet will understand. This precedent however does nothing of the sort, and it's a mystery what this judicial pinhead was trying to establish. It literally means if you hit ruck, even if you are trying to bind and legitimately clear out an opponent, the ref may red card you if in his view you go in too hard. God knows the refs have a hard enough job already, rulings like this give them no help at all.

    Reply
  • drg
    7:56 PM 19/05/2015

    I don't really know what to make of this whole incident.. Seems to me that Reggie Goodes has admitted that; through no fault of his own, he caused an injury as his ruck entry point changed in an instant, as a result of that, he has therefore pleaded guilty. Then it seems the judicial committee accepted that this whole incident was not Reggies fault - the change in player position, but that Reggie had indeed accidentally not bound to the player in the ruck.... ..all boiling down to a 2 week ban with a 50% reduction.. so 1 week... It sort of has me a bit puzzled.. Parisse last week was red carded for an incident that was somewhat caused by another player. It appears that we all seemed to agree that Parisses' carding was harsh. Aside from a horrific injury, I don't really see a huge amount of difference in scenarios. Or is a 1 week ban simply a way of citing and judicial bunch to say "yes a horrific injury that might put people off the game, so lets be seen to deal with it in a way that says it wasn't just an accident"

    Reply
ADVERTISEMENT

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
Reggie Goodes suspended as clean out badly injures Michael Allardice knee | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos