Scores
Sorry there are no live games.
See what's coming up.
Sharks SHA 32 Western Province WES 27
Blue Bulls BLU 27 Free State CHE 43
Griquas GRI 37 Pumas PUM 29
Western Province WES 20 Blue Bulls BLU 5
Golden Lions LIO 38 Pumas PUM 37
Sharks SHA 13 Griquas GRI 37
Pumas PUM Blue Bulls BLU Fri
26 Jul
7:15am
Free State CHE Griquas GRI Sat
27 Jul
3:00am
Western Province WES Golden Lions LIO Sat
27 Jul
5:15am
Free State CHE Golden Lions LIO Fri
2 Aug
7:15am
Pumas PUM Sharks SHA Sat
3 Aug
3:00am
Blue Bulls BLU Griquas GRI Sat
3 Aug
5:15am
RugbyDump RugbyDump
Tuesday Mar 1, 2016

Tomas Lavanini suspended for a week for diving on tryscorer

Tomas Lavanini suspended for a week for diving on tryscorer
18
Comments

Newcomers to Super Rugby, Argentina’s Jaguares, had a good start to the tournament with a 34-33 victory over the Cheetahs. Discipline was an issue though, with a number of yellow cards in their first outing, and this incident involving Los Pumas lock Tomas Lavanini.

As the Cheetahs scored in a dominant first half, Lavanini dived into the ribs of home centre William Small-Smith for a 24-3 lead.

The Argentine second rower was spoken to by referee Stuart Berry and after the attempted conversion, the Cheetahs were awarded a penalty on the halfway line. Incidentally, Cheetahs flyhalf Fred Zeilinga missed both kicks.

Lavanini was cited and originally charged with 10.4(a) Punching or striking, but that was amended to 10.4 (g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

SANZAAR Duty Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton QC accepted a guilty plea from Lavanini, who has been suspended for one week. In his finding, Mr Hampton ruled the following:

“I found the offence to have an entry point in the low end range which starts at a two-week suspension.

“I did not consider there to be any aggravating factors to take into account. I did take the player admitting guilt for the offence into account as a mitigating factor. This entitles the player up to a 50 per cent reduction in sanction which I applied.

“This results in a one week suspension being imposed on the player.”

You can view the incident above as a loop, and a full video below

18 Comments

  •  eddie-g
    eddie-g
    5:27 PM 03/03/2016

    It's a reduction of up to 50%. Given the ban in this case was going to be 2 weeks, cutting it in half was the only option they had if they were going to reduce it. It's a more relevant factor when you're dealing incidents that could result in long bans - admission of guilt, prior record, good table manners, fluency in English etc all get thrown into the judicial sausage machine. And then the ban is published and the entire rugby world wonders whether it was fair. No-one has a clue, going on 10 years it's the most infuriating part of our game.

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver
    8:55 AM 03/03/2016

    Maybe you should call them more often?

    Reply
  •  reality
    reality
    9:07 PM 02/03/2016

    Admission of guilt reduces your sentence by 50%? Is that a joke? His guilt was clear to see in the video. It's not like him pleading guilty helped the enquirers to crack the case of the otherwise unsolvable mystery. Good God they are so out of touch with reality.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg
    4:56 PM 02/03/2016

    Agree with you there Eddie, I like the idea of the citing officials in some respect, but by the same token it's not a fair system. If a player sticks hands in the ruck illegally there referee deems it to be negative to the opponents, therefore awards a penalty. He punishes the team for an individuals indiscretion (with a penalty against him/her). A yellow card is another way of punishing individuals AND teams for an individuals indiscretion, the same for a red card. The problem I have with the whole process regarding the citing commissioner is that if incidents are left to him to sort out and not referees, then the team that has been fouled against is not given any kind of upper hand - which in my opinion is wrong. This is a team sport, we play well for our team, therefore when we play badly, it shouldn't be just for ourselves!

    Reply
  •  eddie-g
    eddie-g
    3:38 PM 02/03/2016

    For anyone old enough to remember, before we had TMOs and citing officers and all the rest of that bunch, the big debate was if by introducing them, you were undermining the authority of the referee. Spoiler alert: Yes, you are. Initially, the thinking was you should limit citings to stuff the ref missed. That way you don't impinge on his authority. But this quickly changed to pretty much anything the citings guys decided they wanted to look at - basically they felt this would be a fairer process for all players. But it's never worked out that way, and what we have now is a total mess, and I don't think World Rugby has any idea how to clean it up.

    Reply
  •  eddie-g
    eddie-g
    1:42 PM 02/03/2016

    No worries, I know there's nothing personal in your comment! And I don't disagree with anything you've written here, I certainly think this was an offense that should have been carded. But Stuart Berry (a SA referee by the way), is hardly the first guy to bottle it in this type of situation. It was really kind of obvious too at the time.

    Reply
  •  welshosprey
    welshosprey
    12:13 PM 02/03/2016

    Stuart Hogg does that all the time.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg
    10:04 AM 02/03/2016

    I think there is something in these words above that shows either the disciplinary panels are wrong or that the referees are wrong. For instance, this incident; imo, deserved a yellow. I believe the referee got the call wrong, I believe he should have been cited as a result of this incident not being dealt with correctly and given an off field yellow... it means nothing, however it is a mark on his disciplinary record. I think the referee in question should also be talked to about this incident and why he felt it not worthy of a card. I am happy with citings and them equally warnings or off field yellows, but much like you said IM, if a referee deals with anything on the field for instance a yellow card, then the player is subsequently banned it goes to show that the referee got the call wrong in the eyes of the judicial bunch... The huge thing for me is posted in that long winded comment below regarding circumstances of the game and whether cards should be shown. For me the only time circumstances should be taken into account are - as posted, a baa baas game (or other charitable game), and/or whether a player was being 'wronged' at the time, for instance POC getting a yellow for punches on Jamie Cudmore was much better than a red because he was clearly defending himself...... to start with...

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver
    7:59 AM 02/03/2016

    Totally agree about the "circumstances" thing. Also came to say this looks really, really, really bad in slow-mo. In real time it only looks really bad.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg
    11:11 PM 01/03/2016

    Not particularly this situation, but your comment of "a very big call....ref's reluctance.." I have such a huge disgust for that stance (nothing personal).. I really cannot stand it at all. I am all for referee's taking a view on the bigger picture with certain calls, such as collapsed scrums, does it equal a card? Well, it's happened the last 4 scrums, so perhaps now is time. But when an individual player commits an act of foul play, particularly a more violent act - spear tackle, high tackle, punch, stamp etc, I firmly believe that the time of the action, the player involved, the type of game, the particular phase of the moon, are all things to be completely ignored. For instance if it's a world cup final, the bookies are all out, no one has a clue who the favourite is, both teams are full strength and odds are completely tied, then in the first second of the game someone runs up and kicks an opposition player in the balls... you can hardly turn around and say "well look lads, due to the nature of the particular game and the time on the clock, I'm going to ignore that and just give a penalty"... or alternatively, if a card is given, fans can surely not expect something different??? The only thing that ever gets my blessing for bending the rules BY the referee for the game is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAJvoQiaUHA and that's because A) it's a baabaas match and it's Farrell getting clocked! But anyway.... sorry for the overly inflated comment...

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg
    11:00 PM 01/03/2016

    Totally agree with you. Infact there was a totally wonderful tackle on the weekend 6N that got flared up as a tip tackle of sorts - only resulted in a penalty. I can't remember who did it, on who, or the teams involved (perhaps someone can enlighten me). But that is the sort of thing that tends to get pinged: Ref: "It's just a penalty" Panel: "10 week ban"

    Reply
  •  eddie-g
    eddie-g
    10:16 PM 01/03/2016

    He did nothing because two of their team were already in the bin. I agree entirely this was a cardable offense (I lean yellow rather than red, but there's a case for the latter), but reducing a side to 12 feels like a very big call and you can understand a ref's reluctance to do it.

    Reply
  •  eddie-g
    eddie-g
    10:12 PM 01/03/2016

    My point is less about what you and I think about a particular incident, and more that there is nothing remotely consistent about the way the suits reach decisions. I made a comment right at the end about this Maestri incident, exactly the same as what you are saying here, that because he wasn't punished at the time, he might have been a bit lucky to get a pass from the citing guys. But apparently the new standard is that if it wasn't a red card-worthy offence, it doesn't equate to a ban (unless you've accumulated a certain number of yellows). I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I will confidently predict that the suits will, in a matter of a few weeks, fail to adhere to this standard. And not just fail in the sense of a few nerds on the internet pointing out some marginal error, but fail in the Wily Coyote sense and make complete idiots of themselves.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg
    9:27 PM 01/03/2016

    Actually it did cross my mind about the knees to head thing at rucks.. examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u32QIRXZwtE - Heaslip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5o5Q0wRbCo - Tuilagi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5o5Q0wRbCo - Pape https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w_mKFBfR10 - McCaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF-Cx4o1xCk - Shaw yellow card https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXA9cxFw79s - Shaw red card https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5eJagKvPGU - Battut I realise that many of these involve knees to the head, but they also involve force which in this instance was definitely apparent.

    Reply
  •  moo
    moo
    7:44 PM 01/03/2016

    (To clarify, I meant nothing in terms of a card, not the pen that was given)

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg
    7:09 PM 01/03/2016

    I'd say Maestris was not as bad as this... personally... But I understand where you're coming from... I have always viewed a ban as an indication that the offence was red card worthy, however someone recently mentioned something like my comment above about how they wonder if players are not punished on field, then they might be punished slightly more harsh off the field...

    Reply
  •  eddie-g
    eddie-g
    5:40 PM 01/03/2016

    The Jaguares were already down to 13 when this happened, I think that could have influenced the ref on the yellow card decision. But on your second point, I think the fact he got banned suggests they regard this was a red card offence. Remember Maestri (see link below) wasn't banned because the suits said it wasn't a red card offence. http://www.rugbydump.com/2016/02/4911/yoann-maestri-only-warned-for-this-off-the-ball-shoulder-on-johnny-sexton Anyway, this all assumes World Rugby is capable of consistency in the citing process. **drops mic**

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg
    5:13 PM 01/03/2016

    I'm actually not sure how this wasn't at least a yellow card. The subsequent ban of 1 week could suggest this could have been a red card, but I suppose the fact it was not dealt with correctly on the field might be a reason for a ban - in order for the player to not escape unpunished. I'd have said definite yellow at least.

    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
Tomas Lavanini suspended for a week for diving on tryscorer | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos