Finn Russell has been banned for his dangerous tackle on Dan Biggar during Scotland’s loss to Wales in round two of the 2015 Six Nations. The fly-half is free to play again on Sunday 1st March, which essentially means he will only miss Scotland’s game against Italy the day before.
The disciplinary panel deemed he should have been red-carded at the time, and their full decision read:
The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Mike Hamlin (England) along with Jean-Philippe Lachaume (France) and Pat Barriscale (Ireland), having heard from the player and his representative and viewed various TV angles of the incident, determined that Finn Russell had committed an act of foul play which merited a red card rather than the on-field yellow card given by the Match Officials.
The Disciplinary Committee decided that the offence should be categorised under Law 10.4 (i) and that it was reckless rather than deliberate. The Committee considered it at the lower end of World Rugby’s scale of seriousness carrying a 3 week suspension. It noted the absence of aggravating factors and the existence of certain mitigating factors, including the player’s clear disciplinary record, in applying a one-week reduction from the entry point.
There has been a lot of furore about whether it was a fair punishment or not – what do you think? Watch the incident again and then vote in our poll below.
*UPDATE* The SRU have confirmed that they plan to appeal Russell’s ban, saying: “We are disappointed by the outcome of today’s discipline committee meeting, and subsequent suspension of stand-off Finn Russell. Following the arrival of the written sanction later this week, we intend to appeal.”
Video credit: RBS 6 Nations
Loading ...
58 replies on “Poll: Is Finn Russell’s ban a fair punishment?”
I think it is a little harsh. more guilty of protecting himself rather than the man in the air than foul play.
I agree. They need to look at the habit of jumping with your boots first which seems to be common now. Done as a form of protection but what was Finn supposed to do? Presumably, the citing commission expected him to take the boots in the face? It does not make sense.
While jumping into a tackle is not specifically mentioned in the rules of rugby, most referees will cite it as dangerous play, the Welsh player could easily be cited for dangerous play, with raising his knees into players head.
Unless he believed he was superman in trying to jump over a 1.8+ m man!
A player is not required to move out of the way to allow a kick chaser, but cannot block him. Do they believe Finn Russell was blocking, because he was not a tackler
The refs decision was harsh, the disciplinary panel’s decision is a bad joke.
It would be interesting to see Dan Bigger cited, for dangerous play towards the other player
Would be interesting to know if people are voting no because they think it should be more or because they think it is too harsh?
Personally I think it is too harsh. Not sure what Russell was meant to do there…teleport?
You’re absolutely right, I’ve updated the poll so feel free to vote again!
Intruiged. Given the voting I am surprised at the lack of comment.
The worst part of all this is – I have absolutely no idea if the ban is fair because I have no idea what the rules are.
It seems as though this is completely subjective based on a bunch of slow motion camera angles – anything looks worse like that if you watch it enough!
In the grand scheme of things, he misses one game – not the end of the world.
Two games potentially if fit, Glasgow play and have no fly half.
Justice has been served.
You’ve missed another option – “No, he should have never been cited in the first place”
He was under the ball and would have caught it had someone not jumped higher and over him so nothing he could do. People shouldn’t get sent off because other people jump into them when both are looking to play the ball
There is already another discussion on this and based on my response the ban is correct. Unfortunate but correct!
I can’t agree. The two Laws on which he was cited state that, first, a player may not tackle someone whose feet are in the air and, second, a player may not lift a player into the air and either drive or force him to the ground. On the first count, how does stopping, turning away and crouching to protect oneself amount to a tackle? On the second do you suggest that Russell lifted Biggar into the air never mind drove or forced him to the ground?
As a number of readers have already commented it’s very hard to make a judgement on analysis based on multiple camera angle and slow motion. At the time and at normal speed to me it looked like an unfortunate and perhaps clumsy accident. There didn’t appear to be any intent, Finn looked as though he was actually turning his back to avoid a knee or boot in the face. After multiple viewings I’m still inclined towards the same view. I was a front row forward, if I had collapsed under the pressure of a stronger opponent and that collapse had resulted in injury to somebody else in the scrum would my instinct for self preservation have justified citing and a ban? Rugby is an intrinsically dangerous game and jumping into possible contact to catch a ball will always have an element of risk. If that risk is unacceptable then change the laws to minimise the possibility.
I’m not clear on the rule here. People talk about the duty of care, but in this case Biggar would have been taken out regardless of whether Russell, who initially had his eyes on the ball, turned his back to protect himself.
Essentially we’ve got a situation where players are allowed to run at full pelt and launch themselves into the air, with the full blame resting on the person they go flying into.
I think a yellow was perfectly fair.
I understand that the law about contacting players in the air is a safety regulation and approve of this, however everyone seems to recently have conveniently forgotten that it is also foul play to jump into a tackle for exactly the same reasons, so arguably both players could easily be sanctioned.
Common sense prevails…..
I think the ban is unfairly harsh. In real time it was obvious he could do nothing to avoid collision. The player jumping must accept some risk in doing so, as everyone playing the game does. I don’t believe the law says they are entitled to catch the ball in an acre of free space and changing the law in such a way would make it uncontested, which satisfies no one.
The Taffs will say its not harsh enough. Everyone else will say its too harsh.
Barely even a yellow!! What a joke our game has become
It should have been red in the first place and that carries a two week ban. The ref failed to apply the correct sanction in the first place so it’s catch up for the powers that be. Wonder if the ref has been told he failed to act properly???? Guess not.
I think your name should be onthebeer rather than shillabeer with that nonsense
Alan can’t go on the beer doctors orders. He turned his back into the tackle by doing so he showed total disregard for the outcome when he could have taken other action to avoid the collision, that’s dangerous play. He has been given a light punishment of what in effect is one game. If the ref had given him a red card he would probably been given the same ban so it’s more a critisism of the ref than the player.
I don’t think a citing has ever provoked such debate. Straight forward citing = Pape. This one , people can’t even agree if it should even be a yellow. Watch his eyes . What was he supposed to do?
Ridiculous. If that’s a red then we might as well stop playing rugby. The video clip shows clearly both players with eyes on the ball. As Biggar catches, Russell turns his back and crouches, in my view obviously to protect himself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWIOPJIZpvc
The correct sanction, according to the laws, is a penalty. Nothing more.
But looking at the wordings, it’s not clear which rule he broke. He didn’t make a tackle in the air, he just got in the way (once he’d decided, as he appeared to, that he wasn’t going to contest the ball, making his only offence obstruction, or tackling without using the arms – the sanction for each of these is nothing more than a penalty.
The guidelines coming down to the referees are the problem – someone fell a bit awkwardly = a card; you lifted someone’s arse above his shoulders = card. What’s wrong with letting the referee apply his common sense?
It risks setting a dangerous precedent: you let me catch the ball, or risk a yellow card/sending off.
I’m Welsh, by the way.
Yes, he was committed to the tackle and couldn’t have done much in that last half a second. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a responsibility to pull out of it before that last half second. He’s a professional rugby player and is expected to make good and safe judgement. The ban is fair.
The point is he did not make a tackle. He stopped, turned away and crouched in order to protect himself.
If the rugby chiefs are that concerned with player safety then surely they should make it illegal to jump for a high ball. You used to have to plant two feet on the ground to make a mark, so it shouldn’t be to hard to police. I would rather this didn’t happen but it would stop all these accidental red cards and bans.
Tough call and as a proud welshman I thought the catch was amazing and that finns obstruction was clumsy but in no way deliberate. The wording of the committee is spot on but now, as then, I thought a yellow correct even though everyone around me was calling a red. All players have a duty to do their best not to cause injury, but it’s a contact sport and non deliberate actions will occur. The yellow is a suitable punishment and deterrent. Let’s not forget it cost Scotland 10 points!!
Are you really suggesting a yellow card is appropriate for accidental contact?
If people believe this sanction is correct then Pape should get 6 months for his assault in the France v Ireland game!
You can see clearly that his eyes were on the ball then realised he was going to collide. He then protected himself, how can this even be a foul play call at all?
I noticed something else on rewatching yet again, Russell also has his arms out in a catching position for a considerable part of his run, yet again indicating that his primary objective was to reach that space and catch the ball.
Far too harsh…..he is #Finnocent
#Finnocent
Watching it again (with plenty of hindsight), I can’t help but think that if I were in Russell’s position, I would have done exactly the same. I really don’t think that once he determined that he could receive the high ball, and committed to doing so, he could have avoided Biggar.
For those who think the ban is fair, perhaps you could explain exactly what you think Russell should have done, instead of what he did, which was:
1. Ran to contest a high ball
2. Realised he was too late and that Biggar had beaten him
3. Turned his face (possibly instinctively) to avoid taking Biggar’s knee in the nose or cheek
I can just about see an argument for a yellow card as it is on the clumsy side, but nothing more than that.
Soon we are going to end up in the absurd situatiion of teams putting up more and more high balls as they know either the oppostion won’t compete or if they do, that it is quite likely to end up in a penalty or a card
I don’t know how to solve this – short of banning jumping to take a catch which would be a shame as its a very skilled part of the game – but the current situation is getting silly
BTW – is there an argument for penalising jumpers leading with a raised knee?
The rule he’s alleged to have broken reads, “Law 10.4 (i): A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play”. He clearly wasn’t tackling (it’s impossible for all but the most flexible to tackle someone who is behind them), he didn’t tap, push or pull Biggar as Biggar was the one who was in motion, so in what way was the rule broken? Someone should teach the committee members reading comprehension, as theirs appears to be somewhat lacking.
I think that we have done this to death and by far the opinion from the rugby community is that the citing was an error and in the “Court of (educated) Public Opinion” Russell should be cleared. I suggest that you bundle these comments up Jamie and send them to the Disciplinary Committee. But don’t hold your breath guys from my own painful experience these committees are notoriously pig headed and rarely admit that they were wrong.
Completely the wrong decision. In real time I thought yellow was right. Looking again it is obvious that Russell was in position to take the catch and ducked to avoid injury from Biggar flying in. I don’t blame Biggar for doing as he has trained to do, but clearly this sort of flying leap is very dangerous for both the players involved. Arguably if anyone is guilty of dangerous play it’s Biggar. Is it time that the IRB looked at this situation with a view to changing the rules? If not, sooner or later someone will get hurt.
Side issue, I know, but I can just about understand Biggar appealing for a red card in the heat of the moment, but Gatland’s post match comment that it should have been red was despicable.
Agree completely
Hear, hear.
I think that this issue is being side tracked from the main one. Russell was seen at the time committing an offence that the Ref decided he required a Yellow card/bin for, the refs decision is final. His punishment has therefore been dealt with “at the time ”
If it had not been seen by the ref and dealt with….then he could be sited and punished, but I can’t agree with him being punished twice (even if he is Scottish!)
They need to decide if a ref is required on the field at all anymore, it looks to me that more and more decisions are belong taken away from the officials. Dirty/violent conduct often missed should be dealt with if missed at the time. No one can argue about that.
If I was a scot right now I would be very annoyed.
What are they going to do one day when two players jump up at the same time, both feet off the ground, both get arms around the ball, both fall, let go of the ball, both hit the ground hard…..send both off?….pathetic
“What are they going to do one day when two players jump up at the same time, both feet off the ground, both get arms around the ball, both fall, let go of the ball, both hit the ground hard…..send both off?….pathetic”
This happens all the time, and they quite rightly do nothing as it is deemed a fair contest.
Russell had enough time to realise he wasn’t going to make it and turn his back. He’s a professional rugby player. He surely knew he would get penalised, as per the current laws. Why oh why doesn’t he just throw himself to the floor? As long as he doesn’t touch Biggar, he has no duty of care to him.
Agree with the comment above, the incident was dealt with by the Ref – the need for further sanctioning is not necessary in my opinion.
Had Biggar done this Finn Russell. Biggar would have been sent off. Home advantage,crowd etc etc
Finn Russell made no attempt to jump for the ball and turned his shoulder/himself into Biggar’s path whilst Biggar was in the air. Red card no question about it. Jackson bottled it!
Russell could have seriously injured Biggar and it is the second year running that a Scottish back has committed a dangerous foul on Biggar in the 6n..
How was Biggar supposed to avoid what Finn Russell was doing to him????
Funny how so many people are showing such sympathy for the Scots when the Scots are the ones taking out a key Welsh back two years running.
Taking out key Welsh back two years in a row? I’m a Scotland fan but I’m not going to defend what Hogg did last year. However, he was red carded at the time, got a ban and Scotland were thumped, think he paid for that enough.
Russell, on the other hand, made a mistake, there was absolutely no malice in it, at most it was poor positioning from him and I think a yellow card was enough. He didn’t mean to take Biggar out, in the same way that Biggar obviously didn’t mean to land on him. I’m not saying Biggar should have avoided hitting Russell, purely that there was nothing Russell could do about colliding with Biggar. What was he supposed to do? Catch him? If he had continued running, Biggar probably would’ve tipped even more and if he’d tried to ‘catch’ him, he would have effectively have been seen as intentionally tackling him which would be worse. As it was, he turned to avoid contact with Biggar’s knee on his face (not that I’m blaming Biggar for that), and I would argue that was probably more instinctive than anything.
Can you honestly say that, if you were in Russell’s position, you wouldn’t turn away to try to avoid contact? I definitely would.
I am pleased to read so much common sense here. Russell was found to be reckless but I can’t help but think that Bigger was equally reckless putting himself in such a dangerous position. We can see quite clearly from the ban that the man on the ground waiting for 20 stone to hit him full in the face receives no sympathy. If the IRB refuses to address this issue properly then it will be clear, if it isn’t already, that all you need do to get a man sent off is send a well weighted kick down the park just far enough that (a) the receiver doesn’t have to run toward it and (b) your guys have enough space to pick up speed and launch themselves far enough into the air to be dangerous and you will get someone sent off. I admire Dan Biggar’s bravery and athleticism but he has to take his share of the responsibility for the collision with Russell.
If he had been given a red card in the first place, correctly or not you decide, then he wouldnt have missed any further games
The red card is just the beginning then he would have faced further disciplinary action – ie suspension which is the norm – that apart – when a player is running up to catch a high ball – and in Finn Russell’s defence his eyes were firmly on the ball until he realised that Dan Biggar had launched himself into the air – facing his boots/ knees in the face he did all he could to protect himself – a really tough call hope the appeal wins –
Watch the video you will see Russell turns into the path of the player in the air who has caught the ball and Biggar has not broken any rule of the game.
At no time does Russell pull out of the way or seek to use his arms to bring Biggar down safely.
Had he done the latter a penalty would have resulted and nothing else. Had he done the former Biggar would have landed safely and play continued.
Biggar’s entire shoulder/arm/wrist could have shattered by what Russell did.
Tipping a man over who was in the air catching the ball is really really dangerous.
Quite frankly he is lucky to get a two week ban.
Had Biggar suffered neck/spinal cord damage would people still defend Russell’s actions??
There was huge hoohah on blogs about Pape.
Well Russell could have done much more damage to Biggar had Biggar fallen differently.
Players cannot go around taking out those in the air end of.
I would just like to add to this debate the other yellow card in the game that has oddly not been cited. One which I believe was not only far more cynical but also as judging by the letter of the law far worse. Unless jonathan davies can claim that he is also a harlem globetrotter and can catch a rugby ball above him with 1 hand that also would appear to be slightly behind him?? Only reason wasnt a red in my opinion is the relatively soft landing.
as to finn I believe it should have been a yellow for dangerous play (as indeed he could have thrown himself to the ground but doing that over protecting your face by turning in a second should be forgiven) but in no way is the ban fair!
JD was in the air, off the ground and competing for the ball whereas FR made no attempt to jump for ball at all.
JD’s eyes never leave the flight of the ball. He never looks at the opposing player.
Maybe if he hadn’t been pushed from behind in the first place by a Scottish player????
I contest JD was competing for the ball, as my previous globetrotter remark made clear he was never close to competing. Cynical play knew where the player was and swings a single arm into the player (looked like a tackle in the air to me). As to the push I didnt notice it but will have another look… also want to say that as im neither welsh or scottish, I have no dog in this fight just putting in an impartial view, feel if one was cited other should have been for the same offence.
Alex A,
Sorry but you are wrong, and Prophet is right.
JD WAS competing for the ball. just because he doesnt get up as high as the scottish player doesnt mean he wasnt competeing.
If you look at the footage, yes he was pushed but ignoring that, JD is running at speed, never takes his eye off the ball.
He may have had an idea of where the scottish player was approximatley but I doubt it. He has no interest in the other player at all until they make contact.
JD’s arm goes for the ball and because the Scottish player is higher it hits him instead. JD’s fall is just as bad as the scottish guys.
This should never have been a yellow card and the very poor ref was just playing tit for tat with Finn Russells card. Which is wrong and unfair.
how can you possibly claim that JD was competing for the ball? i have never seen a rugby player catch a ball above his head with 1 hand … 2 handed as seen in other sports yes but 1 … no … his left arm never rises and clearly hits the scottich player across the chest…
also in no way is JD’s fall as bad he does not land back first on the ground with no support… hopping very slightly before you get to where the ball is and therefore ‘competing’ as i believe JD did is cynical, he was never in a position to catch that ball. if we are going with the severity of the fall as the only grounds for the carding then there would be many cases where something not dangerous incites a card … ref wasnt playing tit for tat in my opinion but a fair adjudication.
I’m very surprised that there has been so little comment in the press about this, so hats off for raising the debate. Every article has simply stated the fact that Finn Russell was banned following a citing, that the SRU launched an appeal and that the appeal was rejected. More should have been made of something that seems bemusing to me.
Yellow cards in rugby have been a great introduction for on-field offenses and provide an appropriate level of punishment. However, there is a worrying growth in the use of red cards. In my opinion red cards in rugby should be reserved for the most serious instances of deliberate foul or dangerous play. If we compare Hogg’s extremely dangerous and deliberate tackle on Dan Biggar in the 2014 Six Nations to Finn Russell’s offence this year there is clearly a huge gulf in the seriousness of the crime and Finn Russell should therefore consider himself hard done by. The only blessing is that Russell did not receive a straight red card during the game, which would have almost certainly ruined what turned out to be an extremely tight and exciting contest.
Having not initially received a red card, I simply don’t understand the motivation of the disciplinary panel to inflict further retrospective punishment. Wales sufficiently benefited from the 10 minute sin bin by adding 10 points, which effectively lost Scotland the match. If anything, Wales now get disadvantaged by the retrospective ban as another side (Italy) benefits from Scotland losing their lynch pin at number 10.
He didnt TACKLE TAP or PUSH or PULL Biggar collded with him Accidental NO penalty Scrum