Nemani Nadolo suspended

[Dixpat]

Fiji's Rugby World Cup hopes have suffered a major blow with Nemani Nadolo suspended for Friday's pool match against Wales in Cardiff.

The wing was found guilty of a dangerous tip tackle in the defeat to Australia at Millenium Stadium last week. Nadolo had denied the charge.

While the judicial officer was not satisfied Nadolo had lifted the player in the tackle and driven him to the ground, he upheld the citing, as it was still deemed dangerous.

Nadolo was initially suspended for two weeks but that was cut to one thanks to his excellent disciplinary record.

He will miss Fiji's penultimate pool match against Wales but will be free to play Uruguay next week.

The player had 48 hours to appeal.

Does anyone have a clip of the tackle - an interesting summary "...was not satisfied Nadolo had lifted the player in the tackle and driven him to the ground, he upheld the citing, as it was still deemed dangerous..."

 

[Crucial]

While the judicial officer was not satisfied Nadolo had lifted the player in the tackle and driven him to the ground, he upheld the citing, as it was still deemed dangerous.

Hmmmm!

I'm not convinced that the accused committed a crime or even that a crime was committed but as it is before the court I guess something must have happened so you are going down son...

 

[crossref]

We don't have the written judgement, but it seems very similar to Dominiko Waqaniburotu*
also from Fiji

I can't help thinking this is Tier2 justice. To can't see a tier 1 players , with their fancy QC being convicted for offences they weren't charged with.

Do we have a video of this one?

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19180-Dominiko-Waqaniburotu-Suspension

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/101908

 

[Pegleg]

Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed about dual standards (tier 1 / tier 2), we need to get away from this notion that somehow it's only a red IF it's a tip tackle. Other tackles can be red too.

I would like to see the tackle before making a judgement on whether or not this one was worthy of a red.

 

[crossref]

Whilst I agree with the sentiments expressed about dual standards (tier 1 / tier 2), we need to get away from this notion that somehow it's only a red IF it's a tip tackle. Other tackles can be red too.

I would like to see the tackle before making a judgement on whether or not this one was worthy of a red.

Yes, but he wasn't cited for making some other type of dangerous tackle, but for making a tip tackle, which he didn't.

Seems like the judge in these two cases is also acting as the prosecutor - bringing the fresh charge himself, actually at the hearing with no chance for the player to prepare a defence , and then making the guilty finding.

I want to read the written judgment on this one before commenting more, but I note that in the case of Dominiko Waqaniburotu, the written reports has no accoutn of any evidence or argument as how/why his tackle merited a RC under 10.4(e) and DW therefore had no chance to defend himself under 10.4(e).

@RobLev - what do you think of these two matters?

 

[RobLev]

...

@RobLev - what do you think of these two matters?

Work beckons - I'll comment later...

 

[crossref]

here it is

clearly not a tip tackle -- no lifting -- is it a RC dangerous tackle?

 

[Pegleg]

It's around the neck and similar to a crocodile roll. Certainly dangerous. I don't think that in real time I'd give a red for it. I can see why the DC saw it so.

But this highlights the issue of talking tip tackle. It is nothing to do with tip tackles at all the question is "How dangerous ? Warning, YC or RC?

 

[crossref]

anyone know what happened on the pitch at the time ? Did they TMO it ? what decision was made?

 

[Pegleg]

The players stop and there is "concern" on his face so I'm guessing that the ref at least PK'd it.

 

[crossref]

anyone know what happened on the pitch at the time ? Did they TMO it ? what decision was made?

it's also here (whole game)
https://youtu.be/Ar5MOwYZ1hE?t=1948

the referee gave him a warning 'keep it down' and then went back to a previous PK [he was playing advantage] (against Fiji playing ball on floor, PK+YC).

It's not 100% clear, but from the timing and sound of the whistle, I don't think the referee even saw the tackle as a PK offence - I think he blew because no advantage had accrued, and he was going back for the previous PK.

 

[crossref]

For me

It is a high tackle
- it's definitely a PK offence (so Aus should have had their choice of two PKs)
- I wouldn't argue with a YC
- it's NOT a high-tackle worth a RC

 

[The Fat]

It falls into the category of grasping the player around the neck and twisting. In RL, it may also be seen as a "head slam" tackle.

In the Australia v Uruguay game, Quade Cooper got a yellow card for a similar action but nowhere near as forceful as Nadolo's tackle. The referee told him it was a grasp of the neck and twist which obviously it wasn't. A complete misunderstanding of the dangerous tackle memo by the TMO and ref in the Aus v Uruguay game.
The Nadolo tackle includes the head slam technique. Definitely a dangerous tackle but the type of tackle should be confirmed by the citing officer and communicated to Nadolo's reps prior to any hearing.

 

[crossref]

It falls into the category of grasping the player around the neck and twisting. In RL, it may also be seen as a "head slam" tackle.

In the Australia v Uruguay game, Quade Cooper got a yellow card for a similar action but nowhere near as forceful as Nadolo's tackle. The referee told him it was a grasp of the neck and twist which obviously it wasn't. A complete misunderstanding of the dangerous tackle memo by the TMO and ref in the Aus v Uruguay game.
The Nadolo tackle includes the head slam technique. Definitely a dangerous tackle but the type of tackle should be confirmed by the citing officer and communicated to Nadolo's reps prior to any hearing.

So you think YC?

 

[Pegleg]

it's also here (whole game)
https://youtu.be/Ar5MOwYZ1hE?t=1948

the referee gave him a warning 'keep it down' and then went back to a previous PK [he was playing advantage] (against Fiji playing ball on floor, PK+YC).

It's not 100% clear, but from the timing and sound of the whistle, I don't think the referee even saw the tackle as a PK offence - I think he blew because no advantage had accrued, and he was going back for the previous PK.

Thank you.

 

[RobLev]

Yes, but he wasn't cited for making some other type of dangerous tackle, but for making a tip tackle, which he didn't.

Seems like the judge in these two cases is also acting as the prosecutor - bringing the fresh charge himself, actually at the hearing with no chance for the player to prepare a defence , and then making the guilty finding.

I want to read the written judgment on this one before commenting more, but I note that in the case of Dominiko Waqaniburotu, the written reports has no accoutn of any evidence or argument as how/why his tackle merited a RC under 10.4(e) and DW therefore had no chance to defend himself under 10.4(e).

@RobLev - what do you think of these two matters?

It looks like the JO considers that the 10.4(e) offence - dangerous tackle - is an alternative (lesser) verdict on a 10.4(j) charge involving a tackle.

A similar position applies in English criminal law; if you are charged with GBH but there is an issue over the extent of the injury caused, it is not only right but necessary for the Judge to leave an alternative verdict of ABH for the jury. Similarly on a charge of murder where intent is in issue, manslaughter should be left to the jury.

It helped in this case that prior to the hearing Waqaniburotu accepted the allegations of fact and also admitted that he had committed an act of foul play.

 

[Pegleg]

It looks like the JO considers that the 10.4(e) offence - dangerous tackle - is an alternative (lesser) verdict on a 10.4(j) charge involving a tackle.

A similar position applies in English criminal law; if you are charged with GBH but there is an issue over the extent of the injury caused, it is not only right but necessary for the Judge to leave an alternative verdict of ABH for the jury. Similarly on a charge of murder where intent is in issue, manslaughter should be left to the jury.

It helped in this case that prior to the hearing Waqaniburotu accepted the allegations of fact and also admitted that he had committed an act of foul play.

I think that is important. Otherwise illegal players get off on technicallities. The action was dangerous and he's been found guilty.

 

[menace]

When I saw it live I was suprised it wasn't referred to the TMO for a check as the grasp around the neck and judo style back slam looked dangerous. At the time I thought YC at least was warranted. In light of the memo just prior to the RWC about grasps around the neck then it shouldn't be a total surprise this was cited? I think it about time these tackles are heavily sanctioned. I think Quade Cooper should have received the same as Nadolo, but he probably escaped as he was YC at the time.

 

[crossref]

It looks like the JO considers that the 10.4(e) offence - dangerous tackle - is an alternative (lesser) verdict on a 10.4(j) charge involving a tackle.

A similar position applies in English criminal law; if you are charged with GBH but there is an issue over the extent of the injury caused, it is not only right but necessary for the Judge to leave an alternative verdict of ABH for the jury. Similarly on a charge of murder where intent is in issue, manslaughter should be left to the jury.

It helped in this case that prior to the hearing Waqaniburotu accepted the allegations of fact and also admitted that he had committed an act of foul play.

admitting an act of foul play doesn't mean admitting a RC-worthy offence.

I agree that the JO was working along those lines, but he is mistaken -- In English Law the definitions of GBH and ABH overlap, ABH is a subset of GBH. GBH is ABH + extra criteria. They were designed like that.

But 10.4e and 10.4j aren't like that, in fact they are pretty much exclusive : either you have (j) OR you have (e). A low grade tip-tackle does NOT become a RC-worthy dangerous tackle. They are alternatives, not gradations.

10.4(e) is

- Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
- A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
- A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
- Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
- A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

I don't see that DW did any of those. If the JO thought he did then he needs to sepcify which, and allow DW to contest the facts and/or argue the severity.

This is like prosecuting some for drunk driving, accepting the arguement that he wasn't drunk and is innocent, and then finding them guilty of dangerous driving (which they weren't charged with).

 

[Pegleg]

10.4(e) is - Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.


- A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
- A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
- Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
- A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.

There you go. The sub clauses after are not relevant to whether or not the tackle in question was dangerous - in fact point 4 (underlined) is not even tackle according to the law book.. They are examples, the list is not exhaustive.