We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Wed 25 Nov 2015 | 11:37
Bernard Le Roux shown straight red card for petulant stamp

8
Comments

Racing 92 flanker Bernard Le Roux was shown a straight red card for a stamp on Scarlets prop Phil John at the weekend. Today he faces a disciplinary hearing, along with Matthew Rees, who was cited for the same offence, although both incidents are decidedly different.

Racing won the match 29-12, despite going down to 14 men early in the second half.

They had already secured a four try bonus point so it didn't affect things too much, but the decision to show the France flanker a straight red card was met with some consternation by fans.

Le Roux lashed out due to being held and tripped, and while it was clearly deliberate, the contact wouldn't have caused too much harm, leading some to believe that a red card was harsh.

Referee Greg Garner conferred with his TMO though and the South African born flanker saw red.

He faces a disciplinary hearing in London after being charged with a contravention of Law 10.4(b) Stamping/Trampling on an Opponent, the same offence that Matthew Rees committed last week.

While both incidents are completely different, there is still a good chance that Le Roux will spend time on the sidelines, as the World Rugby santions for Foul Play for Stamping/Trampling carry the following entry points: Low End: 2 weeks; Mid-Range: 5 weeks; Top End: 9 to 52 weeks.

UPDATE: Bernard Le Roux has been suspended for one week.

"In upholding the red card decision, the Judicial Officer found that Le Roux had stamped on Phil John and determined that the offence was at the low end of World Rugby's sanctions and selected two weeks as the appropriate entry point," the statement read.

"He then reduced the sanction by the maximum of 50 per cent taking into account Le Roux's guilty plea, expression of remorse and clean disciplinary record, before imposing a suspension of one week."

Posted By: Grant Constable

8 Comments

  • finedisregard
    1:54 AM 28/11/2015

    This is absurd. If you showed this clip to rugby players 15 years ago they would not believe what has happened to our sport.

    Rugby is being destroyed by overzealous referees.

  • stroudos
    9:38 AM 26/11/2015

    Colombes,
    You don't think Le Roux was out of order in pinning John down and clearing Owens 2 metres away from the ruck? To be fair, there were all manner of infringements going on here; you mentioned on the other thread Scarlets 8 blatantly playing the ball on the ground, which really is frustrating to watch as Racing 9 was doing a good Pocock impression at that point and deserved to get something for his efforts.

    Everything else in this incident was just handbags really, I think we all agree on that.

  • drg
    9:39 PM 25/11/2015

    I sort of wish the other player or other team had sort of intervened before the card was shown and I dunno, just said "it's ok ref"... or something...

    Of course the win is important so I doubt they'd do it, and the ref may not listen... but still :(

  • drg
    9:38 PM 25/11/2015

    Well they were indeed, but 10 years ago there was; more often than not, a collective effort to install common sense into both players and officials...

    I really don't want to have to break out my usual video of the Tom James headbutt... but it's getting close.. There are certain things that to the letter of the law are by definition, illegal, but we both know whether those things are really worth kicking up a fuss about, or just ignoring (or warning..)

  • colombes
    5:34 PM 25/11/2015

    To be fair, rucking and stamping were already sanctionned 10 years ago.
    RD could even create a 'stamp's collection' video. Not in a philatelic way.

  • drg
    4:02 PM 25/11/2015

    I suppose the point is, can you imagine us all saying "yeh, red card and either nothing or 1 week ban" 5-10 years ago?

  • colombes
    2:59 PM 25/11/2015

    As long as i often appreciate your contributions, i agree i disagree with the whole first part of your comment.

    But agree both players were a bit puerile. keep your feet under the table gentlemen!
    Nothing or 1 week ban for Le Roux.

  • stroudos
    1:59 PM 25/11/2015

    (Copied & pasted, with couple of minor edits, from the Rees thread):

    I think this is the first time I've seen Le Roux without his helmet. He doesn't look how I'd pictured him.

    Here is my step-by-step analysis of "The Le Roux Incident" (sounds like it should be a culinary-themed espionage thriller):

    - First of all he misses the point of the ruck and comes round the side and interferes with the opposition players there, so is essentially "not entering through the gate". Penalty to Scarlets.

    - Le Roux then pins John to the ground and illegally (because he's offside) clears Ken Owens, preventing both of these players from being able to contest the breakdown. Penalty to Scarlets.

    - Le Roux continues to pin John down, John reacts to Le Roux's provocation with some kind of grab, Le Roux responds with a quite effeminate slap, John goes for a comedy trip. No sanction for either player, these are just fun and games at the breakdown.

    - Finally, Le Roux does that stampy flickykicky thing. Whilst accepting that the motive was puerile petulance and not aggression, a stamp is a stamp and it's on the exposed shin of a bloke who's lying on the ground. I think just the penalty would have been sufficient, maybe even yellow. Red seems excessive, but I don't have a problem with it because of the cheating in the run-up to it.

Related Articles