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

Fri 22 Dec 2017 | 09:25
Bizarre few seconds of WWE rugby with piledriver and headbutt leading to ban

18
Comments

Nothing declares you want to spend several weeks on the sidelines like head-butting an opponent. Racing 92 back Juan Imhoff will do just that after head-butting Castres scrum half Rory Kockott in their match this past weekend.

Following a disciplinary hearing in London on Wednesday, Imhoff's red card was upheld and he was initially banned for 10 weeks, pertaining to the following:

10.4(a) Foul Play - Dangerous Play and Misconduct.

"Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the hand, arm or fist, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s)."

However, due to his guilty plea and clear record, the suspension was reduced to five weeks.

The incident came in the second half of the Champion's Cup clash last weekend. In what was a wacky play, Kockott decided it would be a good idea to lift fellow scrum half Teddy Iribaren into your classic Piledriver. 

Imhoff took exception by showing Kockott another classic move from the WWE.

When the dust settled, Wayne Barnes had produced both a yellow card for Kockott and the red for Imhoff. Racing won the match 29-7.

Provided there is no appeal, Imhoff is free to play again on January, 22 2018.

Brian O'Driscoll and Lawrence Dallaglio reflected on the incident, agreeing with the red card but saying that the yellow was a bit harsh, seeing as Kockott brought him back to ground safely. 

Credit: RugbyParadise/sportnews

Posted By: davidharper

18 Comments

  • drg
    10:53 PM 29/12/2017

    No, my argument is saying don't send a drunk driver to prison for killing a pedestrian when the reality is the pedestrian was safely on the opposite side of the road and no where near the car driver...

    Kockott was an idiot, as stated, his efforts did nothing for his team nor himself (regardless of referee intervention)... therefore treat him for that... Don't treat him based on what ifs... As in, you wouldn't jail a drunk driver for 'killing a crowd of people' or even potentially killing them just because his car happened to pass by 'safely'...

  • gonzoman
    2:44 PM 29/12/2017

    Your argument is like saying that as long as a drunk driver doesn't kill or injure anyone, that drunk-driving is ok.

  • gonzoman
    2:43 PM 29/12/2017

    Actually, you're thinking of law 10.4 (j). There's also law 10.4 (e), which simply states that a player must not tackle an opponent dangerously. World Rugby doesn't define "dangerously" in this case, leaving up to the referee to choose what that means. I agree with the referee here - picking someone up and holding them upside-down is dangerous.

    You could also argue that Kockott made contact with Iribaren above the shoulders (watch his knees/thighs when he lifts him). So even though I'm being a little pedantic on this one, that makes it "not strictly legal".

  • coventrywasps
    1:51 PM 27/12/2017

    you're still being quite dramatic

  • drg
    10:56 AM 24/12/2017

    How am I melodramatic? You're the one with the 'potentially life threatening situation' comment...

    Actually scratch that, why shouldn't I be melodramatic, we're playing make believe here, so how do you get away with less dramatic make believe yet you feel you can make remarks about my more dramatic make believe...they're both fucking made up.

    Nothing happened... Based on that alone, this was not card worthy, however as per my first comment, based on the unnecessary uselessness of what he did - it in no way would have helped his team out had play continued, I'd be happy for a yellow card for what I consider to be a pro player behaving like an overgrown toddler in nursery...

  • rdump0
    7:40 AM 24/12/2017

    Yeah, didn't Kockott get a yellow for just being stupid?

  • the_osprey
    11:29 PM 23/12/2017

    Kokott was unnecessarily putting another player in danger of being dropped on head. Yellow is fine with me. Stupid play, 10 minutes to think about it. Seems fair.

    I take much more of an issue with all of the 'player in the air' scenarios than this

  • coventrywasps
    6:09 PM 23/12/2017

    You're being a bit melodramatic with your "what if" scenarios.

  • coventrywasps
    6:08 PM 23/12/2017

    Nah, don't buy it. Comes down to duty of care in a professional work place. As Andinov pointed out, all it would have taken was for another player to knock into Kockott and it could of ended horrifically. It's in the laws to avoid putting the player over the parallel for a reason, to avoid potentially career ending situations as this. Kockott puts him in that dangerous position, intentionally, so yellow was fair.

  • drg
    5:49 PM 23/12/2017

    A clip that's near 10 years old in a time where players were supposed to have more balls, still showed ridiculous refereeing.

    Ok, another more recent action, Mike Brown and Huget was it? They have a tussle Huget knocks heads, Brown appeals over a nothing butt and Nigel Owens tells them both to grow up....

    Also, interesting when you talk about my examples yet bring your own "Kockott put him in a potentially life threatening situation" Jesus wept, you mean like how every coach puts their front row in a life threatening situstion by selecting them for the front row? You're playing a game of what it's, how is that in anyway a sensible path to stroll down? Referees have 99% always judged on the incident and it's outcome, not it's 'potential what if' outcome... What if Kockott flipped his shit and tombstoned the player? That's what we're playing right...so let's ban Kockott for life because of that what if...or whilst we're at it, what if Kockott never actually lifted him at all, so let's ignore this whole thing and find our safe space.. it's pitiful, according to Foxtrot, who I feel has confirmed my initial assumptions, Kockott actually didn't break any laws.... But let's yellow card/red card/ban him.becaude 'what if he did'...

  • foxtrot
    11:27 AM 23/12/2017

    Kocketts lift is only illegal if he does not bring him back down safely. He did bring him down safely so it isn't illegal, finish and klaar.

  • coventrywasps
    9:59 AM 23/12/2017

    How is a clip almost 10 years old relevant? And the BOD incident for that matter, too.

    If someone intentionally tries to head butt an opponent they should be let off because they didn't connect? Rubbish logic, there's no place for it. To posit that Imhoff should have only got a yellow, in this day and age of the game, is ludicrous. Equally as ludicrous as saying Kockett's foul play should have just been a penalty. Seriously, forget your hyperbolic nostalgia , all that, "oh, the games not what is used to be, I remember when you could intentionally ruck on the other player, those were the days," - that's not the world we live in anymore, let it go. Think about it in the context of the modern game, where players' safety is rightfully paramount, where head butting (attempted or successful) and any of that other crap is no longer accepted, not just for the same reason, but as it's not particularly marketable.

    But, then again, if you think players should be yellow carded for shaking their heads, you're ideals of what rugby should be are taken from a reality that never really existed to begin with.

  • drg
    6:54 AM 23/12/2017

    https://youtu.be/9rJrZdhtJQ4

    There you go, did the hard work for you..

  • drg
    6:53 AM 23/12/2017

    Ok, so years ago there is my go to case of a winger 'headbutting a hooker, it was a touch and the hooker dropped like a footballer... Headbutt or no? (Tom James headbutt maybe? I can't remember the name)... More recently Even Etzebeth on Nathan Sharpe... A nothing head butt...

    As for Kockott... I already said yellow based on idiocy alone, however how can you yellow card him on what ifs?? BOD years ago swung a punch and missed... No punishment, but "what if" he connected, let's ban and red card him because in a different universe he could have connected.. outcome based is precisely the referees job.. everything else is for the citing commissioner et al...

    On one hand you talk about "it's either a head butt or not" on the other, you discuss NOT judging on outcome alone...

    Well, head butt or not? Outcome? Nothing, therefore it was a nothing head butt, is a headbutt illegal, sure, so easy yellow.. Kockott lift, outcome? Nothing, was it an illegal lift? I believe not, if you lift someone beyond the horizontal as long as you return them safely then it's all hunky dory.... However, was it stupid, pointless and a complete waste of time? Yes, so I'd yellow him for it based on that alone..

  • andinov
    5:38 AM 23/12/2017

    I'm afraid i'm also finding it hard to agree with what you're saying:

    Imhoff
    "a nothing headbutt". It's either a headbutt of it's not. It is much easier to referee, within the moment, for a binary decision like that rather than trying to assess how bad it is. Attempted headbutt, red card, 10wk ban, let's see if he does it again.

    There's also a 'nothing' slap that follows. This is every bit against the ethics of the game as holding players back/ diving. For that alone I'd give yellow.

    Kockott
    You can't referee games by outcome alone. Again, it makes the referees job more difficult. It's much easier to just decide if that is dangerous play or not, rather than trying to decide how dangerous. Let the citing commission decide how dangerous after.

    Second, if eventually a player does break his neck from this, we are left to ask ourselves did we encourage this to happen by allowing the circumstances to develop. I mean if they don't allow it in the WWE then how we allow it rugby!

    Now here's the real question...

    Same scenario but ... Imhoff's headbutt actually connects, causes damage to the point that Kockott drops Iribaren onto his head. Would Imhoff's actions be responsible for injuring his own scrum half!!!

  • coventrywasps
    12:42 AM 23/12/2017

    Yeah, I can't agree with that assessment, Kockott had absolutely no need to do that. He unnecessarily puts him in a potentially life-threatening position.

  • drg
    5:08 PM 22/12/2017

    Sorry, just to clarify, ordinarily with Kockotts actions, I don't really think it warrants even a penalty... Nothing happened, he picked him up, then I guess put him down, sonic disagree with the yellow shown to him accompanied by Barnes words "you're lucky you didn't drop him"... That set up I 100% disagree with...

    My yellow card I'd issue would be the same sort of yellow card I'd issue to a player for holding another player back, or diving (if I didn't go for a red) or a yellow for someone shaking their head at a referee/tmo decision where it's clear as day... So basically a "don't be a kock" -ott...yellow card..

  • drg
    10:00 AM 22/12/2017

    I was going to say, no card for Kockott and yellow for Imhoff, but I think yellow for both purely because I cannot see what the point in that move by Kockott was....(and because that was a nothing headbutt)

    Back to Kockott he really puts in an effort to make that lift...so it's pointless, had he stumbled backwards and the racing player stumbled forwards and, I don't know, momentum more or less put them in that situation then fine... But it makes no sense to me..

Related Articles