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

Sun 19 Jan 2014 | 03:19
Ian Evans facing suspension after red card for stamp on Mike McCarthy

30
Comments

Ospreys and Wales lock Ian Evans faces an anxious wait to see what his Six Nations availability will be like after he was cited for a red card for stamping in Friday's Heineken Cup clash against Leinster in Dublin. Leinster won the game 36-3.

Evans has been a key player for Wales in recent times but will likely miss out on at least the first two of their Championship matches after Romain Poite red carded him for stamping on the face of Leinster lock Mike McCarthy, who left the field with blood pouring from his head.

Ospreys backs coach Gruff Rees admitted it might have been reckless, but said that even after multiple TV replays, Evans alleged stamping wasn't clear and obvious.

"It was a big moment, but I'm not sure about it to be honest, like a lot of observers, I think. Perhaps it was a bit reckless, but there were a lot of replays needed to make a decision, which suggests it wasn't that clear and obvious.

"It took five or six times in slow-mo to isolate the incident. I don't know if that's clear and obvious from a red card point of view, and it changes the game.

"You have to be absolutely certain with a red card, and that there were so many replays and there are still so many differing opinions on it suggests that the clips may not have been totally conclusive," he added.

It looked as though a number of players could have been guilty of stamping, but as the one angle shows, Evans' boot seemed to do the most damage.

Posted By: Grant Constable

30 Comments

  • lucius
    5:40 PM 21/01/2014

    Evans foot went for McCarthy's head at least 2 times. Straight red

  • 11:36 PM 20/01/2014

    "That's not how you wash it! Give it here".... "Nice tackle boyo"

  • matt
    6:53 PM 20/01/2014

    I agree somewhat, I have never seen Evans as a dirty player, I could fully believe that he was just doing his part to encourage a troublesome opponent out of the way, and accidentally caught him in the head. That's not to say he doesn't deserve red, but I would be prepared to believe it was not his aim.

  • matt
    6:50 PM 20/01/2014

    I think he summarised it really well. Although McCarthy probably was where he was legally I still think he was being a deliberate and cynical pain, so probably did deserve a bit of a 'warning', however, the head is never on.

  • colombes
    4:41 PM 20/01/2014

    At first sight, like many, i found hard to justify any intent
    But after few slow-motion, u can see Evans foot searching and going for mccarthy head, 2 or 3 times
    So despite this long video ref decision, i guess the red card was justified
    For the ban, it will depend of Evans defence

  • connachtman
    1:29 PM 20/01/2014

    LOL, Did I mention he was a Priest (seriously!)

  • drg
    11:43 AM 20/01/2014

    My old coach used to make us show him things in the changing rooms.....

    ....he's no longer allowed to be near children..

  • stroudos
    9:57 AM 20/01/2014

    Surprised by this. Ian Evens has always seemed to be a fair player to me - a big hard bastard, but a decent one.

    With that in mind, and playing devil's advocate, is it possible that he was actually trying to find his footing on the turf? You know, went to put his foot down and felt a head instead of grass so lifted his foot to try again, then "oh bugger it's that bloke's head again", etc....

    No, probably not I suppose.

    Just seems odd for a bloke like Evans to get involved in cheap shots, especially with the Six Nations just round the corner. Maybe he's got a mate's stag do on the 1st or 8th Feb or something and needed an excuse to get out of the rugby?

  • guy
    9:53 AM 20/01/2014

    Well, if there is one thing we learned from the Horwill-verdict, it is that you are not going to be punished as long as you're not watching what you are standing on.

    In light of that verdict I would be surprised to see him get any suspension at all.

  • stroudos
    9:51 AM 20/01/2014

    "My old coach would make us second rows show him the rake marks from studs on our backs after a game" - I'm not sure that shoeing your own team-mates is really on, even if they do ponce about in the cold area of the pitch comparing hair gel...

    ;)

  • connachtman
    9:15 AM 20/01/2014

    If you are going to shoe someone on the ground you had better be looking where your boots are going, look at the studio analysis, the boots were going in BLINDLY( yes McCarthy was making no attempt to get away, that not the point), I have been shoed and done it to others as well over the years. My old coach would make us second rows show him the rake marks from studs on our backs after a game , if we didnt have any, we were dropped for the next game, old school rugby. however, Not once would be consider going for the head or face. Red card deserved for reckless use of the boot.

  • welshosprey
    5:26 AM 20/01/2014

    Of all the Heineken cup action, RD chooses to highlight this.
    It's barely anything just unlucky to catch a guy in the face. Of course he's allowed to lie there with no penalty against him though.

  • totesmcgoates
    3:49 AM 20/01/2014

    Quinnell says in the post match analysis, "When you're in that position, anywhere from the shoulder down is fair game but when you strike a head, you've got to go". Hard to disagree. Dirt from Evans.

  • 3:19 AM 20/01/2014

    Got plenty of these at the bottom of rucks over the years, never respected the guy who did it, cowardly. Never understood it either, where do u get off thinking u can get away with this? Terrible for the game. If u disagree maybe cock fighting is the game for u.

  • drg
    12:37 AM 20/01/2014

    Tom, the phrase "shoe in" doesn't exist in rugby as far as I am aware, so Matt corrected you by letting you understand it's "shoeing"...

    ..whilst you might not like being corrected, at least accept the fact he helped you avoid looking like a twit when you talk to some other rugby folk face to face...

  • drg
    12:33 AM 20/01/2014

    I can't say exactly but one of the big things that was floating around in the past is that "intent" has nothing to do with anything... and referee's shouldn't base their decision on a players intent but only on the fact... not sure if the same applies for the citing commissioner and the disciplinary panel etc...

  • xxxwookie
    12:05 AM 20/01/2014

    He wasn't in the wrong place illegally - like I say, he binds straight on the ball carrier, in the process of the tackle the ball is passed back. He had every right to make that tackle and go to ground.

  • xxxwookie
    12:01 AM 20/01/2014

    Apologies, I've been looking at the wrong boots (number 4 needs looking at too.)

    Looking at Evans' body position though, in that position, you'd be going for closer to a seated postion with your feet a long way in front of your body, pushing in with your heels, not straight down as his feet go. He starts off doing it right as youcan see, but when he comes to McCarthy, he takes the opportunity.

  • xxxwookie
    11:47 PM 19/01/2014

    McCarthy grabbed the ball carrier and pulled him to the ground. It's a tackle and completely legitimate, but the catcher puts the ball back quickly.

    Look at the way Evans' foot goes down. When you're mauling, your feet go down at a backward angle to drive forwards in short steps. The gains are inch by inch. You also don't want to be on one foot. What you see of Evans' foot is for one he massively over reaches. His foot (striped boot) goes forward, rakes at the face a few times and then you see it go much further back as he continues with a normal forward drive, miles away from McCarthy's face.

    I'm in no doubt he's gone out of his way to give a shoeing, he's connected with the face and that makes it reckless and a long way against the rules. It's not new that stamping isn't cool. 15 years ago, Austin Healey got an 8 week ban for a simiilar stamp that connected with someone's face. Rugby is a tough sport, but it's also a gentleman's sport. Face up to someone if you want to do something, don't do it while they're prone on the floor and you think you might get away with it. That's a footballer thing to do.

  • matt
    10:58 PM 19/01/2014

    I'm pretty sure you mean 'shoeing', and he was there legally. Even if he wasn't, when you're 'shoe ining' someone you still have to take responsibility for their safety, which Ian Evans completely failed to do.

  • matt
    10:56 PM 19/01/2014

    There seems to be a lot of buzz words being thrown around, 'intent' 'clear and obvious' etc. I'm wondering if this is the same thing as the often misquoted having to 'wrap' arms in a tackle. I'd like to know exactly what is going on, because there was a very, very similar incident in the Sarries game the next day that got a yellow, apparently because of a lack of clear and obvious something.

  • facepalm
    9:04 PM 19/01/2014

    The stamping laws (if you can call them laws) have always completely boggled me.

  • drg
    8:25 PM 19/01/2014

    Actually to add to this, what are the laws on stepping on players (body wise)... Seems more back and forth than tennis! One minute stepping on a player is accepted, the next rucking makes referee's go ape, then next McCarthy is getting trampled by every forward on the team and it's only the face stamp that gets attention...

  • drg
    6:58 PM 19/01/2014

    Having trampled over many people within a maul situation over a few years of playing, I've never trampled/stepped/stamped on a head or face..

    I'm not sure whether I'm just lucky, or maybe it feels different and you adjust quickly?!?!?

    Nearly had my face stepped on once when pinned in a ruck... thankfully some quick action from our great Saffa flanker saved my (sort of) good looks!

  • 6:46 PM 19/01/2014

    Deserved the card, deserves a ban. Intent is irrelevant, he stamped on the guys head three times. I wouldnt go as far as the studio guy does and say shoulders down is fair game if you're in the wrong place but if you're driving over and stand on him then no bother. The up/down or backwards motion law shows itself, this was deliberate. I agree with xxxwookie, take the rap.

  • mastersa
    6:30 PM 19/01/2014

    Initial footage from one side showed 2 to 3 players shoeing him on the back , side and legs. Got no issue with that when someone gets themselves in a position like that., however the footage from the other side I saw, show 4 attempts 3 hits with the same foot by him to the head of McCarthy. Intentional, deliberate and wreck less. No doubt! Deserved red card for the idiot. I would like to see him in the six nations so am hoping for a Horwell ban.

  • xxxwookie
    6:15 PM 19/01/2014

    McCarthy joins first and strips off the front of the maul as an individual which is legitimate. The maul then runs over him.

    If there's one boot to the head, it's possibly an accident as the maul drives over. However, there are too many shots to argue a reasonable defence. It's also not a natural manner for him to be driving forward. Standing on one foot repeatedly sudding someone's head without putting weight into it. Whether he's looking or not, he knows he's stamping. Best option - plead guilty, hope the red card is considered in mitigating circumstances and take a 6 week ban.

  • themull
    5:36 PM 19/01/2014

    He found his head with the first and then repeated the actiononce or twice more..if he had have left it at one, he may have been able to plead unintentional but he repeated the stamp..No problem with hard rucking of guys underneath a maul or on the wrong side of a ruck, but stamping is too dangerous..Can easily break bones and cause serious injuries

  • matt
    4:22 PM 19/01/2014

    I'm struggling to see any reasonable argument against the red card. Then again, I don't know the exact wording of the rules, and I imagine that that will be fairly important in an incident like this, does anyone know exactly what is required?

  • danknapp
    4:18 PM 19/01/2014

    From first looks, that seems about as innocuous a stamp as is possible. I couldn't see evidence that he was looking down. Certainly if he had made contact with anywhere other than the player's face I don't think we'd have been talking about it as a red card offence.

    Don't know the player very well, what's his disciplinary record like? Looks like the sort of offence which might see a reduced ban due to good behaviour.

Related Articles