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 9 Nov 2016 | 02:30
Mat Luamanu's brutal tackle gets him a five week ban

16
Comments

Harlequins forward Mat Luamanu has been suspended for five weeks following an RFU disciplinary hearing in London last night. Luamanu was adjudged to have contravened law 10.4(e) for dangerous play after his big tackle against Exeter Chiefs at the weekend.

The hard-hitting number eight received a yellow card from referee Craig Evans during the match for his tackle on Will Hooley, but was subsequently cited after the independant citing commissioner felt the challenge warranted a closer inspection.

Luamanu pleaded not guilty, however the chairman on the RFU discplinary panel, Sir James Dingemans felt that the tackle needed further punishment.

"The panel upheld the citing, concluding that Mathew Luamanu had committed a dangerous tackle because he had made contact with his head, having been reckless within the meaning of RFU Regulation 19.11.8(b) and Appendix 5. The panel imposed a suspension of five weeks."

Luamanu is free to play again on 13th December.

View more of Luamanu's huge hits in our Related Posts, and match highlights on page two

Posted By: Grant Constable

16 Comments

  • jonnyenglish
    8:54 AM 21/11/2016

    Really sorry Doc, I didn't see you'd replied! I agree, it's a grey area that needs to be sorted out. I think it comes down to what legal people at work would call "Reasonably foreseeable", in that is it reasonable for a player to stoop into a tackle? I'd say yes, you might rightfully say no.

    It all comes down to where you line that tackle up and when you commit to it, he went for the shoulders and chest, as we're seeing more and more, and ended up getting the head, had he gone for the midriff he may well have stooped that low, but you'd struggle to actually award a red card for it.

  • 10stonenumber10
    1:05 PM 15/11/2016

    Fair play.

    The only mitigating circumstances here are just how low Hooley went, if you pause the replay his knees are bent at about 90 degrees, maybe more. I'm guesstimating that for someone around or over 6ft, that is the best past of 45cm, and with the ducking of the head and shoulders, easily over 60cm, which measured from the top of your head is roughly to the sternum.

    If Hooley stayed upright and not been scared unaware, even with correct body position his ribs would have been all over the place. Luamanu committed early, ducked his head, straightened his spine to protect himself, and aimed to hit him in the centre of the torso. If anything, I would credit Luamanu's technique, head on the correct side etc.

    While I agree with the law, a higher but similar hit by Burgess was more or less ignored by the officials vs Australia, and that was a premeditated "get him back" sort of hit

  • cookadoodledoo
    9:54 AM 14/11/2016

    The law does actually state that if you aim for the chest and the player ducks and you hit the head, it's a red card. The tackler has a duty to factor this in and/or the fact that he might hit higher than intended and make contact with the head. The wording also takes out any element of accidental contact due to mitigating factors (e.g. oppo player ducking). I didn't realise any of this until I read up on it (as a Quins fan!).

  • heavyhooker
    6:53 PM 11/11/2016

    Reading Moo's link, with the effort to reduce head injury, the emphasis on proper tackling technique is even more important for all teams, clubs and players. You tackle high then you are increasing the risk of a head injury to the ball carrier; therefore, use proper technique and reduce the chances of injury and penalty. Pretty simple actually.

  • heavyhooker
    6:50 PM 11/11/2016

    With so many tacklers going in high these days as a ball carrier you are now expected to run into a tackle standing up, which exposes you to massive hits all the time. If you are tackled high you run the risk of a head clash or a right smoking. If you stay high and the tackler hits you low you expose your ribs and get right crushed. To say that Hooley ducked into it is to penalize him for using proper technique where Luamanu used poor technique. Hard hits are a thing with rugby, do not get me wrong, but this high tackling technique now in common use is disheartening. Is this a card? It could go either way. Is this a five week ban tackle - not so much.

  • moo
    2:34 PM 11/11/2016

    World Rugby press release: http://www.worldrugby.org/news/202839

    This will probably go some way to explaining some of it.

  • boybath
    1:38 PM 10/11/2016

    exactly if you drop you shoulders below waist height no offence

  • 10stonenumber10
    12:16 PM 10/11/2016

    Dear Mr Citing Commissioner

    If the recent elections have taught me anything, it is that to get the job you want, the greatest requirement is to have no idea what you are doing. Now I understand why HR ignored my application.
    As a below average talent fly half, recently retired from a long, cold, wet and painful amateur career, I can assure you that I have great experience in the field of having one's head taken off.
    This was not one of those occasions.
    Playing 10 has a very steep learning curve. Technically, that is called "Getting Brian Lima'd". That hit will have you checking your blind spot every time you walk through a door, and under the bed. It is the hit that haunts you. Because the only person you have to blame... is yourself.

    Justice for Luamanu.

    Yours Disgruntledly
    10stone

  • finedisregard
    12:02 PM 10/11/2016

    I don't have a problem with the tackle. Spelling Matthew with one t is disgraceful.

  • drg
    9:18 AM 10/11/2016

    That's my point JE! We're told tackler has full responsibility these days, doesn't matter what the tacklee does! So if tackler went midriff and the tacklee stooped lower and got his head removed, who is to blame?

    Looking at this tackle, I'd say that the 8 lined him up then went in for the kill, he stopped looking at his target, his target then stooped and a higher up tackle occurred (I'm still not 100% convinced it was a higj tackle)...

  • jonnyenglish
    8:24 AM 10/11/2016

    Equally, had the tackler gone for a tackle like we're all taught when we start playing as kids, around the midriff or legs, he wouldn't have ended up going high when the tackler ducked.

    This is the risk with these Rugby League style hits - fair ban, lets have proper tackling back.

  • drg
    12:39 AM 10/11/2016

    Whilst I agree with the positions by the 3 above, I believe it is still the tacklers duty to take sole responsibility for the outcome of a tackle....

    I personally would like to see certain tackles that end badly chalked down as "well, it was clearly an accident!" because to me this was a guy going in for a big hit and the 10 ducks....

    Of course, people can say "he should have gone lower"... but lets say he aimed at the knees and the bloke ducked to ankle level.... still tacklers responsibility or should we have a little leeway...

  • pdg
    11:29 PM 09/11/2016

    This is an AWFUL decision...The No.10 can clearly be seen on the slow motion to be surprised to see the tackler so close and bends his knees to lower himself into the tackle. The initial tackle area is the upper chest and ball, the head shot is initiated by the No.10 Its IMPOSSIBLE for the tackler to alter his action when committed and the citing commisioner has totally missed this ...new specs needed ASAP

  • welshosprey
    10:41 PM 09/11/2016

    5 weeks because a guy ducked into your tackle. Joke of a decision.

  • stroudos
    8:35 PM 09/11/2016

    Bit of a tricky one that. Hooley crouched so low it looked almost impossible to avoid tackling him high. If you're committed to smashing the ball carrier and he dips that low I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the tackler to be able to adjust in time.

    Either way, pretty brutal and I'm delighted that I wasn't the one wearing that.

  • drg
    7:16 PM 09/11/2016

    Didnt look that illegal to me....

    Maybe reverse angle would clear up any confusion, but I dunno...

Related Articles