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 27 Sep 2017 | 12:28
Michele Rizzo facing ban after this shoulder to Gareth Davies' face

19
Comments

Edinburgh front rower Michele Rizzo faces a disciplinary hearing in Neath today following the red card he received during the weekend's Guinness PRO14 match against Scarlets. Rizzo was sent from the park after he was deemed to have charged into a ruck with his shoulder.

A Disciplinary Panel will meet today to consider the red card after Rizzo took out Scarlets halfback Gareth Davies on Saturday. Davies received lengthy treatment on the field after the burly Italian flew into him at the ruck.

Following a TMO review, referee John Lacey deemed Rizzo to have committed an act of foul play against Davies and sent him off under Law 10.4 (h) – A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player.

The former Leicester Tigers front rower was bemused by the decision, and later tweeted that he was frustrated to have left his team a man down. Scarlets were leading just 14-8 at the time, but went on to win the match 28-8.

"Tough game tonight... very frustrated to left my mates in 14," Rizzo said.

Davies left the field and played no further part in the contest. He will not take part in Friday's upcoming clash against Connacht at Parc y Scarlets.

Scarlets head coach Wayne Pivac said afterwards: "The referee is the man on the spot and they've had a replay, they've had a look at it and he's ruled it was a red card. We get on with the job but obviously it's disappointing from their point of view."

UPDATE: Rizzo was banned for four weeks

The Disciplinary Panel, comprising of Simon Thomas (Chair), Rhian Williams and Richard Cole (all Wales), concluded that the player was guilty of reckless rather than intentional behaviour and therefore warranted a mid-range sanction point of six weeks.

In light of the off field mitigating circumstances, the Panel applied mitigation of 40 per cent and reduced the ban to four weeks. Rizzo is available to play from Monday, October 23, 2017 and was reminded of his right to appeal.

Posted By: Grant Constable

19 Comments

  • weejockmcplop
    6:29 PM 10/11/2017

    Rizzo has charged and hit the player in around the head so red card is about right. What is not right is that the Scarlets player is not on his feet at the ruck and illegally preventing a fair challenge for the ball. That is a clear penalty that is being ignored by the Ref. Referees seem to be unable to apply the laws of the ruck evenly to both attacking and defending teams alike with far too many players not on their feet, not binding properly and deliberately collapsing the ruck. All are penalties but only the defending team seems to be penalised

  • finedisregard
    9:46 PM 29/09/2017

    They're trying to ban tackling in the UK right now.

  • finedisregard
    9:44 PM 29/09/2017

    Sure you can. What else is a player to do? Complain?

  • danknapp
    3:40 PM 29/09/2017

    Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't mind my kids getting hurt. I just want to be the one doing it.

  • danknapp
    3:39 PM 29/09/2017

    I got pissed off with constant discussions over what should and what should not be a certain colour of card.

    Still here, but I only bother posting when I can attempt to be funny.

  • heavyhooker
    7:12 PM 28/09/2017

    Agree with the last para. Rucks like the scrums and mauls have become a near waste of time. SH feed the ball into the second row, with begs one to wonder why we have scrums if there is no chance of actually competing for the ball - maybe the update to the laws on this will help. So to with the ruck, abide by the laws from 20 years or so ago when both teams were able to contest for the ball. As for mauls, with this walking sh&t where a ball carrier just has to hold the jersey of the last player is crap.

    Make the laws so that the breakdowns are fare for all and penalize harshly those players and teams that push the laws.

  • drg
    6:18 PM 28/09/2017

    One ruling after another has lead to this...

    Rucking was stopped, so more players lie on the ground, can't put your foot through and kick the ball now, etc...

    I mean this was wrong sure, but you can't help feel some of these incidents are manifestations of previous unnecessary tinkering with the laws.. yeh sure, Dan comments about his kid(s) playing, no one wants their kid to get hurt, falling off a bike, tripping etc... We can water the game down for kids as much as we want, perhaps we'll have ageless players in the future as a result, and your kids safety is not my call, but I can't see NZ talking about banning tackling in schools...

  • drg
    6:14 PM 28/09/2017

    Except in the good old days we had 'rucking' so their wouldn't be a pile of bodies that big for the scrum half to lie on...

  • rugbydump
    3:43 PM 28/09/2017

    UPDATE: Rizzo was banned for four weeks

  • tphillipsstl
    3:41 PM 28/09/2017

    you are right and you are wrong. 1st, he commits to the clean out simultaneously to the player (not the SH, the SH was the one who took the shot) taking the ball out of the ruck, not after. 2nd, you are right there was no tactical advantage to clearing out the player on the ruck, but not because the ball was away, because there's no way to do without hitting him in the head and getting a card. 3rd, you are right, it was deserving of a red and I have no doubt that it was at least partially retaliatory for Davies laying on the ruck.

    But here's the important thing. Had Davies been on his feet and not laying on it, Rizzo would have had an actual target to hit, and could have legally competed for the ball. The red is warranted, but what needs to be considered is that he had no legal way to compete for that ball because of Davies laying on the ruck. This is a problem with the professional game right now. We are so concerned about running rugby that the refs are letting attacking teams do pretty much whatever they want to retain possession in the ruck. But as 45678 said above, it's self defeating, because it means no contest at the breakdown, therefore all the defenders simply get in the defensive line and there is no running room. It really needs to be addressed.

  • jimmy23
    10:19 AM 28/09/2017

    I've missed your comments DanKnapp.

  • heavyhooker
    11:56 PM 27/09/2017

    I am trying to figure out what the problem with the red card is? This in no way is a path to the disappearance of the breakdown. The ball was already picked up by the SH before Rizzo committed himself. This was simply an illegal retaliatory clear out because Davies was lagging on the ruck. There was no tactical advantage to Rizzo going into the ruck and instead he should have focused on taking on the SH. Vicious play and deserving the card.

  • 45678
    9:52 PM 27/09/2017

    There's a really big danger that competition at the breakdown will disappear in the next few years

    I don't mind players being off their feet in a ruck if they do something positive to warrant it i.e. Clean a player out and end up on the floor, but that has to work both ways as an attacker and defender

    Current rules / refs allow the attacking player to join the ruck from almost any angle to clear out, allow them to seal off and go off their feet without touching an opposing player. Refs turn a blind eye to the attacking team

    Defensive players have such a narrow gate even with a fair clear out and they aren't given an honest opportunity to compete for the ball anymore without conceding a penalty

    World rugby and current rules seem intent on returning the attacking team the ball at every breakdown. It reminds me of Munster of old who would deny a breakdown contest 10 minutes from the end of a game

    More turnovers will create a better game. Asking defenders to line up and not compete will make attacking harder and inadvertently lower scoring

  • tphillipsstl
    6:42 PM 27/09/2017

    He was just laying on the ruck. It's so common now, and never penalized I'm not sure how to address it. If you make it a point of emphasis for refs, you are of course opening up the game to more of a slog over the ball at every breakdown, slowing down play and reducing running rugby, which is obviously not where the game is heading. However, by allowing it to go on you create situations like this where this is no way to legally counter ruck. It's a very difficult situation. But regardless, #1 shouldn't have gone in like that. The red card is deserved. The best he could do right then is call the refs attention to it and try to get a penalty later in the game.

  • shrekhead
    6:30 PM 27/09/2017

    I'm happy to make the game safer where possible but if you were to apply this letter of law there'd be only 9or10 players left on each side in the supposedly 'Super' rugby of the southern hemisphere...
    This is actually more a demonstration of why your half backs should not be in a ruck - they dont know what they are doing so he made himself a 'soft' target.
    Possibly still a red but not for the offence listed in the article as he did not go charging in without arms as in some cases recently but probably went in aiming at head without control.

  • im1
    5:48 PM 27/09/2017

    agree there is an issue to be addressed there, but just becasue someone is cheating it doesn't mean you can wipe them out illegally

  • thos
    5:46 PM 27/09/2017

    Exactly, hard to be sympathetic when he is just lying on the pile

  • 45678
    4:13 PM 27/09/2017

    Could this be the death of the counter ruck?

    I.e. Lie over the ball off your feet, sealing off the ruck and the opposition can't touch you

  • danknapp
    4:00 PM 27/09/2017

    This game is going soft.

    What's wrong with a man the size of a small truck assaulting a much smaller man for no obvious tactical advantage? Why would I want my children to play a game in which others are allowed to take their heads off when they're not looking, and when the ball is basically gone.

    In the good old days you could rip a guy's head off, kick it around in front of his crying kids, put it over the fence into his garden AND THEN demand it back. Nowadays the PC-gone-mad-elf-n-safety-brigade are ruining our sport.

    *inserts rude comment about the French for no obvious reason, logs off and goes and shouts at the squirrels*

Related Articles