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

Mon 16 Jul 2012 | 12:16
Quade Cooper suspended for one week for dangerous hit on Berrick Barnes

21
Comments

Quade Cooper will miss the Reds' playoff match against the Sharks next weekend following a dangerous tackle he made on Waratahs back Berrick Barnes. He received a yellow card at the time, and has since been suspended for one week.

A lengthy SANZAR judicial hearing took place earlier today, ruling the Wallaby flyhalf out of next week's clash against the Sharks, which will determine who progresses to the semi final stage.

Cooper pleaded not guilty to the charge of a dangerous tackle on Barnes, who is well known to have suffered from head issues in the past, to the point of retiring from the game temporarily.

"It was something I certainly didn't want to hear (the suspension). I was looking forward to playing this weekend. I'm pretty disappointed but I have total faith in my teammates and our game plan and believe they'll get the job done," said Cooper.

SANZAR judicial officer Paul Tully said that Cooper had made principle contact with the chest of Barnes, but that he also made contact with the neck, which made it a dangerous tackle, in contravention of Law 10.4 (e). 

"There is no doubt Quade makes a difference for us," said Reds coach Ewen Mckenzie, who insisted that despite the loss of the influential Wallaby, the team will do okay without him.

"But Quade has played in three games and we've won 11 and we're in the finals. We've had to do a lot of it without Quade, anyway, and we're still there."

The Reds will need to slot either Mike Harris or Ben Lucas into the number ten role, a position they have both occupied earlier in the season when Cooper was injured. 

The Sharks aren't without disappointment themselves, as fullback Pat Lambie will miss the game with an ankle injury, and Springbok center Francois Steyn is ineligible due to being a late in the season recruit, signed by the Sharks after the April 1 transfer deadline. 

View quick highlights of the Reds vs Waratahs match here

Do you think a one week suspension is fair, or was a yellow card sufficient?

Posted By: Grant Constable

21 Comments

  • pretzel
    12:48 AM 22/07/2012

    I think this outcome was fine from the ref side of things but it was no way a ban. This is why I think the white card should be a video referee informational card. Where the referee can ask for a quick tip on the incident... The retrospective bs is nuts.. If the banning bunch deemed this a ban then they deem it as a red card, in which sense the reds would have lost their 10 and COULD have lost the match, so is it fair on the tah's?

  • breakaway
    2:14 AM 20/07/2012

    I agree on teams being punished on the day for a player's foul play and I haven't said that anything should be ignored. If the ref thinks that what he saw deserves red then he should give it no matter who the player is. But if he's not sure it deserves a red then he should take care that he doesn't make a potentially game changing decision which on review looks unnecessary. Refs are only human and it seems to me that the white card is to give the ref a bit of flexibility in such situations. Here, the ref knew it was at least a yellow but suspected he hadn't seen everything so he also gave the white to say it should be reviewed. It's easy to say in hindsight that it should've been a red, but in the real world I reckon the outcome here is ok.

  • pretzel
    3:12 PM 19/07/2012

    The problem is I actually like seeing a team punished for their players bad play. Therefore why should we enforce the individuality of the players in a team game. I just think that the referee should be given the tools to not be forced into giving a unwarranted red card or to NOT giving a red card when it IS warranted. Lets say quade went in, swinging arm to the head after maybe having a tussle with barnes so it was clearly deliberate, but the referee didn't see it properly..would it be fair to ignore it somewhat because Quade is a key player (losing any player is bad, but your 10!!!)... see what I mean??

  • stroudos
    9:34 AM 18/07/2012

    CC - seriously? Yeah, I'd have liked to have seen a bit more concern from Cooper for his international team-mate - always enjoy watching people like the Tuilagis checking if blokes are all right after they've just flattened them - but to suggest he deliberately/maliciously tried to hurt Barnes is way over the top.

  • stroudos
    9:26 AM 18/07/2012

    Wasps used to do the same with Cipriani. I think he defends in flyhalf position now though. A player of Quade Cooper's experience really ought to be able to tackle properly by now.

    You have to admire Ronan O'Gara on this point. Possibly the worst tackler ever to play 10, but despite being steamrollered countless times, I've never seen him shirk responsibility, always gets up, dusts himself off and gets set for his next attempted tackle.

  • pretzel
    2:58 PM 17/07/2012

    I suppose the danger is that the tackle was ON the neck, you say the hit was primarily in the chest, but not solely in the chest.. therefore the rest of the tackle is on the neck/head... Is that acceptable? Can was say 51% on the chest, and 49% on the neck is a fair tackle? Seeing as those stats would say "primarily on the chest", what about 49% on the chest and 51% on the neck, pretty much the same, not much difference between the two but now its primarily on the neck....

    For the record I don't think he should have been banned, however a penalty or yellow card, is fair enough. I don't have an issue with hard "higher up" tackles, but I can draw the line between a higher up tackle and a high tackle...

  • salerugby
    11:38 AM 17/07/2012

    Did anyone not see the SBW high tackle on Cory Jane, went unpunished! Cory Jane gets up straight away Barnes doesnt. Same offence different outcomes just because someone gets hurt the offender gets the ban.

  • eggman
    10:25 AM 17/07/2012

    Oh come on, malicious? Deliberately injuring Barnes? A bit over the top isn't it?

    We don't really know yet how it has affected Barnes, but to be honest, I doubt he'll miss any game time.
    And I don't blame him too much for not publicly saying how sorry he is. He's probably spoken to Barnes and apologies or sorted it out in person and is now focused on the next match (as professionals should be), and is obviously gutted that he can't play in the most important game of the season so far.

    And considering Cooper's tackling technique (or lack of it) I doubt he could deliberatly do a high hit even if he wanted to ;)

  • 4:57 AM 17/07/2012

    Barnes approaches this tackle in what I consider a fairly high body position, the play seemed to be a semi crash ball and most 12's come in a lot lower than that.

    To me, Cooper seems to assess the situation and make a deliberate high tackle with the intention of making contact with the head or neck, if not, well that's incredibly sloppy tackling form. And to be honest, he's a wallaby teammate and I would reckon, is aware of barnes's history, a little maliciousness to this hit perhaps?

    I'll never understand or agree with people who think that any dangerous tackle that could affect someone's health permanently does not merit significant punishment. Did you see Barnes when he walked off the field? is this what we want to see? should players who suffer head injuries have to be concerned they may be targetted or sloppily hit and go unpunished?

    Dangerous play is bigger than the game, it affects people's lives and does no good for the sport of rugby.

    I've got no problem with the punishment.

    And Quade, you could have at least had a quote about your regret in injuring a teammate, instead of being upset with missing a game.

  • jman
    3:51 AM 17/07/2012

    A mis understanding,I did not mean to blame the runner . I just pointed out , that I thought cooper was reading the body movements of his opponent , as he would have wanted to make the hardest or most dramatic of hits .This would have been achieved by catching barnes across the middle chest with his shoulder .
    It was a thin line . Penalty .Done

  • pretzel
    3:43 AM 17/07/2012

    To me the white card just seems totally pointless UNLESS it is used to voice a players complaint (as you said) for instance a player gets up and says "referee I've been gouged/bitten/raped/poked" etc, the referee can say "ah ok, well chances are it may have been missed by the citing commissioner so I'll let him know that you want to have a moan about it"... Therefore narrowing down a particular complaint, or just highlighting it, not saying "well I don't want to take the flak for a shitty decision, so I'll cop out"...

    In my opinion, all the white card has really done is highlight the individual aspect of the game and taken away the team aspect of the game. Last time I checked a red card is pretty embarrassing, but lets face it, if you get one, the hard work is over, you can be first in the shower, not worry about getting dressed on a wet floor, be first in the bar (not quite, but you know what I mean)... the real punishment is on the rest of the team who have to actually play harder to make up for the gap you left... (therefore your ill discipline has damaged your team).

    To everyone else: I'm not suggesting this is worth a red card, I'd say a yellow at most. Those of you saying "a ban is fine because Barnes was injured" Don't be so ridiculous, this was nothing more than a high tackle that caused an injury, I have seen FAR nastier spear tackles/high tackles, that have caused nothing more than the player to go "oooouch" and milk it some...

  • 3:41 AM 17/07/2012

    Thats "citing" boards , sorry

  • heavyhooker
    3:28 AM 17/07/2012

    Where is he ducking into the hit? Barnes catches the ball in a partial crouch with knees bent takes two steps in that position and gets hit. Cooper lined him up wrong and to somehow blame the ball carrier for causing the hit means whenever you catch a ball you have to go in upright and straight. Give me a break and give your head a shake.

  • 2:11 AM 17/07/2012

    Had barnes stood up to take the tackle , cooper would have caught him nicely around the shoulders and doubled him back at the knees . this could have been coopers intention . or maybe he 's just a dick . Honestly its hard to say . Ref called it a pen straight away , he was on the spot . I d like to leave to him . A system where repeat offenders get punished would be welcomed by me , and would remove a lot of guess work by refs and siting boards . Hello rd !

  • guy
    11:59 PM 16/07/2012

    To be honest: I am getting a strong feeling that the white card is actually making referees worse. They will be less eager to issue a red card and they will let the citing commission deal with the matter.

    Actually it is hard to blame them; every time the ref makes a bad call that has a remote influence on the final outcome of the match, they never hear the end of it. A white card in combination with any other colour is not a good thing; referees should be sure of the decisions they make.

    There is one situation though when I think the white card might work. For example in the last 10 minutes of a World Cup Final when a player underneath a pile complains that he is being eye-gouged.

  • pretzel
    11:34 PM 16/07/2012

    I would love some replies to this comment, I want to know what you all think in terms of:

    "who has the more educated opinions?" In reference to this situation, is it the referee or the judicial banning bunch?

    I mean, the referee is the man on the ground, is he just a "soldier" and the banning bunch are the "generals"?

    I mean as a "fan" I see this tackle and think "meh, yellow card will suffice".. or a yellow at most...

    So obviously I think Walsh made a right choice. But a BAN says to me that the player was not correctly punished, i.e it should have been a red...

    Then it's "well the referee has real time, one shot to choose from, so he might make a mistake" but a banning bunch get all shots all angles etc etc etc....

    So in reality all I see is inconsistencies... And again, the white card, what is it really for? Would the citing commissioner NOT look at that incident if a white card had NOT been shown?

  • guy
    11:28 PM 16/07/2012

    The following is part of the verdict in this case. I took it from another website:

    "Mr Cooper's record is unblemished save for a two-week suspension in 2010. He has played Super Rugby for the past six years as well as a significant number of Test matches for Australia during this time.

    "It is also a matter of significance that the SANZAR Rules allow consideration be given to the importance of games to be played during the Super Rugby Finals Series and as such, this has been taken into account as a mitigating circumstance.

    "It follows that Quade Cooper is suspended from all forms of Rugby for one week up to and including the 21st of July 2012."

    Am I the only one that thinks this ruling is arbitrary? A suspension two years ago is a mitigating factor? It wasn't in Haskells case recently... And since when is the importance of the next few matches a mitigating factor? Obviously in the SANZAR rulebook. But I have never heard of such a thing in the IRB rules.

    These things are becoming more and more confusing to me. Any opinions on this subject?

  • willbrowne1
    9:26 PM 16/07/2012

    yellow card yes but suspension obviously not and if you think so your from new zealand

  • sithepie
    5:49 PM 16/07/2012

    I think the ban was justified. Doesn't matter whether the intention is there or not, dangerous is dangerous. Shouldn't go in around the neck like that.

  • thamesrowingclub
    5:07 PM 16/07/2012

    Cooper may be a jerk, but this in no way deserves a suspension. These citing commissions go too far again and again. I wonder how they even work? 5 guys in a room arbitrarily making judgements?

  • eggman
    4:49 PM 16/07/2012

    Definetly high and yellow is deserved.. Not sure about the suspension.. Does anyone know of similar instances and what they got as punishment? Seems a bit harsh to me to also add a suspension but considering the way SANZAR etc. have been treating other "dangerous" tackles I can't say I'm all that surprised..

    I hope the reds can still beat the Sharks despite the absence of Cooper. He's been playing some pretty good rugby in the last two weeks or so. If not it would be pretty embarassing for Australian rugby..

Related Articles