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 25 Jun 2012 | 02:58
USA Eagles have two players red carded in loss to Italy in Houston

51
Comments

Italy defeated the USA Eagles 30-10 in front of an impressive record crowd in Houston over the weekend. Unfortunately for the home side, they lost two players to red cards for dangerous tackles, which had a significant impact on the match.

The BBVA Stadium hosted a crowd of 17 214 fans on Saturday, a record for a single day of rugby in the United States. It was also the first ever meeting of the two sides on US soil.

Italy scored three tries through Carlo Festuccia, Edoardo Gori, and Kris Burton, and led 20-10 at halftime. Paul Emerick scored the USA's only try, but was the second of two players to be red carded by French referee Jerome Garces, for what he deemed to be dangerous tackles.

Andrew Suniula was blown up for a late hit on Riccardo Bocchino early in the second half, and then Emerick received his marching orders for diving into a tackle with little use of the arms.

"I thought the first one was a little harsh," said new USA coach Mike Tolkin of the Suniula tackle.

"The second one, I still haven't seen clearly, so I'll look at that again, but the first one, certainly a late hit, (but) I didn't think it merited a red card."

Eagles scrumhalf Mike Petri said the crowd at the game was incredible.

"The atmosphere was absolutely electric. It was like being overseas. Everybody always talk about how rugby's not really catching on here, and we don't get the crowds and everything else, but tonight it felt like there were definitely 16 people on the field for America."

Ironic comments, considering they ended the game with 13. Todd Clever summed up what some were feeling best however, with his sharp comment to Garcis after the second sending off.

Do you think the red cards were a bit harsh, or fair decisions for such tackles?


Credit: Universal Sports

Posted By: Grant Constable

51 Comments

  • ruggernut
    4:08 PM 29/06/2012

    Fair enough. I suppose they were reckless tackles and were dangerous but I still feel that a red is a harsh decision. But then again I've always been against the red cards and like to see them as little as possible.
    To the letter of the law I can see that these could be red but I feel a yellow card would have been good enough. Maybe even give a yellow and then warn both sides that any more would result in a red.

  • benlewis12
    7:48 PM 28/06/2012

    Poor guys....must have thought they were in the superbowl!

  • pretzel
    1:47 PM 28/06/2012

    Commentators were right though... "It's bad, is it red?"

    Yeh, it was late, bit of a shoulder charge, red card? Certainly not... Stick with the yellow...

  • pretzel
    1:47 PM 28/06/2012

    Commentators were right though... "It's bad, is it red?"

    Yeh, it was late, bit of a shoulder charge, red card? Certainly not... Stick with the yellow...

  • rooster
    10:54 AM 28/06/2012

    Jon

    Just for you. England vs South Africa at Twickenham, 2002. Jannes Labuschagne being sent off for a late hit on Wilkinson.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6J6gVu4l1k

  • 15bettis15
    7:16 PM 27/06/2012

    I think that the ref was right to send both the players off, I am sorry but this is rugby not american football, you can't just fly into tackles like both those stupid yanks did! You have to have a little bit of control when making the hit!

  • pretzel
    4:06 PM 27/06/2012

    I think you might:

    1. Be in the wrong sport
    2. Be watching a different video..

    First tackle apart from being late was fine.. It was chest high and watch both of Suniula's arms, they both "attempt to wrap".. (and as far as I have been told, the player only needs to ATTEMPT to wrap!)

    "On most occassions there is no attemp to recover the ball-just to smash the carrier." - Is there a law in rugby which states that the tackler must attempt to recover the ball? Is there a law in rugby which states that given the opportunity players must NOT smash other players (Houggard v Lima hospital pass incident)...

    This tackle after watching it a few times is only ever a yellow at most.. I did not see anything dangerous about it, OTHER than the fact the ball was long gone and therefore the kicker would be technically unaware of being hit. It was an aggressive hit created through frustration and therefore a "sit down for 10 minutes" would have been a perfect outcome...

    I'm sure we will all agree that no one wants to see players injured, let alone seriously injured, however the nature of the sport is such that injuries can and will occur. There is a very fine line between spoiling the sport and making it comfortably safe. Rock climbing and parachute jumping are not exactly "safe" past times... but should we limit rock climbers to small indoor climbing centre walls with large safety mats underneath? And Parachutists to mere 1 metre jumps? Or would that perhaps cross the line?

    Stamping out foul play (such as extremely late hits such as the first one) is fair enough, I don't believe that instance of foul play was red card worthy personally, but stamping out hard hits because people TRY to hit hard is daft..

  • browner
    2:37 PM 27/06/2012

    It's the impact above the shoulder / throat level that is the issue here ....... accordingly both are definate red

    read the injury facts ..... cause "high tackle" that ended up through the 'neck area'

    we need to erradicate this ....

  • browner
    2:33 PM 27/06/2012

    Ruggernut, IMO you're missing the point . It matters not how many times we see 'similar' things go unpunished .

    The IRB 'deliberately' identified "tackles that start low then end up high" ie, through the face neck area as being dangerous

    Fact 1 Players are becoming more 'pumped/bulky"
    Fact2 More tackles are knocking people out than in the history of RFU

    It was started with the south sea islanders in mid 90's, and it's become a disease that has to stop

    On most occassions there is no attemp to recover the ball-just to smash the carrier.

    We must erradicate this from the game, before players at all levels suffer serious injury.

    Try and look at the bigger picture...i like your posts normally.
    x

  • pretzel
    10:38 AM 27/06/2012

    Nice judgement of the tackles, I'd agree with that.

  • alrear
    8:40 PM 26/06/2012

    I agree with the ref both high and late good call

  • bokskick
    8:07 PM 26/06/2012

    I can see why the first one was a red. It was late, dangerous and had more than a hint of malice in it.

    When you consider that the US were already down a man the second red was perhaps a bit harsh but I've seen far worse calls.

  • pretzel
    7:22 PM 26/06/2012

    I'm not entirely sure if many of these comments are trolling comments, however it has to be said that whilst NH referee's do seem to be producing quite a few cards from time to time, the SH referee's are no angels... The NH appears to be happy to produce a yellow card for certain situations which in retrospect should have just been a penalty at most etc. The SH referee's however appear to yellow card, and white card situations regardless of the severity. I have said in the past, if a player gets a yellow card then there should be NO ban.. and on the flipside if he gets a yellow AND a ban then it SHOULD have been a red card. So my point is, there have been a few instances where SH players have received yellow and white cards, and then received subsequent bans... In other words, they SHOULD have been red carded (at least in the eyes of the law)...

  • pretzel
    5:23 PM 26/06/2012

    Breaks up the monotonous NH v SH comments though I find...

  • will.f
    3:21 PM 26/06/2012

    Pity about the two red cards, though I'm no expert so can't say whether they're too harsh or not.

    What I CAN do is echo the others in this thread who are excited to see the sport growing in the U.S. Love to see international rugby in the States, and I hope the crowds keep getting bigger!

    A win from the Eagles eventually would be nice, too. Baby steps : ).

  • wazza
    1:45 PM 26/06/2012

    BOTH YELLOW!! The first one should be 2-3 week ban the sencond one should be 3-4 weeks ban.

  • 9to15
    1:44 PM 26/06/2012

    Stick to NFL!!! simples!

  • macmurchu
    1:33 PM 26/06/2012

    Any chance we can block this fella no?

  • johndoe
    1:22 PM 26/06/2012

    I guess you could give either a red, technically, as they are bad tackles. I probably wouldn't have given either though. A yellow for each...

    I know intention shouldn't be judged, but I wonder if that had an influence. It looked like both USA players just wanted to nail their opposition, ball or not.

  • johndoe
    1:17 PM 26/06/2012

    Great vids

  • 12:24 PM 26/06/2012

    Yea, I thought that as well! USA rugby, nice!

  • ramrugby10
    12:00 PM 26/06/2012

    From the refs perspective, I think what he was looking for was that the tacklers (in both instances) took JUST A LITTLE off of the hit prior to making it, after they had realized the ball was kicked/passed... Both players obviousely followed through with the tackle, which in and of itself is not that big a deal because they weren't given much time to pull out. But on top of this fact, they (if anything) lowered their shoulder even more and accelerated into the tackle after the ball was already gone. If they had just slowed down a little (still hit their man) but made it look like they were giving even just a slight attempt to withdraw, then it would be a different story, and both could have stayed on the field.

  • philo
    11:34 AM 26/06/2012

    Clearly 2 red cards, no discussion about that, these are the clear rules. But don't worry my US friends, entering the big world games of rugby, you will go through 3 to 4 years of lack of discipline that will cost you various games. France went through this years ago, Italy not so long ago, everyone.

  • ellonbiker
    9:36 AM 26/06/2012

    Quite apart from the argument over whether or not the cards were warranted, my own view was yellow then yellow/red by the way, something has to be done about these guys play acting like footballers.............

  • frico64
    9:32 AM 26/06/2012

    I don't like soccer, I look at rugby, with pleasure, when I see a correct game, with tackle but CORRECT, not intentionally.
    The rules of the games are the same in Southern and Northern emisphere I think......

  • frico64
    9:07 AM 26/06/2012

    For the first , red is the best think that referee can do about a stupid and late tackle....
    For the second, is the same, late tackle with arms.......
    And please, don't do the same obviously comments about Italians, we are so tired of them :(

    Sometimes look at yourself , thank you

  • frenchie
    9:03 AM 26/06/2012

    That's how rednecks tackle I guess...ridiculous 2nd tackle! Seriously what is he doing?
    Yellow for the 1st late tackle, red for the 2nd as being the second late tackle in the game and clearly dangerous (high, late, no wraping).

    Oui oui!

  • nursedude
    7:28 AM 26/06/2012

    I think the Eagles showed a lot of promise in the June Tests.

    I felt both reds were justified. He was a minutes late, and when a guy has just kicked, he really is in a vulnerable position. In the second one, Emmerick(who scored a nice try in the first half) did not wrap up the ball carrier. It might have passed muster in the NFL, but I think in Rugby that was a dangerous hit-and I am saying that as a USA Eagles fan. Under the way the IRB is wanting refs to make the call, the sir really had no choice.

  • rickjamescanada
    7:24 AM 26/06/2012

    The first red was unwarranted, a yellow at worst, even for the late tackle. Reds, in all honesty, should be shown when a dangerous tackle occurs, and yellows for less serious offences.
    The second red- the timing of the tackle wasn't a problem, however Emerick didn't use arms in the tackle, so a yellow should have been shown there.

  • juggernauter
    5:38 AM 26/06/2012

    First one in my opinion was yellow. It was humourosly late but the tackler was commited so you just give him a harsh warn and let the game resume.

    On the second, we all know Paul Emerick is a thug (remember that homicidal spear tackle on Olly Barkley in the 2007 world cup?) and he basically launched himself into the ball carrier. No arms, yellow. Let the game continue.

    Please refs, let us play.

  • breakaway
    5:07 AM 26/06/2012

    In a top level comp pretty much anywhere in the world these hits, in isolation, would both be yellow. If he'd given a yellow for the first and a general warning to both sides, then I wouldn't argue with a red for the second. By giving a red for the first hit the ref left himself nowhere to go for the second one.

  • sydneysubby
    5:06 AM 26/06/2012

    Ignoring the legality of the hit, the Italians were clearly milking these tackles. I'm not saying the hits wouldn't have hurt, but in the first tackle the Italian player behaves as if he is unconscious, despite being hit in the chest. This is typical of Italian rugby players, who have obviously been influenced by their national sport.

  • alwat
    3:22 AM 26/06/2012

    Both yellow. Referees are going over the top & treating rugby like a nanny state. Crazy.

  • 1:49 AM 26/06/2012

    Both hits, they weren't tackles, were done with nothing other than the intent to injure the opponent. The ball was gone, the player was vulnerable, the hit was executed in a no arms fashion in order to ensure as big as impact as possible, the intent was only to hurt. These decisions influence players to consider not doing them in the future, no problem with the red.

    Daggs hit was careless and reckless, these were down with huge ill intent.

  • canafrikaaner
    1:48 AM 26/06/2012

    two yellows and a irb rules book too USA

  • pretzel
    1:20 AM 26/06/2012

    The useless members of this useless site welcome you.

    Hope you enjoy your useless stay with us, you useless asshole.

    Much love,

    Useless me...

  • guy
    12:39 AM 26/06/2012

    Well, actually I do believe this one really IS in pain ... ;-)

  • guy
    11:37 PM 25/06/2012

    Not a big fan of cards myself but the ref has to make a split second decision based on what he can see only once, instead of the multiple replays from different angles we see.

    Would he have made another decision if he did see replays? I don't know and really I don't need to know and in this case I don't even care. Both offences were quite serious and obvious. He had to decide there and then. Besides, the second red is more or less a consequence of the first red because everybody wants referees to be consistent.

  • pocandrog
    11:29 PM 25/06/2012

    Bad sportsmanship by Emerick,you watch all other top class international and club and when a player is carded,they walk off and thats it,meanwhile,Emerick is crying like a call and Clever gets smart with the ref,in the words of Nigel Owens "This is not soccer"..

  • pretzel
    11:10 PM 25/06/2012

    Oh come on, I am in no way condoning the red cards, but to say the first one was penalty only because he was committed is nuts...

    Times gone by in lower leagues with less switched on referee's I used to be wearing the 7 shirt and pull out some of those "late but committed" tackles on the opposition fly half.. I know a deliberate hit when I see one. That was frustration taking its toll... I'd have stuck with nothing or a penalty max if he had been a metre closer but he was miles away, that was definitely a yellow..

  • pinkers
    11:09 PM 25/06/2012

    Don't understand what the debate is in relation to the first tackle, its a very very late (yellow card offence), shoulder charge, (another yellow card offence), more akin to american football and there is a clear intention to hurt. It can only be a red card.

    The second one, I'm not sure about but red or yellow, its on a knife-edge

  • shergar
    10:42 PM 25/06/2012

    with the benefit of hindsight - something a ref doesnt have - the first is a penalty only - he was coming round the corner created by a player and committed - head down before the impact - the Italian made the most of that.

    The second - definately a yellow - he wrapped with one arm and charged with the second - no effort at all to wrap up despite pleas to the contrary - but not any more dangerous than any other shoulder that only gets a yellow!

  • shergar
    10:36 PM 25/06/2012

    ummm italian in a lot of pain...... ;)

  • yaheim
    10:15 PM 25/06/2012

    if you were disciplined, you wouldn't make dick tackles like that.. i'd say red card everyone.. if you are playing professionally obviously you should be fit- and have the right mind to stay focused in the game.. this is why people get injured because of reckless people.. which is typical, because when you're losing a game, you automatically lash out because you're angry, look at ireland.. they got destroyed by the all blacks but none of them were dirty..

  • pretzel
    10:09 PM 25/06/2012

    Actually moddeur said it first, it depends what the previous offences were... If the referee had been throwing around warnings all night then it would make it less shocking... however, those were too appalling decisions in my opinion.

    The first tackle... lets face it, it was bad, I mean there is "oh I was..um..committed..yeah.." and there is just blatantly bullshit late... that was definitely the latter... but is it red card worthy? No... I'd say yellow actually.. I'd justify that because when a player does something as crazy as that he is obviously frustrated and could be deemed to have lost his head.. Give him a ten minute sit down to calm down and to get his head in order.

    The second tackle... He sort of wrapped...penalty only..

  • moddeur
    8:37 PM 25/06/2012

    bis repetita: red cards should be commuted into 30mn exclusions

  • moddeur
    8:35 PM 25/06/2012

    On a side note, great to see the game come to the US! One day Americans will see the light and stop watching that parody of a sport (the one with forward passes).

  • moddeur
    8:34 PM 25/06/2012

    First tackle a bit late and shoulder charge => depending on prior penalties is penalty or yellow (red only if they had been doing that all match long)
    Second tackle is a double elbow charge with no intention of wrapping the arms, yellow (or red if repeated similar tackles)

  • eggman
    8:23 PM 25/06/2012

    Red definately too harsh on the first one.. I think there are some referees who wouldn't have even shown yellow but had only given a penalty.. THough yellow is debatable.

    Second one I think yellow would've done it too, though i guess you could argue for a red, though it's a very harsh call..

  • paimoe
    8:15 PM 25/06/2012

    First was a yellow for being 2 weeks late, yeah.

    Second was probably a red, well, yellow or red, I wouldn't complain about either.

  • ruggernut
    8:11 PM 25/06/2012

    Sorry but those are two shocking decisions by the ref. Both yellow I could understand but the first one, there's nothing wrong with the tackle it's just late. And the second one was hardly dangerous. Late and no arms. We see yellow and nothing more for those which happen fairly often. USA can feel very hard done by with those decisions and can feel very pleased that they only conceded ten points throughout the whole of both red card periods.

Related Articles