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

Fri 22 Apr 2016 | 10:55
Willie le Roux survives horror landing as Jason Emery sees red

20
Comments

Sharks fullback Willie le Roux was extremely fortunate to come away unscathed from a challenge that saw him land terribly, as the Sharks edged the Highlanders 15-14 in Dunedin today. Jason Emery took the Springbok out in the air, so was shown a red card.

Emery has since been cited for contravening Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous Tackling - Tackling a player who's feet are off the ground.

Emery was never in a position to make a catch but instead took Le Roux's legs out, creating a dangerous situation. While it clearly wasn't malicious, it was reckless and the way Le Roux landed is exactly why these types of challenges are heavily policed nowadays.

After consultation with the TMO, and despite the opinion of the man in the booth, referee Ben O'Keefe made the decision to award a deserved red card.

Emery tweeted Le Roux post match, showing the respect and good nature between the sides.

A SANZAAR statement with details of the next steps has just been released, so Emery will face a mandatory disciplinary hearing following the sending off.

Le Roux left the field for a concussion test but returned after getting the all clear.

UPDATE: Jason Emery has now been suspended for 4 weeks. Full details here

Posted By: Grant Constable

20 Comments

  • jimmy23
    10:15 PM 25/04/2016

    Err, maybe because he WAS fixated on the ball until the 0.3 milliseconds he spent looking forward before hitting LR? It was reckless but saying it was on purpose is ridiculous.

    It's a high pressure, fast paced contact sport. It doesn't matter how many rules there are these things are unfortunately going to happen, the best we can do is try to limit how often it actually happens. I fail to see why LR should be criticised for choosing to accept an apology.

  • drg
    3:11 PM 25/04/2016

    Fortunately he kneed himself in the face... I guess that's what stopped him biting a chunk out of his own arse....

  • rugbydump
    1:23 PM 25/04/2016

    UPDATE: Emery has been suspended for 4 weeks. Details here

  • katman
    8:09 AM 25/04/2016

    That's the worst fall I've seen in ages - the weight of his legs and lower torso continuing in a direction that his pretzelled neck couldn't accommodate. I cringe every time I see it. Thankfully he's okay. The suppleness of his body as he hit the ground probably saved him. If that were me I'd be in a wheelchair. Mind you, if that were me I'd only get about two feet off the ground, so I guess it's a moot point.

  • heavyhooker
    1:30 PM 23/04/2016

    Browner, I agree. Emery was not positioned at all.

  • browner
    12:09 PM 23/04/2016

    This subject is all about judgement & timing it's not a sufficient defence to merely claim you are looking at the ball. Players know when they are in with a chance of genuinely competing for the ball, invariably they have their hands up seeking to catch the ball , and Emery was nowhere near that benchmark - this case is exactly the kind that the Lawmakers sought to outlaw,

    Finn Russell v Dan Biggar was the forerunner of the how timing is key. Emery's very very lucky that he doesn't have a McKinnon style injury on his conscience forever.

  • drg
    10:38 AM 23/04/2016

    "It seems more and more we have players just randomly running around the field crunching people with very little skill involved."

    ....said the heavy hooker......

  • heavyhooker
    4:18 AM 23/04/2016

    The way I am looking at this is that Emery had no chance of making the jump to catch the ball with the track he was making. I am not sure the player, but I believe #14 coming in from the top of the original view, is on more of an angle that would have had more of a chance of making a jump play. Emery was simply charging for what ever reason at the LR. Yes, he did "jump" but he was in no position to actually make any real play for the ball; no head turn, body twist - nothing. This is the same thing that happen on a RD post a couple of weeks ago. I say this is a classic reckless play by Emery and I would really like to know what he was thinking.

    It seems more and more we have players just randomly running around the field crunching people with very little skill involved.

  • drg
    10:40 PM 22/04/2016

    Fixated on where the ball will be as he receives it, perhaps is a better way of looking at it, rather than staring up into the heavens...

  • drg
    10:39 PM 22/04/2016

    To you all, Emery did jump. Flanker2712 spotted it. As said below, he just didn't jump as quick as Le Roux, nor as high... So simply two players competing for the ball, one with no chance, as the other already had the ball.

    In actual fact IM, I'm not missing the point, a safe game is to only allow the defender to jump, not the attacker, that way there is no competition for high ball, unless it's not jumped for.

    And Dan Carter, "If he collides with anyone else in the air in a genuine attempt to win the ball then that is unfortunate but legal" that is simply not the case - unfortunately I cannot state references, other than remembering some ridiculous cards being shown to players who were clearly competing for the ball. I believe these were in the 6N comp last year.

  • 7:36 PM 22/04/2016

    how can anyone say he, Emery, was fixated on the ball? He's not even looking up when he hits LR! He knew exactly what would be the result. As for LR's tweet. irrelevant. He's just lucky he's not quadraplegic and can still type. That [limited] mentality of 'it's all part of the game mate, she's right!' is why the players don't make the rules....

  • flanker2712
    7:12 PM 22/04/2016

    Emery did jump.

    He just jumped after Le Roux did and didn't get as high as Le Roux.

    So we need players to practise synchronised jumping.

  • jonnyenglish
    6:15 PM 22/04/2016

    I'm not sure automaticity is a word but I like it!

  • eddie-g
    4:52 PM 22/04/2016

    Hi Dr! Happy Friday! I think law-makers have come down where they have because they've decided there's only one correct answer to the question you posed...

    ""you can't just fixate on the ball and charge"... why not?" Because it is highly probable that there will be a defender in the air challenging for the ball.

    Now, clearly, the other way of removing danger from these situations would be to rule that defenders can't jump for the ball. But that seems absurd to me, at odds with the laws of physics, and basically unrefereeable in practice (how can you tell if someone has never left the ground?).

    I do think there's a debate to be had over the automaticity of a red card, but I don't think the emphasis of the rule is wrong. If you're chasing, it's your responsibility to know if a defender is in the vicinity. That has to be right. It's not the defenders' responsibility to stay on the ground just because some other guys might be running into the same area.

  • rugbydump
    4:43 PM 22/04/2016

    Well spotted. Added it to the post, cheers.
    Awesome reaction by both of them, and by the teams to not kick off, as someone else suggested.

  • dancarter
    4:43 PM 22/04/2016

    Not really the point. Willie Le Roux is already in the air. If he collides with anyone else in the air in a genuine attempt to win the ball then that is unfortunate but legal. Emery charging in like a headless chicken is careless and I think he has to consider that there is likely to be a player in the air who he might make contact with. Malicious? No. Reckless? Yes.

  • drg
    4:13 PM 22/04/2016

    This looked 100% accidental, but it was a horrendous landing.

    I have to say though, I disagree with all those who state Emery should have pulled out - here is why:

    Emery was fixated on the ball, he'd have steamed onto that and taken it had Le Roux not been there. Then of course the argument, "you can't just fixate on the ball and charge"... why not? is that not what Le Roux did? Fixated on the ball and put himself into a vulnerable position as well as potentially putting himself in a position to cause serious injury to Emery, contact with Emery's head was seen.

    Please note, I'm not stating I'm either for or against the red card, however the arguments put forward are flawed. Advantage in most parts of the game are given to the attacking team. Emery was on the attacking team, he was chasing a high ball, the defender put HIMSELF into a vulnerable position, yet there is zero recognition for this fact. I'd hate to see any injury as a result of this sort of thing, and I think it's important players learn to watch their surroundings, but to simply say Emery cannot do something like focus on the ball, is completely farcical when it's exactly what Le Roux did....

    Here we go.... What IF... (rolls eyes) Emery jumped, made contact with Le Roux JUST as Le Roux caught the ball and they BOTH landed as Le Roux did.... Do we still focus on the fact that Le Roux came away with the ball therefore Emery should be carded and NOT Le Roux? I think there are far too many clear lines being drawn on an extremely grey area. Unless of course we hop into the realms of that free catch bollocks that was trialled....

  • eddie-g
    3:19 PM 22/04/2016

    On point 3, the law doesn't give refs discretion. A defender recklessly or intentionally taking out a defender in the air is an automatic red card offence. I think there's an argument for giving the refs discretion to hand out yellow or red, but that's not what the law allows today.

  • eddie-g
    3:15 PM 22/04/2016

    Obviously very good news is that Willie le Roux is ok.

    The key talking point, however, has to be that the TMO here did not know the rules. The ref got the decision right, but only after over-ruling the TMO that the intent of Emery was irrelevant.

    Kind of extraordinary... I mean, these incidents have been in the headlines for a while, and pretty much everyone now knows that the chasing players are responsible for ensuring they don't take out a defender in the air. Recklessly or intentionally, doesn't matter, it's a red card offence. That's the law today - and given these are exactly the types of incidents that are referred to the TMOs, they really should know what the law is.

  • 1:54 PM 22/04/2016

    Oh my goodness! Each time I see him land, it gets worse and worse. Very, very lucky boy is Le Roux. Agree that it has to be a straight red. Very easy for me to say from behind a computer screen but Emery just didn't seem to want to slow down/change direction. Maybe it's the famous case of slow motion thinking and he still thought he had a chance of getting the ball, but in reality he was absolutely nowhere near it.

Related Articles