DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64780--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: Cookie
Date: April 28, 2021, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Cookie link ---
>
> He's been charged with striking with the elbow, contrary to
World Rugby Law 9.12. Low-end is 2 weeks, but it was to the
head, so mid-range is 6 weeks. He won't get the 50% mitigation
as it's his 2nd red, but he might get one week off for pleading
guilty. He's could try to claim it wasn't red - very unlikely
he'd get off, but only risk is the one week for pleading guilty.
>
> Sensible action is probably to plead guilty, which SHOULD mean
a 5 week ban and he's back for a play-off semi-final if we make
it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Forgot Aggravation (repeat offender). That adds a week. So I
expect it'll be 6 weeks and he'll miss any semi-final.
#Post#: 64785--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: flapjack
Date: April 28, 2021, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks like 6 week ban.
#Post#: 64786--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: ojwh
Date: April 28, 2021, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
6 weeks just confirmed - cannot say i am surprised
#Post#: 64788--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: Banstead Quin
Date: April 28, 2021, 7:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HARLEQUINS CENTRE ANDRE ESTERHUIZEN HANDED SIX-WEEK SUSPENSION
Esterhuizen appeared before an online independent disciplinary
panel last night (Tuesday 27 April 2021).
Esterhuizen was shown a red card by referee Matthew Carley in
the 48th minute of the match between London Irish and Harlequins
on Saturday 24 April 2021. This was for striking with the elbow,
contrary to World Rugby Law 9.12. He contested the charge but it
was upheld by the independent disciplinary panel comprising
Jeremy Summers (chair) with Rob Vickerman and Becky Essex who
gave the player a six-week suspension.
#Post#: 64789--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: WildQuin
Date: April 28, 2021, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Six weeks...
The result of the hearing has just appeared on the RFU
Disciplinary Panel website. Misses the rest of the regular
season and one other game.
Link to full report -
HTML https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/9d/9d87620e-4f82-423e-9b4d-1de7bbbd0909/EsterhuizenHarlequinsJudgmentApr21(final).pdf
And Summary Infographic -
HTML https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/ff/ff1b0925-38dc-4a64-a6a5-c01bcdc16cba/Adriaan%20Esterhuizen%20-%20Apr21.jpg
#Post#: 64790--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: quins4life
Date: April 28, 2021, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What a joke. The top English ref in the country said it was only
a yellow card. Ridiculous decision to ban him for 6 weeks
#Post#: 64792--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: WildQuin
Date: April 28, 2021, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Had a chance to read the judgment now... not sure I'd be rushing
to employ Graham Bowerbank as my legal representation!
Summary of Players Representation
The Player gave evidence. He said he had walked over to assist a
team mate involved in the scuffle. LI13 had then "had a go". He
had tried to pull LI13 off and they had both grabbed jerseys. He
had given LI13 a small push and then another push. He had not
intended to strike LI13 and it was just a push. Contact had been
low level and had been with the forearm not the elbow. He
further asserted that his arm had been raised because LI13 had
raised his arm under him.
Mr Hetherington rejected that submission, asserting that the
incident was clearly a strike and noting the footage at 01:14;
01:32; 02:06 and 03:03. LI13 had not raised his arm as alleged
by the Player and the Referee had been correct to send him off.
Mr Bowerbank played an audio recording, which he stated had been
volunteered by, and not sought from, LI13. This indicated that
contact had been to his body not his face and that he "was here
to help".
LI13 was not however called to give direct evidence.
Mr Bowerbank also suggested that the Player's arm had not come
up on its own. He noted the force and movement in the incident
and asserted that the Player's movement was the result of
"natural science". He further suggested that the Player had been
in a vulnerable position and had been trying to protect himself.
If he had wanted to hurt LI13 he would have followed through
which he had not. The Referee had been in error, and they would
even have thought a yellow card to have been harsh.
Mr Bowerbank also sought to place reliance on a number of clips
of other incidents that he felt were similar and helped provide
"context".
Mr Bowerbank further submitted that the World Rugby Head Contact
Process ('HCP') was relevant to the offending, and in doing so
he sought to place reliance on an an older version of the HCP.
In his submission there was a low force used and therefore a low
degree of danger.
Finding of the Facts
The Panel carefully considered all the evidence and submissions.
This is necessarily a summary of the hearing and the fact that a
particular piece of evidence or submission is not expressly
referred to shouldn't be read as indicating that it was not duly
considered.
The Panel made the following unanimous findings:
1. The Player struck LI13 with his right forearm.
2. That act had been an intentional action. The Panel rejected
the Player's submissions that his action had been caused by the
LI13 bringing up his arm and/or the effect of "natural science".
3. Contact had been made with LI13's face with sufficient force
to propel his head backwards in something of a whiplash effect,
although no injury was sustained.
4. There was no evidence adduced that caused the Panel to
consider that the Referee had been wrong, and the Player had not
discharged his burden of showing that he had been wrong. The
Panel noted that the Player had elected not to ask the Referee
to give evidence and be challenged.
5. In the view of the Panel, the Referee had in any event been
correct in issuing the Red Card.
6. The audio recording from L113 was afforded limited weight,
having regard to the decision not to call him to give direct
evidence. Further, the audio recording was inconsistent with the
footage and the reaction of LI13 immediately after the incident
as recored by Mr McConnell.
7. The clips of other incidents were again of limited assistance
to the Panel and disregarded when reaching its decision.
8. The HCP was not relevant in relation to the offence of
striking. Even had it been, the version relied upon by Mr
Bowerbank would not have assisted the Player. Direct contact is
a factor indicating a high degree of danger and intentional
conduct acts so as to preclude the possibility of mitigation
being applied.
#Post#: 64793--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: Stoopendous
Date: April 28, 2021, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why contest it when the evidence is there for all to see? Sure
there would have been mitigation for abject grovel and
apologies. Goes against the grain I know but this seems to be
the only way to minimise ban-length. Have still less respect
for Carley now - doesn't seem to have any empathy/sense.
#Post#: 64794--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: Liverpoolquin
Date: April 28, 2021, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don’t understand why Esterhuizen and Quins didn’t just plead
guilty and apologised. Could have reduced the ban by 1/2 weeks.
Who ever is picked at 12 is really going to have to step up, our
attack is been pretty reliant on big carries from Ester to set
up the next phases of play.
#Post#: 64795--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: WildQuin
Date: April 28, 2021, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And for completeness, What The Ref Saw
Summary of Essential Elements of Citing/Referee/s Report/Footage
The Referree (sic) (Matthew Carley) detailed the incident as
follows:
"Following a long sequence of attack from London Irish, which
began in their own half and made it way to the Harlequins line,
we stopped play due to a fracas between a small group of players
from both sides which was taking place off the ball in the
in-goal area. This lead to alot (sic) of players from both sides
joining in and continued for a prolonged period of time.
Once players had separated, I discussed with my assistant and we
decided to review the whole incident with the TMO to firstly see
what had instigated the incident and to see if there was any
serious foul play. On review it was clear to us that Harlequins
4 had been holding Irish 7 on the floor off the ball, who was
then pulled away by Irish 6 into in goal which caused the issue.
But then when players ran in the actions of Mr Esterhuizen came
to my attention and following several replays we thought it was
clear whilst grappling with Irish 13 that he had lifted his
elbow and struck Irish 13 in the face with it and we issued him
with a red card."
The incident occurred in the 8th minute of the second half of
what was reported to have been a niggly game. The score at the
time was 9-15.
An email (24/4/21) from Simon McConnell, AR2 and positioned
close to the incident stated:
"In terms of the red card incident. I was in very close
proximity - arms length. I saw the two players on their feet
grabbing hold of each other, Rona of Irish and Esterhuizen of
Quins. I saw Esterhuizen appear to shove Rona with his right arm
but was unsure if he had made contact. Rona said to me“did you
see that“ and gesticulated that contact had been made with his
face.
I asked Matt to review what started the whole melee which
started with 2 players grappling in the
in goal area. In the review I was particularly keen on the
replays of the Rona / Esterhuizen
confrontation and Esterhuizen’s actions. It was in this review
that I made Matt aware of the actions of Esterhuizen and we
searched for best angles to determine the sanction."
The footage was reviewed and the parties referred to particular
incidents on the timer to support their respective positions.
The footage showed a both players grappling during which the
Player's right forearm made a single contact with the face of
LI13. At the point of contact LI13, is standing in a near
upright position and his head his seen to move backwards
following the contact.
The Referee was available to give evidence. Mr Bowerbank
confirmed that he was aware that the burden of proof rested on
the Player to show that the Referee had been wrong to issue a
Red Card, but indicated that he did not require the Referee to
give evidence.
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 11
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page