Fritz fined and banned after red card

[TRF_Cymro]

Toulouse centre Florian Fritz has been banned for three weeks and fined â'¬15,000 by a European Rugby Cup disciplinary hearing in Dublin.

The 27-year-old France international was called before the panel after being sent off in the French giants' Heineken Cup defeat by Wasps on January 23.

Fritz was dismissed by referee Alain Rolland for a dangerous tackle early in the second-half which saw him lift Wasps wing Tom Varndell before driving him into the ground.

Fritz also faced a misconduct charge after making a gesture towards the home support as he left the field. He contested the dangerous tackle, but admitted making the gesture.

An ERC statement read: "After hearing submissions from both parties and considering all the evidence, the independent judicial officer, Robert Williams (Wales), upheld the red card.

"Mr Williams determined that the tackle had been reckless rather than intentional and he noted that Mr Varndell had suffered no injury.

Williams found that the offence was in the lower end of the level of seriousness for one of this type.

"Having taken into account all aggravating factors, including the need to deter other players from tackles of this nature, and all mitigating factors, including Mr Fritz's good conduct at the hearing, he imposed a suspension of three weeks. Mr Fritz will be free to play on Monday, 14 February 2011.

"The independent Judicial Officer also upheld the misconduct complaint against the player, who apologised for the offensive hand gesture, and fined him â'¬15,000 plus costs."

http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2010-11/rugby/story/134050.html​

 

[monkeypigeon]

http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2010-11/rugby/story/134050.html​

I don't know how much he's earning but I know it's not soccer player money so 15,000 looks like a big number. He doesn't have a record or anything does he?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

They should also fine Ben Youngs for swearing at the Scarlets crowd too, then

 

[smartcooky]

"Having taken into account all aggravating factors, including the need to deter other players from tackles of this nature, and all mitigating factors, including Mr Fritz's good conduct at the hearing, he imposed a suspension of three weeks. Mr Fritz will be free to play on Monday, 14 February 2011."

Highlighted is the important part of the wording.

Players will continue to be

and suspended until they get it into their mentality to stop doing it.

 

[Charles]

Highlighted is the important part of the wording.

Players will continue to be

and suspended until they get it into their mentality to stop doing it.

Unless they're French, that is.

I'll get my coat...

 

[gingergenius]

they shouldn't have to stop doing it, there's nothing dangerous about a good old fashioned dump tackle, which is what fritz did.

 

[smartcooky]

they shouldn't have to stop doing it, there's nothing dangerous about a good old fashioned dump tackle, which is what fritz did.

Let me make this clear to you and anyone who thinks there was nothing wrong with Fritz's tackle on Varndell.

The ONLY reason that Vardell's head didn't hit the ground first was because HE was able to protect himself by getting his arm down first. This had nothing to do with any thing that Fritz might have done to protect him.

The iRB's spear tackle memo to referees is clear. If a player lifts his opponent off his feet, and turns him beyond horizontal, then HE ALONE is responsible for what happens to that player. The lifted player's safety becomes his sole responsibility.

► if his feet slip and he loses control of the player, this is not a mitigating factor.
► if he is bumped by an opponent or a teammate causing him to lose control, this is not a mitigating factor
► if the lifted player simply slips from his grasp, this is not a mitigating factor

THERE ARE NO EXCUSES!!

I will promise you two things

1. If, God forbid, one of your "so called" dump tackles goes wrong, and the lifted player ends up with career ending injuries or worse, then the tackler WILL receive a life ban.

2. If players persist in executing these types of tackles, and it become clear to the iRB that the message is not getting through, they WILL make lifting the ball carrier off the ground illegal, and probably a yellow card offence too.

The iRB means to stamp this practice out of the game, and stamp it out they will, no matter what it takes.

 

[gingergenius]

Let me make this clear to you and anyone who thinks there was nothing wrong with Fritz's tackle on Varndell.

The ONLY reason that Vardell's head didn't hit the ground first was because HE was able to protect himself by getting his arm down first. This had nothing to do with any thing that Fritz might have done to protect him.

The iRB's spear tackle memo to referees is clear. If a player lifts his opponent off his feet, and turns him beyond horizontal, then HE ALONE is responsible for what happens to that player. The lifted player's safety becomes his sole responsibility.

► if his feet slip and he loses control of the player, this is not a mitigating factor.
► if he is bumped by an opponent or a teammate causing him to lose control, this is not a mitigating factor
► if the lifted player simply slips from his grasp, this is not a mitigating factor

THERE ARE NO EXCUSES!!

I will promise you two things

1. If, God forbid, one of your "so called" dump tackles goes wrong, and the lifted player ends up with career ending injuries or worse, then the tackler WILL receive a life ban.

2. If players persist in executing these types of tackles, and it become clear to the iRB that the message is not getting through, they WILL make lifting the ball carrier off the ground illegal, and probably a yellow card offence too.

The iRB means to stamp this practice out of the game, and stamp it out they will, no matter what it takes.

Using capital letters and paraphrasing the iRB's memos doesn't make a case for changing a part of the game that is not particularly dangerous.

Spear tackles, like Dallaglio on Lynagh, Umaga on BOD, Emerick on Barkley etc. are dangerous, and obviously citing is there to punish perpetrators, and has been since the BOD incident. Other tackles, like Henson on Tait, Fritz on Varndell or countless others that happen in every single match and don't cause injury, are a part of a contact sport.

 

[Teh Mite]

Injury or intent shouldn't factor in: If someone accidentally or intentionally breaks another mans neck, the moot point is the guy still has a broken neck. That's why the laws are in place so all the players have a care of duty to the other 29 blokes out there.

Fritz may have been unlucky/accidental/whatever, but he still picked him up and drove him into the ground. That could have caused an injury therefore he need to be punished and to serve as a reminder to other players that sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

It's still a farce (for example) when the idiots defend the stuff Harry Ellis used to get up to (case points being Carters injury at USAP and the infamous "sharge through the knee" when playing for the Saxons).

Wreckless play is just as bad as malicious intent.

 

[smartcooky]

Using capital letters and paraphrasing the iRB's memos doesn't make a case for changing a part of the game that is not particularly dangerous.

The statistics disagree with you. I get quite a bit of information from the iRB and the NZRU (still on their mailing lists from when I was refereeing). Most of it is fish & chip paper, but occasionally, I get some really good stuff. One of the more recent ones I felt was worth a read was a study of rugby injuries, particularly spinal cord and trends within the game that lead to them. The source for the study was a paper in the British Medical Journal

Between 1976 and 2000, scrums accounted for 63% of all spinal cord injuries, and tackles accounted for 36% (the remaining 1% spread among rucks, mauls lineouts and other causes. This ratio remained relatively steady throughout that period.

Between 2001 and 2005 this changes dramatically, so that over that period, the proportion of spinal cord injuries cause by scrums drops to only 12%, while those from tackles rise to a staggering 87%!!.

Now while this seems dramatic, part of the increase in the proportion of tackle spinal injuries can be accounted for by the scrum having been made very much safer. The advent of using STE (suitably trained and experienced) front row players, as well as Laws making scrums uncontested if any front row player is not STE, has seen a sharp fall in scrum spine injuries, but this does not account for all of increase in the percentage of tackle spine injuries.

The actual numbers of spinal cord injuries from tackles remained relatively consistent from 2001 to 2005, but after that it rises dramatically, and the most telling statistic is that of all the spinal injuries recorded as a result of tackles, virtually all of the increase is down to tackles in which the victim was inverted. OF all the spinal injuries caused in the tackle, the lift and invert tackle accouints for over 65%. Two out of every three. Its not hard to see why the iRB and other powers that be want to see inverted tackles of any kind removed from the game.... 65% of 87% = 56.5%. Removing the inverted tackle will eliminate over half of all spinal cord injuries from the game!

Now the mentality that "Varndell wasn't injured so there was nothing wrong with the tackle" is utterly wrong. Its like driving a car full of mates when you're ******, crashing the car and (luckily) not injuring any of them, then claiming that its all OK because no one was hurt (this time)!

Bullet's point is a valid one... the issue is not "was Varndell injured?", its "could he have been injured and how seriously?'.

Personally, I cannot recall ever seeing a player lifted, let alone lifted and turned over when I was a playing or a refereeing. This pick up and dump tackle is a very recent thing. I doubt you will find any Rugby Union matches before 2004 that have players being lifted and inverted.

 

[Charles]

I personally think the wording is bad. I has nothing to do with taking the player off his feet. The problem is if ou twist the player in the air and get his legs above his head/torso.

There is nothing wrong with this tackle although the player was off his feet. Notice how the tackler carried the player safely to the ground.

Smartcooky: agreed on the recent thing. Nobody used to do this twist thing before. I don't really get the point because honestly the kind of tackle above is much more punishing, and within the rues.

 

[elgringoborracho]

Using capital letters and paraphrasing the iRB's memos doesn't make a case for changing a part of the game that is not particularly dangerous.

Spear tackles, like Dallaglio on Lynagh, Umaga on BOD, Emerick on Barkley etc. are dangerous, and obviously citing is there to punish perpetrators, and has been since the BOD incident. Other tackles, like Henson on Tait, Fritz on Varndell or countless others that happen in every single match and don't cause injury, are a part of a contact sport.

FINALLY
Where were you when they were going all Torquemada on me?

 

[gingergenius]

The statistics disagree with you. I get quite a bit of information from the iRB and the NZRU (still on their mailing lists from when I was refereeing). Most of it is fish & chip paper, but occasionally, I get some really good stuff. One of the more recent ones I felt was worth a read was a study of rugby injuries, particularly spinal cord and trends within the game that lead to them. The source for the study was a paper in the British Medical Journal

Between 1976 and 2000, scrums accounted for 63% of all spinal cord injuries, and tackles accounted for 36% (the remaining 1% spread among rucks, mauls lineouts and other causes. This ratio remained relatively steady throughout that period.

Between 2001 and 2005 this changes dramatically, so that over that period, the proportion of spinal cord injuries cause by scrums drops to only 12%, while those from tackles rise to a staggering 87%!!.

Now while this seems dramatic, part of the increase in the proportion of tackle spinal injuries can be accounted for by the scrum having been made very much safer. The advent of using STE (suitably trained and experienced) front row players, as well as Laws making scrums uncontested if any front row player is not STE, has seen a sharp fall in scrum spine injuries, but this does not account for all of increase in the percentage of tackle spine injuries.

The actual numbers of spinal cord injuries from tackles remained relatively consistent from 2001 to 2005, but after that it rises dramatically, and the most telling statistic is that of all the spinal injuries recorded as a result of tackles, virtually all of the increase is down to tackles in which the victim was inverted. OF all the spinal injuries caused in the tackle, the lift and invert tackle accouints for over 65%. Two out of every three. Its not hard to see why the iRB and other powers that be want to see inverted tackles of any kind removed from the game.... 65% of 87% = 56.5%. Removing the inverted tackle will eliminate over half of all spinal cord injuries from the game!

Now the mentality that "Varndell wasn't injured so there was nothing wrong with the tackle" is utterly wrong. Its like driving a car full of mates when you're ******, crashing the car and (luckily) not injuring any of them, then claiming that its all OK because no one was hurt (this time)!

Bullet's point is a valid one... the issue is not "was Varndell injured?", its "could he have been injured and how seriously?'.

Personally, I cannot recall ever seeing a player lifted, let alone lifted and turned over when I was a playing or a refereeing. This pick up and dump tackle is a very recent thing. I doubt you will find any Rugby Union matches before 2004 that have players being lifted and inverted.

I remember sitting at Loftus Road in the late 90s infuriated as Lawrence Dallaglio (Wasps) picked up Michael Lynagh (Saracens) and drove his shoulder vertically into the ground, dislocating it. Besides that, I remember doing dump tackles myself at U12 level - thats 01/02. Of course it was around. And while your stats do back up your point well, you might also consider that the rise in tackle injuries corresponds to the rise of the Haskell/ Powell gym monkey breed, where collisions are much more forceful nowadays.

Furthermore, 'lift and invert'. When we are tackled 'legally', we will always land on our legs, arse, side, front, or back, with our arms often breaking the fall. The force of the hit itself is unlimited, provided that the tackles does not go high and uses his arms. If you look at a 'legal' tackle, like that of Chabal on Masoe a few years ago, you'll see Masoe smashed back an land on his back. If you look at Fritz' tackle, Varndell also lands on his back, most likely with less force on it comparitively. You also see Fritz is in control of the tackle, and there's another Toulousain involved as well.

To me, the word 'invert' implies that the tackled player is falling to the ground more vertically than horizontally. And a basic knowledge of biology & physics would tell you that vertical force on the spine, neck and shoulder is less spread out, and therefore more acute, than horizontal force spread across the entire back. Which is where I draw a distinction - yes, when a player is inverted, that is obviously going to cause the damage your stats imply. But I cannot see how this applies to a dump tackle, where the player lands on his back the same way as if he was tackled legally.

It's at this point where I say we have a physical sport, and when you've got 100+kgs men running into each other at speed, injuries are inevitable. Even at the level I play, and on the wing, I'll always come off the pitch with at least a bruise or two, cuts & studmarks. And having done many a dump tackle in my time, I know quite well that they're controllable. Every player I've ever dump-tackled has landed on his side or on his back. So back to the issue 'could Varndell have been injured?' Of course he could. He was playing pro rugby. Could that tackle have injured him? Not unless his back was made of glass.

Take a look at the most recent video on rugbydump - there's a tackle with an inverted player who could well have been badly injured, and a worthy red card.

 

[smartcooky]

gingergenius

The result of the tackle is not what is important, its the potential for injury that is the real issue. You seem to think that if any particular "tip" tackle results in the same result as a "dump" tackle, then that makes the tackle ok... it does not! Its no different to tackling a player high, late, early or without arms, and claiming that everything is just fine because the victim wasn't hurt. These tackles are illegal because of the potential for injury, and so it is with the tip tackle.

There is nothing wrong with with the tackle in the video posted by Charles. The tackler hits the ball carrier hard and knocks him off his feet. This is completely different from what Fritz did... he lifted Varndell up, turned him over so that his hips were above hips head, and drove him downwards. THE ONLY reason that Varndell's head didn't hit the ground head first was because of the defensive actions that Varndell took himself. Its was the fact that Fritz put Varndell in a dangerous position, then did noting to help him, is what he got the red card and the suspension.

If you cannot see the difference between the tackles on Varndell and Jantjes in Charles' video, then you are failing to understand the concepts involved.

 

[gingergenius]

we'll have to agree to disagree mate.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Surely there's a potential for injury in every tackle? Just look at Chabal's hit on Masoe or any scrum that goes down. If we were to ban everything that risked injury we might as well just give up rugby entirely?

 

[lucky number 7]

Charles video is sublime ..text book tackle.
Being a bit of tackling fan I find that legal tackles where a player feet are taken off the ground through Impact of the hit , subsequent leg drive or a lift after initial hit are being pinged as "dangerous" a player driven down onto the flat of his back is not dangerous provided its not a Bull elephant landing on him ..Yes they hurt but I have never seen someone terribly Injured from one..this twist thing is when tackler want to get the "big hit" on a static player as they pick one leg and try lever the guy up then down and as a result **boing on head or shoulder** which I think is pretty cowardly as the players are generally standing or have been tied up by another defender preventing upped body movement.

the twist tackles are bad - definitely worthy of cards and ban ...dump tackles.. perfectly fine , I play rugby for the contact.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Surely the real problem is the twist tackles?

 

[smartcooky]

Regardless of what anyone thinks about it, the facts are that, whether we agree or not, the iRB intends to remove this type of tackle from the game. This doesn't mean tacklers aren't allowed to execeute a "real" dump tackle, that is, KNOCKING an opponent off this feet to put him on his back (provided they wrap arms of course); its just that you cannot LIFT him off his feet and risk losing control by turning him over. Yes, rugby is a contact sport, and injuries will happen, but there is no reason why we need to continue with practices that carry a proven high risk of serious, or even life-threatening injury. Tip tackles have been identified, through the most vigorous research conducted over several years, to be the major culprit in spinal cord injuries. This is not some knee-jerk reaction by the iRB.

They will remove this from the game the same way they did with rucking. It used to be that if a player fell on your side of the ball in a ruck, whether deliberately or by accident, then he could expect a goodly number of freely applied stud marks to his body. The referees and indeed the Laws of the game allowed it. Not any more. The Law makers have effectively removed "rucking" (as we knew it) from the game, and they did so by degrees over a number of years. When was the last time anyone saw the "cheatin' *******" killing the ball at the bottom of a ruck, getting a good old fashioned shoeing from the opposing loosies?

One last thing to think about. Most rugby observers, players and referees agree that tackling a player in the air is dangerous, and needs to be a penalty. So why then do many of those same people think its OK to lift the ball carrier into exactly the same position they would be in if you tackled them just after the have caught the ball and their feet are well off the ground?

 

[lucky number 7]

One last thing to think about. Most rugby observers, players and referees agree that tackling a player in the air is dangerous, and needs to be a penalty. So why then do many of those same people think its OK to lift the ball carrier into exactly the same position they would be in if you tackled them just after the have caught the ball and their feet are well off the ground?

Its the pricnicple that th player in the air had no chance to brace or stabalize themselves for the hit. in the air if a guy takes a hit in the legs he is going to flip and land head first or at least upper body first . the only way the tackled players legs are giong to come up when they are on the ground if from big hit to gut that drives them up or the leg being lifted from the lift of hit they will not land head first its only a twist that will cause a spear.