Waratahs' Lachlan Swinton cops heavy ban for 'reckless' foul play
Wallabies international Lachlan Swinton has copped a heavy ban for last Saturday’s cited Super Rugby Pacific tackle for the Waratahs. The 26-year-old back-rower clashed with Jake Strachan in the opening 30 seconds of the Sydney franchise’s 36-16 win. The tackle went unpunished at the time, but Swinton was cited and his subsequent suspension means he now won’t be able to play until June.
A statement read: “A SANZAAR judicial committee hearing has found Lachlan Swinton of the NSW Waratahs guilty of contravening law 9.13 after he was cited following a Super Rugby Pacific match at the weekend. Swinton has been suspended for seven weeks, up to and including June 3.
“The incident occurred within the first minute of the match between Waratahs and Western Force, played at Allianz Stadium in Sydney on April 15. The judicial hearing, held via video conference on Tuesday, was heard by Helen Morgan (chair), Chris Smith and Ofisa Tonu’u.
“In her finding, Morgan ruled: Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and additional evidence, including submissions from the player and his legal representative, Aaron Lloyd, the judicial committee upheld the citing under law 9.13.
"With respect to sanction, the judicial committee deemed the act of foul play was reckless, with the contact point directly made with the head, high force and no mitigating factors present.
"The committee found the incident was highly dangerous and, after considering all relevant factors of World Rugby’s head contact process and sanctioning table, decided the foul play merited a top-end entry point of 10 weeks.
“Taking into account mitigating factors, including the player's acceptance of guilt that the incident was foul play, conduct at the hearing and remorse, the judicial committee reduced the suspension by three weeks. The player is therefore suspended for seven weeks, up to and including June 3.”
Latest Comments
That's really stupidly pedantic. Let's say the gods had smiled on us, and we were playing Ireland in Belfast on this trip. Then you'd be happy to accept it as a tour of the UK. But they're not going to Australia, or Peru, or the Philippines, they're going to the UK. If they had a match in Paris it would be fair to call it the "end-of-year European tour". I think your issue has less to do with the definition of the United Kingdom, and is more about what is meant by the word "tour". By your definition of the word, a road trip starting in Marseilles, tootling through the Massif Central and cruising down to pop in at La Rochelle, then heading north to Cherbourg, moving along the coast to imagine what it was like on the beach at Dunkirk, cutting east to Strasbourg and ending in Lyon cannot be called a "tour of France" because there's no visit to St. Tropez, or the Louvre, or Martinique in the Caribbean.
Go to commentsJust thought for a moment you might have gathered some commonsense from a southerner or a NZer and shut up. But no, idiots aren't smart enough to realise they are idiots.
Go to comments