Northern Edition
Select Edition
Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

World Rugby statement: Andrew Porter citing complaint dismissed

(Photo by Brendan Moran/Sportsfile via Getty Images)

Referee Wayne Barnes has had his decision to only yellow card Andrew Porter last Saturday in Wellington vindicated as the citing complaint brought against the Ireland prop has been dismissed for failing the red card threshold. Numerous commentators felt that the loosehead should have been sent off for his head-on-head collision which left Brodie Retallick with a fractured cheekbone.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, unlike fellow prop Angus Ta’avao who was red-carded the previous week when the All Blacks lost the second Test to Ireland, a decision that resulted in a three-week ban for the Kiwi front-rower, Barnes believed the foul play involving Porter in the third Test only merited a ten-minute sin bin – a verdict that has now been backed up by the outcome of a judicial hearing. 

A World Rugby statement read: “A citing complaint against Ireland prop Andrew Porter for an act of foul play has been dismissed by an independent judicial committee on Tuesday. Porter was cited for an act of foul play contrary to law 9.13 (a player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously) in Ireland’s final test match against New Zealand on July 16. 

Video Spacer

Ex-All Blacks troubled by Ireland’s 2-1 series win | The Breakdown | Sky Sport NZ | Episode 21

Video Player is loading.
Current Time 0:00
Duration 0:00
Loaded: 0%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 0:00
 
1x
    • Chapters
    • descriptions off, selected
    • captions off, selected
      Video Spacer

      Ex-All Blacks troubled by Ireland’s 2-1 series win | The Breakdown | Sky Sport NZ | Episode 21

      “The independent committee, chaired by Adam Casselden (Australia) and joined by former international player Stefan Terblanche (South Africa) and former international coach Frank Hadden (Scotland), heard the case and considered all the available evidence, including multiple broadcast angles and submissions from the player and his legal representative, Aaron Lloyd.

      “The player admitted that he committed an act of foul play but maintained that the red card threshold had not been met and that the yellow card issued at the time by the match officials was correct in the circumstances.

      Related

      “Having considered all the evidence, the independent committee applied World Rugby’s head contact process and agreed with the match officials’ on-field decision that the player’s act of foul play for a breach of law 9.13 did not meet the red card threshold due to the absorbing nature of the tackle. On that basis, the independent committee deemed the act of foul play did not merit further sanction, and the citing complaint was dismissed.”

      ADVERTISEMENT

      KOKO Show | July 22nd | Full Throttle with Brisbane Test Review and Melbourne Preview

      New Zealand v South Africa | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

      USA vs England | Men's International | Full Match Replay

      France v Argentina | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

      Lions Share | Episode 4

      Zimbabwe vs Namibia | Rugby Africa Cup Final | Full Match Replay

      USA vs Fiji | Women's International | Full Match Replay

      Tattoos & Rugby: Why are tattoos so popular with sportspeople? | Amber Schonert | Rugby Rising Locker Room Season 2

      Trending on RugbyPass

      Comments

      28 Comments
      C
      CHRISTIAN 1098 days ago

      That is why there should be 20 mins red card. Only fully sent off red cards for fully deliberate tackles at the head(or thuggery incidents). Ta'avao's incident was not intentional .His tackle should've been yellow. Porter should've received red. Just like what other people are saying. The committee should look at past incidents in the series the teams are playing in. And if Ta'avao's tackle was a red then this one should be as well.

      C
      Colin 1093 days ago

      listen to yourself, so you are saying the ABS man should only get yellow while porter should have got red.

      The worst thing here is to have the cheek to criticise the refs when ABs should have gotten at least 2 more red cards and a penalty try awarded against them

      P
      Phil 1099 days ago

      Inconsistent unfair and lacking any logic. Who do they think they are fooling as no one can consider this to be unbias treatment. Barnes who infamously let the French get away with a forward pass in a world cup match was defended at that time also. Time for the judiciary to stand up for the safety of players not Referees reputations. He is not the only guilty party as each week we see a different set of rules wheeled out .The Lions v All Blacks 3rd test was a great example of officiating run amok.

      t
      tedatsea 1099 days ago

      Consistency is all that rugby fans are asking for! If this case doesn't warrant further action then similarly other cases of this nature also don't warrant further action.

      R
      R M 1100 days ago

      Absorbing means Retalick's cheek bone absorbed it and was cracked. Its a farce. The guy had to leave the field and has a very serious injury. It could even have been worse, such a shot to the face with a large concrete head. The independent committee Steph Terblanch, Frank and Andrew obviously are short of brain cells.

      C
      Colin 1093 days ago

      Maybe the SA members of the citing panel are just all against the ABs eh ?

      P
      Phil 1099 days ago

      I think it runs further than that. Its a culture of incompetency and covering up mistakes.

      B
      Belson 1100 days ago

      Haha..World Rugby Cartel is an absolute farce. Had a South African player been cited for hurting a precious All Black they would’ve upped his punishment to the death sentence!

      P
      Phil 1099 days ago

      Just a few more weeks to wait to find out.

      J
      Jim 1100 days ago

      I think the difference is that Ta'avao was in more of a forward motion when the contact took place whereas Porter's movement was more neutral or slightly going backwards at the time of contact. Having said that Porter could still easily have been sent off given how hot the rules now are on any kind of head contact

      j
      joe 1100 days ago

      Yes and the whole interaction probably took less than a second.

      A
      AV 1100 days ago

      I just wish that these independent committees would tell us idiots exactly what the difference is between the 2 incidents so we can stop questioning them.....

      C
      Colin 1093 days ago

      litereally the whole article is explaining the difference. Porters tackle was absorbing retallicks momentum rather than driving into him

      r
      robespierre 1100 days ago

      The forward movement or lack thereof.

      Load More Comments

      Join free and tell us what you really think!

      Sign up for free
      ADVERTISEMENT

      Latest Features

      Comments on RugbyPass

      J
      JW 15 minutes ago
      Competing interests and rotated squads: What the 'player welfare summer' is really telling us

      Thanks for the further background to player welfare metrics Nick.


      Back on the last article I noted that WR is now dedicating a whole section in their six-point business plan to this topic. It also noted that studies indicated 85-90% of workload falls outside of playing. So in respect to your point on the classification of ‘involvements’ included even subs with a low volume of minutes, it actually goes further, to the wider group of players that train as if they’re going to be required to start on the weekend, even if they’re outside the 23. That makes even the 30-35 game borderline pale into insignificance.


      No doubt it is won of the main reasons why France has a quota on the number of one clubs players in their International camps, and rotate in other clubs players through the week. The number of ‘invisible’ games against a player suggests the FFRs 25 game limit as more appropriate?


      So if we take it at face value that Galthie and the FFR have got it right, only a dozen players from the last 60 international caps should have gone on this tour. More players from the ‘Scotland 23’ than the more recent 23.


      The only real pertinent question is what do players prefer more, health or money? There are lots of ethical decisions, like for instance whether France could make a market like Australia’s where their biggest rugby codes have yearly broadcast deals of 360 and 225 million euros. They do it by having a 7/8 month season.

      68 Go to comments
      LONG READ
      LONG READ 'The Wallabies need to convert much better - or Melbourne could be much worse' 'The Wallabies need to convert much better - or Melbourne could be much worse'