Sam Cane citing dismissed

Mar 22 • General News, Super Rugby • 1295 Views • Comments Off on Sam Cane citing dismissed

Hearing Details (date, time and venue): Tuesday 22 March 2016, 7pm (NZST), 5pm (AEDST), 8am (SAST), 3am (ARG) via video conference
Judicial Committee Chairman: Michael Heron QC
Judicial Committee Members: David Croft
Player: Sam Cane
Team: Chiefs
Position: Flanker
Date of Incident: 19 March 2016
Nature of Offence: Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous Tackling: A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponents head or neck is dangerous play.
Elapsed time in match when incident occurred: 64th minute

Sam Cane citing dismissed

A SANZAAR Judicial Hearing has found Sam Cane of the Chiefs not guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous Tackling, after he was cited during a Super Rugby match at the weekend.

No further sanction has been imposed on the player.
Cane was alleged to have contravened Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous Tackling, when he made contact with the Jaguares #3 Nahuel Chaparro at a tackle contest during the match between the Jaguares and Chiefs at Velez Sarsfield in Buenos Aires on 19 March 2016.

The Judicial Committee of Michael Heron QC and David Croft held the hearing by video conference on Tuesday 22 March 2016, 7pm (NZST), 5pm (AEDST), 8am (SAST), 3am (ARG).

In their finding, the Judicial committee ruled the following:

“The judicial committee tonight has considered the citing of Sam Cane for dangerous tackling contrary to Law 10.4(e). The committee determined that it was not satisfied the citing was made out.

“A full decision will be issued in due course. In summary, the Committee found that the incident was an unfortunate combination of Mr Cane joining to create a maul in a permissible manner at the same time as Mr Chaparro fell rapidly to the ground.

“The contact between the shoulder of Mr Cane and the head of Mr Chaparro was unintentional and not able to be foreseen for that reason.

“The Committee considered that what occurred could not be described as a tackle because Mr Chaparro was not the ball carrier.

“The Committee considered whether the contact between Mr Cane and Mr Chaparro could constitute foul play other than that described in the citing. It was not satisfied that any other ground of foul play fairly described what occurred here.

“For those reasons, the citing was dismissed.