Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Trevor Leota red card for late hit on Nicolas Brusque

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Trevor Leota red card for late hit on Nicolas Brusque

Big Samoan hooker Trevor Leota was red carded on the weekend for his huge hit in the Top 14 as Mont-de-Marsan and Biarritz battled it out at Satde Guy-Boniface.

It was a first victory away from home for Biarritz, thanks in part to an excellent second half. The 33-6 bonus point win ended a terrible run of 12 consecutive away losses.

USA winger Zee Ngwenya got on the scoresheet with a well taken try from a pinpoint kick by Dimitri Yachvili. Another from Damien Traille and some accurate goalkicking from Yachvili later on sealed the win.

With ten minutes to go in the game former Wasps and Freestate hooker Leota was red carded for this terrible looking hit on Nicolas Brusque. Leota is famed for being an uncompromising hooker, and is one of the hardest tacklers around.

Brusque can now testifty to that, as he was taken in the air with this clothesline that really did look more WWE than rugby. The referee made the judgement that Leota wasn't playing the ball, but simply wanted to destroy Brusque. I'd say he wasn't too far off.

Time: 01:30

Ouch for the kicker.
I have read about Leaota being nasty but that was stupid.
and in the description of the game hearing that 'Zee' Ngwanya or however it is spelled caught something, he must of been working on that

By Anonymous, at October 26, 2008 10:30 pm
absolute rubbish. rugby is losing its reputation as a man's game. it's getting almost as bad as soccer. backs need to learn how to take a marginally late hit. maybe a penalty, never a red, certainly no suspension warranted

By Anonymous, at October 26, 2008 10:37 pm
That's pretty harsh. He must weigh in at about what, nineteen stone. That's a helluva lot of mass to stop from a full run, and he had no time to do it. He was comitted, it wasn't that late, not really in the air and wasn't high. He didn't try and wrap his arm in fairness, but that was at most a yellow.

By Anonymous, at October 26, 2008 10:44 pm
I'd have to agree with anonymous.

I didn't see a clothesline or anything of the sort.

My view is it was simply a late hate on the kicker. Something you see about 5-10 times a game. Difference being Leaota is obviously a tackle monster and his late tackle was massive.

It was NEVER a red in my opinion. Penalty would have been sufficient. Yellow card at best.

I'm growing increasingly bloody tired with seeing late tackles accepted throughout games without punishment, but as soon as there's a late tackle with some force the referee over reacts completely.

There is no consistency what so ever in the way that our game is being refereed.

If a small man flew into Leaota with the same intentions after he kicked a ball, and bounced off leaota, the whistle wouldn't have been blown.

Effectively, Leaota got a red card for being fat.

By Anonymous, at October 26, 2008 10:47 pm
I am rather puzzled by the folks that say "the tackler was committed".

I see some cases where it's truly that.

However, there are many other cases, where the defender puts his head down so early that they cannot see how the play has developed. He is CHOOSING to commit himself early, rather than lower the head later.

Look at how early Leota's head is down.

rugby is not association football / soccer. It's still a man's game.

That being said, this is rugby, not tiddy-winks.. or soccer.

By Cheyanquí, at October 26, 2008 11:12 pm
i think it was fair.definately not a red card...penalty =>OK

By Anonymous, at October 26, 2008 11:14 pm
the way the ref shows the red card without talking to the captain or leota is the way they do it in alot of football matches

By Anonymous, at October 26, 2008 11:22 pm
To me, he could have pulled out. There's a point where it's pretty obvious that Brusque isn't going to dummy the kick. At that point, Leota didn't need to follow through with the arm.

Being 'committed' doesnt' mean you can ignore all sense of logic and/or physics and simply put your head down and go for the guy. When it's a man that size on such a little guy, I'm not surprised the ref saw true intent in it.

Not sure if Red is correct, but maybe it was his second offence. Definitely late imo. Spectacular nonetheless. :)

By Anonymous, at October 26, 2008 11:30 pm
I agree. It does appear that the hit was more a product of a massive mismatch in size than pure malice. Although the referee did have the better view, it does look like it would've been a yellow at best had the tackler been a back. (There would've been less force in the hit, and the kicker probably wouldn't have bounced off him so much).
But this does bring up another point. Should referees take size into consideration when doling out punishments. Should a Leota be held to a higher standard than a of safety than a Cipriani when going into something like a potential late tackle situation?
I'm sure the discussion will divide between big boys and speedsters, but should those who are more likely to injure be more held to a higher standard of accountability in marginally illegal situations, or should the fact that one is simply massive be irrelevant to how he conducts himself on the pitch?
*Disclaimer- this video, if anything, probably proves that Referees will probably be unable to separate a player's size from his consideration of whether to give a yellow, red or neither for an illegal tackle.

By Anonymous, at October 26, 2008 11:57 pm
Never anonymous,

"Referees will probably be unable to separate a player's size from his consideration of whether to give a yellow, red or neither for an illegal tackle."

Somewhat true in practice.

The Laws, referees can only adjudicate OUTCOME, not INTENT.

I think that Outcome is part and parcel of the speed and size of the two players involved.

The outcome will be definitely worse if say, Jonah Lomu were to cream Vincent Clerc, and not vice versa.

The citing comissioner is supposed to handle the aggratvating / mitigating factors, like intent.

Nonetheless, we hear TJs and referees speak of "nothing malicious" before giving a verbal admonishment vs a card. So I guess the Laws aren't actually being applied as written.

Kind of like travelling in the NBA (for you basketball fans).

By Cheyanquí, at October 27, 2008 12:50 am
I agree with rancid, Leota got red carded just because he is 120kg of muscle... Or, in other words fat haha. As previously said in this discussion, penalty would've been enough.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 12:57 am
anonymous is right. rugby is so soft if thats a red card. its a contact sport u expect a bit of a nudge here and there.

and for those who say he wasnt committed or could have pulled out is rubbish aswell. he was fully committed to a tackle, as anyone would be anywhere on the rugby park.

rugby referees dont referee in the spirit of the game. in last nights rugby league match AUS vs NZ, steve matai collected paul gallen high and it looked bad, but it just slipped up, both players were fine and the referee gave a penalty and a warning, to keep the spectactle alive.

rugby refs should take note.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 1:13 am
would ve given him yellow..

he's one ugly motherf!!

he's got the body of n old-fashioned hooker, bit like a (fat) prop (in contrast to new/younger hookers like bismarck du plessis for instance)

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 1:43 am
I agree with Shaft.

It's pretty rare that the timing works out to where you absolutely cannot check your momentum going into a tackle. This is not one of those times.

I think all you boys who have played know quite well when you see a kick going away... there is a moment where you can pull up and bump the kicker, or you can plow ahead full steam in an effort to "punish" him.

From where he is, it doesn't even make sense for him to be going for a tackle unless he's trying to smash the guy without regard for the ball. If he was playing the ball he'd have his hands up to charge down.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 1:57 am
If you're going for the block, you just go low and toward the kicking foot. If you do that and come into contact with the kicker a moment after the ball is away, I'd rule no foul. Here, he's up and going for the smash. You can't tell me he doesn't hear the sound of the kick or that, hearing/seeing it, he couldn't have avoided or lessened contact. either way, that is a penalty. It may not really warrant a red, however.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 2:15 am
The ref got the call right. The citing commission will also have something to say soon I would expect.

The first slow motion replay shows it most clearly (starting at 0:47). Leota didn't even put his head down to begin the tackle until after the ball was away. Add to that discretion his high tackle and no attempt whatsoever to wrap up, and he basically flouted all laws regarding safety in the tackle.

If you're not convinced, then pay attention to his two team mates to either side who started their retreat shortly before he launches himself towards the kicker. They had the same decision to make and came to the honorable one. Leota here was needlessly reckless and dangerous.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 2:21 am
does seem a little harsh, although he probably could have pulled away his momentum was carrying him through, and if he had tried to pull out he probably would have given him a full blown shoulder charge anyway. another thing about wrapping the arms, unless leota has ridiculous reactions, its pretty difficult to hit somebody that hard, for them to bounce away and for you to then wrap them up. even a yellow would have been a little harsh imo, the crowd definately influenced the ref on that one

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 3:37 am
sorry to post as anonymous but i'm too drunk to remember my ID, anyways my decision would be a penalty, possibly a yellow but never ever a red.

Solid but late hit, nice to see Leota up to his tricks x

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 4:34 am
jesus he's the fattest hooker ive ever seen

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 5:42 am
Yellow would have been sufficient, if this was an isolated incident. I did not see what came before that in the game.
p.s. sorry about the anonymity, have forgotten the password and i should be working instead of rugbydumping

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 9:16 am
Honestly, I think it's just a regular late tackle. Just the fact that it was an excellent hit made it look worse than it did.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 9:33 am
tuffen up you round balled puftas

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 9:52 am
What's really funny is how a tackle like that would normally spark a 30 man brawl in French rugby. Nobody really looked like wanting to throw the first punch at big Trev

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 10:05 am
choohoo!

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 11:24 am
It loked reasonably alright to me - It wasn't that high, or that late, and he got an arm on. The reason Brusque wass in such a bad way is that Leota is an absolute lump. It certainly wasn't a clothesline, he hit shoulder-to-chest.

Perhaps a penalty, or a yellow at a stretch, nothing more.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 12:12 pm
I didn't think that was that bad. I mean, it was a hard hit, but it wasn't high or even particularly late.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 1:52 pm
"What's really funny is how a tackle like that would normally spark a 30 man brawl in French rugby. Nobody really looked like wanting to throw the first punch at big Trev"

Chris h, that's what you think cause you're a total ignorant about French rugby, all what you know about it is what you see on RD (am i wrong?). Let me tell you, the 2 or 3 videos of French brawls you see on RD are not common in our leagues (top14 or pro D2)! Like in all others leagues, brawls like that happen in a season, but not every week, far from that... Don't get blinded or abused by some sensationnal clips...

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 3:18 pm
i watched the game live and thought it was harsh at the time. he's a hard but fair tackler who was committed and couldn't pull out. bosh of the season so far from an utter legend.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 4:00 pm
sorry, but i've seen quite similar hit's by nonu and collins which have been judged legal (and i'm an ABs and 'canes fan) - dunno, the beginning looked legal but then he swung his arm a wee bit...

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 4:48 pm
Serial killer

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 4:48 pm
LMAO! Wikkid!

By Don, at October 27, 2008 5:42 pm
That was a yellow at the most really,i do that kinda thing all the time and Im in the under 14s lol and i get away with it I get a warning for a yellow at the most.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 6:06 pm
can somebody tell me if hard tackles are still allowed? might as well play touch rugby if that's a red.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 6:06 pm
Think it was a marginal decision. Swinging the arm in was what threw him I think.
It isn't a red card at all, penalty yea

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 6:23 pm
Good hit, a bit late but that's all part of the game! It wasn't high or in the air, I'd do the same and be proud of it!

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 8:34 pm
what??
what was illegal with that? he was clearly committed and it was a good hit!
what a farce...bloody french.
I guarantee you know that id that was an allblack, he would not have been punished.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 9:08 pm
im sorry but i completely disagree with those of you saying he was "committed"

the fullback had kicked the ball, and i know hookers aren't the most intelligent of players but if he was committed he took ages to react, and he came in with his arm.

Charging down a kick is one thing, but when you charge into someone and you are a 20 stone wrecking ball and they have just kicked downfield, you are begging for a card.

I agree that the red was harsh, a yellow would have done.

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 9:44 pm
Chris M Your a Poof Mate

Goo And Play Football

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 10:25 pm
The Man's a Legend

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 10:30 pm
That's a big guy running a long way to hit someone. Don't think you'll be let off the hook just because you kicked the ball away right before he gets there. He was committed to that tackle about twenty steps prior to the hit. :)

By Anonymous, at October 27, 2008 11:16 pm
hahaha i've been leveled numerous times by hits like those.. they're not fun but i accept it as part of the game i love...

the commentators mentioned that the replay was at slow motion.. so with that in mind, not malicious at all

leota.. the only player i rate above lima, as far as hits go!

By Anonymous, at October 28, 2008 2:02 am
'I have read about Leaota being nasty but that was stupid.'

Trevor may be a little impetuous at times but 'nasty'? Never in a million years! The man's a pussycat (& a legend).

The simple fact is, Brusque was 'Trevored' & BTL (as he is known to most Waspies) should have received a yellow at most...

By Aitch, at October 28, 2008 12:39 pm
. . .ok Pen yes,, , yellow ok. . . but red. . . i dont think so

By Anonymous, at October 28, 2008 3:11 pm
T is a legend! I wanted to watch some more clips of Trev but there aren't any on here. Rugby dump please sort this out. There can't be a shortage of video clips of Trev putting the hurt on someone surely?!?!?!

My favourite hit from Trev would be whilst playing for Wasps against Bristol. I think it was Beatty for Bristol who catches the ball in his own 22 and, in a moment of temporary insanity, decides to run straight at Trev. The resulting tackle drew criticism from Stuart Barnes. I think it's well worth a watch.

By Anonymous, at October 28, 2008 6:41 pm
"he was clearly committed and it was a good hit!"

Exactly, it was a hit, not a tackle, and therefore illegal.

By Anonymous, at October 28, 2008 11:55 pm
Since when are big hits illegal? Do you even know the definition of a hit, Istya?

By Anonymous, at October 29, 2008 1:53 pm
Try savers and rib breakers material right here boys.

By Anonymous, at October 29, 2008 4:18 pm
he wasnt committed. he gets his head down just after the ball is kicked. To add on it, there is not a hint of arm wrapping.

He clearly violates several rules that are there to protect the health of the players involved. Surely a yellow, with a prior offense a red.

Remember folks, hard tackles are good, but the rules of the game and the health of the players are most important things for the health of the game itself.

By Anonymous, at October 30, 2008 2:17 pm
"Since when are big hits illegal? Do you even know the definition of a hit, Istya?"

When I say 'hit', I mean it as opposed to a proper tackle. A tackle can be a big hit, but this one was not a tackle. He didn't even attempt to wrap.

By Anonymous, at October 30, 2008 7:48 pm
that hit wasnt that bad, he was just a little bit late, that doesnt warrant a red card maybe a yellow at the worst but just a penalty

By Anonymous, at November 03, 2008 8:19 am