The SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron has accepted a guilty plea from Luke Jones of the Rebels for contravening Law 10.4 (j) Lifting a Player from the ground and either dropping or driving that Player’s head and/or upper body into the ground whilst the Player’s feet are off the ground, after he was Cited during a Super Rugby Match at the Weekend. Jones lifted Bulls player Bjorn Basson in a tackle that resulted in Basson’s neck and shoulder region contacting the ground while his legs were still in the air. Jones received aYellow Card on the field and the incident was referred to the Citing Commissioner through a White Card.

Jones has been suspended from all forms of the game for the two weeks to and including Sunday 20 May 2012.

The incident occurred in the 25th minute of the match between the Rebels and Bulls at AAMI Park in Melbourne on Friday 4th of May.

SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron assessed the case.

In his finding, Mike Heron ruled the following:

Luke Jones was cited for a dangerous tackle on Bjorn Basson in the Rebels v Bulls match on 4 May 2012.  He was given a yellow card on the field and the referee issued a white card.  The matter came to me as Duty JO. After reviewing the relevant material (including the footage and reports on the SANZAR intranet), I followed the Duty JO process via a telephone call with the player, his counsel and the Rebels team manager.  At the end of that process, I gave an indication of penalty of two weeks’ suspension.  After having time to consider the indication, the player accepted the suspension.  Accordingly, Luke Jones is suspended from all forms of the game for the two weeks to and including Sunday 20 May 2012 (that includes two scheduled Super Rugby matches).

My reasons are as follows:


The citing stated that Jones tackled the Bulls 11 (Basson) and in doing so he lifted him from the ground and past the horizontal. The citing further stated “The Rebels halfback (Phipps) then came in over the top of Basson to assist in the tackle however Jones was responsible for lifting and was the cause of Basson being put in a vulnerable and dangerous position. Jones continued with the tackle until Basson made contact with the ground with his head/neck and shoulder region, whilst his feet and legs were still off the ground. Due to the nature of the tackle Basson was unable to break his fall.  The hard landing on Basson’s neck/head and shoulder region placed him at serious risk of injury. Fortunately Basson did not appear injured and was immediate able to play on for the remainder of the match.”


On my review of the footage, I agree with the description set out in the citing.  I find that while Jones appeared to deliberately lift and tip the player, he had no intention of completing the tackle in the way that occurred. The player was not brought to the ground safely (and objectively assessed the tackle was dangerous). I accept, however, that there was no intention to injure the player or to drive him into the ground.  I also accept, as described by Jones and his counsel that the intervention of the additional player in the tackle has added to the danger, and was not of Jones making. The tackle occurred in a key defensive area for the Rebels and this no doubt influenced its execution. In my view Jones has executed the tackle with poor technique (the lifting and tipping) and ought to have been aware of the risk involved in this sort of tackle. I note that the opposing player appeared to suffer no injury and continued to play immediately (although the lack of resulting injury in these tackles is likely to be good luck rather than anything else). I was told that Jones immediately checked that Basson was unhurt – he expressed considerable relief to me that there was no injury to Basson and I accept Jones was genuinely concerned about the player’s welfare.

In the circumstances I find that the tackle was in breach of Law 10.4(j) but at the lower end of the spectrum, particularly due to the involvement of the third player.   I find that the tackle was low-end and warrants an entry point of three weeks. 
There is the need for deterrence, which again is present in respect to these tackles (refer IRB memorandum of June 2009). A further week of suspension is warranted for those reasons.  SANZAR has issued at least two reminders of the dangers of these sort of tackles and this is the sixth citing for a tip tackle in the competition thus far.  Whilst I am advised that there has been some improvement in recent weeks, these sort of tackles remain an issue. It maybe that a tronger message needs to be sent, by way of higher penalties. Through this decision, I request that SANZAR remind teams of the earlier messages and state that penalties for tip tackles may well increase for this reason. 
Matters in mitigation include the player’s immediate acceptance of his wrong, his remorse for the same and his plea of guilty. Luke Jones has no previous relevant disciplinary matters. He has no cards or citing for foul play and is in his third season of professional rugby (the first where he has played continuously). He is described by his team manager as an exceptional young man and I am prepared to accept his good character. His record thus far and his expressed concern for player welfare is admirable. 
To recognise and acknowledge the immediate guilty plea and remorse, and other mitigating factors, I am prepared to reduce the penalty by two weeks, bringing it down from four weeks to two weeks suspension.


Luke Jones is therefore suspended from all forms of the game for the two weeks to and including Sunday 20 May 2012 (two scheduled Super Rugby matches).