Kuridrani guilty but not banned

Date published: March 9 2015

1022.6666666666666x767__origin__0x0_Chris_Kuridrani_Reds

A SANZAR Judicial Hearing has upheld the citing of Reds wing Chris Kuridrani but has not imposed a sanction on the player.

Kuridrani was found guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (g) Dangerous charging in Saturday's Super Rugby loss to the Waratahs.

Kuridrani was cited for his shim ram of a flying 'Tahs full-back Israel Folau in the 21st minute in Brisbane.

The hearing was heard by Adam Casselden via video conference while  Mike Mika was the former professional player who attended as a Judicial Technical Adviser.

In his finding, Casselden ruled the following:

"After hearing from the player and his counsel, Mr Mark Martin QC and watching the video footage a number of times, I was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the player committed the act of foul play that was the subject of the citing by charging or knocking down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

"In assessing the seriousness of the foul play, I came to the conclusion that the offending was at the lower end. Having regard to the range of off-field mitigating factors submitted to me by Mr Martin QC, including the player's unblemished disciplinary record, it was therefore appropriate, in my opinion, to invoke Regulation 17.19.7 (see below).

"In my opinion, to impose a suspension on the player would have been wholly disproportionate to the level and type of offending in this case. In reaching that conclusion I also took into account the action taken during the match in respect of the foul play by the match officials.

"As a result I found the citing complaint alleging a breach of 10.4 (g) to be made out and that the appropriate outcome was that no sanction should be imposed on the player."

Regulation 17.19.7
In cases involving offending that has been classified pursuant to Regulation 17.19.2 as lower end offending, where:
(a)  there are off-field mitigating factors; and
(b)  where the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers that the sanction would be wholly disproportionate to the level and type of offending involved; the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer may apply sanctions less than 50% of the lower end entry sanctions specified in Appendix 1 including in appropriate cases no sanction.

COMMENTS