Zander Fagerson to face disciplinary hearing tomorrow evening

Scotland prop was red-carded for a dangerous clear-out during Scotland's Six Nations loss to Wales on Saturday

Zander Fagerson faces a disciplinary hearing tomorrow [Tuesday] night. Image: © Craig Watson -
Zander Fagerson faces a disciplinary hearing tomorrow [Tuesday] night. Image: © Craig Watson -

SCOTLAND prop Zander Fagerson’s disciplinary hearing will be held tomorrow [Tuesday] evening via video conference, following his red-carding during Saturday’s Six Nations defeat to Wales at Murrayfield.

A statement from Six Nations Rugby said:

The Scotland No. 3, Zander Fagerson was red carded during the Scotland v Wales match last Saturday 13th February 2021 for an infringement of Law 9.20 (a) & (b) (Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.  A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.  A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders).

Fagerson was shown the red-card in the 54th minute of Saturday’s match after his shoulder appeared to make contact with opposite number Wyn Jones‘ head as he cleared out a ruck. Both Scotland head coach Gregor Townsend and team-mate Hamish Watson expressed displeasure after the match at how the situation had been handled by referee Matthew Carley and Television Match Official Karl Dickson.

Watson later tweeted that his comments had been “poor” and stressed that “player safety is paramount”, which was a helpful clarification, although it should be acknowledged that he didn’t say anything in the initial interview to suggest that he doesn’t take player safety seriously.

Hamish Watson brands Zander Fagerson red card decision as “not rugby”

About David Barnes 4012 Articles
David has worked as a freelance rugby journalist since 2004 covering every level of the game in Scotland for publications including The Herald/Sunday Herald, The Sunday Times, The Telegraph, The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday/Evening News, The Daily Record, The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday and The Sun.


  1. David MacCowan Hill at 12:04 today made a very valid point when he posed the question ‘why wasn’t Wyn Jones directed off for an HIA?’.
    There can be only one reason for that and that is that the collision didn’t warrant an HIA in which case why was Carley pedantic about the letter of the law? Why didn’t he activate the HIA process, why didn’t he consider the direction of the TMO who seemed to be calling for a Yellow? I’ve a feeling that another comment from Grant in a recent post suggesting that this particular offence doesn’t have any defence or mitigation [other than in following jurisdiction at a disciplinary hearing] on the field of play in order that Sports Lawyers don’t get an opportunity to use any incident as a reason to show that World Rugby or the RFU [whoever] are not taking player welfare into consideration.
    I just hope that Zander Ferguson’s representative has the same valid point to put to the hearing as David MacCowan Hill.

  2. Some really average comments here. This is not about Fagerson vs O’Mahoney. This is about making rugby safer to play. It’s good to see refs starting to make these calls. Give it another 6 months and refs will become more consistent and this will discourage players from reckless rucking.

    • One person mentioned Peter O’Mahony. And by your margin players have to suffer because referees are not up-to-speed quick enough?

      The directives, outside of the laws that world rugby publish, that go out to referees include how to apply the laws in place. Surely then consistency is easy enough to get to if everyone in the referee communication line has them?

    • Why wasn’t Alun Wyn Jones taken off for an HIA if the collision in ruck by Fagerson was deemed to be so severe?

  3. Meanwhile in the Italy game, Farrell was positively rewarded for the umpteenth late-and-high shot of his career. Some of the directives the refs are working under make little sense. If a tackle is late and high, why should it be any less an offence just because it’s head on head rather than shoulder or arm on head?

  4. Six weeks mitigated to 3 weeks IMO. Fagerson’s six nations will be over by and large. Utter nonsense.

    I am just waiting now for world rugby to ban rucking of any sort.

  5. If the following Law is applied consistently then there would be fewer players left on the pitch! Let’s face it, charging into a maul or ruck is commonplace and is defined as a ‘clearout’!
    Law 9 on Dangerous play in a ruck or maul states:
    A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.
    A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.

  6. if i was to look at this through cynical eyes, and this was purely speculative of course, id say that world rugby are covering their own backs due to some recent cases of head related trauma, from which protocol was not in place be it from lack of understanding regarding head injuries or otherwise.
    it seems to be that players are at this stage almost being made an example of, to deter the amount of head related collisions. you have only to cast your mind back to last week to Johnsons disbelief at ohmaonys red card. world rugby need to change things not for the well being of players, but to keep the game alive and as a result the monney coming in and the less fortunate players who are victims of head knocks quiet

    of course we are doing something about it, theres the red card figures due to head collisions

    maybe g turners knee should go to a disciplinary for its reckless hit on blade thomsons head

    that would be ridiculous max, he didn’t mean it, so did zander mean to hit him on the head in a contestable ruck? is there a place for mitigation for knocks and bumps just because its a contact sport played at 200 mph, with heavy men colliding with each other?

    gosh i need to get back to the pub

  7. Interested to see how his punishment compares with O’Mahony’s. Surely Zander’s cannot be considered as grievous an offence?

    • he will get exactly the same tariff. A nonsense compared to a deliberate assault on a player well away from the ball and leading with an elbow to head

    • They’ve got nowhere to go because if OMahony’s was only worth three weeks I would suggest that on that basis that sending off sufficient for Fagerson’s. If he gets the same as OMahony it will be farcical as his showed clear intent

Comments are closed.