• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Don't shoot the messenger! ... SBW not cited for high tackle on Kankowski

Shaggy

First XV
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
3,095
Country Flag
New Zealand
Club or Nation
New Zealand
Don't shoot the messenger! :D ... Sonny Bill Williams has not been cited for his high tackle on Ryan Kankowski ... Radio New Zealand sports news has reported this in the sports news, but don't have printed media confirmation yet

... in other Crusaders related news, Dan Carter and Keiran Read should be okay for teir next match in round 8, but Sam Whitelock has a bad sprained ankle, and will probably be out for 2 to 3 weeks

http://www.radiosport.co.nz/SportsNews/sprug/Detail.aspx?id=193352
 
Thought 'Cooky said that that SBW could not be cited. Could be wrong mind.
 
Yeah, I think SmartCooky said that citings can only be for red-card offences and SBWs charge was a yellow


Poor tackle by him anyway (in Union, anyhow) and he was lucky to get away with it!
 
Yeah, I think SmartCooky said that citings can only be for red-card offences and SBWs charge was a yellow


Poor tackle by him anyway (in Union, anyhow) and he was lucky to get away with it!

Well, if those are the citing rules, and the commissioner deemed that it's not a red card type offense, and therefore, can't be cited ... well, that's that, I guess ... can't see some being too happy that the only punishment SBW gets is a penalty against him during the match

... wouldn't be surprised if the match officials keep an eye on SBW's tackling technique from here on in
 
Agreed,
SBW doesn't do it often, but I saw him put in a few hits like that when playing for Toulon, so I think people'll keep a look out for it in the next few matches
 
I've seen much worse tackles get missed and much lighter tackles get pinged so i guess thats just the way it goes...

He kind of had one arm out :p
 
Is this even a story? Borderline tackle, penalty offence, issue over. Who cares.

Well, it's a story because many regard it as a Yellow card offence (not a penalty offence), because of the lack of arms in the tackle, and the height also, makes it not a borderline tackle ... however, as pointed out by others already, it wasn't a Red card offence, so wasn't cited because of it ... I suspect that the Bulls players and supporters probably have more than a passing interest in this story, as do Crusaders supporters.

Has the decision been made? ... Yes, Can we do anything about it? ... No ... so I guess the story is over in that sense
 
Sorry Shaggy I wasn't having a go at you, it was more a dig at the media that turn non-events like these into a story.
 
It's England, their sports media turns everything into a crisis. To be fair to SBW, you see loosies go in with shots like that all the time (I"m looking at you Kaino), let the furor fade and Blackadder give SBW a reminder on how to tackle properly.
 
Yeah, I think SmartCooky said that citings can only be for red-card offences and SBWs charge was a yellow


Poor tackle by him anyway (in Union, anyhow) and he was lucky to get away with it!

But then why does Bakkies Botha keep getting cited for cleaning players out of the ruck, when those offenses don't even warrant a yellow, let alone a red. I also don't understand how that guy from the Force, who did that horrible spear tackle on Ndungane, got banned for 3 weeks, and the Lions player James Kamana was also banned for 3 weeks for a tackle that wasn't even half as bad. Do all players get the same ban length, no matter how severe the actual tackle is?



 
Last edited by a moderator:
But then why does Bakkies Botha keep getting cited for cleaning players out of the ruck, when those offenses don't even warrant a yellow, let alone a red. I also don't understand how that guy from the Force, who did that horrible spear tackle on Ndungane, got banned for 3 weeks, and the Lions player James Kamana was also banned for 3 weeks for a tackle that wasn't even half as bad. Do all players get the same ban length, no matter how severe the actual tackle is?

I asked the same question re Kamana. I just hope this dont come back to haunt them as the comp goes on. I do think however we gonna revisit this again in this years comp. Re Bakkies , it was a different comp but I suppose the same rules apply and just goes to show the different set of rules for some , granted he does have a crap reputation but I never liked that they always take into consideration a players rep to match the punishment.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a though decission sometimes to say one tackle is worse then an other. I agree that the Rory Sidey looked awfull, but that's also because Ndungane was hurt a bit more. It's about the tackles not about the results of them. They both tackled with the same bad intentions.

About Bakkies, he wasn't cited for his last cleaning. I think the rules have to be the same for every player, but sometimes one has done so much wrong, the public opinion is against him. Personaly I think it's good that people like Bakkies get more weeks banned then players who doesn't make that much mistakes
 
Bakkies Botha wasn't cited for "cleaning out at the ruck". That's BS. He was cited for dangerous play.

[video=youtube;PJQAdlWekr0&start=35]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJQAdlWekr0&start=35[/video]

Firstly, he clearly comes in from the side, ahead of the hindmost foot, so his entry to the ruck was illegal in the first place.

Secondly, he hits with the shoulder first, no initial bind. The Law is clear on this.....

[textarea]16.2 JOINING A RUCK
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/textarea]
...then he binds (if you can call it that) by getting Duvenage in a headlock and lifting/driving him by his neck.

Thirdly, still holding Duvenage by the neck, Botha drives him to ground while hyperflexing his neck in such a way that it could easily have been snapped.

How anyone could look at that video and say that what Botha did wasn't dangerous play is beyond me. You have to be living in cloud cuckoo land to think that was OK.

How did he not get suspended? Well a South African Disciplinary Panel with a South African Judicial Officer.... nuff said!

IMO, Botha goes out of his way to deliberately injure his opponents, or at the very least, has a flagrant disregard for their safety. Those who say he's just a "hard man" or "an enforcer" are kidding themselves. The guy is little more than a thug; a cheap shot merchant, and I can only hope that he retires from the game before he puts someone in a wheelchair for the rest of their life.
 
Last edited:
Bakkies Botha wasn't cited for "cleaning out at the ruck". That's BS. He was cited for dangerous play.

How anyone could look at that video and say that what Botha did wasn't dangerous play is beyond me. You have to be living in cloud cuckoo land to think that was OK.

How did he not get suspended? Well a South African Disciplinary Panel with a South African Judicial Officer.... nuff said!

IMO, Botha goes out of his way to deliberately injure his opponents, or at the very least, has a flagrant disregard for their safety. Those who say he's just a "hard man" or "an enforcer" are kidding themselves. The guy is little more than a thug; a cheap shot merchant, and I can only hope that he retires from the game before he puts someone in a wheelchair for the rest of their life.

Hold your horses there. You are taking what I said way out of context. I didn't justify what he did. I was merely asking why he was cited, when the offense was not deemed a red card offense. It was obviously malicious intent. What I am asking is, because you said a citing can only happen from a red card offense, then does that mean an actual red or yellow card in the game, or does the citing commission just watch the game and decide that an offense was red-cardable?

SBW deserved a yellow, made a blatant shoulder charge (with malicious intent), and Kankowski was lucky that his jaw didn't snap in half. Does that not warrant as dangerous play? Or am I missing something? I just want to understand how it works.
 
Bakkies Botha wasn't cited for "cleaning out at the ruck". That's BS. He was cited for dangerous play.


Firstly, he clearly comes in from the side, ahead of the hindmost foot, so his entry to the ruck was illegal in the first place.

Secondly, he hits with the shoulder first, no initial bind. The Law is clear on this.....

[textarea]16.2 JOINING A RUCK
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/textarea]
...then he binds (if you can call it that) by getting Duvenage in a headlock and lifting/driving him by his neck.

Thirdly, still holding Duvenage by the neck, Botha drives him to ground while hyperflexing his neck in such a way that it could easily have been snapped.

How anyone could look at that video and say that what Botha did wasn't dangerous play is beyond me. You have to be living in cloud cuckoo land to think that was OK.

How did he not get suspended? Well a South African Disciplinary Panel with a South African Judicial Officer.... nuff said!

IMO, Botha goes out of his way to deliberately injure his opponents, or at the very least, has a flagrant disregard for their safety. Those who say he's just a "hard man" or "an enforcer" are kidding themselves. The guy is little more than a thug; a cheap shot merchant, and I can only hope that he retires from the game before he puts someone in a wheelchair for the rest of their life.


I dont think he was refering to the Stormers game incident , he was referring to the British Lions game where Bakkies got banned for clearing out a ruck. Remember the Justice for Bakkies incident ? Bakkies is actually a very bad example though , I agree he should have been cited and to be honest I was very unhappy that he was not banned for the Duvenhage incident but and this is the big but , does the incident warrant a red card ? Take out the players involve and look at the deed itself ? It was more or less on par with SBW , both deserved a yellow and both deserved a citing and one game ban at least.
 
Jericho

But then why does Bakkies Botha keep getting cited for cleaning players out of the ruck, when those offenses don't even warrant a yellow, let alone a red.
I read this as you thinking that he gets cited only for this. Its not so, its WAY doe does it that is illegal and Dangerous.

Here are the Citing criteria as laid down in iRB regulation 17, with a brief explanation between each clause

[textarea]Citing Commissioner
17.6.2 When a Citing Commissioner is appointed, the following policy shall apply:

(a) Citing Commissioners shall be entitled to cite a player for any act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play which in the opinion of the Citing Commissioner warranted the Player concerned being Ordered Off;[/textarea]
He thinks the player should have got a red card.

[textarea](b) Citing Commissioners may cite Players for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play even where such act or acts may have been detected by the referee and/or touch judge and which may have been the subject of action taken by the referee and/or touch judge. A Citing Commissioner may not, however, cite a Player for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play in respect of which the Player has been Ordered Off;[/textarea]
He can cite a player even if he was penalised in the game. However, he cannot cite a player who has been given a red card for foul play, because that player is already destined for the Judiciary by virtue of having been given a red card.

[textarea](c) A Player may be cited by the Citing Commissioner if he has been Temporarily Suspended. Such citing may be made in respect of the incident or incidents for which the Player was Temporarily Suspended or otherwise;[/textarea]
The player got a yellow card, but the Citing Commissioner thought it wasn't enough, and should have been red.

To summarise in plain English

1. A player can be cited if he commits an act of foul play severe enough, in the opinion of the citing commissioner, to warrant a Red Card, whether or not he was penalised or Yellow Carded for it on the field,

2. A player cannot be cited if he commits an act of foul play severe enough, in the opinion of the citing commissioner, to warrant only a Yellow Card, whether or not he was penalised or Yellow Carded for it on the field.

3 A player who receives a Red Card for foul play on the field is effectively "automatically cited". However, if the Red Card is the result of a second Yellow card, and was not an act of foul play, that Red Card does not lead to a citing (e.g. Drew Mitchell last year)


Sparty.

I thought the Duvenhage incident was very dangerous, and had the potential to snap his neck. There are two extremes of neck trauma that are mostly seen in rugby

Hyperextension; where the neck is bent backwards, with the back of the head forced onto the nape of the neck. This is less common

Hyperflexion; where the chin is forced onto the chest. This is the one that causes most of the paralysis cases resulting from collapsed scrums.

Have a look at the final position in the video. Duvenhage is in a sitting position with Botha's right arm around his neck, effectively holding him in a neck lock, then Botha's not inconsiderable weight forces Duvenhage's head down while his upper torso remains upright.

I would say the fact that Botha grabs him around the neck and does this makes it a red card offence.

Instead of putting his arm around the neck, he could have put it under the armpit and driven Duvenhage back, and that would have been fine. However, he chose to take the more dangerous approach.
 
Last edited:
I also don't understand how that guy from the Force, who did that horrible spear tackle on Ndungane, got banned for 3 weeks, and the Lions player James Kamana was also banned for 3 weeks for a tackle that wasn't even half as bad. Do all players get the same ban length, no matter how severe the actual tackle is?



Bloody hell, a 3 week ban for Kamana was harsh! I see that as a penalty at most, and even then mostly because the ball had gone already. Looked very similar to the James Hook booking v France which was also injustified imo, but at least Hook didn't pick up a 3 week ban on top!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry Shaggy I wasn't having a go at you, it was more a dig at the media that turn non-events like these into a story.

Hey no worries mate, I'm sorry if it sounded I was taking it personally - I take your point about other players that commit similar offences that don't get hyped up by the media, but Brad Thorn is another that has visited the Judiciary in recent years, and needs to be careful.

It's England, their sports media turns everything into a crisis. To be fair to SBW, you see loosies go in with shots like that all the time (I"m looking at you Kaino), let the furor fade and Blackadder give SBW a reminder on how to tackle properly.

Not condoning any high shots or no arm tackles/shoulder charges, but at the same time, understand that it's a contact sport, and that your point of contact doesn't always end up where you intend it to be ...I understand that the media all over the world do hype this up, particularly if its an opposition player ... I do wonder if with the repeat offenders, it's flawed technique or genuine malice. I think the idea of the onus being on the coach and player to demonstrate that they have made attempts to correct techniques etc, is a good one ... apart from the safety aspect, it makes sense not to be giving away penalties and cards during the game

... repeat dangerous offenders should be shown the door
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top