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

[Shaggy]

Jericho

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.

Great explanation Cooky, but apparently SANZAR have two sets of rules http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/Sonny-Bill-escapes-punishment-20110328

 

[smartcooky]

Great explanation Cooky, but apparently SANZAR have two sets of rules http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/Sonny-Bill-escapes-punishment-20110328

I don't believe so.

Do you really think SBW's barge was a red card offence? Seriously!

 

[d1e1m]

No one can argue it merited a red card, but then again I'm still upset that Owen Franks was sinbinned against the AUssies during the trinations for a completely legal tackle. I think that article Shaggy completely misses the point of the two incidents, one a cheap shot that deserved a yellow card, the other a guillotine that could have ended with Duvenhagge in a wheelchair for the rest of his life (on top of Bakkies already stellar disciplinary record). Hypothetically speaking, I would have given SBW a yellow and Bakkies a red not for the cleanout but for the dirty afters if I was the ref. One incident is an accident, twice is stupidity, three or more has to be treated as malicious intent.

as a sidenote, i would not want to be on the end of a SBW hit seeing as how Owen just crumpled when he got was on the receiving end. Thats got to be a massive amount of power he's going in with.

 

[Shaggy]

No one can argue it merited a red card, but then again I'm still upset that Owen Franks was sinbinned against the AUssies during the trinations for a completely legal tackle. I think that article Shaggy completely misses the point of the two incidents, one a cheap shot that deserved a yellow card, the other a guillotine that could have ended with Duvenhagge in a wheelchair for the rest of his life (on top of Bakkies already stellar disciplinary record). Hypothetically speaking, I would have given SBW a yellow and Bakkies a red not for the cleanout but for the dirty afters if I was the ref. One incident is an accident, twice is stupidity, three or more has to be treated as malicious intent.

as a sidenote, i would not want to be on the end of a SBW hit seeing as how Owen just crumpled when he got was on the receiving end. Thats got to be a massive amount of power he's going in with.

Yeah, I know, just posted the article to show how the SBW incident is perceived in some quarters ... I actually pinched Cooky's red card explanation, and posted on the comments for the article, under the name Can-Iwi ... never ceases to amaze me how rugby fans all over the world get into all of these conspiracy theories against their teams, when it comes to their players being cited, or refereeing decisions ... yes, mistakes are made, yes, players are lucky and get away with stuff, but I still maintain that if players repeat offend, they'll get carded etc

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah, I know, just posted the article to show how the SBW incident is perceived in some quarters ... I actually pinched Cooky's red card explanation, and posted on the comments for the article, under the name Can-Iwi ... never ceases to amaze me how rugby fans all over the world get into all of these conspiracy theories against their teams, when it comes to their players being cited, or refereeing decisions ... yes, mistakes are made, yes, players are lucky and get away with stuff, but I still maintain that if players repeat offend, they'll get carded etc

Its the siege mentality Shaggy. There is a real stereotypical "we rule the world and everyone else is wrong" attitude prevalent among a hard core of the old order in the Republic. Its why they were able to hold on to Apartheid and political power for so long under immense pressure to reform from the rest of the world.

On our referees forum, we have a couple of iRB panel referees, not top panel, but the next one down. These guys do European Nations Cup, JRWC matches, Pacific Nations Cup etc. Their take on South African players, coaches and the hierarchy is interesting to say the least. When you read some of the stuff they have to say, you get a better understanding of the way people like Brendan Nel, John Smit and PDV think, and how the "Justice 4 Bakkies" armband incident came about.

They (the panel refs) suggest there has been considerable criticism among the game's administrators of the South African judicial action towards Botha on this occasion, as well as the support he gets from the Springbok hierarchy. They think this is where the fault lies. It's not just the individual players and coaches themselves that need scrutinizing, but rather their coaching system as a whole.

They know a fair bit about what goes on in Judiciary hearings involving South African players. Those players relate to what they do as "eliminating threats and targets". They simply regard the opponent as a "threat" that needs to be eliminated, rather like a soldier in a war zone. That they might cause injury as a result is not the point, and is considered irrelevant in any case; their primary goal is to remove the threat regardless of the collateral damage (injury) they might cause, in whatever way they are coached.

Now if this is indeed an accurate reflection of the current culture in South African coaching; that they consider injuring an opponent is an acceptable consequence of getting the job done, then I would I expect their players to be fronting the Judiciary more than most nations, and the natural result of this will be the feeling they are being "picked on", and that the Judicial system is unfairly biased against them.

 

[Shaggy]

Its the siege mentality Shaggy. There is a real stereotypical "we rule the world and everyone else is wrong" attitude prevalent among a hard core of the old order in the Republic. Its why they were able to hold on to Apartheid and political power for so long under immense pressure to reform from the rest of the world.

On our referees forum, we have a couple of iRB panel referees, not top panel, but the next one down. These guys do European Nations Cup, JRWC matches, Pacific Nations Cup etc. Their take on South African players, coaches and the hierarchy is interesting to say the least. When you read some of the stuff they have to say, you get a better understanding of the way people like Brendan Nel, John Smit and PDV think, and how the "Justice 4 Bakkies" armband incident came about.

They (the panel refs) suggest there has been considerable criticism among the game's administrators of the South African judicial action towards Botha on this occasion, as well as the support he gets from the Springbok hierarchy. They think this is where the fault lies. It's not just the individual players and coaches themselves that need scrutinizing, but rather their coaching system as a whole.

They know a fair bit about what goes on in Judiciary hearings involving South African players. Those players relate to what they do as "eliminating threats and targets". They simply regard the opponent as a "threat" that needs to be eliminated, rather like a soldier in a war zone. That they might cause injury as a result is not the point, and is considered irrelevant in any case; their primary goal is to remove the threat regardless of the collateral damage (injury) they might cause, in whatever way they are coached.

Now if this is indeed an accurate reflection of the current culture in South African coaching; that they consider injuring an opponent is an acceptable consequence of getting the job done, then I would I expect their players to be fronting the Judiciary more than most nations, and the natural result of this will be the feeling they are being "picked on", and that the Judicial system is unfairly biased against them.

Yeah, I guess I didn't want to single South Africa out, even though the article is a South African article in this case ... you get it in most of the rugby playing nations media to some degree, and as a Rugby fan, I guess bias is a hard thing to keep in check when commenting on these issues.

I guess from my own point of view, I love the game, understand it's a physical game/contact sport, and that foul play is going to occur, but deplore it happening ... those that do it deserve to be punished regardless of the colour of the jersey that they wear (those that live by the sword, die by the sword)

It's exactly like cynical play, if you do the crime, do the time ... don't go wingeing about being picked on for getting caught.

As for the taking the player out, I don't get the whole get Carter/McCaw thing - wouldn't you rather beat the top sides at full strength, on your way to winning the World Cup

PS. I like the way you support your opinions with the relevant rulings etc, and would like to do the same more often - I was wondering if there is a site that lists which international players have been cited, what for, and what punishment (if any) they received

 

[d1e1m]

Shaggy, I disagree with your opinions and I disagree with your right to voice them because they don't prove that there's a conspiracy against the team I like. /sarcasm

Bias, especially when it comes mixed with patriotism, is something that doesn't go away. Everyone's opinion is in someway affected by their own personal bias, that's inescapable. Some Boks supporters would tell you that if Carter/McCaw get injured, even purposefully, that it simply the nature of the game for enforcers like Botha to be overly physical. If it happens to help the Bokke retain the ***le, all the better. Sometimes sportsmanship gets thrown out the window.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I'm annoyed at how people (mainly refs and commentators) react to big hits in general. So many times the tackler has his arms out and hits with the shoulder (which is how you're taught to tackle as a kid) but the impact of the collision means the tackled player bounces backwards or falls over before the tackler can wrap the arms, and this gets called as a 'shoulder charge'. Annoys me so much. Unless the tackler has his arms at his sides I really don't think people should get penalised for making big hits - smartcooky would be interested to hear your take on this?

 

[Shaggy]

Shaggy, I disagree with your opinions and I disagree with your right to voice them because they don't prove that there's a conspiracy against the team I like. /sarcasm

Bias, especially when it comes mixed with patriotism, is something that doesn't go away. Everyone's opinion is in someway affected by their own personal bias, that's inescapable. Some Boks supporters would tell you that if Carter/McCaw get injured, even purposefully, that it simply the nature of the game for enforcers like Botha to be overly physical. If it happens to help the Bokke retain the ***le, all the better. Sometimes sportsmanship gets thrown out the window.

Haha, nice work on the whole conspiracy theory stuff ... sure, I get the whole patriotism/ personal bias stuff, and that we are all biased in some way,no matter how hard we may struggle against it ... I even get the whole physical enforcer/win at all costs/sportsmanship getting thrown out the window stuff - I personally don't condone it, but I do understand it. What I don't get is the victim mentality when players get caught doing it.

If you take the game down to it's most basic level, it's about scoring more points than the opposition - it's not about injuring the opposition player so they can't play anymore, in fact, that's against the rules of the game ... if you break the rules of the game (and remember, you chose to do it), then if you get caught, then expect to be penalised in some way - don't try and defend your actions by comparing it with another player who may or may not have got away with it.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm annoyed at how people (mainly refs and commentators) react to big hits in general. So many times the tackler has his arms out and hits with the shoulder (which is how you're taught to tackle as a kid) but the impact of the collision means the tackled player bounces backwards or falls over before the tackler can wrap the arms, and this gets called as a 'shoulder charge'. Annoys me so much. Unless the tackler has his arms at his sides I really don't think people should get penalised for making big hits - smartcooky would be interested to hear your take on this?

The requirement to "wrap arms" in the tackle is one of the most misunderstood aspect of the tackle. Law 10.4 (e) to (j) pretty much defines what you are not allowed to do in a tackle, but nowhere does it say that you MUST wrap your arms.

[textarea](g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/textarea]

It says you must try to wrap arms, and the attempt to do so is enough to get you off the hook. Of course, it is down to the referee to judge whether a genuine attempt to wrap arms has been made.

So, you are dead right in respect of the fact that a player with arms down, or with his shoulder leading, is in no way trying to wrap his arms. Likewise, a player with his arms out front, whose first point of contact is the shoulder, is obviously trying to wrap, even though he may fail to do so.

In the case of SBW's hit on Kankowski, that was a definite shoulder charge, but it was no worse than a lot of other dangerous charges I have seen, and definitely not in red card territory. Had it been to the head, like this one....



then it would be a different story.

Incidentally, the yellow card and subsequent red card was an interesting scenario. This was a case where the citing officer over-ruled the referee and decided that the shoulder charge was worth a red card on its own, not the yellow card that Dickinson gave. The red card that Nonu received on the field was purely because of the second yellow.

In this case, the Citing Officer exercised his power to cite the player under Regulation 17.6.2 (c)

[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]

 

[Boet Faas]

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

Just a thought, if those are citing rules, why have Bakkies Botha been cited for clearing out when there was also no red card? He was found not guilty, but still cited! Are there two sets of rules that apply to NZ and to SA dirty play? We here in SA think so.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Check post #18 ... explanation is there.

 

[Boet Faas]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
My apologies, I see this issue has already been addressed.

In response to the comment about the SA mindset in coaching and the enemy remark, as a SA that has played rugby, albeit at school level, there is definitely a culture of bruising and overly aggressiveness. That is the way rugby is coached and played in SA. Go and watch a currie cup final back in the 80's and 90's and see how they used to play. I do not think I could have made it at that level with that kind of behaviour on the field. It resembles a boxing, wrestling match more than rugby. I am amazed that tries were actually scored because backline movements was never part of the game plan.

I must also add that I think the AB's has always been the best at absorbing that kind punishment. The AB's has always had the ability to turn the punishment into points, which in turn forced the Boks to do away with winning the fight and concentrate on the game. To me, it is a crying shame that the Boks are not regarded as the AB's are anymore. We love to hate you, but admire your talent and that hurts even more!

 

[smartcooky]

Just a thought, if those are citing rules, why have Bakkies Botha been cited for clearing out when there was also no red card? He was found not guilty, but still cited!

Your statement makes no sense. The citing comes before the judiciary, not after it! As Cymro said, check post 18. I posted the relevant Regulation there.

Are there two sets of rules that apply to NZ and to SA dirty play? We here in SA think so.

Well you are wrong! There are not two different sets of rules. Thats just part of the old South African persecution complex coming through. You think the whole world is out to get you, when in fact, it is far more like that the whole world actually doesn't give a fvck. And in any case, Botha was cited by a Jannie Lubbe, a SOUTH AFRICAN Citing Commissioner, for his hit on Duvenage. How is your conspiracy theory holding up now?

Despite my earlier explanation, it seems that some are still not understanding how the citing/judiciary regulation works in relation to the act of foul play on the field, so what I will do is describe a scenario involving an act of foul play, and then explain what happens as regard to how it is dealt with, if at all.

Scenario: Red 12 hits Blue 15 with a late no arms tackle.

1. The referee either sees it and takes no action, or does not see it. at all. The Citing officer reviews it and decides that the offence was only worth a penalty - result; No action taken.

2. The referee either sees it and takes no action, or does not see it. at all. The Citing officer reviews it and decides that the offence was worth a yellow card - result; No action taken.

3. The referee either sees it and takes no action, or does not see it. at all. The Citing officer reviews it and decides that the offence was serious and worth a red card.- result; Red 12 is cited.

4. The referee sees it and awards a penalty or a yellow card. The citing officer agrees with the referee's decision - result; No action taken

5. The referee sees it and awards a penalty or a yellow card. The citing officer disagrees and thinks the offence was serious and worth a red card- result; Red 12 is cited.

6. The referee sees it and awards a red card. The citing officer doesn't need to review the offence because Red 12 is "automatically cited"

It is perfectly possible for a player to be cited but not be found guilty because he successfully answers the charge.If a player is cited it does not mean he's guilty of an offence, it means he has been charged with an offence. It is important to undersatdn teh firrerence.

 

[Boet Faas]

Your statement makes no sense. The citing comes before the judiciary, not after it! As Cymro said, check post 18. I posted the relevant Regulation there.

Yes sorry, typo. I meant to say, "he was cited and found innocent."

Well you are wrong! There are not two different sets of rules.

Yes there is. Last year there was a huge furore over that, especially all the Bakkies citings whilst NZ players got off scot free, remember?

Thats just part of the old South African persecution complex coming through. You think the whole world is out to get you, when in fact, it is far more like that the whole world actually doesn't give a fvck. And in any case, Botha was cited by a Jannie Lubbe, a SOUTH AFRICAN Citing Commissioner, for his hit on Duvenage. How is your conspiracy theory holding up now?

Yeah we need to work on that. We will get the "persecution complex" of our backs when one set of rules apply. And as far as Jannie Lubbe is concerned, maybe he is just a more honourable person than his NZ counterparts? No conspiracy there.

 

[smartcooky]

Boet Faas

To quote your own words

...........there is definitely a culture of bruising and overly aggressiveness. That is the way rugby is coached and played in SA. Go and watch a currie cup final back in the 80's and 90's and see how they used to play. I do not think I could have made it at that level with that kind of behaviour on the field. It resembles a boxing, wrestling match more than rugby. I am amazed that tries were actually scored because backline movements was never part of the game plan.

And therein lies the reason why your players end up fronting the judiciary more than those of most other countries.

Its nothing to do with some imaginary different set of rules, and everything to do with the fact that you push the outside of the foul play envelope more than anyone else, so you end up paying a price that.

Then, forgetting all this, you come to the twisted conclusion that officials are biased against you. From the inside looking out, some of you see yourselves as being picked on. From the outside looking in, some of you are seen as a bunch of whinging ninnies.

 

[Boet Faas]

Its nothing to do with some imaginary different set of rules, and everything to do with the fact that you push the outside of the foul play envelope more than anyone else, so you end up paying a price that.

With this I agree, but, it just seems that the officials are so fixated on what SA does that it misses what NZ does. I will not accept that NZ is innocent and SA wrong all of the time, SBW is a case in point. And my comment about the honourability of officials on this one too.

Then, forgetting all this, you come to the twisted conclusion that officials are biased against you. From the inside looking out, some of you see yourselves as being picked on. From the outside looking in, some of you are seen as a bunch of whinging ninnies.

Right again, accept it is not twisted. Any die heart fan will cry foul when this type of incident is overlooked and it will create the perception that two sets of rules apply. We accept that things do not always go your way, referee's make bad decisions, especially Irish ones, things are overlooked, tries are scored off forward passes. But SBW is guilty and should have been cited and treated the same way Bakkies is!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

TBH, the Bakkies Botha-trying-to-break-Dewald Duvenhage's-neck incident is far more dangerous than SBW's shoulder hit. 'Far' being an understatement. If Bakkies got away with it I don't have any problems with SBW not getting cited. Not sure it's a red card offense in any case. The Bekker/can't remember the Highlanders lock? fist throwing was also a tad more dangerous and nothing came of it.

James Kamana from the Lions getting a couple of weeks for a tackle that we've seen a number of times allready this year was a bit harsh but apart from that I don't have any problems.

 

[Seaton]

I've heard people say that James Kamana was only cited and banned because he is now playing in SA, he must now be considered as a South African and hence get longer punishment (if any at all) than should he have remained in New Zealand

Mental


Would just like to add that I can't even remember the last time a Sharks player was cited (that doesn't mean there hasn't been one in the last 2-3 years of course), and if there has been one post WC I would bet my money on it being Frans Steyn


Pop goes the conspiracy theories

 

[Shaggy]

Any die heart fan will cry foul when this type of incident is overlooked and it will create the perception that two sets of rules apply. We accept that things do not always go your way, referee's make bad decisions, especially Irish ones, things are overlooked, tries are scored off forward passes. But SBW is guilty and should have been cited and treated the same way Bakkies is!

Mate, please don't take this the wrong way, because i'm not getting at you, but I disagree ... Any die heart fan, regardless of what team they support, should have the ability to look at things rationally, and see that there isn't two sets of rules ... case in point, NZ V England last year, two incidents, one involving Keven Mealamu, one involving Dylan Hartley ... Mealamu was correctly cited and receives 4 weeks (I believe he should have served those out, and not appealed, but that's another story), Hartley not cited at all ... perhaps his offence wasn't deemed serious enough to be a sending off offence ... BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER ... the two incidents are unrelated - does it mean that the judiciary were biased against New Zealand in this case ... NO

Rather than being subject to accusations of bias, the citing commissioner and judiciary should be applauded for dealing with foul play ... not saying you can't or shouldn't be upset, maybe redirect your feelings towards the player that committed the offence.

... As I eluded to earlier in this thread, if a team is going to "push the envelope" in terms of any illegal play, they need to be prepared to accept whatever the consequences are if they get caught.

... lastly, it is possible to take the blinkers off every once in a while, acknowledge that your team may have been on the wrong end of some decisions, that you've got away with some stuff ... and look at the opposition teams in exactly the same way - it doesn't make you disloyal to your team, or any less of a fan