Keven Mealamu get 4 weeks for head butt

[nickdnz]

Mealamu's incident has been changed from "intentional" to "reckless". Not sure if that's entirely true, but I'll never know. To be honest though, not sure if it's the best result, but there have been stranger things that have happened.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I have no idea what went on in the appeal, but as far as most New Zealanders felt, Mealamu got what he'd deserved the first time around, yet I'm sure the common fan will be singled out for a hard time over this. Still, Hartley got nothing at all and in that context (2weeks to nothing at all), then it's slightly more consistent now.

Still think Mealamu needed 4 weeks and Hartley 2.

 

[squirrel]

spot on with that

 

[nickdnz]

I have no idea what went on in the appeal, but as far as most New Zealanders felt, Mealamu got what he'd deserved the first time around, yet I'm sure the common fan will be singled out for a hard time over this. Still, Hartley got nothing at all and in that context (2weeks to nothing at all), then it's slightly more consistent now.

Still think Mealamu needed 4 weeks and Hartley 2.

Why Hartley 2? I mean fair enough on Mealamu getting four weeks, but Hartley's hit on McCaw looked just as dangerous, and more intentional.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Why Hartley 2? I mean fair enough on Mealamu getting four weeks, but Hartley's hit on McCaw looked just as dangerous, and more intentional.

I don't feel that it within the definitions of what behaviour the IRB are trying to stamp out, that Hartley's incident is as clearly definable as Mealamu's headbutt. There are precedents for a long while going back regarding the penalties for that behaviour, whereas Hartley's forearm drop was just as bad, but harder to prove as an intentional strike to the head. It would've got reckless from the start.

 

[smartcooky]

Why Hartley 2? I mean fair enough on Mealamu getting four weeks, but Hartley's hit on McCaw looked just as dangerous, and more intentional.

The regulations don't consider it so - Regulation 17 Appendix 1

RL = Referring Law
LE = Low end
MR = Mid range
TE = Top end

RL 10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist
LE â€" 2 weeks
MR â€" 5 weeks
TE â€" 8+ weeks

RL 10.4(a) Striking another Player with the elbow
LE â€" 2 weeks
MR â€" 5 weeks
TE â€" 9+ weeks

RL 10.4(a) Striking with knee
LE â€" 3 weeks
MR â€" 8 weeks
TE â€" 12+ weeks

RL 10.4(a) Striking with head
LE â€" 4 weeks
MR â€" 8 weeks
TE â€" 12+ weeks

 

[TRF_Olyy]

That was a cleanout?
Last time I played union you didn't clear the ruck by going off your feet, lying on top of the player, then deciding to headbutt him! (the headbutt wasn't part of one motion of going off his feet, you can see him put more effort into the butt)
It's ridiculous he got it reduced, if you appeal you should be able to get it reduced to the minimum sentance at most.
As Mealamu was banned for four weeks, which as cooky points out above is the minimum, he shouldn't be able to get it reduced. It's as if they no longer acknowledge it as a headbutt, it's a half-butt or somethign

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Got to admit, had Moody been carted off would the ban have been reduced?

For me it smacks of inconsistency with the bans the IRB hand out. These guys have got to sort it out.

 

[squirrel]

find it funny how being a devout christian is part of his defence, i mean a muslim or an atheist will be in the **** trying to plead his innocence

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

find it funny how being a devout christian is part of his defence, i mean a muslim or an atheist will be in the **** trying to plead his innocence

Come on, you've made some good points at times, but that's the media. At no point was Mealamu's religion used in his actual hearing. For goodness sake, trial by media means nothing. You must know that.

This is all from a New Zealander who thinks he should've stayed with four weeks. Here's a tip....many thousands of us (possibly a majority) think Mealamu should have four weeks.

 

[squirrel]

yeah your right there mate that was the media, bit silly of me

 

[nickdnz]

That was a cleanout?
Last time I played union you didn't clear the ruck by going off your feet, lying on top of the player, then deciding to headbutt him! (the headbutt wasn't part of one motion of going off his feet, you can see him put more effort into the butt)
It's ridiculous he got it reduced, if you appeal you should be able to get it reduced to the minimum sentance at most.
As Mealamu was banned for four weeks, which as cooky points out above is the minimum, he shouldn't be able to get it reduced. It's as if they no longer acknowledge it as a headbutt, it's a half-butt or somethign

I think it's the minumum for an intentional act, rather than a reckless act. Can't be certain, but from my understanding the reason why it was reduced, was rightly or wrongly due to convincing the panel that the act was not an intentional act of foul play, rather than it never happened.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

yeah your right there mate that was the media, bit silly of me

That's okay, I personally think it's very big of a poster to admit he got something a little wrong. Not very many seem to be able to do that.