Official Springbok Tri-Nations Thread

What did I fscking say about a Bok getting a longer suspension :mad: ...... this from an article on superrugby -

Du Plessis acknowledged that his fist had come into contact with Thomson's lower cheek and then his left hand knuckle appeared to come into contact with Thomson's face near the eye area but did not come into contact with his eye.
Video footage showed there was no visible mark to Thomson's face as a result of this contact.

Bates submitted that the contact was momentary and had come about through a series of factors, including the impact of another player locking Du Plessis' arm in the ruck as he moved to the ground.

The contact, while careless, was not deliberate, he said.

Garling agreed with Bates' submission but said any action in which a player's fingers, hand, or a knuckle comes into contact with the eye or eye area of a another player was very serious.

The International Rugby Board recommended penalties reflect that because of the potential for permanent damage to the sight of a player.

He said du Plessis had conceded the carelessness of his actions at the first available opportunity when the matter came before the judiciary and he had shown regret for his actions.

It was the first blemish in his playing career.

Garling imposed a suspension of three weeks up to and including August 3.
Click to expand...
..... so after all that, they still dish out 3 weeks ..... and putting someone out of action through a spear tackle gets one week ..... fscking unbelievable :mad:
 
Mephisto_Helix said:
What did I fscking say about a Bok getting a longer suspension :mad: ...... this from an article on superrugby -

..... so after all that, they still dish out 3 weeks ..... and putting someone out of action through a spear tackle gets one week ..... fscking unbelievable :mad:
Click to expand...
couldn't agree more! spear tackle, deliberate, 1 week. Contact near the eye, not deliberate, 3 weeks. :confused:
 
Mephisto_Helix said:
..... so after all that, they still dish out 3 weeks ..... and putting someone out of action through a spear tackle gets one week ..... fscking unbelievable :mad:
Click to expand...
Why is it that we always on the wrong end of the decision at these disciplinary hearings? We the country the rest of the world loves to hate or what?!! I'll never get it... Or are the lawyers that represent our players at these hearings incompetent? What is it?
 
someone needs to lock those 'officials' and SANZAR *********s in a room with the Bok team for an hour or two .......... then we'll see ;)
 
Yeah guys I posted the ban given to Bismarck above and I too feel that we get picked on more but we are after all biased South African fans. You must remember that Bismarck is effectively only banned for one match, the same as Thorne, as we only play one international in that period of time.

I also looked into the IRBs laws and Bismarck was in fact lucky...

There is nothing specifically relating to spear tackles but for dangerous tackles we have this
Law number 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an Opponent including early or late and including the action known as the “stiff arm tackle”
LE – 2 weeks
MR – 6 weeks
TE 10+ weeks
Click to expand...

Further on we have the recommended sanction for "Contact with Eyes or the Eye Area" and as we can see it is a greater offence in the eyes of the IRB.
Law number 10.4(k) Contact with Eyes or the Eye Area
LE – 12 weeks
MR – 18 weeks
TE 24+ weeks
Click to expand...

Bear in mind Bismarck admitted to making contact with the players "eye area". So three weeks is actually less than the recommended minimum sentence. They do take into account all sorts of extenuating circumstances, player's disciplinary history, intent etc, so this probably helped Bismarck.

KEY :
Entry Point Based on Scale of Seriousness of the Player’s conduct –
Lower End (LE),
Mid Range (MR),
Top End (TE).

You can read it all here if you would like.
 
still, making accidental contact with the eye area .... (which is very easy to do especially when in a ruck and you can't tell your arse from your elbow) and intentionally hurting someone ........ sorry, doesn't fly with me :mad:
 
Mephisto_Helix said:
still, making accidental contact with the eye area .... (which is very easy to do especially when in a ruck and you can't tell your arse from your elbow) and intentionally hurting someone ........ sorry, doesn't fly with me :mad:
Click to expand...

Well it is not so much the fault of the citing officer and SA rugby's lawyers then but rather the regulations laid out by the IRB.

This part of the regulation also shows the citing commissioners thought process :

Disciplinary Committees or Judicial Officers shall undertake an assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct, which constitutes the offending and categorise the offence as being at the lower end, mid range or top end of the scale of seriousness in order to identify the appropriate entry point for consideration of a particular incident(s) where such incident(s) is expressly covered in Appendix 1. Such assessment of the seriousness of the Player’s conduct shall be determined by reference to the following features of offending:

(a) The offending was intentional, that is, committed intentionally or deliberately;
(b) The offending was reckless, that is the Player knew (or should have known) there was a risk of committing an act of Illegal and/or Foul Play;
(c) The gravity of the Player’s actions in relation to the offence:
(i) Nature of actions, manner in which offence committed including part of body used i.e. fist, elbow, knee or boot;
(ii) The existence of provocation and whether the Player acted in retaliation and/or self-defence;​
(d) The effect of the offending Player’s actions on the victim (i.e. extent of injury, removal of Player from game);
(e) The effect of offending Player’s actions on the game;
(f) The vulnerability of victim Player including part of victim’s body involved/affected, position of Player, ability to defend himself;
(g) The level of participation in the offending and level of premeditation;
(h) Whether the conduct of the offending Player was completed or amounted to an attempt;
(i) Any other feature of the Player’s conduct which constitutes the offending.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No doubt double standards at work here, the citing guidelines meant nothing for Brad Thorn, he admitted making a dangerous tackle and so his charge was reduced to unsportsmanlike conduct.
 
cybershark said:
No doubt double standards at work here, the citing guidelines meant nothing for Brad Thorn, he admitted making a dangerous tackle and so his charge was reduced to unsportsmanlike conduct.
Click to expand...

I am all for the Boks so don't get me wrong here but the problem with Thorn is that it was not part of play. The whistle had gone and he then lifted Smit. So it made it a bit difficult to call as it was not really a spear tackle, as it was not even a tackle.

What are your comments regarding the minimum suggested sentence for "contact with the eye area" compared to what Bismarck received?
 
Was the Bismarck incident from yesterday's game? I saw a Springbok pretty much stuff his thumb into someone's eye - looked pretty blatantly deliberate to me.
 
Bradbowlllama said:
Was the Bismarck incident from yesterday's game? I saw a Springbok pretty much stuff his thumb into someone's eye - looked pretty blatantly deliberate to me.
Click to expand...

Now you are sounding like a kiwi coach/player or a SANZAR official! The replay I saw did not show a thumb being stuffed in someone's eye but rather a fist leaning on the person's face. Luckily the citing commission appear to have also seen the replay I saw and not the one you watched!
 
3 week ban for Bismark

DUNEDIN, New Zealand, July 13 (Reuters) - Springbok hooker Bismarck du Plessis has been banned for three weeks for careless conduct
Click to expand...

Du Plessis admitted his fist had come into contact with Thomson's lower cheek but did not come into contact with the eye itself.

Television footage confirmed that there was no visible mark to the face of Thomson as a result of the contact.
Click to expand...

Source: Reuters

Edit: Oops, I didn't realise you guys saw it was a 3 week ban and not only 1 week. :p
 
LancelotSA said:
Now you are sounding like a kiwi coach/player or a SANZAR official! The replay I saw did not show a thumb being stuffed in someone's eye but rather a fist leaning on the person's face. Luckily the citing commission appear to have also seen the replay I saw and not the one you watched!
Click to expand...

Lol - seriously Lancelot - I didn't get to watch it from too many angles - it was just what it looked like. Having said that, i would have thought the guy would have had to leave for bloodbin after that if it was a real poke in the eye.... so from that POV one has to speculate that there wasn't much in it - but I'd like to see it properly myself.
One would think that Bismarck and the NZ opposite could both speak up and say yes or no it was deliberate or it was serious or not. I'm not a little minded supporter when it comes to dirty play - in my opinion, deliberate fouls should be dealt with appropriately - they don't belong in any sport.
 
LancelotSA said:
What are your comments regarding the minimum suggested sentence for "contact with the eye area" compared to what Bismarck received?
Click to expand...

Not much that can be said Bismarck admitted it, he got a sentence below the minimum, so he got lucky. I've yet to see a real time replay, of course it looks worse in a slow-mo replay.

This incident shows how out of touch the people at the IRB are. Eye gouging is regarded as worse than a dangerous, deliberate, premeditated, off the ball, after the whistle tackle. And then we need to consider how badly injured John Smit is.
 
What a game on Saturday.

Just as I swore at January for being so bloody useless and telling my dad they should have had Pienaar on and replaced January at the start of the second half already.... He goes and score the winning try :o :D

Seriously

That little moment of briliance is what got the Sprinboks the game. Again they where out of place, lack in decision making and and and. This time we got the scrums right (And no guessing why ;)) Looks like the team is making an upward gain which is good.

And what does PDV go and say after the match ... Our country is going thru changes and and and... FK ME THIS IS NOT 1995 you dumb idiot !

Seriously, they should get a spokes person for him. He's a lost case when it comes to speaking to the media
 
http://www.thetimes.co.za/Sport/Article.aspx?id=800794

And we will no longer have to listen to the All Blacks bragging about a world-record winning streak of 30 games at home.
Nor hear about the Springboks not winning in New Zealand for a decade, or SA not winning a Test in Dunedin in 87 years of trying.
Never, never, never again.
Click to expand...

This is GREAT to hear!
I'm not a die hard rugby fan but this is really some great stuff to hear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X