Official Super Rugby Thread 2012

[OGroteKoning]

Ja well. Those dooses like to wrap their precious stormers in cotton wool

Typical ... you can't beat a struggling side and then resort to blaming the ref ... shame

Sent from my Galaxy S II

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

Just to clarify -

1) Gregory is a Bulls supporter ..... so that all the rest of rest of us can see that the Stormers get different treatment shows that they do.\
2) Struggling side? The Sharks have people mia, new people in new positions and you say it's the Stormers mstruggling? Please man .....

 

[GreGorGy]

Typical ... you can't beat a struggling side and then resort to blaming the ref ... shame

Sent from my Galaxy S II

You read me wrong my friend. I very much hate the sharkies. By far my least favourite team as many here will testify. I take delight in seeing Province nail them BUT I do feel that the officials treat the Stormers way better than the other SA teams.



Glad they won in the end though...

EDIT: Thanks M_H for clarifying and confirming - unfair is unfair, end of story.

 

[OGroteKoning]

Just to clarify -

1) Gregory is a Bulls supporter ..... so that all the rest of rest of us can see that the Stormers get different treatment shows that they do.\
2) Struggling side? The Sharks have people mia, new people in new positions and you say it's the Stormers mstruggling? Please man .....

Yes they are struggling. Last weeks performance was just as bad as today. I attribuye the win to the Sharks not performing well at all today. If they played like they did against the Bulls, ghey would have had at least a 10 point win. They made more critical errors and conceded too many penalties. But they will pick up their game next week.

Sent from my Galaxy S II

 

[Ou grote]

Amazing how the refs let the Schmucks get away with so much dirty play, they must be the dirtiest side ever to play Super rugby.
Not to mention the forward passes they get away with...

 

[APoc184]

I just saw the replays again and this was such a kak call by referee Craig Joubert. I've never seen any consistency when it comes to tip/spear tackles.

 

[MickeyD]

I just saw the replays again and this was such a kak call by referee Craig Joubert. I've never seen any consistency when it comes to tip/spear tackles.

It was a poor decision, just like the Greyling try.

See the laser pointer? I noticed it during the game as well.

 

[APoc184]

It was a poor decision, just like the Greyling try.

See the laser pointer? I noticed it during the game as well.

Yeah. Joubert was average at best. Missed plenty on both sides.

I saw the laser as well. Wish they would just catch and ban the bastards. Nice that our photographer got it in the shot.

 

[sand_man]

Yep, merit based selection burns your arse, does it?

Only if it's the Kings at the expense of the Lions.

 

[GreGorGy]

Mmm - parts of thread disappeared. So, that red card, what is the rule these days? My understanding is mandatory review and sanction UNLESS the offender admits guilt within hours of the incident, at which point sanction can be halved/scrapped.

Is that correct?

 

[APoc184]

Ouch. Adam Byrnes out for 10 weeks after being found guilty of eye-gouging.

http://www.rugby15.co.za/2012/03/byrnes-cop-a-10-week-ban-for-eye-gouging/

A SANZAR Judicial Hearing has found Adam Byrnes of the Rebels guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship – making contact with the eye, after he was cited during a Super Rugby match at the weekend.

Byrnes has been suspended for Ten weeks.

The incident occurred in the 27th minute of the match between Rebels and Waratahs played at AAMI Stadium on Friday 2nd March 2012.
SANZAR Judicial Officer Paul Tully chaired the SANZAR Judicial Hearing held via videoconference on Sunday 4th March 2012.

In his finding, Mr Tully ruled the following:

After consideration of extensive video footage of the incident and written testimony from Tom Carter and the Waratahs Team Doctor, Dr Luke Inman, there was sufficient evidence to support that contact had been made with the right eye and bridge of the nose of the Waratahs player Tom Carter during the course of a ruck by the player Byrnes in contravention of the laws of the game.

Medical evidence was presented that demonstrated that Mr Carter had sustained a minor scratch to the eye but was otherwise uninjured. The entry point of an offence of this nature is 12 weeks in accordance with IRB Regulation 17.

Credit was given to Mr Byrnes for his otherwise unblemished record by reducing the suspension by 2 weeks and therefore he is suspended from all forms of the game for ten weeks, up to and including the 13th May 2012.

 

[Devill]

Mmm - parts of thread disappeared. So, that red card, what is the rule these days? My understanding is mandatory review and sanction UNLESS the offender admits guilt within hours of the incident, at which point sanction can be halved/scrapped.

Is that correct?

I belive you are correct.

Watched the Stormers vs Sharks game last night.....

The stormers are in for some stick as they could not dominate a "thin" sharks pack.
The sharks were not much better and if the keep gifting the other teams with penalties it will be a very long year for them as they can not build momentum playing the way they did.

 

[APoc184]

And Hougaard get one week for red card

http://www.rugby15.co.za/2012/03/hougaard-suspended-for-one-week-after-red-card/

The SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron has accepted a guilty plea from Francois Hougaard of the Bulls for contravening Law10.4 (j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground, after he was Red Carded during a Super Rugby Match at the Weekend.

Francois Hougaard has been suspended from all forms of the game for one week up to and including the 11th March 2012.

The incident occurred in the 62nd minute of the match between the Cheetahs and the Bulls played at Free State Stadium in Bloemfontein on Saturday 3rd March 2012.
SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron assessed the case.

In his finding, Mr Heron ruled the following:

“Francois Hougaard was given a red card in the 62nd minute of the game between his team (the Bulls) and the Cheetahs on 3 March 2012. The matter came before me as Duty JO. Mr Hougaard immediately accepted the tackle was in breach of rule 10.4(j) as per the sending off of the referee. After consideration of all the relevant material, including the footage, Mr Hougaard’s good record and the rather unusual nature of the incident, I indicated a penalty of one-week suspension. Mr Hougaard, through his lawyer, accepted that and accordingly he is suspended from all forms of the game to and including Sunday 11 March 2012 (a one week, one match suspension).

In summary my reasons are:

The footage showed Hougaard lifting the opposing player into the air and dropping him on to the ground. The Cheetahs number 13 fell backwards and twisted on to his right shoulder. He was not injured and continued unaffected. A subsequent report from the Cheetahs confirmed that (as did Mr Swart for the player). Hougaard immediately acknowledged his wrong. An unusual feature was the involvement of another Cheetahs player, initially supporting the tackled player and then not continuing to do so. It was submitted, and I accept, that this appears to have inadvertently contributed to Hougaard failing to realise that the player would drop to the ground. In my view this was a brief incident of dangerous play, which resulted in a breach of rule 10.4(j), without any intent to drop the player on to the ground. Accordingly, I find the entry point low end (three weeks). The player immediately accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty. He has no disciplinary record, is of good character and this is his first card of any type I am told. The circumstances of the tackle were unusual and there was no injury or lasting impact on the tackled player. In addition, Hougaard has the embarrassment of being sent from the field and the record that comes with that. In all the circumstances therefore I reduced the penalty to one weeks suspension. I emphasise that this was an unusual case and that it should not be regarded as setting any precedent in respect of future tackles of this sort.”

 

[GreGorGy]

Thanks Apoc - so sanction must then be mandatory, whether guilt is admitted or not. Interesting case and I am glad the JO saw as much

 

[APoc184]

Thanks Apoc - so sanction must then be mandatory, whether guilt is admitted or not. Interesting case and I am glad the JO saw as much

Yes. Whenever a player receives a red card he is automatically cited and needs to appear at a disciplinary hearing.

The judge will then decide if the red card was sufficient punishment or if further sanctions are necessary.

 

[sand_man]

Yes. Whenever a player receives a red card he is automatically cited and needs to appear at a disciplinary hearing.

The judge will then decide if the red card was sufficient punishment or if further sanctions are necessary.

So Strauss leaves a player concussed and stretchered from the field and gets a 2 week suspension while Hougaard gets a week for what was barely a tip tackle?

 

[APoc184]

So Strauss leaves a player concussed and stretchered from the field and gets a 2 week suspension while Hougaard gets a week for what was barely a tip tackle?

Ja swaar!

The inconsistencies in citings and refereeing will always leave me dumb-struck. And both players pleaded guilty.

 

[GreGorGy]

Yes. Whenever a player receives a red card he is automatically cited and needs to appear at a disciplinary hearing.

The judge will then decide if the red card was sufficient punishment or if further sanctions are necessary.

Then sanction is not necessary? You see the subtle difference? I am aware that citing (or as we call it South Africaning) is mandatory but your suggestion is that sanction is not.

IRB laws (as recently revised) are not readily available...

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

Ja swaar!

The inconsistencies in citings and refereeing will always leave me dumb-struck. And both players pleaded guilty.

You know, people may see it that I only moan when the Sharks are done in by a ref coz they are my team but closer inspection would reveal that I hate it across the board. I love the game of rugby itself and watch all the games I can and bad reffing/citings/etc ruin this game, no matter who is playing. Fairness has to be in play.

 

[GreGorGy]

You know, people may see it that I only moan when the Sharks are done in by a ref coz they are my team but closer inspection would reveal that I hate it across the board. I love the game of rugby itself and watch all the games I can and bad reffing/citings/etc ruin this game, no matter who is playing. Fairness has to be in play.

Agreed - no matter what the team is, be it SA or the others, fair play is critical. One of the problems I find is that a ref will always be suspected of a vested interest. Very little can be done to control this.

I feel that Kaplan, for eg, is no longer the wunderkind he once was - Craig Joubert has become SA's top official. Jonker seems determined to earn the scorn of everyone. Jeez, was it him that controlled the Easter Lions/Chiefs points party last year? I seem to recall it was and what a fiasco his first half was.