Hypocrisy in the AB's camp?

Question

Any player other than a Kiwi seems to feel the full force of the consequences relating to foul play.

Here is a typical situation open so that everyone can see. A small niggle from a 'Bok' gets a three week suspension while a dangerous spear tackle from a Kiwi which could have resulted in a broken neck gets one week suspension.

Look foul play is foul play..lets not try and weigh which is worse. But this type of thing gets my gall...why the favouratism?

If this carries on then I am afraid I will no longer be supporting Rugby or the AB's.

Answer 1

It's the Judiciary, any part of  a players head is a no go and the most punishment goes against any player that commits foul play against any players head . no Thorns was a heat of the moment incident, yes he broke the rules an eye gauge is a planned malicious act.

Answer 2

drop pad brian from irb who has been a biased ref anyway

Answer 3

Yes Brad Thorn got off lightly, it was deliberate even though Smit probably did deserve it. However people are far to quick to scream hypocrisy whenever an AB gets off lightly. Some AB's get off lightly, others have had the book thrown at them which people like you seem to conveniently forget.

As for your assertion that all spear tackles are planned, I don't know what game you've been playing mate but when your goal is to put the opposing player with the ball on the ground it can be as simple as the direction of players momentum that can result in a "spear" tackle, especially when two or more players are involved in the tackle.

Answer 4

Your heading states that the AB's are the hypocrites, yet you provide no arguement to back this assertion.

You do however assert favouritism towards AB's within the judiciary system. The judiciary are not the ABs.

Your arguement in your post is badly flawed and shows ignorance.

Answer 5

Kiaora,

If you are saying that the judiciary is biased in favour of NZ players, then that needs to be addressed by the Rugby Unions, not by us the general public. There may be a case to answer. However, it is neither the fault of the players, their management or the general public as to why the judiciary found the way they did. I would like to add my congratulations to the World Champion Springboks and wish all teams a fair and fun Tri nations competition.  Go the Blacks!

Answer 6

Hypocrisy in the AB's camp? I believe this is a fair question despite some of the hysterical responses it has generated. No genuine rugby lover condones foul play - irrespective of whatever provocation. It demeans and devalues the game. However, irrespective of some dubious IRB appointed judiciary decisions, there has been some degree of double standards. Whilst the 'dump tackle' (not a spear tackle, apparently) on O'Driscoll was severe enough to put the Irish Captain in hospital, I do not seem to recall the suspension Umaga and Mealamu got for their cowardly deed. Brad Thorn can therefore consider himself unlucky for a one match ban - given that others get away scot-free. The roll of the Judiciary dice does tend to favour the AB's in these situations - favouritism? Whilst the AB's of themselves are not responsible for the decisions handed down, the near hysteria of players, management, commentators and fans when deemed an affront against them, smacks of hypocrisy.

Some correspondents also need to get their facts straight. DuPlessis was cleared of any allegation of eye gouging - there was no contact with the eye. He was convicted of careless, non deliberate, play. 3 weeks? Fair cop.

Those in glass houses should not throw stones!

Answer 7

Okay, this is c**p.  The first thing you have to look at, which nobody ever does, is what led up to that tackle. Brad Thorn's married to the sister of a guy on my team.  His exact words were 'He deserved it'.  Smit had been stomping, punching and even biting players and the ref did NOTHING.  I believe he got what he deserved.

Next, that tackle.  It was NOT a spear tackle!!!  A spear tackle is when you lift the player into the air and drive him into the ground.  Brad Thorn lifted the guy up and dropped him.  That is whats known as a DUMP tackle.  Two years ago, that would have been legal.  The worst that could have happened there was maybe a broken collar bone.  

Thirdly, the eye gouge was not a small niggle.  Remember when Troy Flavell did it in the Super 12?? 8 week suspension and a fine.  An eye gouge is the dirtiest thing you can do in rugby, short of biting.  du Pleiss knew what he was doing and he was lucky to get the suspension he got.

Lastly, the favoritism comment from the asker.  'lets not... ask which is worse, why the favouratism?'  Firstly, as a coach who's spent some time involved with the judiciary, you MUST consider which is worse, thats how the suspensions are decided!!  If something is minor, it earns a minor suspension.  If something is major, it earns a major suspension.  I would have thought this was obvious.  The reason why du Pleiss got a 3 week suspension and not the entire series is because they couldnt decide on how deliberate it was.

Now everything is left up to the ref, and because of the IRBs 'accountability for referees' program, they don't want to give a yellow card for something that might not look as bad on the replay. Its c**p, in my opinion, in the good old days, you didnt do anything dirty because you knew that if you did, the other team would remember your number and come for you.

* You're still calling it a spear tackle mate, and its not.  Look it up on the IRB website under the definitions of foul play.  Anyway, by the way you phrased the question, you already have your mind made up, talk about having your blinkers on.

Answer 8

He may have got three weeks suspension, however that is only one game for him, the same as Brad Thorn got. I don't think there is any favouritism, the judicial is made up of representatives from NZ, Australia and SA, don't see why Australia and SA would favour NZ at all.

Answer 9

A small niggle?  Ask the person who's eye was gouged whether it was a small niggle.  There is alway tiddly winks if rugby is too rough

Answer 10

Paddy Im sorry you feel this way, unfortunately I like many other hardcore AB fans really dont give a S**t whether you support or take it elsewhere...... sorry just telling it like it is......

Answer 11

Paddy, Paddy, Paddy. My god your boring. Do a little research before posting your questions eh.

Answer 12

Well Paddy, I am not sure if you have seen the replay of the Thorn "foul play" . Suggest you do and you will see that while Thorn's actions were deemed unsportsmanlike it was not foul play. Clearly when you look at the replay you will see the reasoning of the judiciary was correct.

The Bok skipper falls on Thorn just as the whistle goes to stop play. The ref notices Smit roughing up Thorn( and continuing to lie on Thorn) around the head region - the ref warns Smit then by saying something to No.2. Thorn obviously chagrined at this attention by Smit stands up with Smit hanging on. Thorn shrugs his body which flicks Smit off. No real drama here - but Smit lands awkwardly. Unfortunate but Smit should not have been there anyway - he went on with the tackle - and copped a reaction. And to complain when the facts come out is not that flash of him. Compare Thorns misdemeanor with eye gouging and there is no contest. There is no hypocrisy in the AB's camp - far from it. We just let everyone climb all over us and then bleat when someone reacts.

Tumblingmoth

Answer 13

Excuse me but you have your wires crossed.  The All blacks are not responsible for suspension decisions, you will find that is clearly left in the hands of the disciplinary judiciary.  Also it is clear to me that you do not support the All Blacks or rugby anyway.  A true supporter with good sportsmanship is not fickle.  May be best to get into another sport.  Maybe lawn bowls?