Carter faces ban
9 Nov 2009
Dan Carter will appear before a disciplinary hearing after his high tackle in the All Blacks’ victory against Wales on Saturday.
Carter will face IRB judicial officer Jeff Blackett in Milan for his ‘head-high tackle’ on scrumhalf Martin Roberts in the All Blacks’ 19-12 win at the Millennium Staduim.
The flyhalf was not punished by match referee Craig Joubert during the game, but could face a minimum of a one-week ban.
If found guilty, Carter will be the third All Blacks player to be suspended, following wing Sitiveni Sivivatu and prop Tony Woodcock who were banned after the Bledisloe Cup Test against the Wallabies a fortnight ago.
100 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
9 Nov 2009, 17:36 pm
#50 WP-Stormers-SA: the welsh were simply looking for someone to blame rather than blame their under par team .and it seems theres a trend developing with NH teams
” they should have played with 14 men” this same line was used in the lions series and again last last saturday . are the SH teams so good tht the home nations believe they can only compete if they have a 1 man advantage ???
9 Nov 2009, 17:42 pm
Ban Dan for 4 matches the cheating playboy b’stard.
9 Nov 2009, 17:48 pm
Well, in the UK there seems to be an attraction for drama, pehaps the commentators do voice overs for some BBC radio show.
Ban, hell no. I wouldn’t even send a lawyer with Carter.
Sorry Sir, the tackle did creep a little high as the player ducked under my arm, but there was no intent. Sorry the Ref didn’t see it, but that is your business, not mine. Perhaps his boss Neville will speak to him about it when he gets to SA.
9 Nov 2009, 17:52 pm
#53 WP-Stormers-SA: “Sorry Sir, but I am an All Black and I play for Canterbury. It is stated in the law that it is impossible for me to get banned for anything.”
9 Nov 2009, 17:55 pm
#51 mbaxman93:
To be fair, the gripe re ’14 men’ had more legs after the Eye-Burg/lar incident in the Lions 2nd Test, committed as it was in the 1st min, than against a marginal high-tackle committed in the 72nd min of a Home Test.
Its a complete British media stitchup anyway. Listening to the BBC female interviewer speak to DC, McCaw and Wayne Smith in the immediate aftermath and she must have brought it up 3-4 times with each of them. Her earpiece obviously had instructions being relayed with much urgency and exclamation marks. BBC performing tricks perfected by The Sun, no less.
9 Nov 2009, 17:56 pm
#54 goyougoodthing2:
It didnt help Brad Thorn after he game Smit a fairground ride up the Matterhorn.
9 Nov 2009, 17:58 pm
#56 WakaNathan: Thorn should have been banned for 6 months the farker
9 Nov 2009, 18:00 pm
Danny must not be banned. he is too perfect to be banned .
9 Nov 2009, 18:02 pm
#58 rugbygenius: Earl is even more perfect than that!
9 Nov 2009, 18:04 pm
#59 Big Hit: No Carter is still better
Earl has many years to be like Carter .
9 Nov 2009, 18:09 pm
#57 goyougoodthing2:
Smit provoked him, so he got the exact reaction desired.
Thorn didnt drive Smit down, he had no control after releasing him.
If the Citings Officer uses the same slo-mo they needed to Get Carter, then they would have seen that too.
6 months ? yes, thats the predicted period of rehab for Bakkies victim, for which he only got 2 matches banned, being the same offence he was previously banned for. 2 matches for a repeated offender and a seriously injured victim ?!
I contend that the whole JUSTICE4 Bakkies protest was a mere ruse, ala Sir Alex after any ManU loss, to divert the publics awareness away from Burgers eye-gouing for which he received a paltry 3-match ban, and thereby protecting his ‘reputation’.
9 Nov 2009, 18:53 pm
lol he had no control after releasing him…. with his head pointed towards the ground…that sad I believe the carter citing is bullshit…I suggest armbands….
9 Nov 2009, 19:00 pm
#62 gunther: Cmon, just watch the youtube one more time. Thorn dropped Smit on his backside, in other words, Smit landed on his arse. At no point whatsoever he was not head-down. Bolloks.
Sure, he deserved card for that and a ban. Meanwhile, I do remember seconds before that Smit pushing Brad’s head into dirt. So – while it was stupid and potentially dangerous act – Smit cannot pose as an innocent lamb.
9 Nov 2009, 19:01 pm
#63 Nils: At no point whatsoever he was head-down, that is.
9 Nov 2009, 19:01 pm
Poor Daniel in the Dragons den.
I’d wear the armband.
9 Nov 2009, 19:41 pm
#61 WakaNathan: you talking smack as always, Brad went into the ruck with an elbow on conrad janjties’ head, that’s whay smit reacted & checked him, next thing Thorne the brute that he is is up-ending Smit… you can spin whiever way you like wanka it doesn’t change the facts…LOL
9 Nov 2009, 19:42 pm
#61 WakaNathan: “he had no control after releasing him” why did he have him airborne inthe first place?
9 Nov 2009, 19:46 pm
Daniel Hechter remains the Top 1st 5-8; ban or no ban
9 Nov 2009, 20:32 pm
#61 WakaNathan: Nonsense, the kiwis see the Boks as bullies cos it takes one to know one. ABs have played the same dirty game for years and years but cry like babies when it goes against them.
I care less if Thorn or Barney or Rip van Winkel deserved a ban in 1867. I do know that little Danny Boy would have been carded and taken an early shower if he wasn’t the golden boy from Kiwiland.
9 Nov 2009, 20:51 pm
#61 WakaNathan:
in the broadcast of the game i watched, the cardiff crowd reacted immediately to the high tackle – not only when watching the replays.
having said that;
it was a penalty offence and not much more
the media creams situations like this to court controversy and sell pages
9 Nov 2009, 23:49 pm
Now they’re complaining that since the judicial officer is English there may be a conspiracy at work.
This incident proves once and for all that the British are a bunch of whingers.
10 Nov 2009, 00:23 am
#70 charo:
It has also been the general consensus in todays rags that the crowd only reacted after the slo-mo’s. But everyone else is probably wrong tho, Charo.
This over-reliance on tv cameras is now not only finding head-highs before there were none, disallowing tries that would have previously been allowed and highlighting all the stuff that we only knew about in urban myth.
#66 Transformation:
your version of the facts tends to differ from mine. I think we’re both happy about that too. My eyes saw Thorn drop/”release” Smit, not drive him downwards as you suggest. When theyre driving them down head-1st that tends towards the intentional end of the scale.
#69 goyougoodthing2:
Im hoping you can come to the Top Table with better arguments than “it takes one to know one” next time. You’ll be proclaiming to be King of the Cstle next.
10 Nov 2009, 00:25 am
WakaNathan Dude, you make me embarrassed to be a Kiwi.
10 Nov 2009, 00:38 am
#69 goyougoodthing2: “ABs have played the same dirty game for years and years but cry like babies when it goes against them.”
Who cried? Carter? Henry? Gatland? Ouch, he is Welsh coach.
And by the way, the referee was Saffa. He did see the replays on the screen. Then blame him for fear to pull out a card.
10 Nov 2009, 00:39 am
#73 Pencil:
Rest assured, Ive been regularly embarrassed by enough Kiwis on my travels to have reached comfortable levels of humility and self-respect.
Fair to say there has been a bit of ‘history’ to my theme today. Double-standards tends to be a preferred topic of mine.
kia kaha
10 Nov 2009, 01:39 am
#69 goyougoodthing2:
strange,cant remember the last time a kiwi bit someone while in a ruck.
If you think that carters tackle deserved a card then we all might as well pack up and watch soccer. It was a penalty and thats it. The welsh got away with professional fouls on their try line a couple of times and they wernt sent.
Anyway its done now,gatland is proved once again hes **** and a loud mouth,i vote him to stay in the NH
10 Nov 2009, 02:18 am
at least most reasonable people on here are in agreement that it is a lot to do about nothing… as most reasonable people on here agreed Bakkies was harshly treated over the charging into the ruck incident, though like a convicted criminal, once you have a history and reputation, it is always going to influence the decision makers…
Carter should be exonerated, due mainly to his previous good record, not because hes from Canterbury, not because hes the kiwi golden child (funny how those with the least cranial capacity always revert back to name-calling)… but because he has what is considered an exemplary record… over time he has not shown malice and the likelihood of foul play… unfortunately, Bakkies has…
crystal clear?
10 Nov 2009, 03:18 am
#77 poppa69:
Nope, clear as mud, your logic is!! You do the crime, you do the time, is a cry I’ve heard you blokes spew out when talking about Saffa’s. Screw past history. If you breach the law you need to pay. No exceptions. The fact he said sorry, does not mean he should get away with it. But watch, if he gets any time I will eat my cyber hat.
10 Nov 2009, 03:48 am
#77 poppa69:decrying name-calling yet the hog is firmly rooted in the sty.
#72 WakaNathan:i’m not arguing that he drove him down, i’m asking why did he have him in the air in the first place? It’s not like smit was carrying a ball, was he?
10 Nov 2009, 04:11 am
#79 Transformation: thats a cheek coming from you…
10 Nov 2009, 04:11 am
If he did the crime, he must do the time. I agree fully.
(And, hey, he only misses a gimme test versus Italy… heh heh!)
10 Nov 2009, 04:32 am
#78 whatever: hahah coming from one who lives in the country they so despise, explain that filthy logic? I honestly dont care if hes banned or not…
as waka already said, I notice no Saffas complained when Burger felt like eyes for lunch?? in the first minute of a test? lots of Saffa smarts in that one
yet no one here complained he should have got longer..
do the crime, do the time… should have got 6 months, dont you agree??
10 Nov 2009, 04:36 am
#81 TheTackler:
You sound as sorry and contrite as Hone!!
10 Nov 2009, 04:40 am
#82 poppa69:
Agree
10 Nov 2009, 04:42 am
#82 poppa69:
Hey Popps, not sure where you got the fact that I dispise NZ from?? You could not be further from the truth, I love the place. What I dispise are some of the two faced twats that live in the here! You know, the “butter would not melt”…”who me?” type of twats.
Burger got cited and did his time. I have no issue with that. What I have issue with is the inconsistancy which so often sees a Saffa facing an extra few weeks compared to anyone else for the same crime. And we can list the occasions in there tens dude! And I think that deep down you know that too…………
10 Nov 2009, 04:44 am
#79 Transformation: one only has to look at how you consistently speak to Waka to know that you’re just another boer stuck in the sty yourself, though I do love your holier than thou attitude… how does it feel to be so damn righteous???
10 Nov 2009, 04:49 am
#86 poppa69:
Come mate, don’t show your ignorance. Not all Saffa’s are Boers, just like not all Kiwi’s are Asians………
10 Nov 2009, 04:50 am
#85 whatever:
You despise the All Blacks,we all know that,no problem there.
You do know that we are not the only country that have two faced twats.
10 Nov 2009, 04:56 am
#88 Hurricane:
I know, Assie has them as well………..
And I do not dispise the AB’s mate. Again you have misread me.
10 Nov 2009, 05:16 am
#87 whatever: hey, I was speaking to one Saffa in particular mate, sorry you happened to identify with it haha… dont you mean not all kiwis are poached ??
10 Nov 2009, 05:23 am
#90 poppa69:
Nah, I just don’t think Transie is a Boer based on past posts, so just defending him in his absence!
Only a few poached ones are in your run on 15 nowdays so you guys are bringing your quota down. The Boks on the other hand……..eish
10 Nov 2009, 05:31 am
#91 whatever: I was just using his analogy, if you look at it a boar is a type of pig, yet its pronounced exactly like boer…
funny coincidence perhaps
but what I found hilarious was in the very same sentence hes chastised me and then gone ahead and done the very thing hes had a go at me at…
there you go, a SA two faced twat…
10 Nov 2009, 05:33 am
#92 poppa69:
10 Nov 2009, 06:54 am
#92 poppa69: #86 poppa69: hey poppa, you may perceive me as “holier than thou” or what-not. I really couldn’t care less. As long as we speak rugby & aren’t swearing @ one another – a bit of waka’s garrulous, caustic sarcasm is must though – it’s fine by me. I’m not interested in any kum ba ya, back slapping, ek stem saam, i-agree-all-the-time blogging experience, that’s not my scene.
I have driven my fair share of shanks in the past but i’ve never been OTT like you! If that makes me holier than thou, so be it.
10 Nov 2009, 06:59 am
#92 poppa69: call people cranially incapacitated or challenged then in the same sentence decry name calling…..there, a bonafide twoKface Kiwi tw@t.
10 Nov 2009, 08:35 am
#94 Transformation: OTT ? me, perhaps, Id like to think its just passion for my country and my team, if that makes me over the top so be it….but my comments are not half as bad as some of the comments Ive seen on this blog, normally directed at any kiwi thats logged on.. and, Ive acknowledged my mistakes when I get over zealous, can you?
seems the victim mentality forces you guys to hunt in packs… thats just sad…
10 Nov 2009, 10:36 am
#94 Transformation:
why thank you, my good man.
10 Nov 2009, 10:37 am
#96 poppa69: u know what it’s fine popps, as long as we can still laugh & banter about rugby i’m cool…don’t have time to get bogged down by nonsensical details
10 Nov 2009, 11:41 am
#92 poppa69:
since when are “boer” and “boar” pronunced exactly the same?
perhaps you guys shouldn’t bandy about words you cannot pronounce?
or understand?
10 Nov 2009, 13:00 pm
#99 charo: go headmaster charo!!! Lol
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.