Carter banned
Dan Carter has been suspended for a week for his high tackle on Martin Roberts.
Carter can appeal but as he was set to be rested for this weekend’s clash with Italy, that is unlikely. His one-week ban will see him available for the All Blacks’ clash against England at Twickenham on 21 November.
The high hit on Roberts, Wales’ replacement No 9, had coach Warren Gatland slamming referee Craig Joubert, but judicial officer Judge Jeff Blackett said: ‘Daniel Carter acknowledged responsibility, and had already apologised for, his high tackle on Martin Roberts, Wales’s replacement scrumhalf.
‘The sanction of one week reflected the low entry point in the IRB’s table of sanctions for the offence, together with the maximum allowance for the mitigating factors involved.’
November 10th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
fould-play-dragon!
November 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
What mitigating factors?
That was a JP Nel style swinging stiff arm tackle! How long would he have been banned? Ok,ok, from some angles it looks worst that from others and JP was a serial offender. Still, would be nice to know why they went so light on the guy.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
#2 Darquan: no one wants to see darling dan crying again. 2007 was enough….
November 10th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
#2 Darquan: because he’s daniel carter
November 10th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Yes… I’m receiving reports that it is snowing in hell…
November 10th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
#5 Kietzphat: LMAO! Have you got a drirect line ………
November 10th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Once again pathetic from the siteing system. First of all he should never of been sited because that was not a direct red card offense.
Not going to be many players left to play rugby if you are going to suspend players for every high tackle they make,
November 10th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Banning him for a week, knowing full well that he wasn’t going to play anyway… seems a little orchestrated to the cynical eye.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Heh. Looked at the incident again on the highlights earlier today, and it is well deserved.
NZ Rugby said somewhere that they’re not going with a ‘not guilty’ plead, but rather give a presentation on his ‘perfect’ record.
Depends who they compared it with… if it was Butch James, I guess it could be considered very strict.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I think we have forgotten that rugby is a full contact sport. Should have been a penalty for a high tackle. No intent, no red card, stupid decision, more than likely done to make Welsh supporters feel they could have won the game if only…..
November 10th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Correct decision from Judge Jeff but no need for the almost apologetic adjoining comments, he JP Nel’d him and deserves the consequences, just a pity the referee missed it as it could’ve affected the outcome of the game.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
crazy…
just now they’re gonna be citing and banning the front rows for getting the ‘hit’ on their opponents…
November 10th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
So now a tackle that stretches over both shoulders with the hand attached on to the arm (ie beneath the shoulder) is now a Red-cardable offence ?
Its a Penalty at most, a YC would have been OTT but strict. But never a Red.
1 Ques tho:- is an ‘apology’ now seen as an admission of guilt ? It seems to be considering how many times its been mentioned. Funny, I just thought that was Good Sportsmanship.
Did the Gouger ever apologise to Fitzgerald ?
November 10th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
No suprise at the 1 week punishment.
Was Carter South African however, it would have been 6 weeks lowered to 4 weeks after an appeal hearing at a time convenient to disrupt the team practice.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
He should never have been cited in the first place.
Sadly though, people are probablt right when they say any Bok would have got a more lengthy ban.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
#14 Hier kom groot k..:
It has been widely reported that yet another Brit player has received a 12-week ban for eye-gouging despite evidence from the victim that it was accidental and camera-angles that support that theory. It was his 1st offence. The Munsterman, Quinlan was unavailable ffor the Lions tour because he, to, received 12weeks for the same offence. Which seems light on both of them considering the NZRFU gave Richard Loe 6mths ban for gouging.
Are you able to explain why Schalk “he’s a Sth African so gets the maximum” Burger got only 8weeks for gouging in the 1st minute of a Test match, with camera-angles to support the severeity, and was available to play both Aus & NZ after missing only 3 Test matches ?
November 10th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
#2 Darquan:
This one’s for Waka!!
mitigating circumstances:
If he is wearing a black jersey divide the standard penalty by four.
Any other jersey divide the standard penalty by two.
Except for:
If he is wearing a green jersey multiply the standard penalty by four.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
#16 WakaNathan:
C’mon Waka…
That Lion’s player should’ve been banned for at least six month’s for physically assaulting Schalk’s finger-tips with his eye-balls…!!
November 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
#17 ufo:
The ABs now have 3 different players banned from the previous 2 Test matches. 2 of those 3 were innocuous at best (Woodcock and DC).
Not 1 complaint from AB Management or Players tho.
If they were wearing Green jerseys, UFO, then you can multiply the standard whinge by 4 and then some.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
#16 WakaNathan: Italian captain Sergio Parisse received the same ban for the same offence at about the same time. It would have been too obvious if the IRB gave Burger a more lengthy ban.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
#18 ufo:
Come on, UFO, help him out, Hier Kom Groot, surely you can conjure up an answer between the 2 of you.
Remember to make it consistent with the general theme of SA Persecution tho, that is vvvvvvvery important.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
#19 WakaNathan:
Harry-the-Nordic-Guy was obviously very wrong…
The All Blacks are obviously the butchers of world rugby…
The record speaks for itself…!!
November 10th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
#20 kaksioek:
Funny, there really IS always an answer that either makes a joke of it (see UFO) or just ignores it. Noone really cares to answer it tho.
There was a strong argument that Parisses was lower-end of the scale. On the evidence, Parisse did not know who the victim was and was executing the gouge ‘backhand’. Still horrific but greater chance that it was not-intentional.
Burgers on the other hand, well…..
November 10th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
#23 WakaNathan: parisse’s gouge was worse than schallas, parisse was standing up and he actually his victims eyeballs before cleaning them for him
November 10th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
#24 mbaxman93:
Burgers was way worse than Parisse, albeit both heinous to see in the name of ’sport’. He had the guy virtually in a headlock and his fingers were clearly straining to exact the maximum strength on Fitzgerald. It was sickening to see him moving away like an assassin and offer no apology to the victim.
8 weeks was a pittance but you’ll never find 1 Safa happy to acknowledge that was ridiculous because the whole Victim Persecution Movement is far more important.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
#25 WakaNathan: I actually think Schalk was VERY lucky to get off so light for the eye-gouge. They decided to charge him with a lesser offense (accidental contact with the face or something like that), but only after a lot of complaints. Still, I was very surprised he got off so light because I wanted him banned for that myself! And yes Waka I am a South African supporter.
But this was the exception to the rule and the VPM will stand firm whahahahahaaaaa!
VPM = Victim Persecution Movement
November 10th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
#23 WakaNathan:
I’m joking about it because you go on and on and on and we all know what yuo think but we can’t discuss anything without you telling us what a disusting rugby player Burger is and we’re all bored with the drum you’re beating…
you’ve become a joke… so it’s only natural we take you as one…
November 10th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
#25 WakaNathan: Quite honestly, I think he should have got a longer ban. So should Parisse.
But there are FAR too many incidents of Boks receiving bans that bear no relation to their so-called offences (think Burger himself being banned – during the World Cup, no less – for making contact with a player in the air). And there are also far too many examples of far worse offences committed by players from rival teams that go unpunished (think Giteau elbowing an airborne Fourie du Preez in the face).
November 10th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
so much for consistency in citing.
the irb is a joke. this is worse than the bakkies ruck incident in terms of overplaying the citing.
seems it is down to the mood of the citing official or judicial officer on the day.
baxxies carter.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
#27 ufo:
How wrong you are.
I dont go ‘on and on and on’ about Burger.
Or Bakkies.
Or whoever.
And if you think thats my point you missed it entirely. No surprise there, UFO, I suspect the lift doesnt quite make it to the top floor now does it.
What I DO go on and on and on about – using Burger & Bakkies as eg’s – is this bonehead refusal for the majority of Safas to beat the drum about being Persecuted by Refs, conspiracies, Citing Committees, travel, quotas. Never are the opposition given the benefit of acknowledging they were better, instead there is always a reason why the Boks lost. Like no other rugby nation has problems or that all their players are available or that their players sometimes get harshly Cited too.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
#28 kaksioek:
well OF COURSE he should have got longer. So should have Parisse.
But cut this **** about Safas getting it worse than others. They dont. For starters Bakkies gets away with so much more than he gets done for, and has for years, thats why the whole JUSTICE4 campaign was such a slap in the face.
Yes, Giteau should have been cited – far more dangerous than Carters high-tackle. But there are inconsistencies everywhere. Woodcock was banned for an innocuous elbow vs Aus in Tokyo, but both G.Smith and D.Mumm got off scot-free for throwing approx 6 clear punches between them, Mumm even ran 20yards so he could join in.
Stop the whole Persecution Ruse, noone is swallowing it.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
#31 WakaNathan:
Explain this:
The International Rugby Board (IRB) wanted to ban the defending champions, the Springboks, from the 2011 Rugby World Cup and would have done so had it not been for “legal technicalities” after the Boks’ “Justice 4 Bakkies” protest.
The IRB said that they were disappointed with the sanctions imposed on the team.
They may still appeal against the decision by an independent committee to impose fines of £10 000 (R128 000) on the SA Rugby Union (Saru), £1 000 on Bok captain John Smit and £200 on the players.
The committee ruled that the Springboks were guilty of “bringing the game into disrepute” for wearing armbands reading “Justice 4 Bakkies” during the third Test against the British and Irish Lions in support of suspended teammate Bakkies Botha.
The IRB released a statement saying, ” The Independent Committee was unanimous in its view that, had it not been for the legal technicalities (including the fact that the Committee felt it had to take a “necessarily strict interpretation” of certain aspects of Regulation 17), both SARU and the Springbok players and management would have faced much more serious sanctions, including a more severe fine in the case of SARU and the suspension of the Springboks players and management from the Rugby World Cup 2011 (such sanction to have been suspended in the absence of further acts of Misconduct before then).
“The IRB had sought significant sanctions in this case which was unique in Rugby terms, dealing collectively with a Union, its national representative team and senior management who acted in unison without regard for the best interests of the Game.
“Whilst welcoming the guilty verdicts, the IRB is extremely disappointed at the level of sanctions imposed against the South African Rugby Union and its players in light of the clear findings that they have brought the Game of Rugby into disrepute and acted in a manner which is prejudicial to the best interests of the IRB and the Game of Rugby.”
“The IRB is giving urgent and serious consideration to the decision of the Independent Committee and the further options available to it, which include whether or not to bring an appeal against the level of sanctions imposed by the Committee.”
This ruling will be taken into consideration along with the recent Burger and Parisse eye-gouging cases, as part of the IRB’s ongoing review of Regulation 17.
The IRB has 14 days from the date of the written decision in which to make any appeal in relation to sanctions.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
#13 WakaNathan: ha ha ha ha…hi waka..
November 10th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
#31 WakaNathan: this is ridiculous, there’s a witch-hunt against the all blacks, fisrt woodcock & sivi now DC…arm-bands are in order!
November 10th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
this from stuff.co.nz
“Steve Hansen said he will not be representing Carter at the hearing, which comes at the start of preparations for the weekend’s test against Italy at the sold-out San Siro, but the former policeman and assistant coach chose his words carefully when he spoke to reporters soon after the team’s arrival in Milan on Sunday evening (Monday NZ time).
“We don’t have a view at the moment,” said Hansen who travelled with Carter to London. “Obviously we’re in the system, and we all know how the system works. So we’ll go there and I’m sure we’ll get a fair hearing and hopefully get the result we would like.”
Beyond that Hansen wasn’t biting on Carter’s high shot that saw the classy No 10, who was named player of the match after another faultless kicking display, booed for the final 10 minutes by the Millennium faithful.
Hansed admitted to being “a wee bit” surprised that the incident had gone to a hearing, saying he’d “seen plenty of them before”. He wouldn’t say whether he felt the Six Nations citing commissioner had been “pressured” into the decision or whether Carter might be made a high-profile example in a crusade against foul play.”
November 10th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
#32 kaksioek:
Explain what ?
Why, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Boks continued to whinge about Bakkies ?
Why, once, he was handed a meagre 2 weeks ban – after the Series was decided – they still decided to wear armbands on to the field, incl Management ?
Why Bok Management still refused to accept the decision of the IRB – despite them producing a video 6mths prior to the Lions Series, detailing exactly what Bakkies did as ‘dangerous play’ ?
Why, even after handing the SARU a team fine and Smit a fine, they still refused to acknowledge they had done anything wrong ?
Which Ques do you want me to answer first ?
November 10th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
#33 Transformation:
Youre right, it was a stupid Ques. Springboks dont apologise for anything do they, surely its the opposition that should always apologise ?
#34 Transformation:
No, the ABs wouldnt disgrace the jersey like that. And they wont complain either.
What they, and every other team appear to realise, is that much like nicks or lbw’s in cricket, some times you get em and some times you dont.
#35 Transformation:
Exhibit 1.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
#37 WakaNathan: go to stuff.co.nz 7 click on the carter is banned article & see the pic of carter tackling & come back and tell me what you think…
November 10th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
#38 Transformation:
Across both shoulders. Carters hand is clearly attached to his arm, just beneath the shoulder. Its high, but it never jolted Roberts head back despite him ducking in to the tackle.
We NZers have no complaints. Not DC, not McCaw, not Henry.
Sure have seen worse tho.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
DC wasn’t even going to start against Italy. So it’s cool be got the 1 week suspension.
And for the Saffers who think he’s treated special, its because he is. He has a stirling track record in on the field, not ever known as a dirty player. Often considered the best player in the world, and achieves this through talent rather than cheating. So yes, DC will be treated special, because he is. Accept it.
And honestly the suspension is more of appeasment than anything else. It was unintentional and not wreckless. The Welsh player wasn’t hurt or exposed to any risk.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
What must also be rather amusing is that the Judicial Officer in this case was an Australian.
Going by all the generally-accepted ‘Kissing Cousins’ BS spouted about here liberally (it fits in nicely with general conspiracy theories, persecution of Safas, expanding S14 deals), then surely DC would have got off and not banned ?
G10, I know its hard to think straight as a bipolar sufferer, but we were under the impression that the Kissing Cousins theory was watertight, whats gone wrong ?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
#40 babubunu:
There is only 1 criteria that can be applied to any banning offence.
Was it worth a Red card ?
The abhorent BBC seemed to think so going on their appalling line of questioning to MoM Carter, Capt McCaw, and coach W.Smith. All before they had been given the opportunity to draw breath and see any replays. The banning presumably appeases all the Brit journos out there who know they cant beat these teams ON the park so choose to try and beat them off it instead.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
#39 WakaNathan: well i’m glad we have that out of the way..
November 10th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
#43 Transformation:
dirty little thug that DC, should have sent him home like Murdoch.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Waka you see the probable lineup for the italy game?
the ABs looking rather exposed.
starting delany at 10, mccalister at 12 with ellison at 13. thats going to be a shaky midfield not that italy will really rattle anything offensively but the lack of solid combination could put pressure on the guys with italy having a reasonable defensive system.
interesting that siti gets his jersey back. does that mean guilford starts against england?
and with latimer and messam on the flanks and captained by rodders at 8. could be an interesting fixture.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:21 am
#11 Big Hit:
Rubbish.If the ref saw the head high,it would have been a penalty.
If the ref acted upon the 2 professional fouls that Wales did on their try line then their is 2 yellow cards.
So going on that you are right,Wales would have had another 3 points and NZ would have had another 2 tries
November 11th, 2009 at 2:04 am
I’d say Guildford had a pretty good debut. His strength in the tackle was key to Hores try. It’d be awesome if he was put into starting line ups more often.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:27 am
#46 Hurricane: it would’ve been a penalty and a yellow card, don’t even pretend. NZ would’ve staring down the barrell of their first loss to Wales in a long time.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:49 am
“Coulda, shoulda, woulda.”
The all-time loser’s motto.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:47 am
#49 TheTackler: I didn’t realise you had a motto tackles
November 11th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Some of you are real pieces of work.. one mo your crying the AB’s are a protected species,then when one one gets pinged your whinging or crying its ‘rigged’ or not enough and yet one someone gets banned for trying to pry someones eyes out of their sockets its unintentional and you have to compare it to all the other so called offences the AB’s get away with or so called other similar charges and all the time bemoaning the poor old Boks woes. Boo Hoo. Carter took it on the chin and some of you are still crying
November 11th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Terrible decision. It was a high tackle and nothing more. Pretty standard stuff. Citing officers continue in their merry inconsistant way. Is though a pitty that Joubert and his assistants missed it on field. Big miss that. Game could have had a different ending.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:51 am
#52 Amerifikaner: shame he missed the Welsh player offside and coming in from NZs side of the ruck when Leonard botched a try… no mention of that here, yet surely that was a professional foul…
the welsh got away with a lot of offside and cynical play, which no doubt would have resulted in more points to the AB’s… so you’re right, the game could and SHOULD have been so different…
November 11th, 2009 at 7:05 am
#44 WakaNathan: DC is no thug dude. He is the Lebron James of rugby, no.1 pin-up boy in new zealand, mr jockey, mr “the guy wakes up & walks around with a halo all day” as told by richard kahui. carter is class personified.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:15 am
IMO Carter did not deserve a ban. A slap on the wrist but no more.
Perhaps there should be a warning system (maybe there is and I dont know) a sort on “once more and your a gonner” with a heavy penalty.
I get more pi55ed off with the profesionl stuff (from all teams these days) at the breakdown and especialy when defending the tryline. All teams do it and there should be stiff penalties. We mock soccer players for their nancy boy dives and rolling on the floor cluching some uninjered part (poofters) but the pro foul is in the same league if you ask me. Cheating and not alowing the better team to go forward.
Perhaps instead of 10 mins in the bin, it should be 10 mins as Hooker for a back let the forwards have some fun, and 10 mins as fly half for a forward, the embarassment alone for standing watching a scrum is punishment enough for any self respecting forward!
Have you seen the rugby this weekend, Samoa Fiji Pumas wallabies Boks and ABs….this is going to leave a serious dent in my couch and beer stocks…there is a god
November 11th, 2009 at 8:26 am
#30 WakaNathan:
Okay Waka… Let’s try one more time…
Firstly… the other day I posted that I thought Carter should not have been cited or banned… I was agreeing with you… I never mentioned a South African players of any reffing with regard to a South African player… you responded to me, by name, castigating me about Burger and Botha…
So yes… you do go on and on about it and bring it up even when others like me never mentioned it at all… you just can’t help yourself and can’t get beyond it…
Secondly… most SA supporters were shocked and repulsed by Burger’s actions and I can’t recall anyone saying he should not have been red-carded or subsequently banned…
But that doesn’t mean we have to keep on and on about it every time his name is mentioned either…
Thirdly… Take just one of those incidents… Botha’s… No sooner had he driven into Jones’ shoulder… the Lion’s hooker drove head-first into Botha’s ribs in pretty much the same way, some woud say with more intent… yet was not penalised… If you’re going to go on about dirty play you should be consistent…
Fourthly… when researching trends in any data you need to actually look at all the available data… the guys who go on about anti-SA reffing can cite examples until the cows come home… you keep harping on about the same two examples over and over… The pattern is established by the overwhelming weight of the data… one or two exceptions are just that… exceptions… they don’t disprove the pattern…
Fifthly… you generalise across the board like most bigots do. You are so wrapped up in your anti-South African emotions that you can’t look rationally at the problem… You come on Keo and address “saffas” all the time instead of mentioning the individuals who made the alleged comments by name… generalisation is one of the favourite tools of bigots…
And… finally… your use of non sequiturs just demonstrates your intellectual inability to argue each topic on its own merits…
Sheesh man… lighten up… don’t take yourself so farking seriously… you may be a big deal to New Zealand rugby… but in cyberspace you’re just another nickname…
If you’re into this “I’m an importaant person/blogger and my opinion is more important than every South African opinion” BS… go and blog on a New Zealand rugby site where they will cow-tow to you…
November 11th, 2009 at 8:48 am
1 week, as was expected. Fair punishment, I think.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:50 am
#55 muffy: “Perhaps instead of 10 mins in the bin, it should be 10 mins as Hooker for a back let the forwards have some fun, and 10 mins as fly half for a forward, the embarassment alone for standing watching a scrum is punishment enough for any self respecting forward!”
LOL! Good start of the day.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:54 am
#48 Big Hit: “NZ would’ve staring down the barrell of their first loss to Wales in a long time.”
Maybe. Maybe not. Wales looked completely toothless in the 2nd half bar last gasp activities, besides, how about their own pals being sent to the bin for their own professional fouls? In that case, Wales would have starind down the barrel of another 20+ hiding.
Anyway, the game is over, DC escaped and so did a bunch of Welsh. 57 years go on. There always is a next time to try again.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Having reviewed the game, I have spotted eight instances where yellow, or even red cards, were justifiably able to be awarded the Village Idiots. Biased refereeing? Yes hometown refereeing that allowed the Bokke to win the 3N this year.
The kick on Leonard’s head was terrible, when compared with Colin Meads air swing in Edinburgh. The number of professional fouls that were ignored beggars belief, particularly Jones playing half back for the All Blacks and the spoil on the All Blacks try.
The TMO has become a total joke and the All Blacks have one from five on this tour.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
#45 Tomsta:
I understand the lineup gets announced at 3pm Italy.
Wow, ifs that the case then the ABs will have a match on their hands. The Azzurri have really toughened up, considerably, in the pack and will have Gouger II, Parisse, avail and also (?) the Argentinian behemoth, Castrogiovani, who singelhandedly destroyed the Springboks last week playing for Leicester C.
Must say, its honourably ballsy call by the 3 Blind Mice to select so many debutants/fringers. Delany still strikes me as a tidy-but-limited player but Im happy to trial anything at 10 if The Duck is the only alternative.
Havent seen enough of Ellison. Im wondering if he is related to Rhys Ellison of Otago/Waikato fame circa mid-80’s, crash-tackling 12/13. Was probably the best tackler in NZ at the time, absolutely lethal.
McAlister is an awesome player, he just needs gametime. Not sure if ’steadying influence’ inside/outside 2 x AB debutants is something you can say of Cool Hand Luke, but he puts it about and has all the skills req’d at this level. His huge boot also comes in handy when the heat is on.
Will we see Tarzan moved to his favoured 15 jersey or will Ben ‘Who ?’ Smith get a run ? Experience is vital at FB when running out with a few debutants with nerves.
I would love to see Messam and Boric getting runs, but just presumed these would be bench roles and then perhaps starting vs BaaBaas. Boric was looking really good for Harbour prior to selection.
Anyway, considering the Azzurri did very well against a strong AB lineup IN NZ, then this sounds a bit too risky to me with a packed 80,000+ at the San Siro. Wonderful if it comes off and 2-3 of the new players star, but horribly damaging on any career that would be involved in an upset, players & Management incl.
Forza Nero !!!
November 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
#48 Big Hit:
whats lower than the ‘bottom of the barrel’ when scraping is not enough ?
keep scraping, BH.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
#54 Transformation:
OK, Mr Serious Transformation Man, its now official that you were born without an ulnar nerve in your humerus (aka ‘funny bone’). Seek professional help.
Yes, DC is supreme. Or, as Chris Rattue (NZHeralds own Stephen Jones-esque prime sh*tstirrer and Henry-hater) said yest:-
“Carter’s tackle was magnificent in its intent, but ultimately poorly executed and illegal. The NZRU may be overbearing and unbearable, and the Henry regime so smug it makes the skin crawl, yet it is an enthralling honour to witness the careers of Carter and Richie McCaw, whose skill in understanding and dealing with what rugby has become is keeping this team in the hunt.
Carter was immaculate in Cardiff, but of course he always is.
He doesn’t have the razor-sharp sidestep of Phil Bennett, or the extreme wizardry of Mark Ella, or even maybe the ways of Australia’s hooded, silent assassin, Stephen Larkham. (As rugby plods from one breakdown or bomb to the next, I find myself dreaming of the days of Larkham, and wondering if the game will ever return to a state that allows such a talent.)
As a goalkicker, Carter is superb, but lacks extreme distance. In every other way though, including defence, he is a supreme No 10.
If you had to pick your all-time team, then Ella or Larkham and a good few European candidates would more than do at first five-eighths, with Ella perhaps the favourite, especially on entertainment value. A couple of Argentines would be candidates.
South Africans would rightly have their choices, although they never attacked with the genius of Ella, Bennett and Co.
Me though? I’d have Dan Carter, the all-round supremo, running the show.”
BTW – Rattue wrote this article 24hrs BEFORE the Judgement on DC and Rattue, fair to the bitter core, said:-
“Carter, a brave but normally clinical rather than ferocious tackler, had clearly decided that this was not a moment for taking prisoners.
He aimed a ferocious blow at the area in which Roberts was carrying the ball in an effort to dislodge it. And once you pull the trigger with that sort of intent there ain’t no room for readjustment.
Roberts did fall slightly, making it more likely that Carter would clout him in the head, but players at this level must know that if they go ahead with this sort of tackle, there is a good chance it will end up being high.
He is guilty, and it would be a travesty if the judiciary ruled otherwise overnight.”.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
#56 ufo:
this from the guy saying that I “go on and on about it” ?
UFO, return to your own solar system immediately, we’ve already got enough weirdo obsessed ones here to worry about thanks. So pull the curtains, lock the door and wait for the little men in their white coats to turn up and escort you off the planet.
Hey, and ‘dont take yourself so farken seriously’ when you arrive home. They might not reject you this time.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
#63 WakaNathan: ok great so you accept he got it wrong. Cool. Done. So why then, do you refuse to acknowledge that every SA rugby fan worth his salt was repulsed and disgusted by what Burger did? How many saffas were calling for his head? Quit making out like we all secretly rubbing our hands with glee at what he did, it’s disingenuous nonsense and you know it.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
#65 Atreides:
Which is to miss the point.
‘disingenuous nonsense’ is also wearing armbands on to the field to protest the ‘victim’ Bakkies in the same week a player got off lightly for eye-gouging. How can you be ‘disgusted’ by 1 player – who was allowed back on the field, a fact explicit in the last-min Test & Series victory – in the same breath as preaching the ‘we are persecuted’ line to the World ?
check out the rubbish spewed forth by UFO @ 56 – “researching data……citing examples” of SA persecution, a line repeated ad nauseum here by a plentiude of bloggers as if it were fact.
SAs attitude in footy seems to mimic that of the Aussie cricketers, tas if to say that youre ‘only out if the Ump says so’ ie you never walk, on the premise that you sometimes get out when youre not.
Quit the persecution BS. Sometimes its better to walk.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
#66 WakaNathan: Correct !!
That’s why we’re the best at rugby and the Aussies are the best at cricket.
No wait !! We’re the best at cricket too !!
November 12th, 2009 at 1:53 am
#67 OutWide:
Thats also why noone likes the Aussie cricket team.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
#66 WakaNathan: Shall I assume, before I get mad, that by ‘you’ you are referring to SA’s in general, and not me specifically. Where I have ever said we are persecuted, or that there are conspiracies aimed at ‘getting’ us…in fact I have often derided such notions as stupid, paranoid delusions. I’ve made it abundantly clear, (to those who bother to actually read posts by other people carefully instead of just doing a mental “cut n paste” of what they think they mean) that we give as good as we get, and sometimes more, and if the rules are broken punishment must be imposed. I also stated on several occasions that the armband was a retarded, insulting waste of time and energy. I also have alsways followed the line that the citing and judicial process in general is flawed, incompetent and inconsistent. Not against us. Just generally. But don’t let these facts stop you boy, you just keep right on painting all south africans with your blinkered, one-eyed brush.
I had a very interesting chat on silver fern with the bloggers there about how the citing system could be constructively addressed…must say it was refreshing to see that most kiwi bloggers are quite pleasant and actually willing to have civil, two-way conversations without always degenerating into tired old accusations and rants.
And of course we all know the AB’s are choirboys who would NEVER dream of trying to get away with anything illegal…on the contrary, I often see NZ players owning up to their own illegal actions.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
#69 Atreides:
On the contrary I respect your opinions, always have. Lets not get all PMS over this, its only footy after all.
To be fair, I am but just 1 of a handful of Kiwi bloggers here. If I had a penny for every sweeping disingenuous nonsense about Kiwis from Safas here, Id be richer than Luis Loot. Check out how many times G10 slags anything NZ, and puts not any, but all, decisions down to conspiracies betw NZ-Aus as if it is fact. Thats not only naive, but insulting. He is but 1 of many, very many, who sing the same tune. So if you have 1 or 2 fish who happen to swim against the tide, then rest assured they are the strong ones.
I most certainly dont ‘paint’ all Safas with 1 paintbrush either. Ive hired 4 of the b@st@rds here and 1 other is a best mate and Godfather of 1 of my kids. But I dont take any nonsense from them either. They can get nasty when the subject of footy arises, rest assured.
And in summary, may I refer to yours ? “We all know the ABs arent choirboys”. Yes, well, quite. The difference is, tho, that the ABs and their fans arent saying that they are.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
#70 WakaNathan: “And in summary, may I refer to yours ? “We all know the ABs arent choirboys”. Yes, well, quite. The difference is, tho, that the ABs and their fans arent saying that they are.” lol touche
November 12th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
#66 WakaNathan: Dont like you Kiwis….or Aussies….you guys have the knife in…everything points to that….
Charles Dempsey….bloody wanker!
November 12th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Deans now celebrating the Melbourne award of the 15 th franchise….SA shafted time and time again.
Personally i feel more at home with europeans than the kissing cousins.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
#72 grant10:
G10, the compliment is most generously returned.
To be so embittered towards a nation on the back of your oft-repeated gripe about Charlie Dempsey is somewhat contrite but also completely misappropriated.
The NZ Soccer Assoc sent Dempsey to the FIFA vote with a Board-approved Mandate to vote for SA. That Dempsey as an individual chose to go against that Mandate without the NZSAs knowledge or approval is what made it in to World news headlines. Dempsey was immediately fired when he got back to NZ, political apologies immed from Wellington to Pretoria. Dempsey, remember was a senile 80yr old Glaswegian who had spent most of his life in Scotland.
But go on, have your little rugby voodoo doll fun if it amuses you so. Didnt you get your World Cup in the end anyway ?
November 13th, 2009 at 3:54 am
#70 WakaNathan: “And in summary, may I refer to yours ? “We all know the ABs arent choirboys”. Yes, well, quite. The difference is, tho, that the ABs and their fans arent saying that they are”
Thats fair comment.
I think anyone with any Aus Nz experience will know that the Kiwis and the Aussies relish any oppertunity to stick it up eachother whenever they can, and that there is no kissing cousin aliance or buddy system in place. In spite of what some may think.
In short, and correct me if I am wrong; they bloody hate eachother…
But dont feel left out SA, they hate you too with equal passion (probably not quite as much as you hate them).
Thats why there are borders, and sport is the modern day war!