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