By Spiro Zavos
August 28th 2008 @ 1:45am
The SANZAR judiciary has king-hit Rocky Elsom
Two wrongs don’t make a right. The SANZAR judiciary, in my opinion, got its C.J. van der Linde decision wrong and also got its decision on Rocky Elsom wrong. On van der Linde, the mistake was made by being too lenient. On Elsom, the mistake was made by being far too punitive.
Looking at the van der Linde incident during the television coverage of the match, it seemed to me that he twice tried to head-butt Sam Cordingley.
Cordingley virtually confirmed this when he said that it was on van der Linde’s second lunge at him across a ruck that their heads actually came in contact: “… he just sort of glanced me but I wouldn’t have liked to cop the full brunt.”
To my mind, there was no doubt about van der Linde’s intent on both lunges. And again, Cordingley seems to endorse this opinion when he told reporters about van der Linde’s head-butting actions: “It does seem to be a common technique of his, doesn’t it?”
Given all this, van der Linde should have been put out of rugby for months, not weeks.
The decision to put Rocky Elsom out for a week is, in my opinion, one of the more ludicrous decisions ever handed out by the SANZAR judiciary.
When I saw the incident on the television coverage, it seemed one of those marginal calls where a defending jumper gets his arm on the shoulder of the jumper. Victor Matfield did not crash to earth, as you see sometimes in bad incidents.
Elsom was penalised.
Apparently, Matfield suffered a groin injury, but it was not serious enough for him to leave the field nor to be prominent around the field during the rest of the game.
As Greg Growden points out in the Herald, Francois Steyn took out Drew Mitchell when the Wallaby fullback was in the air trying to catch a high ball. And Butch James was involved in several dubiously legal tackles (as usual).
He might have mentioned, too, that Shalk Burger apparently attacked George Smith in the nether regions.
The Wallaby flanker can be heard yelling out to the referee, “he’s having a go at my nuts.”
Smith carried on the complaint telling Burger that what he was doing wasn’t part of the game.
At the hearing on Ricky Elsom, Robbie Deans argued that the fault in the incident belonged to the Springboks because Benn Robinson, the Wallaby lifter for Elsom, was taken out of the line by a Springbok.
I must say that when the incident happened, I was surprised that Matfield did not appear to be supported by his lifter.
The SANZAR Commissioner adjudicating on these two cases was the New Zealander Nick Davidson QC. There is no questioning of his good faith.
But the reality of his decision on Elsom is that without him the Wallabies played without much fire or muscularity against the All Blacks at Auckland. He was Man of the Match when the Wallabies tamed the Springboks pack.
Johannesburg is the sacred site of Afrikaner rugby, where teams absolutely need the sort of combative and meaningful aggression that Elsom brings to his team.
Like this article? Please spread the word about the Roar to your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(115)
ohtani's jacket said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:19am | Report comment
Elsom clearly dragged him down. It’s also difficult to see any evidence of the Boks taking out his lifter.
I don’t think it was worth a citing, but it’s no surprise he was suspended for a week.
Darryl said | August 28th 2008 @ 4:43am | Report comment
Well Spiro, as one of your readers (in a different thread) pointed out, it’s probably a blessing in disguise, since with the Boks losing the plot trying to play the AllOrNothingNoHoldsBarredHocusPocusMumboJumbo expansive game plan Pieter de Villiers is trying to pimp on them, the red mist will probably settle again, and there will be foul play aplenty this weekend, with a good chance that Elsom would get injured if he played. So at least you can count on his services for that final deciding game against NZ.
And I say this as a Saffer.
Benjamin said | August 28th 2008 @ 6:02am | Report comment
I think what puts the suspensions into context is that were I to do what VDL did, to a passer by on the street - or after a night out on the shant, I could be jailed for up to 5 years.
Perugini was given a 20 week suspension, Julian White 10 weeks and Epi Taino 6 weeks all for similar foul play.
Justin said | August 28th 2008 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Agree with both Spiro, Elsom should nto have been cited let alone suspended. That happens numerous times per Test. VDL is a disgrace and should have been rubbed out for longer. Coward springs to mind…
Small correction in the Mitchell incident. I believe he was mid air after kicking the ball and was “tunnelled” by Steyn. Karma in that one as Steyn took a pretty heavy knock.
stillmissit said | August 28th 2008 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Don’t we see it time and again over the years, the SA’s get a guy cited and then one of the opposition gets cited as well for a minor offence. This seems to happen particularly when there is another game the next week.
It also appears that the likes of Nick Davidson QC seem to often get it wrong. Maybe he never played the game or he is too bogged down in legal bullshit to see a fair decision. How can anyone right thinking person watching that incident on replay in slow mo come to the decision that it was an error on cleaning out. He also claims that VD Linde has an excellent record which I dont know about. Had I ref’d this game and seen this one he would be red carded immediately and the judiciary would almost certainly give him 6-10 weeks.
Another pig spike to the ideals of rugby from rugby’s officials.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 28th 2008 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Three wrongs dont make it right. Three wrongs make three wrongs!!!
1. Van der Linde tried to head butt cords twice, succeeding once. 8 weeks minimum.
2. Elsom vaguely pulled matfield down as he was falling himself, was penalised and that should have been the end of the story.
3. Steyn late tackled Mitchell in the air, without the support and safety of (Matfield’s) lifters to help the victim (Mitchell)return to earth. Very dangerous play! Should have got 4 weeks.
It is a farce. Read the comments attributed to the commissioner, actually supporting Elsom’s case for no further action.
From the SMH, Davidson explained that the touch judge Bryce Lawrence “had a clear view of the incident and while recognising the admitted illegal interference with Matfield by Elsom, he quite distinctly assessed it as carrying insufficient risk to merit more than a penalty, as he reported to referee Lyndon Bray”.
Video coverage showed that Elsom, who was jumping in the lineout, used two hands to “pull down” Matfield, “rotating him sideways and off-balance”. Matfield landed on his feet and fell awkwardly across Elsom.
Davidson admitted that the “incident was contributed to when Elsom lost the support of his lifter”.
He cant even elucidate the case supporting his decision!!!
WHO IS THIS CLOWN COMMISSIONER?
Jerry said | August 28th 2008 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Jeez there’s some sanctimonious hand wringing in this thread. Yeah, both sentences are a bit wrong - Elsom’s is harsh considering how similar incidents have been dealt with, but I’m surprised at how lenient such thngs have been treated over the years - I reckon there’s far more chance of serious injury from an Elsom type pull down than a Van Der Linde headbutt for instance (though I realise there was more intent in the VDL incident).
That said, I’ll agree that it’s pretty clear that the judiciary in the TN and rugby in general needs more transparency. They should adopt a set system of grading of incidents and penalties - it’s one area that league (and in particular the NRL) has it all over union.
ohtani's jacket said | August 28th 2008 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Yeah, I love it… Elsom was falling and had to cling onto Victor for dear life.
It was dangerous play and one of the IRB’s bugaboos. Just a stupid piece of play from Elsom. I don’t understand why they’re appealing it.
Yikes said | August 28th 2008 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Well, the suspension of Elsom is a joke. But the problem is the citing, not the suspension.
The problem with judiciaries is - once you find the bloke guilty, you have to implement at least the lowest recommended sanction unless you can find extenuating circumstances. ie one week. Hence what happened to Elsom.
The problem is he should never have been cited - because you are supposed to cite on the basis of the “red card test”. Should this player have been RED CARDED during the game. If the answer is yes, you cite. If the answer is no, then you drop it. Even if it should have been a yellow card (as could be arguable in Elsom’s case).
No referee in their right mind would have ever, in a month of Sundays, red carded Elsom. End of story. No citing.
Gatesy said | August 28th 2008 @ 10:29am | Report comment
You have to question why we have an ELV that has elevated the touch judges to assistant referees, when their discretion can be overruled by a “5th umpire” - a citing commissioner.
Here we have a situation where 3 officials would be watching the contest at the lineout. One, the referee either didn’t see it or didn’t think anything of it. A second, Bryce Lawrence, did see it and chose to let it go. Who knows what the 3rd saw or did not see. If one of the referees did see it and chose to act on it, could anyone suggest that such a non-blatant offence would have received any more than a yellow card? Surely the citing commissioner has to consider that the referees, in that short space of time, gave Rocky the benefit of the doubt. surely logic would say that you would consider what was in the mind of the referee.
There are five degrees of on-field decision making by the referee..(1) do nothing (2) do nothing but caution (3) straight arm penalty (4) yellow card and (5) red card.
In this instance the citing commissioner bypassed the first four, despite admitted evidence that a match official gave the benefit of the doubt. That is clearly overkill.
As a player, I can remember many referees who talked on the run and warned players before they committed offences, thereby probably technically doing the wrong thing by not pulling offenders up, but also doing the right thing by the players. It is not always necessary to sanction and non-officials should respect the referees rights in that area, particularly when they are now not merely just touch judges anymore.
Quoting from Rugbyheaven.com.au: ….The official statement from SANZAR disciplinary officer, Nick Davidson from New Zealand, did little to persuade anyone that the right decision had been made.
Davidson explained that the touch judge Bryce Lawrence “had a clear view of the incident and while recognising the admitted illegal interference with Matfield by Elsom, he quite distinctly assessed it as carrying insufficient risk to merit more than a penalty, as he reported to referee Lyndon Bray”.
…So there you have it. As we subsequently saw, many worse offences happened in the game. Did anyone cite Burger for having a go at George Smith’s privates? No, because everyone got over it and moved on.
It just seems to me that the citing commissioner must exercise a very high degree of judgment, based on all the circumstances, but the actions of the referees must carry the most weight.
Ben C said | August 28th 2008 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Benjamin
Unfortunately your analogy is flawed. Tackling is legal in rugby yet if I were to tackle someone on the street, I would probably be harshly punished. Merely because the headbutt is illegal in general does not give any context to the decision. In the words of the immortal P G Wodehouse: “… I know that the main scheme is to work the ball down the field somehow and deposit it over the line at the other end and that, in order to squalch this programme, each side is allowed to put in a certain amount of assault and battery and do things to its fellow man which, if done elsewhere, would result in 14 days without the option, coupled with some strong remarks from the Bench.”
The examples about the White and Taione are telling. With White, when he was called up to the judiciary in England, it was noted that the usual suspension for hedbutting was 20 weeks but his suspension was reduced to 10 weeks for extenuating circumstances. Makes CJVDL, who took two charges at Cordingley, look pretty lucky.
As for Elsom, he was probably unlucky to be cited, as the same happens in every match, but to be fair taking a player out in the air is pretty weak. It seems on the replay that Elsom deliberately tried to tangle Matfield up, which was reckless, but perhaps did not try to pull him down although that was the end result. A bit unlucky but I don’t have too much of an issue with a one week ban for reckless stupidity with a high risk of injury.
Benjamin said | August 28th 2008 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Ben, tackling is an acceptable practice within the rugby context. Headbutting with malicious intent is not. The analogy was based on the logic that VDL’s motive was the same as anybody involved in a street fight and decides to up the ante, so to speak.
Justin said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:30am | Report comment
I think you will find Elsom was going for the ball initially, its a lineout, a contest for possession. there will always be a chance of contact. It happens in every match and no one gets suspended for it, thats why they are appealing it OJ. Granted he did drag him down to a degree but he landed on his feet, albeit a little off balance. A week for that? Give me a break. Steyn was much worse on Mitchell as he wasnt being supported by anyone, had his legs taken out late while he was in the air, intentionally.
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Were the Springboks Steyn, Burger and James not cited because the Wallabies management didn’t put forward an official protest? And was Rocky cited because the Springboks management did?
I find they howl foul to hind their own dubious endeavours… the” Every body is malicious so we’re malicious too…” defence… Your honour…
I often wonder if the Wallabies don’t make official protests and just go with the old Australian sporting philosophy that what happens on the field stays on the field …
Peter K said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:32am | Report comment
I question the assumed high risk of injury business.
People grabbed in the lineout happen every game. How many injuries have actually occured?
It is a low risk of injury.
What may be argued is that whilst the injury occuring is low, there is a chance of the injury being a very serious one.
Similar to injuries in scrums. Many collapses happen with no injury but when it happens it can be a life threatening neck injury.
Based on common practise and interpretation i.e. what is considered worth a red card and hence a suspension Elsom should not have been cited.
Also it should not follow that because you are cited you then must be found guilty and suspended.
As was said we should have it standardised the citing offences, and standardise the range of the suspensions. I would then want every match to be examined for every case of the citable offences and cite them. That way if tackling a guy in the air is one of them then Steyn would of been cited.
The whole system is a joke.
mudskipper said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Additionally…The foul hit by Steyn on Drew Mitchell catching to ball in mid flight could have easily end Drew’s season…But when Mitchell gathered himself after the hit he didn’t appeal to the referee for a penalty but called out for a Springboks trainer to attend to François Steyn…
Now that’s a sportingly gesture…
Justin said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Peter K - agree with you regarding the injury scaremongering stuff. Its the same with collapsing mauls and the new law under ELVs. The ELV critics said there would be injury problems constantly with mauls being allowed to be brought down. Its a myth.
ohtani's jacket said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:48am | Report comment
The appeal has no grounds, because he pulled him down with his free arm.
The basis of the appeal is that there was worse foul play going on so why pick on poor Rocky. That won’t stand up. A reduced sentence? Half a game? He simply has to cop it.
Mark H said | August 28th 2008 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
All I can say is thatIve seen worse in this comp over the years with no penalty. I recon it either goes on report on the spot with a penalty or just a penalty. This crap about sighting players after the fact is crap regardless of the incident.
stillmissit said | August 28th 2008 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
OJ - I think you are taking support for another Kiwi too far with this one. Elsom’s ‘offence’ has been repeated many times by AB’s in there last couple of ‘lineout weak’ seasons. Why try to support a decision by this Queens Council when not only has he got both decisions wrong but he has put our game at risk of players getting a week’s suspension every time someone interferes with a lineout jumper. Is this what you want? it is certainly not what I want regardless of which country is playing. Nick Dropkick QC should know a thing or two about precidents.
Similarly with VD Linde. I don’t want players on the park who want to headbutt other players. I dont think it is right and I dont think it does the game any good to see this sort of thing. Piss him off for a sizeable sideline wait that costs him lots of money.
I believe that what I am saying is fair and sensible for the good of the game.
Jerry said | August 28th 2008 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Mark H - that simply wouldn’t work. Loads of stuff gets missed by the ref/touchies, so having a citing commissioner review the tape is necessary - for instance I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen anyone penalised for an eye-gouge so should a player be able to get away with it just cause the officials missed the infringement at the time? Course not.
There just needs to be far more transparency and consistency in the citing process.
stillmissit said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Peter K - The idea that injuries occur through lineouts is just false as we both know. We have both played for many years and also ref’d for many more, in my case 30 years. I have rarely if ever seen a player seriously injured in a lineout. I have seen many injured in tackles and also in accidental head clashes often with their own players. There always seems to be more injuries on muddy grounds particularly ankle and knees.
It is very similar to judges in the courts. These Law Court judges come from middle class or upper class families, to a large extent, and seem incapable of understanding that a tough little nut from St Mary’s at 25 years old and a record as long as your arm was not just a victim of his broken family environment. Likewise Davidson QC doesnt seem to understand rugby and that he could look at the last 20 internationals and send off a player for a week in just about all those games.
Hope this analogy is not too convoluted?
TembaVJ said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
There is no place in Rugby for what CVDL did, he is lucky to only get 4 weeks. Peter and Justin, all it takes is for one player to break his neck either in a collapsed mall or coming down unsupported from a lineout jump. It has happened before and if not protected will happen again, what if Matfield broke his neck and laid there on the field dead, would it be injury scare mongering? Just because the chance of death or serious injury is rare does not mean we should take it. I did not see the incident with Matfield, I was busy emptying the tank but I remember the response of the crowd coming from my lounge room…. it didn’t sound good.
stillmissit said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Temba I agree with you on one thing but not the other. If there were serious injuries occuring at the lineout there would be similar considerations to the scrum to reduce them. The reality is that subject to reading injury counts I havent seen a lot of injuries occuring in lineouts. Therefore had Matfield been killed it would be a rare occurance.
My major concern is not with Elsom getting one week it is the effect on our game of citing such a minor offence. Where will this end?
TembaVJ said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Stillmissit you are better qualified then I am to judge on this instant but the point remains on a rugby field one of the few places that can kill a man is his neck, this is a protected area, high tackles, spear tackles line out interference can land you on your head and the mall collapsing if in the wrong place can certainly snap any mans neck like a twig. Injury is one thing but death is an entirely different concern.
If I am not mistaken in the last 12 months we had a death from a collapsed mall.
Jerry said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
“in my case 30 years. I have rarely if ever seen a player seriously injured in a lineout”
Lifting wasn’t allowed till 95 which significantly raises the risk of injury - the majority of your playing and reffing days are obviously prior to this and obviously isn’t particularly relevant. Also pro players are taller and jump higher, meaning more chance of injury.
It’s not hard to see how someone could be injured from being pulled down in the lineout - I’ve seen it happen a bunch of times. I can think of a few injuries I’ve seen at S14/NPC level from it, but can’t think of any at test level (other than Matfield, who reckons he picked up a groin injury from the Elsom one…what is it with Bok captains and delayed onset groin injuries?). An example of what could easily happen is the David Giffin injury from the 03 World Cup opener - on that occassion he was going up for a kick-off reception and lost his lifters. There was no foul play, but it shows what can go wrong when someone’s hoisted 12 feet in the air and comes down wrong.
TembaVJ said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Perhaps not the lineout, as I said you have been closer to game then I have so your words make more sense I am just thinking that somewhere someone made that rule for a reason.
stillmissit said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Temba - I wish we had a report on these injuries then we could deal logically with the risks but I have never read a report about deaths and injuries in rugby. I am a very keen Scuba diver and we have this data updated every 6 months so that we can learn from others injuries and deaths and what happened to bring these about. It may sound morbid but it certainly helps in my underwater world.
stillmissit said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
Jerry I ref’d for 11 years with lifting being standard practise and I never noticed much difference. This I believe is mainly due to the lifters job being to bring them back down. There may have been a twisted ankle on a bad landing and other minor injuries when things went wrong but even then I am struggling to remember one. I have seen guys dropped by there supports and others thrown off balance whilst up there like the Elsom incident and I have seen some very bad landings. I just havent seen any major injuries.
TembaVJ said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Stillmissit I’m a keen scuba diver myself and my flat mate is an instructor here in Victoria so I know of the “death count” I think in rugby it just looks like a company health and safety issue for the IRB so they would keep it under raps. But yes I certainly have not heard of any injuries in the lineout. If it does goes wrong and someone lands on their head it could be instant death. I don’t want to see a man die on international TV, it would change the game drastically, people think the ELV’s brought change!
Then again NFL in America looks far more dangerous a sport then rugby, I don’t know how much that protective gear helps though
stillmissit said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Temba I believe the law was made not only to protect the jumper but also ensure that the contest for the ball is a clean and fair one. I totally agree with the law as it is and penalties for interference with a jumper is a long arm penalty and then if they do it again they take a 10 min rest. That is all it requires to my mind.
Having said all this I do hope nobody gets seriously injured in the lineout this week just to prove me wrong!
ohtani's jacket said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
The issue of whether he should have been cited or not is different from whether he should receive a ban.
I don’t think it was worth citing, but the IRB have mandates about this sort of thing and dangerous play in the lineout is one of those. Y’all throwing accusations at the Springboks for putting forward an official protest (where’s the evidence of that, mudskipper?) and Davidson for having no knowledge of the game. Given that we’re not partial to the inner workings of the SANZAR judiciary and they deferred their decision until the next day (to phone London???), none of us have a clue what’s really going on. It’s speculation. History tells us if you face the judiciary then it’s at least a one match ban & it also tells us that appeals are rarely successful.
The only basis of appeal for the Wallabies is a moral one. Anybody who’s ever had a little trouble with the law will know the Wallabies don’t have a shit show of having it overturned.
ohtani's jacket said | August 28th 2008 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
And another point while I’m at it. You guys were saying the refs should be sterner with the yellow cards. Shouldn’t Elsom have been carded?
stillmissit said | August 28th 2008 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
OJ - I completely agree that it is a waste of time to appeal. My thoughts are that Elsom shouldnt have been carded but he should have been warned.
Of course there is no evidence for us to make our opinions on as we are kept in the dark and fed bullshit. That is why this site exists so that we can speculate and occasionally add a fact or two.
Peter K said | August 28th 2008 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
OJ - If it is mandated then why haven’t other offence this season been cited? Sharpe and a couple of others have been penalised for it this season.
Then Steyn should of been cited as well.
I would not yellow card it. I advocate yellow cards for intentional fouls in try scoring situations like in the 22, and especially in loose unstructred play like a break having been made.
This was a set piece midfield. Now maybe if it was a 5 metre lineout.
Stillmissit - I had a semi serious injury whilst reffing. The guy was at the top just catching the ball. The defender stepped across the lineout and either attacked his feet or drove the lifter away, contact was where the lifter was holding his legs. The guy spun in the air and landed on his shoulder and head. He was unconcious and had a broken collar bone. I red carded the guy because he attacked the legs, similar to cathes in the air getting taken out.
Temba - Then due to the small chance of a serious injury anyone tackling someone in the air, anyone interfering in the lineout, anyone collapsing a maul, anyone collapsing a scrum, since there is a chance of a neck injury, all these should be red carded and suspended. I do not think you will find many agree. It would radically change the game. Scrums would not be contested, maybe lineouts wouldn’t either.
Peter K said | August 28th 2008 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
If Deans was correct and the lifter Robinson was taken out then Elsom whilst falling would naturally grab someone. This should be grounds to appeal.
Basically the judicary almost blindly have to support the citing commisioner, which is really stupid.
TembaVJ said | August 28th 2008 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
Peter K, I never said anything about red cards, I just think that people could be injured as you agreed with the chap that broke his collar bone, could of snapped his neck. I never saw the Matfield incident so unable to say if it’s a bad case or a mild case. High tackles and spear tackles are very-very dangerous because there is no one to support the impacted player coming to the ground. If we take our minds back to the first 3N game and Brad Thorne’s spear on Captain Smit there was much complaining in the SA media but not much on this side. Brad Thorn has 2 yellows and one suspension this season, he is starting to make Bakkies Botha look like and angel.
CJ should of got more time, that was clearly an attempt at taking the man out but then again so did Thorne. Not that it would of help South Africa’s cause this season but we might have been able to put up a better fight with John Smit as captain. Matfield leaves much to be desired. Its really a hard thing to judge because you can never satisfy everyone. This is something I try to keep an open mind with as its always wrong from some point of view.
david said | August 28th 2008 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
TembaVJ
Re your earlier comment about the crowd response to the EIsom incident & your absence from the room…I think the ro
David said | August 28th 2008 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
TembaVJ
Re your earlier comment about the crowd noise following the Elsom incident.
I don’t think the crowd was upset about the lineout. I think you’ll find the crowd was going off because a stink had erupted after Burger grabbed George Smith by the balls at the ruck, with Dunning and a few others stepping in.
The Elsom lineout incident occurred in the passage of play leading up to that, and the penalty was awarded after the ref went across to the touch judge. So the crowd was pumped about the aggro at the ruck.
I watched the game on Fox and recorded and watched the Channel 7 coverage later (in Perth). The Ch 7 coverage had SA commentators and the ref’s mike was turned down, so Smith couldn’t be heard clearly. But it was pretty clear (and reasonably controlled for a guy who’s just had his tackle tackled) on the Fox coverage.
After Bray awarded a penalty to the Boks for the lineout, he went up to Burger and told him “no more of that”, so he was obviously aware what had gone on at the breakdown.
As far as the lineout goes, Elsom’s first effort clearly is to try to get the ball. His arm got tangled with Matfield’s and, yes, he held on. But I think it’s pretty clear both lifters were having trouble keeping their charges up. Elsom was reckless and was penalised accordingly on the field, but I wouldn’t imagine he was trying to hurt big Vic.
Van der Linde’s intention was to headbutt Cordingly in the face. The motivation was to injure (broken jaw??).
I reckon malicious intent warrants more than 4 weeks.
Darryl said | August 28th 2008 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
And of course you all objected as vehemently to Brad Thorn getting off almost scott-free for a blatant spear tackle that could have snapped Smits neck and ended his career if not his life? Ok, just checking.
Peter K said | August 28th 2008 @ 6:44pm | Report comment
Darryl - Are you comparing Thorn’s spear tackle to Elsom or Linde?
Thorn’s punishment of 1 week suspension is fairly standard for spear tackles.
Depending on whether they continue on and drive the player into the ground or pull out etc it is 1-4 weeks. From memory he did not continue and drive him into the ground so it seemed a reasonable suspension.
Elsom’s is a minor offence and I cannot remember a player ever being suspended for pulling the arm in a lineout. This was a precedent.
Linde’s was a headbut and he was lucky to get 4 weeks when other offenders have gotten 10weeks to months, so he was lucky.
Cutter said | August 28th 2008 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
Spiro said:
“The SANZAR Commissioner adjudicating on these two cases was the New Zealander Nick Davidson QC. There is no questioning of his good faith.
But the reality of his decision on Elsom is that without him the Wallabies played without much fire or muscularity against the All Blacks at Auckland. He was Man of the Match when the Wallabies tamed the Springboks pack.
Johannesburg is the sacred site of Afrikaner rugby, where teams absolutely need the sort of combative and meaningful aggression that Elsom brings to his team.”
Spiro this worries me a little. I’m sure you arent inferring that Nick Davidson should have taken into account Elsom’s value to the Wallabies. Nevertheless, I think its dangerous to raise Elsom’s value to the team in a sentence which is preceded by a comment on the good faith of the presiding officer.
ohtani's jacket said | August 28th 2008 @ 6:58pm | Report comment
He didn’t just pull his arm, he pulled the player to the ground.
Deans’ claim that the Australian lifter was taken out is odd. By whom? When? Before the ball was thrown in?
I guess it’s possible that Elsom reacted out of instinct when he felt himself falling.
Darryl said | August 28th 2008 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
Peter K, Thorn’s spear tackle was not a spear tackle. Smith did not have the ball at the time, and the whistle had gone, so it was pure retaliation. Suggesting it was a spear tackle is grasping at straws and shows how one-sided the criticism here is.
So yes, I’m saying that Thorns retaliation was just as bad as VdL’s head butt, if not worse, since in my opinion it was far more dangerous. Look I’m by no means defending VdL’s behaviour, don’t misunderstand me. But I do see a bit of pot and kettle in all these comments. I despise the ‘dirty’ play of the Boks, and wish we would play more like the Aus-NZ games where it’s hard, but the aggression is in the game, not after the whistle. I’ll put my hand up and say that the Boks do tend to bring out the worst in opponents. I think Jake White did a good job of cleaning that up post the horrific Krige/Straueli period, but we seem to be going back to our old ways now.
That said, I do think the criticism here is nonetheless hypocritical. I’ll brace myself now for the vitriolic responses.
H-RAINE said | August 28th 2008 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
does anybody noi whats happening with clyde rathbone
Darryl said | August 28th 2008 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
Looks like he’s slowly working his way back. I don’t think links are allowed to pasted in the comments, but Google search indicates he’s currently scoring tries in the Shute Shield (?).
bozo said | August 28th 2008 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
Rathbone scored 3 tries for Easts last weekend
Peter K said | August 28th 2008 @ 10:31pm | Report comment
Rathbone back at his best would be great. He can play 12, 13, or wing.
At his best I think he would be in the 22 for sure and probably starting.
de villiers said | August 28th 2008 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
the joys of growing up in a nanny state.
TommyM said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:32pm | Report comment
Decision overturned!! I think that’s gonna give the Wallabies a massive lift…
Peter K said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
OJ - the decision was overturned, justice was done.
I notice it took 3 SANZAR reps via a telephone hookup who overruled the overzealous QC!
Also Tahu Time! he is starting.
Also agree that McMeniman got Vickermans spot.
Very interesting that Polotua and Waugh are starting.
Benjamin said | August 28th 2008 @ 11:50pm | Report comment
I’m not that surprised that Waugh is starting but I am surprised TPN is, especially as Moore plays for the same provincial side as McMeniman. I thought it would be logical to play the two together. This is 100% a winnable test for Deans and although no professional would ever say they are not going out 100% to win,it seems like Deans has got one eye on the NZ test which might prove to be a mistake.
Peter K said | August 29th 2008 @ 12:02am | Report comment
Benjamin - Good point, especially since the other lock Horwill is a Qlder as well.
Who knows they may have niggling injuries (Smith and Moore). Moore has started every game, maybe he is knackered.
Great to see Tahu get the run ahead of Cross. Looks like he wanted to keep Mortlock at 13, good decision.
David said | August 29th 2008 @ 12:03am | Report comment
So is Sheehan the back-up 5/8th if Giteau is injured?
Peter K said | August 29th 2008 @ 12:05am | Report comment
I would not be surprised to see Cross go to 5/8 if Giteau was injured.
Benjamin said | August 29th 2008 @ 12:24am | Report comment
I imagine they are a bit beat up, but if Australia are badly beaten, which I doubt, it won’t be a great send-off to play NZ. I always go by the adage you’re only as good as you’re last game. Having said that, rotation was effective for Henry and I’m sure Deans has his reasons.
I’ll be interested to see how SA perform in this test, the scrum should be weaker with Mujati and VDL is a weightier presence in the ruck situation too. Ndungane has no pace or kick. I think this SA team is the weakest of the bunch, but strength in adversity etc, so who knows?
Darryl said | August 29th 2008 @ 12:39am | Report comment
Benjamin, I have every expectation that the Boks will be a complete flop this weekend. There is simply no substance to this new romantic, undefined, mythical game plan, and as you note, the additions are noticeably weaker than the people they’ve replaced. With Mujati’s inexperience, I expect the Aussie loosehead to play some tricks and get Mujati penalized a few times to really get him on edge. And you can’t fix our breakdown problem in a week. It’s something that the Kiwis and Aussies are probably doing at school level, but our guys somehow can’t even pick up on it as a blatant defect at international level.
As it is the NZ test we won, was only because of about 5s of individual opportunistic brilliance from one player, the rest of the game we were completely dominated at the breakdown yet again!
So yeah, I have every expectation Aus will walk this one too, high altitude or not. Ndungane is no way the next best option, Butch needs rest, our loose trio are more like a lost trio and our locks should be called unlocks, and with Jantjes constantly caught out of position, the Wallabies will continue to kick for territory when the gaps are there, and dessicate the defense when it’s on. Can you tell I’m a frustrated Bok supporter… and yes, I’m very accustomed to feeling this way.
Sam Taulelei said | August 29th 2008 @ 12:53am | Report comment
The Wallabies selection in the forwards looks more combative and confrontational than the previous weeks team. Waugh, Elsom, McMeniman and Horwill are abrasive players and the Boks will be desperate to prevent a fourth straight loss and whitewash at home so Deans has picked a team to best counter the expected passionate and emotionally intense response from SA.
Surprised they didn’t start with Baxter as I thought the Wallaby scrum was more stable when he replaced Dunning but that may also have coincided with SA’s substitution of the “Beast” beforehand.
The SA players know they have a chance to redeem themselves and being their final home test of the season they will want to end a disappointing Tri Nations campaign on a positive note in much the same way their victory at Rustenburg over NZ in 2006 erased the public’s memories of that season.
For all of Timana Tahu’s supporters their prayers have been answered and he’ll be starting his first test. I wish him well.
Benjamin said | August 29th 2008 @ 12:54am | Report comment
But having said that Darryl, there are areas of the Australian team that can be attacked. Part of Oz’s recent success has been based on their lineout. What happens if TPN has a nightmare? That situation is further complicated by Australia only having one recognised kicker on the pitch and none on the bench. Judging by this selection Deans wants to play fast and loose. If SA can dominate the lineout then Australia might find themselves in trouble - if Giteau is to kick for position that is reliant on securing set piece ball. There is no plan B on their bench either.
Although Nudungane is slow, and IMO panicky and error prone, it isn’t even as if the ball was getting to the wings in previous tests, so Usain Bolt might as well be on the wing. More significant is that SA do not have a reliable points kicker on the field, and you can’t win games without one. The chopping and changing of Jantjes and Montgomery has been silly. That PDV has started with Jantjes means that SA are going to play just as they tried to last week, which might play into the hands of Australia’s changes.
Unlock.. that’s a good one. I think I’ll use that on saturday.
Peter K said | August 29th 2008 @ 12:56am | Report comment
Darryl - I see one ray of hope for the Boks.
Mutiny.
The players realise that PDV has no idea, so they ignore him and play the game to their strengths, play it like the RWC, conservative, forward based, play for territory. Do that at altitude and I think you will win.
Sam Taulelei said | August 29th 2008 @ 1:24am | Report comment
Darryl
I’ve watched that test five times (and I’m neither Australian or South African) and SA did pressure and penetrate the Wallaby defence and as the game opened up late in the second half the Boks looked threatening with the ball in hand so I don’t believe all is lost. More accurate execution with their passing could have resulted in a couple of tries in the first half.
I also noticed that their defensive line was unusually ragged and people were sprinting out of their alignment to effect an intercept or spot tackle, the midfield was guilty of this at times and Giteau exploited this in the second half with his long pass to set Tuqiri free to score his try. In the past their rush defence constricted so many teams attempts to spread the ball wide but it wasn’t consistent that day.
The Boks were still in the hunt at the halftime break and the turnovers at the breakdown were fairly even in the first half which is also reflected in the scrum feeds awarded to each team in the first half, Australia only leading 4-3. But the accuracy fell away badly in the second half and Australia won the majority of the scrum feeds 6-1 so were able to play more on the front foot.
I don’t know if it’s a consequence of the ELV allowing the pulling down of the maul but in any event SA aren’t launching many forward drives from lineouts which is one of your greatest strengths. In the first five minutes when you won a lineout five metres out from the Wallaby line, I was expecting a Matfield take and drive to the line but instead it was tapped down to Burger running round towards the front. Perhaps if the forwards took the direct route and chose to pick and go through the rucks instead of running wide from the rucks where Waugh and Smith are waiting for an opportunity to steal the ball, you’ll be able to utilise the running ability of your big forwards better.
Have faith Darryl, a week is a long time in the world of rugby.
ohtani's jacket said | August 29th 2008 @ 1:35am | Report comment
Well there’s your precedent.
I want the next All Black cited to be let off and they should reduce van der Linde’s ban too.
Cutter said | August 29th 2008 @ 1:46am | Report comment
It will be interesting to see how McMeniman goes in the scrums. He has been partially to blame for poor Wallaby scrumming performances in the past.
If Giteau is injured, Hynes will go to 10. Cross doesnt have the skills or kicking game.
Darryl said | August 29th 2008 @ 1:47am | Report comment
OJ, shhh, you’re spoling the Bok Supporter Pity Party.
Sam, I appreciate the insight you added, but while I don’t argue with your observations, I have so little faith in what PdV is trying to accomplish (assuming he even knows himself) and I think the players will be even less confident this week as a result. They read the papers too, and will have picked up on all the comments, including those from Eddie Jones who a lot of the players respect.
As I indicated in a different thread, confidence in a coach is paramount, and was the key element to the winning teams of McQueen, Woodward, White, Christie (95 SA coach), Mallett and now Deans. I haven’t seen that in Pieter De Villiers, nor does anything he says or does inspire confidence. I hope I’m proven wrong, but I don’t think I will be.
ohtani's jacket said | August 29th 2008 @ 10:56am | Report comment
I don’t see how such a depleted Boks side can win.
No matter what strategy people suggest, they haven’t got the players to do it. Ellis Park is their patch, and I think you’ll see a better effort, but it will be too easy for Australia to control the Test. If Giteau has a shocker with the boot and the Aussies struggle in the lineout, South Africa might be in with a chance, but they have no influence over those things.
My only suggestion is to try and get on the front foot before playing expansively.
Peter K said | August 29th 2008 @ 11:04am | Report comment
OJ - What about he great depth that the Boks have and how little the Wallabies have.
The boks have 2 wingers injured and steyn and 1 suspension and smit out.
Wallabies have Vickerman, Burgess, Barnes, Latham, Shepherd (our 1st choice F/B after Latham) out, add Holmes who if fit was a start up for prop.
Injuries cannot be an excuse for them.