By Spiro Zavos
November 10th 2009 @ 1:48am
Has Dan Carter been the victim of video foul play?
All Blacks five eighth Dan Carter lines up a kick at the goal during the Rugby Union Bledisloe Cup Australia v New Zealand rugby test match at Eden Park in Auckland, New Zealand, Saturday, August 2, 2008. AAP Image/Photosport, Andrew Cornaga
About ten minutes before the end of the enthralling Wales Vs New Zealand Test match at the Millennium Stadium, the Welsh half-back Martin Roberts was making a dash for the All Blacks try line when Dan Carter came from his blind side and hammered him in a tremendous tackle.
Carter’s right arm went across Roberts’ jaw, before slipping down around his chest.
The tackle was in the open and neither the assistant referees nor the referee Craig Joubert believed there was anything untoward in it.
Carter was not penalised.
Roberts was uninjured and interviewed after the match told journalists: “Things like that happen in games, and you just take it on the chin. It looked bad, but I was fine.”
The officials running the ground video at the Millennium Stadium immediately started showing slow-motion replays of the incident. What was the point of this? We know that slow-motion exaggerates things like impact, and this is what the slow-motion shots did.
Clearly, the officials wanted to arouse the worst instincts of the crowd, which had become sullen as another inevitable victory for the All Blacks appeared all too likely. And there was the obvious intent to shame the referee into being more punitive with penalties towards the All Blacks.
Both these things happened.
The crowd booed Carter as if he were some stage villain in a Victorian era melodrama. Joubert gave Wales a series of penalties, two of which were kicked, and Wales went into the last minutes of the Test in the unlikely situation of needing a converted try to draw, a result which would have been claimed as a moral and actual victory.
In my opinion, the behaviour of the officials who controlled the pictures going out on the big screen amounted to nothing more than cheating. They deliberately tried to influence the outcome of the Test in a way that they knew was unfair to Carter.
And unfair to the All Blacks.
If the argument is that foul play that goes undetected should be ruthlessly exposed several times on the big screen, then why wasn’t the incident when Brendon Leonard, the All Blacks halfback, was kicked in the head by the Welsh five-eights Stephen Jones in the 45th minute of play, similarly exposed several times on the big screen?
Unlike Roberts, Leonard was actually injured by the kick.
The incident was shown once and then not again. Jones lashed out at Leonard’s head with his boot and knocked him almost out. This was a far more serious incident than the Carter tackle.
If the referee or assistant referee had spotted it, Jones would surely have received a yellow card, or even a red card.
There is far less tolerance in the rugby game to kicks landing in the head of players than to tackles that start slightly high (because the tackled player is falling) and which end up around the chest.
The Australian match commissioner, Scott Newland, referred Carter to an IRB judicial hearing. Why wasn’t Jones similarly sent to the judiciary? The New Zealand commentator noted at the time that Colin Meads was sent from the field in a Test against Scotland for a similar incident.
The video foul play perpetrated at the Millennium Stadium is not a new thing in Britain.
In 2002, England snatched a 32 – 31 victory right on time against the Wallabies with a disputed try. The ARU complained later that video evidence of the England player (from memory Dan Luger) going into touch in goal was kept from the video referee.
An inquiry that was supposed to be held in the event was never, to my knowledge, published.
I don’t know whether there are rules governing what goes on the big screen during Test matches. If there are, then they surely don’t allow the officials to manipulate the pictures to help the home side.
If there aren’t any rules, then it’s time some sensible and fair rules are put in place to stop this cheating.
It is hard enough for teams like the Wallabies and the All Blacks to win matches in Europe with the media forever calling them “cheats” in a blatant, vicious attempt to put them off-side with the referees.
But to have local officials indulging in video foul play against them, as well, is just unacceptable.
Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(164)
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 2:17am | Report comment
‘It is hard enough for teams like the Wallabies and the All Blacks to win matches in Europe with the media forever calling them “cheats” in a blatant, vicious attempt to put them off-side with the referees.’
Like you do with the Springboks, you mean?
Rusty said | November 10th 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
touche KO – I was just about to comment in the same manner but you beat me to it.
Mr Sports said | November 10th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Yeah absolutely right Knives Out.
The Fox Sports Commentators are even worse. Everything is the refs fault.
johnyfairplay2006 said | November 10th 2009 @ 3:22am | Report comment
could not say it better myself knives, spot on.
MM said | November 11th 2009 @ 6:52am | Report comment
Too true KO – as usual
Dingbat said | November 10th 2009 @ 3:44am | Report comment
Ah, dear Spiro, so suddenly it’s ok to question untouchable officialdom, ’cause golden boy Danny Carter is involved.
You say: Roberts was uninjured and interviewed after the match told journalists: “Things like that happen in games, and you just take it on the chin. It looked bad, but I was fine.”
So the view of the “victim” carries some weight, in your view. And yet, when Bakkies cleared that Welsh prop out during the Lions tour, ‘causing him some shoulder damage, and he said there was nothing wrong with Bakkies’ actions, that was just irrelevant.
You’re wonderfully entertaining Spiro. Luv it.
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:40am | Report comment
Well said, the opinion of the victim only counts when the transgression is perpetrated by an Australasian then what the victim says means something.
As Spiro was so pedantic with the Botha incident e.g. citing the law book, surely he would be doing the same here? Carters tackle was clearly high, it deserved a penalty , no more no less and is definately not a citing, but then again most people didn’t think that Botha deserved a citing either. The other difference being that the Botha incident will happen 10+ times a game, high tackles not so much.
As for the Jones – Leonard “incident”, the ball was loose, Jones went to kick it and Leonard dived on it which lead to him being kicked in the head – completely accidental, but the way you have written the article Spiro you ignore those events, just saying that he “was kicked in the head” but with Carter you give all teh details about the tackle slipping down etc? The JOnes incident was hardly a red and possibly not a yellow, it was accidental with no intent other than to kick the ball away. It warranted a penalty and Jones getting a stern talking to about being more careful, after all the risk of diving on a loose ball is that players might be kicking at it.
Or are you making a case that the injury incurred by the victim should be taken into account when deciding the punishment?
Jerry said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:48am | Report comment
Lee – Leonard was always in the vicinity of the ball and was diving on it well before Jones started his kick. Yeah, his intent wasn’t to kick Leonard but there was no way he wasn’t going to make contact with Leonard in that situation. It was pretty reckless, IMO.
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:55am | Report comment
At the end of the day though, it is a rugby match and that sort of collision is bound to happen by accident during it. For the sake of consistency, Jones should have been cited purely because Carter was. If Carter wasn’t cited, I would have thought a penalty each way was sufficient.
Again though it is a good case to highlight inconsistency, made even better by the fact that it is in a NZ/ Wales match not a South African one. Funny how Spiro’s attitude changes now?
PastHisBest said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:46am | Report comment
Lee, you get penalised and ‘yellow-carded’ for coming into contact with a players head when rucking – accidental or not. Why not kicking then in your opinion?
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
I just think in this instance, the ball on the ground and him kicking for it warrants at worst a penalty. I think the act of rucking is different, you are intentionally using your boot to remove a player from the area where the ball is, therefore it the person doing the rucking’s responsibility to ensure they do not make contact with the head of a player on the ground.
Tackling again is different as you are intentionally trying to stop a player, and therefore like rucking the onus is on the tackler to ensure that they carry out the tackle correctly.
There is just something to me that is fundamentally different when there is a loose ball and players scrambling to get it, they are not attempting to physically stop or move another player in the process therefore it is more “accidental” than a high tackle.
Hermin said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
Lee,
Botha has a reputation as a dirty and thuggish player Carter does not,
Its pretty obvious why any act of foul play by Botha is blown up.
Seriously South Africans need to get over this persecution complex it really is getting boring.
I wouldn’t be surprised now if New Zealand is subjected to more scrutiny to sate the whinging of the Northern Hemisphere teams. I find it astounding that New Zealand never wins because we play better rugby it’s always because we’re cheating, we played second rate teams we are the refs pet, the IRB shuns reffing the ABs too harshly blah blah blah, reality is Wales lost to NZ like the ABs lost to South Africa because they weren’t good enough.
Nice to see your lame attempt at trying to mitigate Jones thuggish act, however if that was an accident so was carters you can not differentiate between the two because carter also did not go for his head intentionally the chap was falling so go figure. Cherry picking is an occupation in some parts of the world is it a profession where you come from by any chance?
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:18am | Report comment
“can not differentiate between the two ”
If you actuially read my post I said that both incidences required a penalty and leave it at that. ANd that if Carter got cited then Jones did – putting words in my mouth?
I also said nothing about a persecusion comlpex against the Boks, I simply said this highlights the inconsistencies of the judiacry and that it is good that it does not involve a SA team as that way, people like yourself who constantly berate SA supporters can see the inconsistencies fo the process.
I was also carrying out Dingbats act of highlighting Spiros obvious double standards.
MarkR said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Lee, one small point you sem to have missed, leonard was between Joens & the ball, with Leonard diving there was zero chance of hitting the ball without also collecting Leonard. You think penalty, I think red as he had a ton of time to not kick the ball but chose to follow through. BTW, the contact was with the neck, very dangerous.
PastHisBest said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
It’s an interesting position Mark. If Leonard had been stretchered off I posit that Jones would have indeed received a red card.
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
pothale said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Roberts was not falling, as is being claimed by a number of posters, when he was tackled head high by a swinging arm by Carter.
So that we’re all roaring from the same hymn sheet, have a look at the video of the incident on You Tube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol00OgqsIFU. It’s very clear on what occurred from two different angles.
Spiro describes this incident as: “Carter’s right arm went across Roberts’ jaw, before slipping down around his chest.” Carter’s arm does not slip down around Robert’s chest. Carter takes his arm away after they have both fallen. His hand is on Robert’s left shoulder up to that point so his arm was up around his neck. It was a careless, lazy and mis-timed tackle in my view, when it was easily possible to have body tackled Roberts a lot lower.
Worthy of a penalty – certainly.
Yellow card – possibly/probably.
Red card/citing – i don’t believe so.
Mr Denmore said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Well neither the ref nor his two assistants saw it that way and neither did Roberts. Carter himself, a player with absolutely no record of foul play, says there was no ill-intention in it. So why has the IRB so easily allowed itself to be manipulated by an hysterical northern hemisphere media and officialdom?
Zavos is right. Every year, the All Blacks and Wallabies are subjected to this orchestrated whingeing by the north, who can never accept that their teams are fairly beaten even when we are playing under rules that have been engineered to suit them.
If Carter is suspended, it will be a travesty of justice and the All Blacks should consider an official complaint to the IRB, an organisation that forever remains in the pockets of the northern hemisphere unions who just cannot bear the upstarts of the south showing them how the game should be played.
PastHisBest said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Then why complain Mr D? Take your lumps like a man.
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Welcome to what the Boks had to endure from certain sections of the British press during the Lions tour.
Do not agree with your sentiments that the rules are engineered to suit the north, the rules are for the most part the same – nothing major was changed. By contrast if the sanction ELVs were implemented this would be much more advantageous to the South, specifically the ABs and Wallabies.
Gary said | November 10th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Well said
Gary said | November 10th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
A kick to the head has NO place in our game !!! If one must go then all unfair play must be looked at.
Jerry said | November 10th 2009 @ 3:47am | Report comment
The citing process is pretty flawed. You’d like to think that the citing officer wouldn’t be swayed by external pressures, but it’s fairly obvious that in this case, like the Botha case in the Lions tour, the tv producers and media drawing attention to one incident has lead to that incident being cited.
I don’t think it affected Joubert’s performance, however.
sportym said | November 10th 2009 @ 3:56am | Report comment
It was a high tackle and he got cited. To be honest I would have given him 10 in the bin for it. You could argue it the other way and ask why he was not sent off while other players would have? Frankly who cares, its over and he has to face the music now.
I agree with the others though, You slammed Bakkies and all the sudden you think that Carter was hard done by? Maybe two standards here?
PastHisBest said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:47am | Report comment
How do you know other players would have? Pure speculation.
Jerry said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Why he wasn’t sent off when other players would have been? Putting aside the argument as to whether the tackle merited a card or not, he was never gonna be carded cause the officials, like most people watching at the time, didn’t see the tackle as being high. It was only on replay that it became obvious he’d contacted Roberts’ jaw. Despite Gatland’s whinging, I seriously doubt Joubert, or any other ref, would ignore a head high tackle simply cause it was an All Black administering it.
Mungehead said | November 10th 2009 @ 4:31am | Report comment
Personally I shrug my shoulders over whether Carter is sent to the citing commisioner or not; I don’t believe it was a malicious tackle and people don’t generally get cited for high tackles, but it was still reckless. What beggars belief though is Jones escaping consequences for kicking Leonard. What’s up with that?
The Answer said | November 10th 2009 @ 4:57am | Report comment
Whoever did the post match interview on the BBC was embarassing in the way they kept harping on about that tackle when interviewing Carter. Poor form. I can’t see the big deal, the Welsh hardly deserved to win and it was hardly a shot filled with intent, but if he gets suspended so be it. All the media hype is what is embarassing. Oh…
Hermin said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:48am | Report comment
The tackle was reckless there is no disputing that, what will be intersting is seeing if and how long he will get suspended for, don’t be surprised if he gets two weeks afterall it is an englishman who will be overseeing the process.
What still ceases to amaze me is the lack of noise made about the gutless act of thuggery acted out by Stephen Jones, it is obscene that he has not also been cited. What is not a surprise is that certain Northern roarers also are sidestepping the issue but are more than willing to put the Jones (boot) into Carter.
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 5:54am | Report comment
‘What still ceases to amaze me is the lack of noise made about the gutless act of thuggery acted out by Stephen Jones, it is obscene that he has not also been cited. What is not a surprise is that certain Northern roarers also are sidestepping the issue but are more than willing to put the Jones (boot) into Carter.’
Like whom, Hemjay?
Hermin said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:36am | Report comment
Knives Out,
You never disappoint old timer.
Still don’t have the decency to comment on the blatant act of thuggery execept your usual take cut and paste and then throw accusations.
Funny though that you still have no proof of this I find it hysterical, not to mention your aggressive nature towards other posters on a few of the other threads I think your starting to come unstuck.
So like I said KO your still managing to avoid the thuggish act while trying to villanise Carter, like I said above nothing surprising about that and it’s definately not surprising that you are still throwing around accusations.
Jerry said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:49am | Report comment
Actually Hermin, I think KO is pretty much right on this. I haven’t really seen anyone demonising Carter on the Roar.
Colin N said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:09am | Report comment
Hermin,
Why can’t you just answer his question? Whatever you think of him, the question is valid.
Hermin said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
What kind of questions would you like me to ask Colin that I haven’t asked already.
One where is his proof of all the accusations?
Why has he not commented on Stephen Jones.
Why is he so aggressive towards other posters and their opinions when they do not mirror his?
Why is it that when he is stuck for answers he tends to belittle and be sarcastic towards those he disagrees with?
Why is it that he throws insults around yet when the same is returned he cries foul?
Why is it that many other roarers are complaining about his methods in other threads?
Why is it that there is a pack mentality between Knives Out, Pothale and you Colin N
Come on do tell me that?
Yes Knives Out do answer.
Likewise I will treat you how you treat me and that is short and simple.
Funny how some of you the first two mainly have a problem with frank opinions.
I will not be bullied by two faceless people on the otherside of a copmputer screen you guys phase me not.
There you go Colin if you don’t like what I have to say you don’t have to reply pretty simple really it’s an opinion site is it not.
Don’t for a second try playing the innocence card here because it is laughable at best and it is clearly seen in threads of the last few days of KO being aggressive and dissmissive of other roarers and amazingly not all directed at me. While I don’t discount his knowledge I do dispute his thinking on many things and I will highlight this where I feel the need.
Colin N said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
“What kind of questions would you like me to ask Colin that I haven’t asked already”
Well, I would have thought it was obvious:
“Like whom, Hemjay?”
That is a question, emphasised by the question mark.
You have said something that is being queried, why can’t you answer that simple question?
“Don’t for a second try playing the innocence card here because it is laughable at best”
You what?
But yes, I am laughing very hard.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Everyone can read Hermin. Everyone can also see that you’re busy tap dancing. KO has asked which of the “Northern roarers are sidestepping the issue but are more than willing to put the Jones (boot) into Carter.”
All you have to do is list one. KO didn’t make an accusation, merely asked a question. Answer it, apologise or take a break from The Roar. You’re looking pretty churlish.
Zac Zavos said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Guys – a reminder that The Roar is a place to debate sport – please report any inappropriate comments.
Play the ball guys, not the man.
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:13am | Report comment
I haven’t seen anyone rip into Carter as much as you are ripping into Jones?
Hermin said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Ok for the Welsh to complain and highlight an absurd injustice but not for Hermin is that what your saying Lee?
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
Look Hermin, I am not attacking you but merely pointing out my view on the matter. I think it is a big stretch(despite what pinishment he should have received) to call what Jones did a “gutless act of thuggery” when it is pretty clear his intention was never to boot Leonard in the head.
You have been pretty disrespectful in your other posts to me, when I have said something you do not agree with(even when I haven’t critised your team to any extent)- ironically what you accuse KO of doing to you.
Hermin said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Lee I don’t believe I have been disrespectful at all I believe you have been dismissive of my posts. Like I said this is an opinion column is it not?
What I am doing here is highlighting the absurdity of how if you make enough noise and stretch the truth considerably like the British media have done you will get attention. Like I am now doing towards Jones and his bullish act, it is drawing attention, if not you wouldn’t be clicking the reply button would you?
I actually couldn’t really give two hoots if Carter gets suspended or not because I believe his tackle was recklesswhich I have said all along! However none more so than Jones taking a swipe at Leonards head when the ball was clearly not there. Although one can be forgiven for thinking his head looks like a ball.
You don’t believe the two are on the same level however it is clear from this thread alone I am not the only person who has an issue with it.
If anything it just shows how bitter the Welsh and Gatland are about another huge failure, talked smack all week and continuing to do it now.
Pretty sad day in rugby when as Spiro has highlighted when they have to resort to replays to influence the ref and crowd. The booing by the Welsh crowd was abhorent and showed the Welsh to be appalling supporters and it was a blight on them.
It wasn’t that long ago the Brits were complaining about we SH supporters booing opposition kickers when lining up a goal. However what the Welsh in turn did to Carter was disgraceful and they should be ashamed. Once yes but everytime he got the ball and then man of the match that is disgusting!
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
We can agree to disagree on the seriousness/intent of the Jones kick.
However, as far as using replays to influence the crowd and decisions, this has happened for a long time. When the Boks play in NZ every instance of foul play gets highlighted but anything against the ABs doesn’t, the same is done when the Boks play the ABs in SA.
I have watched games in the UK, SA, NZ and Aus and it is the same everywhere, perfect example was the BIL 1st test in Christchurch, the infamous BOD incident. I find it amazing that no footage was found showing the incident conclusively and that any footage that might have shown something was not replayed at the ground. It happens, it’s not new and to be honest I wondered why Spiro brought it up until the 6th from last paargraph when it suddenly made sense.
As far as booing is concerned, it happens, I have sat in the crowds and heard much worse directed at players, you bring up the booing during kicks in NZ which happens there and Aus and SA, but the worse thing I have heard was at the SA – NZ game at Hamilton this year when Nigel Owens was warming up in front of us and the Kiwi fans around me(teenages to older men) were calling him all manner of homophobic, offensive names. To me far more “disgusting” than booing a player.
What I am trying to say is that it happens, all countries do it to some extent and it won’t change. To me this is hugely unfortunate as I would hate to see Rugby get to the same point that Football(soccer) has gotten to.
MM said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Lee,
Zac has just requested / issued a reminder that this is a channel for debating sport.
You are debating sport Lee, but you go on and on and on – there are ways to make your point, short and sweet without justifying yourself or your response. Do it simple like KO.
A general comment: Spiro employs the journalistic strategy of throwing the cat amongst the pigeons, then sits back allowing everybody else to debate – often somewhat heatedly, yet the desired reaction definitely takes place every time.
For what it’s worth in my opinion, Carter’s head is too big and he’s a spoilt brat! I don’t deny his skills but if one gets to know him far better, he has proclaimed himself as an icon. His body language gives an immense amount away.
Any team or member thereof’s resilience displayed at losing a test or game is perhaps of the most important criteria to be observed. That’s where our “down-under” blokes are most famous for baring their souls – a direct indication of attitude.
Too true as per various comments, the refs chop and change
PastHisBest said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Wow. One of the most ‘un-sports’ post in the history of the roar!
MM, go and write a letter to women’s weekly would you. It’s definitely a more appropriate forum for you.
MM said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
PasthisBest
Show me where the knitting needles and dress patterns were – that it was not RUGBY – and you might have a point.
Nothing further needs saying.
Lee thank you!
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
MM,
Apologies for going on and on and on, I am aware of this but sometimes when someone replies it doesn’t seemlike they have got my point, I will work hard to be more like KO(isn’t that everyones objective : )
I went to school with Carter at Christchurch Boys High, he was a couple of years above me but I will completely agree with what you say in regards to his head. His body language when he runs after a kick at goal highlights exactly what you say.
Sylvester said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:03pm | Report comment
“I don’t deny his skills but if one gets to know him far better, he has proclaimed himself as an icon”.
Do I assume from this statement you do know Carter and can share futher details about his self-proclamation?
My read of Carter is that he is extremely humble for a sportsman of his ilk.
MM said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
To assume can result in anything…
Whether or not I do, do not know Carter more fully, and whether or not I would share this is frankly irrelevant. If a character analysis is being asked for which is the tone of your reply, it’s not going to be forthcoming. A general statement was more than suffice.
Just as you feel he is extremely humble for a sportsman of his ilk – you feel that way – so feel it!!
MM said | November 11th 2009 @ 1:19am | Report comment
Knives out gets to the point and try calling for evidence and he’ll give it to you.
Why wrap words with bundles of flowers with veiled self-sympathy when a straight statement can be made?
PastHisBest said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Don’t do it knives – I know you want to, but just don’t do it. You’ll regret it for the rest of the day.
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
I’m currently expressing my indignity at Hermin’s behaviour through the vernacular … of the armband.
Bay35Pablo said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
KO, love it. If Carter gets suspended I look forward to the ABs fronting up with armbands Boks style. Except they won’t … they’ll just get on with ripping European rugby teams a new one.
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Maybe they’ll rip that little bit less without Carter? Fingers crossed for England!
Only joking. I haven’t seen the incident but I heard that Carter apologised straight after and nobody seems to have said it was malicious. Case closed and let’s get on with the tour.
Jerry said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Armbands are so July, KO.
If Carter is suspended, I suggest towelling headbands are the best medium to express our outrage. Perhaps combined with a Richard Hadlee/Dennis Lillee type lip warmer appropriate to Movember.
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
English rugby is always living in the past, Jerry. Didn’t you know? Perhaps I can bring back the old Josh Kronfield protest scrum cap? Just like George Clooney .. bringing it back.
MarkR said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
10/10 – BTW, thanks for explaining what Smithwicks is, one of the lads here has a Smithwicks pint glass for his water galss & it always intruiged me.
Ziggy said | November 10th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
I agree the incident is totally over blown.Should have been a penalty, that’s all. However, Spiros comments lack any significance because of his double standards re the Boks. His bias is so obvious and yet he cannot see it! maybe he just doesn’t like boerewors or biltong?
MM said | November 11th 2009 @ 7:00am | Report comment
you’d be surprised….. re: Spiro…. interesting comment.
Jimmy said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
Spiro needs to face his bias against everything to do with the Boks. Does he actually know any real South Africans? Please don’t talk about Bryce Courtenay!!! I’m from the UK and soon will be going home after a stint of 3 years in Pretoria. Will someone please inform Spiro that SA is a very different place to when he formed his biased attitudes.
Temba said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
I AGREE WITH SPIRO!!!
This happens to South Africa all the time, my thoughts go out to Daniel in this tough time… perhaps a couple of armbands in the next match!
Bill said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
I haven’t seen footage of Carter’s high tackle, can someone please post a video link?
Temba said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
I have not either but heard (correct me if I am wrong) it was a swinging arm that looked bad. Penalty maybe not a ban/hearings required…
Temba said | November 10th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Hermin, sounds to me more like popping a brain vain out of anger than laughing hysterically…
What was the question again?
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
I don’t have a problem with him being cited. It was high so there’s a case to answer, but as per regulation 17.6.2 the citing commissioner has ajudged Carter’s tackle to have “warranted the Player concerned being Ordered Off”. No one in their right mind would consider that to have been a red card offence. I think we’re all of the understanding he was going to have a rest in the Italy match anyway, but for consistency sake I can’t see him being suspended.
As Roberts said; “Looking at the replay it did look quite high. He did apologise to me. He said ’sorry for the tackle’ after the game”.
“Things like that happen in games, and you just have to take it on the chin. It looked bad, but I was fine.
“Everyone has got their views and opinions, but as a player you just get on with it. The referee makes decisions.”
On the first viewing, it just looked like an awesome cover tackle. Given Robert’s comments and the fact he wasn’t injured I doubt Carter will be suspended. Then we can wait for the screaming from Wales to reach fever pitch. To even suggest Joubert should’ve sent him off and by not doing so cost Wales a victory is the utmost in lunacy. The TMO kept
WalesWails in the game.Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
‘Someone called Matt, Hemjay..’
Matt Henjak? Not him again! That would explain the rage.
stuff happens said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
As a Welshman I’m embarrassed by all the fuss over this. Yes it was a high tackle and had the ref seen it, it would have been a penalty. Yellow card, maybe. But all the ranting after the incident was pathetic. As Roberts said these things happen and refs don’t always see things.Gatland’s comments were unwarranted and detracted from a really good Welsh performance. They lost the game in the third quarter but played very well for most of the match but just couldn’t score a try.Their defence was excellent. He and Edwards are doing well with this Welsh team and they’ll get better still. He should stop whingeing and get on with it.
As to Spiro’s double standards re Bakkies – well what’s new?! There was nothing wrong in that incident either as another Welshman Jones said at the time .
Get over it.
Oh and for those of you in Sydney on this beautiful Spring day, the Boks /France match is live at 06.30 on Sat.Hopefully a great game .
PastHisBest said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
I think Gatland was/is deflecting SH.
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
It was a swinging arm and the independent Oz official decided he should be cited. I see in the NZ press they are kicking up a fuss about Blackett being English and it is a conspiracy! Blackett over the years has proven to be a pretty fair arbiter and makes his decisions quickly certainly within 24 hours. Carter has an excellent discplinary record to date and I would anticipate one match ban at the most.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
By New Zealand Press you mean Gregor Paul?
The problem here is the citing commissioner is either incompetent or has been swayed by the appalling post match commentary of Gatland & Co and the officials controlling the feed in the stadium. To adjudge that Joubert would have shown Carter a red card is ludicrous.
PastHisBest said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
I don’t know that we can presume any outside influence has affected the citing commissioner Dean.
Darwin hammer said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Ian – that’s all fine in theory – but first off – in order to be cited the offence needs to be judged as a red card offence – the tackle clearly wasn’t – I don’t think anyone on here or even in the UK press has stated that it was ….. secondly for the pure image of impartiality surely an Englishman shouldn’t be anywhere near this decision – if he’s given 2 weeks then I think it’ll be a fair call to start asking some serious questions …
Edwards’ column in the Guardian this week should be a cracker
sheek said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Personal attacks against Spiro & each other aside, I thought Spiro raised a valid point about the role of people controlling the TV viewing screens at sports stadiums.
If the two incidents mentioned by Spiro happened as he said, & one was quickly discarded (because it involved a home player as culprit) & the other was re-shown ad nauseum (because it involved a visiting player as culprit), then clearly there is a moral issue involved here.
Assuming most of us still have a sense of morality. It’s not a forum to bring out the dirty laundry for past insults, either real or perceived. Deal with the issue at hand.
Is the next stage having neutral broadcasters at sporting stadia?
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Spiro doesn’t actually know what the deal is with the TV replays and who controls them, so until that is established the debate is redundant.
fox said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
So sensible! Amazing – and I have to agree. The points raised are concerning and need to be looked at.
Nashi said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
At last some sanity. Local crowds have a strong enough influence over a game. This is magnifying that advantage. I don’t know how you would set the rules, except possibly say that you can show 3 replays of any incident that the ref blows his whistle and then get on with it.
pothale said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
A friend of mine produces many of the outside broadcast matches at stadia in Ireland. The TV Director decides what goes on the big screen in any of the matches he’s done. The broadcast centre in big stadia feed the screens with live action, stats, player profiles, etc.
You can use a remote browser with it as well – but it needs skilled hands to operate – and those rest with the broadcasting company or OB operator.
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
And so starts the debate. You learn something new every day.
fox said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
KO et al, Dan Carter is hardly Bakkies Botha. To compare the two is an insult to our intelligence. One player is a well-respected, often adored and consistently fair player who made a borderline tackle in open play. The other is a serial offender and barely human whose offenses occur in the shadows of rucks and mauls and are often premeditated. If you exercise some semblance of reasonability in your comments you would note this but no, your hypocrisy is clearly evident in your use of one eye to spot the apparent one eyed observations of another.
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Point out where I compare the two or please apologise.
Jameswm said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Unlike Sheek, most of you have missed the point of the article.
I saw footage of the incident and it was as knives said – penalty certainly, yellow – possibly/probably, red no.
But the issue is how they showed it relentlessly and in slo-mo during the game, influencing the crowd and the ref. That has to be wrong and there should be IRB directives about it.
I always wondered about that dodgy try in the Aust/England game. If that happened, the host nation should be fined/suspended heavily. It’s out and out cheating. Even if it’s the TV network doing it, there have to be directives to show every angle available.
Anyway – read it in the score book I guess. Good chance for some investigative journalism and a great chance for us Aussie to have a massive whinge about the result being changed retrospectively!!
pothale said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Knives didn’t say: “penalty certainly, yellow – possibly/probably, red no.”
There was also a rumour that footage related to the English player’s foot not being on the whitewash in the WC final was kept hidden from view and wasn’t allowed to be shown to the TMO. It was a try, and England should have won. Apparently a buy with a funny accent (must have been Australian) got hold of the footage and was seen exchanging it at the airport for a very heavy suitcase with a shifty looking guy who looked South African, or Tongan or Southern Hemispherean anyway….
pothale said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
I posted the link on the incident above, but in case someone misses amongst all the angst, here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol00OgqsIFU. It’s very clear on what occurred from two different angles.
A related thought strikes on Spiro’s comment about the use of video replays/feeds at matches. In the famous Munster v Biarritz H Cup final in 2006, the TV director cut to shots of the thousands who had gathered in the streets of Limerick to watch the match on a big screen. Someone decided to put the pictures up on the screen in the stadium. the place went ballistic and the Munster guys filled their boots another few inches – if you’ll pardon the expression.
As one of the players said afterwards, when they saw the pictures, the whole Munster team got a recharge from the reaction of the two crowds responding to each other – they didn’t look back from that moment on.
There were complaints afterwards that the screens didn’t show similar shots from Biarritz. As some wag responded, ‘why would you show two blokes sitting in a bar drinking coffee?’
sheek said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
KO,
Don’t be a sap. The TV guys were either Welsh or pro-Welsh, take your pick. This is the normal procedure (home nation provides the pictures/people) at the present time.
pothale said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Sheek – you know little about TV production clearly. And how OBs are produced.
If you like, I can give you an example of an Australian producing a match, directed in the box by an Englishman, with an Irish vision mixer and a American PA.
sheek said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Pothale,
Yes, I understand, but the overall “picture” remains the same, if you know what I mean.
That’s what I meant by, “either Welsh or pro-Welsh, take your pick”.
The use of ‘pro’ in this context covers the points you made.
pothale said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Ok.
MM said | November 12th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Apologies for a very late response Pothale due to the nature of my work.
I’d kindly suggest you re-think remarking on the knowledge of others regarding T.V. production which I refer to as studio production. To the point – in professional studios it’s clearly not difficult using the strobe to gauge very clearly what happened beyond doubt. In this case, there was no accident or an accidental arm in the air as read in various posts. It was a planned tackle – I will not say a planned high tackle, nonetheless, reviewing the speed etc., it is very difficult to term the high tackle itself as accidental. Question: Is it a high tackle or not? If so, can grey areas be contemplated – where is the line drawn and this line in the grey area so as to speak would then have to apply to all rules – what a circus that would be…
Sheek, Knives and various others have a valid point which may sound paradoxical, in pointing out the harsher rulings from the northern hemisphere – yet it is not paradoxical when certain outcomes, rules and citings come into play impacting the outcome of the test. That’s by far not difficult to see – it’s a glaring fact.
Yes – for clarity the replays were necessary – it’s overtly irritating and unfair when the equipment is available and this is not carried out consistently. The onus is resident on all players and stakeholders to abide by the rules and accept what is accurately determined via the visual resources.
It’s an understatement to say that bringing Carter back would not result in targeting, rightly or wrongly. Big men demanding megabucks don’t cry. Visuals and play-backs are essential in validating decisions.
You do contribute in general with a lot of wisdom and insight and hopefully you don’t see the entire content as being targeted at you as I replied firstly to what you said and then went general and it’s every person’s right to agree / disagree.
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
I’m not saying they weren’t, sheek. What I said was that Spiro said he didn’t know how the big screen worked – that stunts the debate until the appropriate information is forthcoming. Pothale has told everyone how it works.
sheek said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Pothale,
After viewing the link, Carter’s tackle was careless, but this isn’t an excuse (for him, or anybody).
Every player ought to know by now, that if you throw a loose arm at the upside of a ball pressed against another player’s chest, that loose arm is going to bounce up either around the other player’s neck or jaw.
Players continue doing it, feigning ‘unintentional’, because referees continue to give them the ‘benefit of the doubt’.
In any case, this isn’t the thrust of Spiro’s article. There were two questionable incidents. In the first, involving a home player as the culprit, replays were quickly squashed. (Apparently, since I haven’t watched the game).
In the second, involving a visiting player as the culprit, replays were shown over & over which eventually incited the crowd.
jus de couchon said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Fox is seriously a sharp one . Id give up if I was you 2 .
PastHisBest said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
I don’t think there is any need to show replays, close-ups, slow-mo’s, etc. of a TV producers idea of foul play on the stadium screens at all. The referee doesn’t use it, the TMO doesn’t use replays for foul play – all it does it turn the crowd against one or more players.
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Dean
Yep it was Gregor Paul, frankly lazy journalism making a story out of nothing and I am not Welsh.
The citing official in independent and your comment implies that the OZ guy is incompetent. I think it a gross overreaction, it was a swinging arm the official decided it should be cited, end of story. You could see in Carter’s face that he knew it was swinging arm, not intentional but unfortunate. In the heat of a game the ref can’t see everything and the role of the citing officer is there to look out for foul play that may be off the ball etc which the officials might not see. In rugby they have an important role to play as they are another set of eyes to watch out for dangerous play which can be reviewed after the game. Sometimes their decisions may not suit a particular party but in this incident he got it right because it was so obvious and I suspect because it is Carter it is probably more high profile than other citings.
Sheek
The classic was in the RWC2007 final when Dickinson had to adjuicate on the Ceuto “try”, it appears because of language difficulties he couldn’t make himself understood to get all the slow-mos required. At the end of the day even the TMO can get it wrong, but they have to make decision and people just have to move on.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
“but in this incident he got it right” … “your comment implies that the OZ guy is incompetent”
Exactly. The citing commissioner is incompetent because no one in their right mind would adjudicate that tackle as being a red card offence. It wasn’t a swinging arm, it was just high and should have been a penalty.
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
I am not Welsh and have no axe to grind but it was swinging arm. The citing officer always have tough calls and they can not afford to be influenced by the crowd or any other external force. If the ref had given a penalty or yellow/red card then if I recall the citing officer can not cite as the ref has seen the incident and has made a decision “in the moment”.
I really don’t know why there is such an outcry the incident is pretty obvious and it will be dealt with and within the next 24 hrs a decision will be made and we shall move on. Whatever the decision, it is a good thing for the game as it will indicate to all players that even Carter can be cited. Blackett by the way has been appointed by the IRB and if there was a conspiracy perhaps the blame should be put at their door. Any way as I said before Blackett has reputation of being fair and acting expeditiously. Carter is represented by legal counsel and he has an excellent disciplinary record so alot of cards stacked in his favour.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
You keep stating you’re not Welsh, why?
It wasn’t a swinging arm. Just because you assert it doesn’t make it so.* The outcry is because it appears to reasonably disinterested person, that the process has been compromised. In order for the citing commissioner to act, he must be of the mind that it was a red card offence. No one in their right mind has mentioned Carter’s tackle on Roberts as being worthy of a red card.
*Too many people seem to believe that movement of a tackler’s arm in the process of making a tackle equates to a “swinging arm” action. The absurdity of this is highlighted when prevention of a swinging arm requires an arm, already extended and not moving, aka stiff-arm. One is mentioned in the laws (Law 10 e), the other isn’t. Guess which one?
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Just trying to be objective, you must be blind or wearing a poor set of glasses not to see an obvious swinging arm, which could have harmed the other player It wasn’t intentional just poorly executed and clearly foul play. I was under the impression that a citing officer role was to cite foul play and leave it for the hearing to make a judgement as to whether there should be a punishment. I don’t think the colour of the card is relevant as he only adjudicates on foul play. As in this case Carter can plead his case and it could be that Blackett in view of his good disciplinary record might let him off with a warning, he has done it before. Anyway if you so convinced that he is in the clear then you have nothing to worry about, but it pretty obvious to others that is not the case.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
You still seem to be crapping on about this mystical swinging arm. I suggest you avail yourself of a copy of the laws of the game and have a good read.
I further suggest you understand the role and requirements of the citing process.
Lastly; despite your preponderant ignorance, I have clearly stated numerous times it was a high tackle and should have been penalised.
Darwin hammer said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Can’t wait until the new screen at the Dallas Cowboys becomes the norm then (approx 50m x 22m) … should bring a whole new rage out in the throng baying for blood ….
… on a side note – I’m surprised no-ones really made mention of how poor the pitch was for the game …. this is apparently one of the best rugby grounds in the world – yet time and time again the pitch is appalling – outside of the odd FA cup final or play off final (which are in May) I can’t think of when that ground has been in a decent condition
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
The pitch at the Millenium has always been a problem. The turf is laid on pallets which are moved into the stadium for sporting fixtures. The problem is that the turf is laid like a carpet and the root depth is not enough to stop the turf rucking and breaking up. Believe or not the game on Saturday was not as bad as some games where large areas have rucked up particluarly following a scrum which has been keenly fought.
formeropenside said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Its part of home crowd advantage, surely, to have the crowd inflamed. Thats not a problem, and trying to influence the referee is done by everyone – coaches, captains, players. I was at Ballymore in ‘92 or thereabouts when Loe dropped a forearm onto Paul Carozza’s head: that went up on the screen a few times, and so it should have.
This is essentially the same – just the execution was not as effective. If a “high tackle” is defined as so much as touching the head or shoulders (which is silly to begin with, but like not rucking, its in the rulebook) then Carter’s tackle was high, and reckless.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
You’re seriously drawing a comparison between Richard the Loe’s effort in telling Carozza not to score tries, to Carter’s tackle?
formeropenside said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Only as a matter of degree: Carter’s tackle was a high shot, and probably reckless in execution – Loe’s “tackle” was somewhat more vigorous and deliberate, but both were illegal under the rules. So what’s your point?
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
My point is clear, well to everyone else it seems. One is a tackle poorly executed and if the ref and / or assistant ref had seen it fromm the angle of the camera, would have resulted in a penalty. The other bears no resemblance other than coming under Law 10. Hence the difference in sanctions.
Terry Kidd said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Regardless of what Spiro said about what incident I thought the main point of his post was the use of selected replays to influence match officials and crowds.
My thoughts on this are that since time began home crowds, through barracking, have always tried to influence match officials. The use of multiple replays is simply an extension of technology for barracking. In other words the home crowd has another tool to assist their barracking.
Visiting team have always had to contend with ‘home ground advantage’, this is just another added aspect of that. Cheers,
Oh, and Hemjay .. er Hermin … bugger, forgot who you are …. in my opinion you were out of line mate.
PastHisBest said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
I don’t think anyone is saying it wasn’t high and reckless FOS. What concerns me more is that home sides have more than enough advantage as it is without them having big screens showing selective replays based on the whims of a local producer.
Temba said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
So what we saying here is that if you out run the official on the field so that they are out of site its ok to tackle a player high?
An offense needs to be punished, perhaps 10 mins in the bin for the next game?
I don’t think that tackle deserves a one week ban but letting it go unpunished sets a new standard.
If it was a South African player it would be a ban for sure… If Bakkies was on the Telstra stadium screen 20 times there would be no mention of this. Ban him for life would be the out cries. I don’t really give a toss but it amazes me what people will whinge about if their team is in line of questioning.
It’s a welsh stadium let them work the boys up into a frenzy, it did not change the match… it fires things up and Rugby needs a bit of fire.
Carter is a professional, he can stand pressure, I am sure it did not affect him. Like I said had it been in NZ or Aus the screen would have “favoured” the home team too.
Not the end of the world, just making it a little more interesting for the blokes that paid the big buck to watch the match live.
Dingbat said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
http://www.rugbydump.com/ – Carter’s high tackle is at around the 2min mark.
Mr Denmore said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Someone should post the link to the hysterical interview with Carter straight after the match carried out by some blonde bimbo from the BBC. Carter, normally the most unflappable bloke, even rolled his eyes at her fixation on the “the tackle”. The British media is a joke.
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
It was a pretty obvious question to ask, particularly as Carter himself glanced up at the big screen to see what all the booing was about, and in The Millenium there are two big screens at either end of the pitch so he couldn’t miss it. I thought he answered the question really well, so no hysteria just asking the obvious!
MarkR said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
PHB – what amazed me was the touchie was right there & thought nothing of it, I was foaming at the mouth – although that could’ve been through having to watch the match ‘dry’.
Temba – glad to see you back, if it was Bakkies instead of Carter they guy probably wouldn’t have had much of a neck left……just kidding…kind of…..%-)
Terry Kidd said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
I don’t believe there is any conspiracy and the cards will fall as they fall ….. whatever, it happened, it’ll be dealth with. Lets move on.
JonnyP said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Roberts was uninjured and interviewed after the match told journalists: “Things like that happen in games, and you just take it on the chin. “take tackles like that on the chin”?! Tell me he was joking when he phrased it like that?
Sam Taulelei said | November 10th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Carter’s tackle was careless and should have been a yellow card – that would have left the matter dealt with on the field and by the referee. As it’s been referred to the citing commissioner the most likely penalty will be a one match ban, especially in light of the one match bans imposed upon Sivivatu for his reckless airborne tackle in Tokyo and Woodcock for throwing a punch. Anything more than a one match ban will be heavyhanded, unjust and unduly influenced by the media.
The only appropriate attire the All Blacks should wear in support of Carter if he’s suspended for more than one match is a choker.
Willem said | November 10th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Ha Ha Ha HA Ha Ha, its good to see some consistancy starting to creep into the world rugby. When someone like carter is no longer untuchable it is a great day for rugby. Suspend him, it was a careless high tackle. It feels a bit like Spiro looks at the rugby world in one way, if you are green you are meen and if you are black you are on track no matter what.
I am really enjoying this, it is clear that spiros is experiencing things from the other side of the fence. It just proofs that everything comes around eventually.
Damo said | November 10th 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
As a couple of posters finally said after the usual suspects went on and on about Spiro’s “bias” or “double standards”. Spiro has a valid point FOR ALL STADIA and BROADCASTERS. Some posters can’t let the guy say something without bringing everything back to SA or NH siege mentality persecution complexes.
It was a game between the team from NZ and Wales. It was media manipulation of the crowd. LIke the way stadium OZ carry on after a Wallaby try. Cheering is fine but broadcast barracking is embarrassing.
I for one want to see my team win a game of RUGBY, and replays should be there to make the game fairer not to favour one over another.
P.S. Can we save reading time by just forgiving Spiro for past “sins” and keep to the point at hand?
Whether or not it was a penalty or a yellow or a red or “worse than Jones” is irrelevant. This article is about the abuse of the stadium screen.
Lee said | November 10th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
It is a benefit of playing at home, every stadium promotes the home team as does the television coverage.
If a professional player cannot handle a bit of booing then lord help them when they need to kick a winning penalty in a world cup final.
The one area where I take issue is that in this case it seems to have resulted in a player facing sanction, as previously pointed out, the citing officer has failed miserably at his job, and the only logical conclusion is that he is pacifying the crowd, as he certainly has not followed the rule book.
Darwin hammer said | November 10th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Well take it a step further – the citing officer in this case is an Aussie – not hard to imagine that if he hadn’t cited Carter then a fair chunk of the UK press would have happily brought up the SANZAR connection and also thrown in a (very) tired reference to the O’Driscoll injury in the 1st Lions test in ‘05 … pressure applied from all angles resulting in a poor decision and if there’s any fairness applied then it won’t last 5 minutes before being thrown out …
However as we know there’s no such thing a fairness when dealing in this arena – so I expect Carter will get a week (which will set a rather dangerous precedent) and effectively miss a game he most likely wasn’t going to be playing in anyway … tokenism all round.
Mind you if he gets 2 weeks then the balloon will really go up.
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
DH
I see the hearing is today as the AB’s requested a delay, presumably to prepare their case. Frankly I think the O’Driscoll incident was a watershed moment and since then citing officers have been more vigilant, presumably because the IRB, based in Dublin, have tighten the dictat to the citing officers.
As for fairness, the incident is obvious, I suspect the main debate will centre around whether the tackle was intentional or did Carter arm slip up to the neck as Roberts ducked to avoid the tackle. Carter ia able to plead his case and Blackett who has been through these cases on many occasions will give him the fair crack of the whip.
Jerry said | November 10th 2009 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
I don’t think what was shown on the stadium screen has any significance whatsoever. I doubt the booing of the crowd would have affected Joubert’s performance any more than he’d already been influenced by the crowd (in that studies have shown that home teams get a genuine benefit from the crowd influencing refereeing decisions). As Lee points out, the failure here is that of the citing officer, who may have let the increased attention from the public and media (for which Warren Gatland bears a lot of responsibility) affect his decision to cite.
I would also point out that the ‘red card equivalent’ requirement for a citing is essentially a nonsense. You only need to look at the number of citings against the number of red cards issued. If citing officers actually stuck to that requirement, citings would be a rarity rather than a regular occurance. The citing procedures should be clarified to reflect what is actually happening, ie that the level of incident required is closer to a yellow card (if that). And more scrutiny and consistency would be nice.
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
Sam T
I agree with you that it should have been a yellow card but it wasn’t seen by the ref. Where was the ref standing when the tackle was made ? Was his view blocked?
I was also under the impression that the citing officer can act independently of both teams, although any team can also refer incidences to the citing officer for adjudication. I wasn’t aware that Wales had refered the incident to the citing officer although Gatland did refer to it in the post match interview. Did they refer it to the citing officer?
Jerry
As always it is a matter of opinion, I suspect the citing officer sat down and went over the incident many times before deciding to cite. Always a difficult call particularly as it was Carter. Frankly he knows the rules better than anybody otherwise the IRB would not have appointed him. He also knows that if it was an “home town” call his creditability will be shot. As a matter of interest, who was the citing officer, I know he was from OZ? What is his track record?
adam said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
sounds to me like we need a justice for carter
“Things like that happen in games, and you just take it on the chin. It looked bad, but I was fine
funny that is pretty much what the lions said bout botha yet he was blasted as a dirty player for charging a ruck
and the lions even said it was fine
hmmm
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
Adam
I don’t recall the Lions saying the Botha incident was OK as the injury to Jones was severe and he is still out of the game some months later. What I think is critical is that I don’t believe the incident was refered to the citing officer by the Lions, he acted independently. To be frank incidences of thuggery should be excluded from rugby as the Botha charge was unneccesary and the speed and nature of the impact into a stationary scrum was meant to cause damage. No problem with forwards clearing rucks out but a 10 yard run up and then launching yourself into the opposition to obviously dangerous, when you 19 stone and 6′ 8”. It is potentially life threatening or at least career ending. Nothing macho about, it is probably more cowardly to charge a player when he is stationary and can’t protect himself. Again I think the Botha incident has been a watershed moment and the incidences of players charging into the ruck in a reckless and dangerous manner have probably reduced dramatically.
Jerry said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
Adam Jones said it was ok (albeit a bit after the fact).
http://www.rugby365.com/tournaments/bilions/news/1864960.htm
“It was just one of those things that happens in rugby,” said Jones, speaking for the first time about the incident at the Ospreys’ new kit launch yesterday.
“Botha shouldn’t have been banned for it, nowhere near it.
“I don’t have any complaints. He just cleared me out of the ruck and I got caught.
“Everyone counter-rucks nowadays and, if anything, I was in the wrong place. He just hit me and I was unlucky.
“So I was surprised to see he got banned. I know we didn’t cite him so I don’t know why the independent commissioner did.
“It was just a fair ruck from a hard player. When I have met him before he seems like a tidy enough bloke so I’m not seeing it as anything malicious.”
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
Jerry
Thanks for the Jones quote, it still doesn’t lessen the role of the citing officer who presumably on direction of the IRB has to cite dangerous play even if a player injured said it was OK. What else would you expect Jones to say, hang Botha from the nearest lamp post. The IRB and their citing officers have a wider role to protect the game from incidents that can be seen as being dangerous and deflect attention away from a fabulous game to a continual debate about the dangerous nature of the game. With TV and endless video replays, rugby is under greater scrutiny than ever and as it’s popularity grows hopefully no serious life threatening injury will occur during a high profile game, which could be detrimental to the growth of the game. To date, touch wood no such problems, but it could be around the corner unless the IRB poilice the game vigorously.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:31pm | Report comment
Carter gets a week suspension.
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
Dean
What everybody probably expected, but it has put down a marker in the game partly because of Dan Carter and what he stands for.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:38pm | Report comment
What does he stand for?
ohtani's jacket said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:53pm | Report comment
Yeah, it’s a wonderful precedent. If the ref doesn’t give you ten minutes in the game, you get an 80 minute suspension instead. That makes a lot of sense.
ohtani's jacket said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
There was nothing in that tackle. At this rate, Roberts will write a book about it. Ah well, something else for the Welsh to dine out on for the next twenty years. I guess the old adage about never beating the Welsh remains.
I can’t wait for the next game where the All Blacks pile in, play the ball on the ground, lie on the wrong side of the ruck and pervert the course of justice.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
I doubt Roberts will “write a book about it”. He doesn’t seem to be the cry baby liar O’Driscoll is.
All we can ask is for consistency…
ohtani's jacket said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:50pm | Report comment
It’s a crap decision. I don’t think Carter would’ve played this weekend, so it’s largely irrelevant, but there were plenty of yellow card decisions in the Tri-Nations which weren’t cited. Was Giteau cited for his challenge on du Preez? What about JP Pietersen’s clothesline on Cowan? Sivivatu’s suspension was more than justified, but Carter? Remember when the Boks played the All Blacks in Dunedin last year? Those head high tackles were far more dangerous than Carter’s hit.
You’d have to be an idiot to think this isn’t an orchestrated suspension by our friends up North, those vigilant caretakers of the game and all its sacred laws. Three suspensions in two weeks. How do the All Blacks get away with it? They’re a protected species. God knows Wayne Barnes protected them in the greatest game ever refereed.
Knives Out said | November 11th 2009 @ 3:28am | Report comment
‘You’d have to be an idiot to think this isn’t an orchestrated suspension by our friends up North, those vigilant caretakers of the game and all its sacred laws. Three suspensions in two weeks. How do the All Blacks get away with it? They’re a protected species. God knows Wayne Barnes protected them in the greatest game ever refereed.’
Wow. You’ve gone all ‘Spiro’ on us.
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
Agreed on consistency
Please don’t call O’Driscoll a liar it is totally unneccesary, what happened to him was plain to see but everybody is entitled to their opinion. The injury was serious and he was out for 6 months and it could have threatened his career.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
He did lie. He stated that a nurse asked if she could have his Lions Test jersey. No such nurse existed.
Knives Out said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
I thought a doctor did?
Dean Pantio said | November 11th 2009 @ 6:58am | Report comment
In an extract from his tour diary, published in Britain’s Guardian daily, the Irish star tells how a “nurse-physio” started to cut his Lions shirt off after he was stretchered off the field at Jade Stadium in Christchurch.
O’Driscoll likened it to “picking over the bones of the Lions corpse”.
“Then, and I still can’t believe this, the nurse asked me if she could have my Lions shirt,” he wrote. “Mother of God, what was she thinking? I’ve been speared off the bloody pitch after just 40 seconds of a Test series and she wants the shirt off my back as well.
“‘Get this woman out of here,’ I was thinking, still unable to talk properly. ‘What is wrong with this bloody country? Just start treating me like a human being, will you?’”
But the claim has puzzled the St John Ambulance service, who say they did not have a nurse in the medical room and that O’Driscoll’s treatment was controlled by the Lions medical team.
“We only supplied his transport from the pitch to the medical room and later on to the hospital, and again under supervision of the Lions medical team,” spokeswoman Amy McDermott was quoted saying in the Christchurch Press Thursday.
Source: AAP
Ian Noble said | November 11th 2009 @ 2:17am | Report comment
Article about BO’D in todays Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-1226484/Brian-ODriscoll-Why-I-end-feud-Tana-Umaga-THAT-tackle.html
MM said | November 11th 2009 @ 7:12am | Report comment
You sure you want to say that? Not interested or available for replies – getting out to do investigations
Ian Noble said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
Dean
He is a world class athlete who plays rugby in the right way, has had an exceptional career and a clean disciplinary record to date. It was unfortunate that this incident happened, but it will not lessen the rugby world’s admiration of Carter. From the IRB’s point of view, it probably illustrates that nobody is above the law in rugby.
OJ
No problem with the AB’s piling in provided it is within the laws and there is intention to willfully harm another player. It is a contact sport but malicious intent is another matter. There is an IRB conference taking place in London I think this week where I understand they will discussing dangerous play, which has become a bigger issue as the players have got bigger, faster and fitter than ever before.
Dean Pantio said | November 10th 2009 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
My problem Ian is the lack of consistency. Botha rubbed out for what was an every-match occurrence. Carter gets a suspension that equates to the same as Sivivatu’s brain explosion. This mockery of justice breeds contempt for the laws.
Neil said | November 11th 2009 @ 12:55am | Report comment
I think Spiro Zavos breeds contempt for the laws.
Sylvester said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
I agree that suspending Carter for a match, knowing he would always skip the Italy test, was a diplomatic way of quelling the ridiculous hype that has built up over the tackle without anyone being put out. That doesn’t make it right though.
bennalong said | November 10th 2009 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
What a bizarre column this is.
The growth in bureaucracy that threatens our individual freedoms is aided by the willingness of biased individuals to employ abominable law changes to advance their particular cause while at the same time seeking to restrict the opportunities of their opponents to do the same thing.
I can understand the Welsh booing Carter who could easily have been penalised for his action and wasn’t. A penalty may have been significant and a yellow would have been. All’s fair in wartime!
But after the match let cool heads prevail
I find it impossible to believe that anyone who actually played Rugby and does not believe the rules should be influenced by potentially negative press could actually contend that there was malice in either of the actions I’m seeing debated. Neither player is a Botha
I see no reason not to have a citing commissioner if foul play is suspected but I would expect that unless intent or recklessness is isdetermined no punishment at all should be given.
Be careful about fuelling this rubbish because all contact sports are liable to attack by fascistic bureaucrats and the loss of the relatively safe activity called rucking has threatened the future of a great game
The absurdly dangerous act of “clearing out” of players off the ball is a modern invention by the dills now controlling the game.
Neil said | November 11th 2009 @ 12:53am | Report comment
“It is hard enough for teams like the Wallabies and the All Blacks to win matches in Europe with the media forever calling them “cheats” in a blatant, vicious attempt to put them off-side with the referees.”
Like you do South Africa in the tri-nations? Spiro, the hypocrisy is sometimes just staggering dude. No wonder the game is in such poor health in australia.
Ian Noble said | November 11th 2009 @ 3:47am | Report comment
Thought some might be interested by comments on Quins fans blog on Carter’s ban. Spelling errors and grammar not corrected!
“He will miss the match against Italy which we would probably be rested for anyway, and be back for the “real” match against France. No punishment at all…”
“And thats possibly fair !
It was at most (Imho) a yellow card, though it should probably have been at least a penalty.”
“cynicism alert
at least it got as far as Blackett – i would humbly suggest that (whether you think the tackle merited disciplinary action or not) it would not have even been looked at were Wales touring NZ rather than the other way around”
“If he had got a yellow that would probably have been the end of the matter, so does this mean that he should not have been cited and was only cited because Gatland moaned on TV?
But then if that was the case should Blackett’s decision to ban or not ban him be based on whether Carter was carded during the match or not?
Methinks that this was a token punishment to appease Gatland and Shaun Edwards but on me which they knew would not actually affect anything.
This then brings the question “Who runs the game?”…”
Jerry said | November 11th 2009 @ 4:24am | Report comment
Hard to get worked up. You get the feeling that the easy road was taken and, despite Spiro’s conspiracy theory, I suspect if the AB’s were playing France or England this week, Carter may have got off altogether.
MM said | November 11th 2009 @ 6:48am | Report comment
You’re right Jerry – but let’s look at it in context – changes in citings and penalties change from one hemisphere to another which again raises the question of CONSISTENCY.
Again, just as other journalists should not be cited out or judged simply because of the varying techniques they use to gain maximum participation, Spiro only posted his article – he is not one of the big boys in control.
In fact, a great job has been done evoking varied responses mostly towards the inconsistency.
All rugby players go out to play for foreign bucks, but Carter leaving the New Zealand team before and during a crucial time. Where is his true loyalty? Other heroes also contract out – but are back in time for their home countries.
He’s been molly-coddled as an Icon – and at that, when it was not too long ago that he only tipped the scales against South Africa’s Percy Montgomery ~ just too interesting for words… How does Carter get those caps right playing for another country? Has that been investigated?
You’re right and so is Ian Noble.
To add to the debacle having perused all articles, where certain persons attempt to justify the high tackle – is there a grey area? If so, and if so much subjectivity is considered, then where are the lines drawn for all rules?
It doesn’t help to blame the English for their “unforgettable memories of the past” etc. Just as the ludicrous comment attempting to justify the citing against South Africa’s Bakkies Botha where his height and weight is mentioned and… and.. and.. He’s been around for years – don’t play rugby if you can’t take the heat as is one famous expression.
We have to ask ourselves: What is really happening at governing levels? And maybe we wouldn’t want to know that either…
Jerry said | November 11th 2009 @ 7:28am | Report comment
Carter wasn’t actually going to miss any game time with the AB’s. Had he not injured his achilles, he’d have been available for the first AB match of the year. Although, now I think about it, there was talk that he’d not have been able to play the first test against France had Perpignan made it to the Top14 Final.
MM said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
You’ve got a point there Jerry.
MarkR said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Unfortunately if it happens again he’s now got ‘form’ & can expect a harsher punishment. Still can’t believe Joens got away with playing footy with leonards head, no justice I tell ya…….
ohtani's jacket said | November 11th 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
I’m pretty sure he would’ve missed the June Tests. The talk at the time was whether they’d rush him back into the Tri-Nations. As it was, it obviously had a deterimental effect on the All Blacks’ early season results. But what’s done is done and all that matters is where they go from here.
First off, let’s stop with the suspensions. As good as the All Blacks’ defence has been this year and as much as people claim they get away with murder, there’s been a high penalty count all season and now there’s a bit of reckless tackling going on. My good buddy Frank is wrong as usual. Modern rugby is soft as buggery and nothing is left on the field anymore. The All Blacks will have to sort this out because come World Cup time a yellow card in a tight elimination match is not what the doctor ordered.
Dean Pantio said | November 11th 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
“He’s been molly-coddled as an Icon – and at that, when it was not too long ago that he only tipped the scales against South Africa’s Percy Montgomery ~ just too interesting for words… How does Carter get those caps right playing for another country? Has that been investigated?”
What the hell is that drivel?
MarkR said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Dean, you’re talking about my home town – Christchurch. There’s isn’t a Tall poppy syndrome there, it’s a ‘what poppy’ . Take comments with a shaker of salt as I don’t see Deans giving him an easy ride due to being an ‘icon in the making’ . What a load of drivel. We’re now moving from conjecture regarding the reason for a citing to character assassination of the cited player based on being 2 yrs behind him at school. Thank god there’s rugby game or two this weekend.
MM said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
MarkR – if it is drivel in your opinion – it’s at least consistent….
You’re all over the show mate
MM said | November 11th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
MarkR said | November 11th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Apologies MM, I didn’t mean to be obtuse.
1) Carter is from ChCh – ChCh has extreme tall poppy syndrome, hence comments on Carter having a huge ego based on his walk or having been 2 yrs below him at CBHS are extremely dubious.
2) There’s 2 games on this weekend that will distract 90% of the readers of this site so this thread will die a natural death.
Clear as mud ??
Cheers – Mark
Lee said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Chch is not my home town MarkR but I did attend most of High School there.
And as you calim Tall Poppy syndrome is alive and well there, however it is also always trotted out when someone critises someone in the public eye, as in there is no way that can be true, it is just a case of tall poppy syndrome.
MM said | November 12th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
You’re being “sensitive” MarkR. Who argued where Carter is from. ChCh poppy syndrome is old news certainly not remarked on by myself.
Who said Carter had a huge ego based on his walk? This is enlightening stuff….
All threads die a natural death.
More muddy than clear – soz about that – don’t put words into mouths – right?
ohtani's jacket said | November 11th 2009 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
If Carter deserves a suspension on the basis of being a dick, then I can think of a few lifetime bans that ought to be handed out.
MarkR said | November 12th 2009 @ 7:59am | Report comment
OJ you cheeky sod, I just spat coffee all over my keyboard, very funny.
Ziggy said | November 11th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Every now and then someone remarks that Spiro throws in comments to ensure het gets a debate going. You give him far too much credit. The remarks that elicit most response are his tried and true beliefs over many years of writing. He is entitled to his opinions – and so are we. Just don’t sully ours as if we are morons to be manipulated.
jus de couchon said | November 12th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Oh , just leave it..
MarkR said | November 12th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
MM – you’ve lost me, I didn’t attribute the comments to anyone person as I couldn’t be bothered going back & reading who wrote it. If you think I’ve maligned you my apologies but I can’t see where you got that from
MM said | November 12th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Mark – it is a bit of a pain always going back so your remark doesn’t surprise me as I’ve blundered there before.
No worries pal.