By Bondi Plage
November 12th 2009 @ 1:44am
Loading ...Related coverage
How did Dan Carter also upset Peru?
Today’s on-line edition of the NZ Herald shows the same shot twice of Carter’s head-high tackle. Under one of the shots is the line: Did Carter deserve a one match ban for his high tackle?
Under the second identical shot is the line: Gunmen attack Chinese-owned mine in Peru.
So I throw this open to the forum, did Carter deserve any kind of ban for what was clearly an accidental attack on a Peruvian mine? And does this open a can of worms?
In the future, if Rocky Elsom or Bakkes Botha go in head high on an iron ore bulk carrier, for example, should they also face a ban if the iron ore carrier was falling forward at the time?
It’s something that the IRB should make clear so that we, not to mention Rocky and Bakkes, know where we stand.
Or fall.
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...
(8)
Kevin,Meath said | November 12th 2009 @ 2:15am | Report comment
Thought Carter should have lost a penalty for the tackle, it was clumsy, maybe a card but that would have been very harsh but noway does it deserve a ban.
Matt0931 said | November 12th 2009 @ 4:50am | Report comment
I think (as a neutral observer in that game) the tackle was clumsy and probably should have been a penalty to Wales.
I think the Welsh and maybe the Peruvians got a little bit carried away and probably, due to the constant replays, vented their frustration on someone rather than their teams performance and Carter made the perfect villain at the time.
We have all seen many worse tackles that have led to little more than a verbal warning and I think a ban was way over the top.
CraigB said | November 12th 2009 @ 6:58am | Report comment
The precedent was set when bakkas charged in shoulder first into the welsh coal truck last year. Just cause he broke the axle and carter didn’t doesn’t make it any better.
roarer101 said | November 12th 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Frankly, yes I think that Carter deserved a ban for blatantly attacking a Chinese owned peruvian mine. Whether or not he meant to doesn’t affect the fact that he did. Intent shouldn’t come into it! He went in high and the end result was the attack on innocent miners by gunmen (presumably from peru)! If this doesn’t deserve a one week ban, what does?
Jecker said | November 12th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
I’ve done a search for small international squabbles and found the War of Jenkin’s Ear. It was fought between GB and Spain c. 1740.
Will future historians find an entry under the War of James’ Head fought by New Zealand against Peru allied with China? I think we should let tempers cool and allow the UN to mediate.
Vented Relief said | November 12th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
I reckon it was his swinging arm that got him the ban. It definitely wasn’t very high, he was just very careless with that arm coming around onto the blokes chin.
The Truth said | November 13th 2009 @ 3:52am | Report comment
The tackle was brilliant to watch. Carter’s hand came around over shoulder and clutched the opposite shoulder, hardly a swinging arm to the neck or face. Crying foul is the only way for the pitifully out-of-shape North to keep up.
Stash said | November 13th 2009 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
Doesn’t Carter use Judo technique to throw/tackle opposing players? It certainly appears that way when we observe some of his tackles (something that both Kahui and Johnny Wilkinson could learn from). It also looks noticeable when he breaks out of tackles (using opposing weight, direction of energy/power, etc).
Personally I thought the tackle wasn’t that bad – but do the tribunal take intent into account? From a conventional tackle point of view, perhaps a bit sloppy technique wise – but from a judo perspective was it more pre-meditated?