Comments on: How did Dan Carter also upset Peru?

By: Stash

Stash — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:59:45 +0000

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?

By: The Truth

The Truth — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:52:05 +0000

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.

By: Vented Relief

Vented Relief — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:44:35 +0000

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.

By: Jecker

Jecker — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:01:43 +0000

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.

By: roarer101

roarer101 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:27:44 +0000

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?

By: CraigB

CraigB — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:58:19 +0000

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.

By: Matt0931

Matt0931 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:50:42 +0000

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.

By: Kevin,Meath

Kevin,Meath — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:15:02 +0000

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.