Rebel Byrnes Super Rugby ban over-turned
Related coverage
Sports Highlights
Watch more sports news video
Melbourne Rebels lock Adam Byrnes’ 10-week suspension from Super Rugby has been over-turned by a SANZAR appeals committee.
Byrnes was banned by a judiciary officer who found him guilty of dangerous play in making contact with NSW Waratahs centre Tom Carter’s eye area during the teams’ round two clash on March 2.
But the appeals committee chaired by Nicholas Davidson has found there was insufficient proof to sustain the charge.
© AAP 2013
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
- Explore:
- Adam Byrnes, Melbourne Rebels, Super Rugby
March 22nd 2012 @ 4:33pm
mikeylives said | March 22nd 2012 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Because it didn’t happen. Fair outcome.
March 22nd 2012 @ 5:30pm
formeropenside said | March 22nd 2012 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
So he got two weeks for nothing, in the end.
March 22nd 2012 @ 9:24pm
mikeylives said | March 22nd 2012 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
I meant outcome of the appeal.
March 22nd 2012 @ 7:44pm
Russell said | March 22nd 2012 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
The allegation was that he attacked the eye area of Carter AS THEY WERT GETTING UP. The video evidence of when they were getting up completely showed such allegation to be false.
The video evidence shown on TV was of before they went to ground, not of the incident alleged. That video also did not support an allegation of eye gouging.
The allegation and subsequent charge was a disgrace.
He deserves an apology.
March 22nd 2012 @ 10:33pm
drop kick said | March 22nd 2012 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
Did Carter poke himself in the eye? Why shouldn’t he have complained? It was not his job to judge the incident. Note the appeals committee didn’t say the charge was disproved, it said there was not enough evidence.
March 23rd 2012 @ 3:32pm
Russell said | March 23rd 2012 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
Drop Kick,
No one is suggesting Carter poked himself in the eye.
Carter complained in writing that his eye area (not his eye) was attacked as he got up off the ground. It is clear from the judgement that the vidoe evidence was not inconclusive. It clearly exonerated Byrnes of such allegation.
What the Judicial Officer then did was to go to the INCONCLUSIVE video of before they fell to the ground and find that Byrnes got Carter in a reckless headlock. The Appeal committee has found there was no headlock. No headlock, no reckless contact. It is obvious Carter had a small scratch from an unintentional attempt by Byrnes to grab hold of Carter. Carter tried to milk it and went overboard. Should never have wrongly accused him of eye gouging. Did not think before op-ening his big mouth.
March 22nd 2012 @ 10:55pm
Mark said | March 22nd 2012 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
Didn’t realise that SANZAR had to disprove the charge. Isn’t it up to SANZAR to prove it? Without evidence there is no conviction. Without evidence one shouldn’t complain. Note the citing was made after the game. Allegations can ruin peoples lives. I think we should all be asking why it took so long for SANZAR to deliver their judgment. I agree he deserves an apology.
March 23rd 2012 @ 1:08am
drop kick said | March 23rd 2012 @ 1:08am | Report comment
Carter’s eye was evidence!
Read what Sanzar said
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/adam-byrness-gouge-ban-overturned-20120322-1vm7c.html
He was dismissed on a technicality – plenty of guilty people are.
March 23rd 2012 @ 9:11am
Justin said | March 23rd 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
You need evidence to convict, there was none. Simple as that.
March 23rd 2012 @ 5:42pm
stillmatic1 said | March 23rd 2012 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
depends what one would constitute evidence, justin. the lines in the letter of the law are very murky indeed, and more open to interpretation than fact.
March 22nd 2012 @ 11:37pm
TahMan said | March 22nd 2012 @ 11:37pm | Report comment
Adam Byrnes is a dirty player, picked in teams to ruff up players with his dirty tactics. GUILTY. The damage to Carters eye, including a cut on the inner side of the eye and the immediate reaction of Carter on the field are proof enough for me. Byrnes is just very lucky the cameras angles weren’t ideal on replay and that the ref wasn’t watching….Byrnes will be caught and properly punished one day. Many of his opponents will cheer that Adam Byrnes has to “be a good boy” on the field again. The refs will be watching him like hawkes after this.
March 23rd 2012 @ 7:41am
Mark said | March 23rd 2012 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Funny isn’t it how quick we are to judge and put people down and best of all name call and label people. Last time I checked one needs evidence to sustain an ALLEGATION. If there was CLEAR evidence then the suspension would have stood and SANZAR would not have needed to rely on a “technicality” whatever that means. Perhpas all ciitings should be referred to the courts so players have the benefit of natural justice. Surely Carter would have dealt with Byrnes on the spot given Carter’s temper if the allegation took place. Let’s not forget he made no complaint to the touch judge who was on the spot or the referee. Instead he ran off from the ruck and scored a try. To me it doesn’t stack up. Players have scratches and brusies all over their bodies after playing a game. It’s a CONTACT sport. I’ve read the SANZAR judgment a couple of times and it seems to me that they weren’t quite sure how to cover the judgment in the fist instance without making a mockery of the official who gave that judgment. Carter and SANZAR should issue a joint press release apologising to Adam for this fiasco.
March 23rd 2012 @ 8:01am
brendon said | March 23rd 2012 @ 8:01am | Report comment
scratches all over? yes but its different in the face!!!! you notice when someone feels around for a soft area on your face and digs fingers in. Camera angles have gotten players off all the time in the past. There is no way that in any game you have an opportunity to touch someones face with your fingers without knowing what you are doing, simple as that
March 23rd 2012 @ 10:46am
Cattledog said | March 23rd 2012 @ 10:46am | Report comment
You obviously haven’t played rugby, Brendon. Unfortunately, in the real world it’s NOT as simple as that.
March 23rd 2012 @ 8:09am
Mark said | March 23rd 2012 @ 8:09am | Report comment
If it was a simple as that then there would be no one left playing the game. Have a look at how many times during a game, a ruck, a maul or during a tackle contact is made with players eye area, faces and eyes. Do they all deserve to be suspended for 12 weeks? These things happen in a split second. The issue is intent. In this case there was no digging of fingers in. Have a look at what happened to Ritche McCaw in the RWC final where he was eye gouged. There has never been more camera angles on the field then there is today. If there was clear cut evidence that Byrnes did it then it would have been picked up. But there wasn’t. End of story.
March 23rd 2012 @ 9:06am
Drop kick said | March 23rd 2012 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Oh so the issue is intent is it. So it is alright to recklessly make contact with the face if you didn’ t mean it. It’s alright to spear tackle someone into oblivion if it was accidental.
March 23rd 2012 @ 9:16am
Justin said | March 23rd 2012 @ 9:16am | Report comment
I dont see how you can spear tackle someone by accident?
DK – I think you need to accept that there will be times in rugby where people have scratches and marks. It does not prove anything in regards to intentional eye gouging. Merely that the has been some contact over someone face. I have had plenty of scratch marks in my days, doesnt mean any one tried to gouge me. A hand across the face is VERY different to someone trying to poke your eyes out.
DO you want anyone who makes contact with an opponents face to be rubbed out for 10 weeks? If you do then there will be a lot of players on the sidelines.
March 23rd 2012 @ 9:13am
jameswm said | March 23rd 2012 @ 9:13am | Report comment
1. Byrnes is a dirty player.
2. Byrnes deliberately put his hand on Carter’s face.
3. Carter showed the ref damage to his eye.
4. The video evidence in the end proved inconclusive.
I’d say all up, Adam Byrnes is a very lucky boy.
March 23rd 2012 @ 9:18am
Justin said | March 23rd 2012 @ 9:18am | Report comment
James – What Byrnes record for being a dirty player? He maybe niggly but I thought his record was clean. They had a physical exchange and Byrnes hands/arms were around Carters head.
Again where is the eye gouge evidence though?
This is hardly Richard Low on Matt Cooper like some of you are making out…
March 23rd 2012 @ 10:49am
Cattledog said | March 23rd 2012 @ 10:49am | Report comment
It’s a beat up. Carter’s mates should tell him to HTFU!
March 23rd 2012 @ 2:04pm
johnny-boy said | March 23rd 2012 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Correct Cattledog. It’s just Carters form to try and pin that sort of thing on Byrnes. Too smart by half is Carter. Can’t wait until the return match if there is one. Carter better have his running boots on
March 23rd 2012 @ 3:49pm
drop kick said | March 23rd 2012 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
he should probably wear eye guards
March 23rd 2012 @ 11:18am
mark said | March 23rd 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Yes the issue is intent. Eye gouging is one of the most serious charges there is. If intent isn’t a determining factor what is? Sorry “Drop Kick” don’t understand your point. These citings are akin to criminal charges where intent is the be all and end all.
James thanks for your comments. Check his record I think you’ll find that it is clean. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I think if you are going to make serious allegations like your point 2 you need to be able to back it up with something called evidence.
It’s funny how there have been no apologies to date from any of the contributors who attacked Adam after the citing. Again I live in hope.