3,731 reads
Quade Cooper hits Berrick Barnes high and is banned for a week (Image: White Devil Images)
Related coverage
The Queensland Reds have suffered a major jolt to their Super Rugby title defence with star playmaker Quade Cooper suspended for this Saturday’s qualifying final.
Following a marathon SANZAR judicial hearing on Monday evening, Cooper was rubbed out of Queensland’s sudden-death clash with the Sharks at Suncorp Stadium.
He was found guilty of a dangerous tackle after collecting NSW centre Berrick Barnes high in the Reds’ 32-16 final-round win over the Waratahs on the weekend.
The Wallabies five-eighth pleaded not guilty to the charge but SANZAR judicial officer Paul Tully handed down the one-game ban following the four-and-a-half hearing in Brisbane.
Back near his best form following his recent return from knee surgery, Cooper’s loss is a significant blow to the Reds.
Queensland coach Ewen McKenzie must now choose between utility back Ben Lucas and goalkicking inside centre Mike Harris to start at five-eighth against the Sharks.
Lucas started at No.10 in the last match the Reds played without Cooper, a rousing 42-27 win over the Chiefs, who finished as New Zealand conference winners.
Cooper’s loss follows similar bad news for the Sharks who were forced to leave rising Springboks star Patrick Lambie at home in Durban due to an ankle injury.
The Sharks had also hoped to include powerful inside centre Frans Steyn, a late-season recruit, but their appeal to have him eligible was rejected under SANZAR guidelines.
The qualifying final winners at Suncorp Stadium will meet the Chiefs in next week’s semi-final in Hamilton.
South African referee Jonathan Kaplan has been appointed to control the Reds-Sharks play-off while compatriot Jaco Peyper will officiate in the Crusaders-Bulls qualifying final in Christchurch.
© AAP 2013- Explore:
- Quade Cooper, Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
July 16th 2012 @ 7:47pm
Nick_Brisbane said | July 16th 2012 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
Kaplan again!!!!
July 16th 2012 @ 11:31pm
Morgan said | July 16th 2012 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
What a load of bullshit. There were three similar tackles over the weekend that got nothing more than a penalty.
July 17th 2012 @ 6:33am
Will said | July 17th 2012 @ 6:33am | Report comment
Exactly right!
How about Frans Steyn’s ‘spear tackle’. Almost an exact replica of Digby’s this season- one got 4 weeks the other not even a citing.
July 17th 2012 @ 8:48am
camboUSA said | July 17th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
agreed totally
July 16th 2012 @ 7:52pm
biltongbek said | July 16th 2012 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
Bad news for the sharsk with Kaplan, he dislikes SA teams more than any other, trying to hard to show he isn’t biased.
With Cooper gone it will take the unpredictability of the Reds away, bt for the Sharks to go beat Reds and Chiefs is as likely as me drving a Porsche in the next week.
July 17th 2012 @ 12:39pm
KiwiDave said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Actually Kaplan hates the NSW Waratahs more than any other side. This is a well known fact. And Bilting. If you put $100 on the Sharks winning against the Reds and lets it slide inthe Chiefs game you might get enough for your porsche with the winnings
July 17th 2012 @ 8:05pm
biltongbek said | July 17th 2012 @ 8:05pm | Report comment
Might not be a bad idea kiwidave, now I am not a gambling man, so probably just easier to arrange a test drive and ignore the result.
July 16th 2012 @ 7:53pm
Xiedazhou said | July 16th 2012 @ 7:53pm | Report comment
So how does SANZAR justify this decision when similar tackles in the same round did not even attract a yellow card? Looks like a repeat of the Ioane decision earlier in the year.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:03pm
Snobby Deans said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
Referring isn’t a science, there will always be an element of “why this tackle and not that one”. Best bet is not to put yourself in a position where the ref’s call comes into play.
July 17th 2012 @ 9:47pm
mikeylives said | July 17th 2012 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
“Best bet is not to put yourself in a position.” Copout comment – He didn’t do it on purpose. Should every tackle be a bootlace tackle?
When a player runs into an opponents hip it is “dangerous”. Therefore should the opponent be cited/suspended?
Malicious intent (not reflex action or tackle that slips up) should receive match bans. Anything else head-high should be a penalty and if there is injury a card.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:06pm
nickoldschool said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:06pm | Report comment
Agree. One week for that is unjustified. Dunno if Sanzar have taken into account Branes history of concussions but to me it wasn’t intentional. penalty, yellow card at most but a week ban at this stage of the year is a joke.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:12pm
Snobby Deans said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
nickoldschool – how does Barnes’s history of concussion have any influence on the fact that Cooper tackled him around the neck?
July 16th 2012 @ 9:38pm
nickoldschool said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:38pm | Report comment
high yes, but not around the neck snobby. The initial impact was lower then Cooper’s arm ended up around the neck as Barnes was falling. nothing THAT bad imo.
July 16th 2012 @ 10:00pm
nick said | July 16th 2012 @ 10:00pm | Report comment
doesn’t matter where the tackle starts, just where it ends
July 17th 2012 @ 11:48am
Max said | July 17th 2012 @ 11:48am | Report comment
so smashing someone in the head transferring full force between the earlobes is as bad as transferring the force between the shoulders then tickling the nose? yep… great logic nick, on the ball
July 16th 2012 @ 8:22pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
yeah they took 5 or so hours to deliberate on the decision and its not the one you poor reds fans wanted!! isnt this kind of moaning just reserved for “us” kiwi boys!?
for the record, it is relevant what happened to barnes due to the contact (ie: concussion) so this has to have a bearing on the punishment. that is simply a basic component of the law, not just on the rugby field. my view is a week is a bit harsh, and i thought he generally had a good record, but he was stupid enough to hit someone right in the head (none of this nosense from mckenzie about his arm hitting the chest first) although its hard to say if it was intentional or not. certainly didnt look to be a lot of malice in the attempt though.
it will shake the confidence of the reds, but that home ground advantage is a big one, so will make it close.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:28pm
nickoldschool said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
Whether it’s Barnes or another player shouldnt be taken into account imo. Cooper had a split second to make his tackle, am even not sure he realised it was Barnes or someone else. If now tacklers have to think of who they are tacklingbefore they hit the dude rugby is going on the wrong path…
whats next? Dont tackle hard lighter players, players who have had an injury before, players who etc…? come on, no no no.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:46pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
its not relevant “who” the player was, but the result of the impact, nick. sorry if that wasnt clear. its irrelevant the history of barnes concussions, the relevance is that he was concussed by coopers high shot. pretty simple. you cant assume that they are thinking along the lines of “who” can and cant be tackled, its just not relevant.
again, a week was a bit much, but he rolled the dice at the ruling and lost. just like any court. the time of the year also should never have a bearing on the ruling either. we cant claim to want a professional league then turn around and throw up myriad excuses when the judiciary does something that we dont agree with; just because its finals time.
i agree that it would be stupid if the game got soooo PC that what you suggest could happen, but that isnt the case here. you always go for the guys weak spot if you get the chance, and its part and parcel of any contact sport. but cooper was unlucky that barnes weak spot was his head!!
July 16th 2012 @ 8:54pm
Red Kev said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
I have to agree with both of still’s posts. The one week is slightly harsh in my opinion, but it is not outrageous (like the Ioane compared to Horne case).
July 16th 2012 @ 9:41pm
The Werewolf said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:41pm | Report comment
1 week is fair and lenient for what was a horrible swinging arm and a head high tackle.
Judging by your name I doubt you’d have the same opinion if it were Barnes who knocked out Cooper.
July 17th 2012 @ 12:05am
rocki said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:05am | Report comment
werewolf. I am a western force supporter and one week is to harsh. If cooper was the one knocked out it wouldn’t make a difference. It should go on impact not reaction of an opponent. Of course it is sad and unfortunate when a player gets knocked but you could hit someone slightly but in the right (or wrong) place and they are out. Its about contact and impact not reaction.
July 17th 2012 @ 3:54am
The Werewolf said | July 17th 2012 @ 3:54am | Report comment
i’m sorry a head high tackle is a head high tackle and it deserves a suspension.
July 17th 2012 @ 6:20am
Red Kev said | July 17th 2012 @ 6:20am | Report comment
It wasn’t a “swinging arm” nor a “lazy tackle” it was a good solid tackle that ended at the chin because Barnes was low and Cooper was driving up.
One week for that is still harsh given that no other high tackle has been given a suspension all season. But it is not over the top harsh, just harsh.
There have been worse head high tackles that have been given nothing more than a penalty and a warning this season – for an example from this round look at Elstadt’s tackle on Huxley – a clothesline is a more dangerous tackle.
July 17th 2012 @ 9:23am
soapit said | July 17th 2012 @ 9:23am | Report comment
barnes was no lower than 90% of players would be in that situation. he lowered his body height to make contact like players do pretty much every time.
its the tacklers responsibility. if ur going to drive up, make the effort and start lower. the only time you get a bit of leeway is if barnes had actually slipped and fallen before the impact which didnt happen.
July 17th 2012 @ 12:46pm
Red Kev said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
I suggest you relook at the replay at the instant of contact to get an idea of just how bent Barnes’ legs are and how low he is; he’s low. However I do agree soapit, that it is the tackler’s responsibility to make the tackle safely.
However given that not a single other high tackle this year has resulted in a suspension (and there have been many that were far worse than the tackle Cooper put on Barnes), the penalty handed out is harsh. Not outrageously harsh, but harsh.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:58pm
nickoldschool said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
no worries, got what you meant now.
Am not even a Reds nor a Cooper fan! just felt there wasnt much in the tackle to be honest…bit high, yes, but nothing that bad really.
anyway, we should have some good match ups this w-e. many have written off the Sharks after their abysmal first half last w-e but i reckon they are still a chance (and more so now!).
July 16th 2012 @ 9:09pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
id agree. he hit him high, yes, but it certainly didnt seem to be a polaxing. but it did concuss barnes (more due to barnes issues) and that has a lot of weight (id assume).
makes the game very interesting on saturday, but expect the reds to squeak the win and come up against the chiefs for some good revenge time destruction!! full strength reds v chiefs, come on you kiwis. mind you, im cheering for the sharks, cos quade causes too much havoc in an open game, or any game, so want the reds out of the race all together. you got any meds for my sudden schizophrenia!!
July 16th 2012 @ 10:33pm
AndyS said | July 16th 2012 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
Interesting Still – you are so worried about QC that you’d prefer the Chiefs go up against the ‘Saders? No way I’d go that far…
July 17th 2012 @ 2:13pm
Kuruki said | July 17th 2012 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
A week is good punishment purely for being stupid enough to put yourself in that position at this time of the year. He knew exactly who it was running at him, which makes it even more justified. They had no choice but to give him a week, everyone that watches the game knows Barnes predicament, and letting Cooper off would have sent the wrong message to everyone. If it was not Barnes he would have got off pure and simple. They made the right call for the game and for their image. Unfortunate for the Reds but blame Quade not anybody else.
July 17th 2012 @ 2:44pm
Red Kev said | July 17th 2012 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
“He knew exactly who was running at him”
That makes no difference, there is no reason at all that the person carrying the ball makes any difference to the severity of suspension for an indiscretion. Nor is there any reason that the fact it is Barnes should make any difference to the defensive player.
Implying otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous.
“Oh no it’s Berrick, I’d better let him run through and not tackle him too hard in case he gets concussed…” go put on a skirt.
July 17th 2012 @ 3:33pm
Kuruki said | July 17th 2012 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
Do you understand law?
Obviously the severity of the injury sustained by the victim is considered when sentencing the accused. Rua Tipoki got about 10 weeks for a punch to the face. Maafu got nothing for the exact same thing when he punched Cooper. The only difference, one bloke got a fractured jaw one got a sore chin.
July 17th 2012 @ 3:54pm
Red Kev said | July 17th 2012 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Do you understand the legal ramifications of a “latent condition”?
Barnes has a history of severe concussion and a prediliction for being knocked senseless. Such a factor is very important in evaluating severity.
July 17th 2012 @ 5:36pm
spot said | July 17th 2012 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
If Barnes has a predicament he should get out of the game, Elton Flatley did. Barnes lowered his stand, caught his chin on the shoulder, as did Mitchell (rebels) hwen he got kocked senseless by the Canes sub hooker. No yellow there, should not have been as it was a good hit. Think the sentence was to harsh.
July 16th 2012 @ 9:39pm
The Werewolf said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:39pm | Report comment
I don’t think the conspiracy defence is a strong one when it was clearly an illegal tackle that we should all be opposed to.
July 17th 2012 @ 8:55am
camboUSA said | July 17th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
yes i agree with that , but that is why a yellow card was enough…. not a review as well…
July 16th 2012 @ 7:54pm
MM Fike said | July 16th 2012 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
Why do both games this weekend have South African referees?
What’s wrong with nuetral referees?
July 16th 2012 @ 7:57pm
Behold said | July 16th 2012 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
On the whole South Afrrica have a better standard of officials but it blows my mind that Joubert is running the sideline in Brisbane while Kaplan is controlling the game.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:01pm
DC of nz said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
Here come the shorks! However it’s tough to win at suncorp and genia will be told to run the show ….
July 16th 2012 @ 8:07pm
Sylvester said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:07pm | Report comment
Must be the universe’s way of balancing the ledger with the Sharks having the play the Reds at Suncorp when they finished higher on the table (Yes, that’s format. Just saying is all…)
July 16th 2012 @ 8:10pm
Snobby Deans said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
Understand where you’re coming from on this. It’s an absolute disgrace that the team with the lowest points gets a home semi just because they’re a conference winner.
July 16th 2012 @ 9:27pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
or a home final if they get that far, snobby.
July 17th 2012 @ 3:00am
Sneaky Samurai said | July 17th 2012 @ 3:00am | Report comment
Don’t forget South Africa pushed for this format to guarantee one of their teams in the finals and the TV broadcast revenue that brings so can’t complain about it now…
Not ever team plays each other either as they didn’t want Super XV to run longer and cut into the Currie Cup.
July 17th 2012 @ 9:21am
stillmatic1 said | July 17th 2012 @ 9:21am | Report comment
i dont really care who pushed for it, sneaky. it doesnt take away from the fact that its a very silly idea to give a home game (which are very very important comes finals time) to a team that is last on total points in the top 6. and then to have a situation where said team could get a home grand final from this system is also quite silly. mind you, not to an australian i suppose.
its all well and good to say “if your good enough, etc etc etc” but the fact remains home ground advantage is immense come finals time and with so little between the teams, this has a bearing on the outcome. good on the reds for getting there ( i tipped they would at the half way point of the season, not how they did it in the end though!!), but a system that rewards mediocrity (less points) is not very clever.
July 17th 2012 @ 9:25am
soapit said | July 17th 2012 @ 9:25am | Report comment
its just the rules of the game they’re playing. suck it up.
July 17th 2012 @ 10:13am
AndyS said | July 17th 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
I’m inclined to agree in part. I don’t actually have a problem with the conference leaders and top wildcard getting the home final – that is what they were playing for and in a more even year would avoid a team from a slightly stronger conference being penalised. But once the first weekend is over, it should revert to true ranking. If the top three teams were there on merit, it would have no effect. This year, it would mean that if Q’ld were to survive this week, they would revert to bottom qualifier for the semis.
July 17th 2012 @ 11:26am
Shaun said | July 17th 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
@ Sneaky who says South Africa pushed for this format?
Since ’96 they have reached more playoffs than Aus teams
NZ – 30
SA – 18
Aus – 16
Australia bring in the least amount of TV revenue being that Rugby is the #1 sporting code, compared to NZ and SA.
Teams in finals since 1996
—NZ - SA - Aus
1996- -1 -2 -1
1997- -2 -1 -1
1998- -3 -1 -0
1999- -2 -1 -1
2000- -2 -1 -1
2001- -0 -2 -2
2002- -2 -0 -2
2003- -2 -0 -2
2004- -2 -1 -1
2005- -2 -1 -1
2006- -2 -1 -1
2007- -2 -2 -0
2008- -2 -1 -1
2009- -3 -1 -0
2010- -1 -2 -1
2011- -2 -1 -1
— 30 -18 -16
Seriously hope they change this format fast… what a joke it would be if the Reds hosted a final after finishing with the least amount of points.
July 17th 2012 @ 11:54am
Cattledog said | July 17th 2012 @ 11:54am | Report comment
No, it would be superb
The joke would be the poor form of the SA and NZ franchises to let it slip away!
July 17th 2012 @ 12:41pm
Shaun said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
cattledog…we all know HOW MUCH of an advantage playing at home is. Given that the Reds are starting to play to potential it would be an unjustified advantage… given that it’s undeserving. But it is what it is and they’d still have to win 1 away game to get to the final and hope for other results to go their way.
We could very well have a repeat of last years final on our hands
July 17th 2012 @ 1:00pm
Cattledog said | July 17th 2012 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Shaun, please articulate why the Reds position is so undeserving given what they have been through injury wise this season.
July 17th 2012 @ 1:08pm
Ryan said | July 17th 2012 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
1. They finished on less points than the Crusaders
2. They finished on less points than the Sharks
3. They finished on less points than the Bulls
4. They lost to the Crusaders
5. They lost to the Sharks
6. They lost to the Bulls
7. All of the above
July 17th 2012 @ 1:12pm
Cattledog said | July 17th 2012 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
Then take your ball and go home, Ryan. You obviously don’t understand the rules of this competition.
July 17th 2012 @ 2:12pm
Jerry said | July 17th 2012 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Where do the rules of the competition say anything about what a team has gone through injury wise?
July 17th 2012 @ 2:34pm
AndyS said | July 17th 2012 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
So they did Ryan. So it shouldn’t be a problem then, should it? They’ll go down screaming this weekend.
July 17th 2012 @ 2:51pm
Ryan said | July 17th 2012 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
It seems impossible for some people to post in a mature and reasonable manner.
The gist of many of the opinions opposing the Reds hand up is they now get home advantage.
Home advantage is normally the difference between winning and losing finals matches.
I myself rate the Reds to win at home it is a pretty hard place to win Suncorp, however had they had to travel to SA I very much doubt they would win, as is they already lost to the Sharks at home this year. If the Reds can beat the Chiefs then all credit to them but do they then Deserve to host the Final should the winner of the Bulls vs Crusaders go onto beat the Stormers all three again who beat and finished higher on the log than the Reds.
I just find it astounding that Reds fans can not admit that the flaws of this finals system has given and could give them an almighty leg up at the business end of the competition.
That is my opinion I don’t expect you to agree with it.
July 17th 2012 @ 3:15pm
AndyS said | July 17th 2012 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
Sorry Ryan, I completely misunderstood. I assumed that the list of losses was indicative that the Reds were underserving, but I see your point now – that the Reds were unlucky to come up against all those teams in particular with the gross disadvantage of playing away each time. There is no question the unbalanced format can throw up flaws like that; lucky the finals correct for that and don’t perpetuate the statistical anomoly through the finals too.
July 17th 2012 @ 3:16pm
Cattledog said | July 17th 2012 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Jerry, the rules don’t stipulate this, naturally. The point being so many roarers (mainly Kiwis) have pointed out how they don’t deserve to be there.
On the same note, where do the rules of competition point out the Reds don’t deserve to be where they are? They don’t. Many think they should be there, many don’t. Fact: they are 3rd. Fact: they host a home qualifier, same as the Brumbies would have. Fact: If they get all the way through to the final and the Stormers are beaten, they host it!
July 17th 2012 @ 5:34pm
Jerry said | July 17th 2012 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
Those are facts and I think everyone understands this is so, but it doesn’t make it particularly fair and it’s a perfectly valid opinion to think so.
Personally, I think the Reds are actually more deserving than a lot of people think in that they actually won more matches than the Bulls or Sharks and the same number of matches as the Crusaders. In my opinion, it’s really only the Crusaders who’d have reason to feel aggrieved should they end up playing in Brisbane.
Realistically, I doubt any of the actual sides are giving it a lot of thought as they’re probably concentrating on winning their upcoming matches, but it’s a pretty good source of banter for fans in the leadup.
July 17th 2012 @ 5:44pm
spot said | July 17th 2012 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
At the end of the day they ended up more wins than the Bulls and Sharks, so not totally undeserved.
July 17th 2012 @ 10:45am
Xiedazhou said | July 17th 2012 @ 10:45am | Report comment
My goodness, where do you Kiwis get your overwhelming sense of entitlement from? I can understand your bitterness, seeing as economic circumstance has forced so many of you from your birthplace, but your sense of entitlement never ceases to amaze. What’s more a disgrace than the fact the Reds get a home semi is that the Crusaders are only there because of home town reffing decisions. Take away the points for their “win” against the Reds, which was gifted them by hometown Bryce, and take away a couple of very dubious TMO decisions late in the season and they wouldnt have made the finals at all. Fact is your Super Rugby teams arent as good as you think they are. When was the last time a NZ side won Super Rugby? How many times in the last 5 years (please don’t bring up ancient history) have they won? What have the results Reds v NZ sides over the last couple of years?
July 17th 2012 @ 11:09am
Ryan said | July 17th 2012 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Did you watch the Reds Highlanders game?
That match was every bit as controversial especially right at the end the penalty should have gone in the Southerners favour as none of the three wallabies were supporting their own weight.
Do you not find it ironic that it took a flawed conference system and a massive earthquake in Christchurch forcing at eam to play one less game an entire season on the road a little underwhelming when thinking about the Reds title, the controversial decision by hometown ref Stuart Dickinson in round robin play.
This system favours no one but the weakest link and for the second year in a row that is the Australian Conference it’s just the reality of the situation. Last year the Reds had a very favourable draw and beat everyone at home not their fault they didn’t make the schedule. This year they have played all the top teams away from home losing to them all bar the Chiefs who they beat at Suncorp which was a good win even I admit.
When was the last time an Australian side won a World Cup when was the last time an Australian team won a Bledisloe
Oh and please don’t bring up ancient history!
Do you see how silly that tone sounds Xie ?
I would love to see your stance should the shoe have been on the other foot.
I could guarantee Jon O’Neill and many roarers would be demanding change immediately.
The Reds made it to the 6 by pure good fortune in the end nothing more. Had the Brumbies got a solo point the Reds season would have been over and they have the Blues to thank for that, the weakest team in the New Zealand conference.
July 17th 2012 @ 11:52am
Cattledog said | July 17th 2012 @ 11:52am | Report comment
So why the concern about the Reds, Ryan. If they’re as week as you say they are, then there shouldn’t be an issue. And should they somehow miraculously overcome the Sharks this week, then they will have no chance against that powerhouse Chiefs in Hamilton.
Why don’t you all just admit that the TMO in the Chiefs Canes game thought he was doing the right thing for NZ. Little did he know…
July 17th 2012 @ 12:01pm
Ryan said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
I have an issue with the Reds being gifted a home semi final and I have clearly stated on another thread why re home advantage being the difference in many of these teams.
The conference system is inherently flawed and only in the second year of the competition it has come full circle to bite SANZAR in the rear.
I don’t expect Australian fans to be of the same opinion as it is their team that is getting the free ride.
July 17th 2012 @ 12:32pm
Red Kev said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
Quote:
“Did you watch the Reds Highlanders game?
That match was every bit as controversial especially right at the end the penalty should have gone in the Southerners favour as none of the three wallabies were supporting their own weight.”
You should probably re-watch the last penalty as Jake Schatz (who isn’t a Wallaby) was the “first arriving player” and had his hands on the ball while on his feet and was the person who stole the ball and won the penalty.
July 17th 2012 @ 12:51pm
Xiedazhou said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Yes i watched the Highlanders game. Good win by the Reds, they looked the better side throughout.Last years win by the Reds was deserved, they beat the Crusaders every time they met. Quite convincing I would say. What is your point about the Bledisloe? Isnt this thread about Super Rugby? I realise facts tend to confuse some folks, but facts are that in recent years Kiwis are not as dominant in Super Rugby as they’d like to be, or as some fans think they are. If you wish to bring up other tournaments, as you seem to want to, that just indicates to me that you have nothing to counter the argument that i made about NZ Super teams not being as Super as you think they are over the last 5 years. Following your line that the Reds win last year was somehow diminished, well I guess we could say its a bit like the World Cup and the All Blacks isnt it? I mean for all their supposed dominance, the only World Cups they have managed to win are the two they have held at home. The first somewhat diminished by the fact the the Boks weren’t allowed to compete, the second (more than 20 years later)due to the fact that the Ref turned a blind eye to numerous NZ infringements whilst they choked in the Final. If you dont like to hear that, then perhaps you will see how facile the argument you continually make against the Reds title is? If the Reds title is diminished, then so too the AB’s one and a half World Cup wins. I dont subscribe to that philosophy, but you seem to. Its obviously your choice to make.
July 17th 2012 @ 12:54pm
Cattledog said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Ryan, if you think the Reds have had a free ride to get where they are now, then you’re as delusional as the rest of your whinging mates. The last thing you wanted was the Reds to make it. Why not turn your attention to that TMO who prevented the Chiefs having top spot!
It’s not gifted. It’s the current rules of competition. I suppose Cooper should have gotten 3 weeks also, just to make sure eh.
July 17th 2012 @ 12:56pm
Ryan said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
Wow you both have some serious chips on your shoulders,
Is this really what the Roar is about to go on an all out attack on an entire nation for someone daring to have a differing opinion to you.
Slow down lads or step away from the keyboard until you can post in a civil and mature manner
July 17th 2012 @ 1:18pm
Cattledog said | July 17th 2012 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Your original post Ryan ‘Oh Lord CattleDog and Xie you two have an almighty chip on your shoulders with Kiwis’. Incorrect. In my case, it’s just the whinging, whining ones who just want to denigrate anything and everything to do with the Australian conference and Australian rugby in general, especially the Reds. The rest are fine but you lot stick out like a sore thumb.
July 17th 2012 @ 3:05pm
Aaron said | July 17th 2012 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
Why is it that you Aussies can’t just admit that the system is flawed? Are you guys that one eyed and biased, just because it favours one of your teams this year? In a few years time, NZ might have the weakest conference and still have a team hosting a quarters….wonder what your reactions will be then.
July 17th 2012 @ 3:27pm
Red Kev said | July 17th 2012 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
The system isn’t flawed. It does exactly what it is supposed to.
The fact what it does is not what YOU want it to do is irrelevant.
It is not meant to be fair.
The round robin system was never fair either. You only played each team once, the draw could quite easily see you playing every team that finished in the top half of the table away and only the “easy” teams at home.
Super Rugby is set up with the INTENT to cause upsets and contention when crowning a winner. That’s why there is a finals series, so the team that just snuck in can still win. That’s why there are bonus points, so even if you can’t win all your matches you can sneak into the finals.
It is a spectacle.
If it weren’t then there would be no finals and the season would be 28 weeks (instead of 24) and every team would play every other at home and away and whoever had the most points at the end of the tournament would win.
Boring.
July 17th 2012 @ 3:56pm
biltongbek said | July 17th 2012 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
RedKev. “It is not meant to be fair.”
Now you see, they should have made that clear from the start.
Nonsense, how can a system be meant not to be fair, what’s the purpose then, a manipulated reality show?
At least prior to the conference system everyone played everyone else on a bi annual basis home and away. The fairness was that you could have every second year with a favourable draw.
Now you play some teams twice, others once and some not at all.
If they are adament to keep the conference system for the future then at least add the extra two weeks so that you play all the ther teams at least once.
July 17th 2012 @ 4:10pm
Red Kev said | July 17th 2012 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Biltongbek:
What is the point? Money. Generate revenue. Pay the players so they don’t go to other sports. Form the basis for the international teams (so you can market those too). It is a professional sport. If you want fairness and some absurd “level playing field” with a concept of honour then you need to make the sport amateur. Otherwise the Dollar (and the Rand) is the primary consideration.
QUOTE: “At least prior to the conference system everyone played everyone else on a bi annual basis home and away. The fairness was that you could have every second year with a favourable draw.”
No, there is no fairness because teams are different year to year. Case in point the Blues and the Brumbies – a year is a long time to turn a team around.
QUOTE: “If they are adament to keep the conference system for the future then at least add the extra two weeks so that you play all the ther teams at least once.”
For that you have to complain to SA and NZ who didn’t want to extend the season to accommodate this because it cuts into their national competitions.
And not for nothing, but South Africa felt that the round robin disadvantaged them as a greater portion of the teams were clustered around the Tasman Sea, making travel a huge disadvantage for the South African teams.
So you whinge about the round robin and the conference system? Why not just pull out and go all isolationist (by choice this time) with the Currie Cup and nothing else?
July 17th 2012 @ 5:52pm
biltongbek said | July 17th 2012 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
RedKev, we are debating the pro’s and cons, why are you so defensive about this?
I am not blaming any individual or country here, I am exposing what I deem the flaws are n the system.
Would you like everyone to agree with your view and then once an article is posted we can all come say “yes indeed” 150 times?
Sayng that the only way it can be fair is to go amateur is ridiculous. How would it be fair when it is amateur? you still need to have a system to compete in, how would the amateur system be formed in your view to be fair?
Another thing, I have mentioned before on another article, that the Super XV has grown so much it is already impeding the Currie Cup, the only solution is to make the conference a dual cup competition and incorporate these conference pool results into the Currie Cup for purposes of qualifying semi finals that can be dealt with at a later stage, especially if they are going to grow the number of teams in each conference.
By the way, if we did “isolate” ourselves we would be able to sustain a financial model much easier than Australia and NZ would be able too. So perhpas you need to not over react when someone disagrees with your view. Consider all opinions and disregard those you can eliminate on a logical basis.
July 17th 2012 @ 10:16pm
Red Kev said | July 17th 2012 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
You may be trying to debate the pros and cons.
I am trying to educate you as to the purpose of the system. It isn’t fairness. 1 – Revenue, 2 – Scheduling, distant 3 – Balance (not to be confused with fairness).
The only way you will ever change it is to stop the revenue – don’t pay for the rugby channels, don’t go to local derbies. If you’re not willing to do that, you’ve no right to whinge about the problem.
I know the Currie Cup has already been affected. My point was SA refused the additional two weeks to have everyone play everyone once because it would affect the Currie Cup even more.
I am also well aware that South African rugby would survive leaving SANZAR – that’s why they get their way when it comes to negotiating things like the conference system – because they have Aus and to a lesser extent NZ over a barrel.
Personally I’d be glad if SA left if it meant I didn’t have to continually read posts from whinging yarpies about perceived injustices of the competitions rules. (The kiwis will never stop whinging so I give up on that front – South Sea Poms, air pollution from whinging is just par for the course).
July 17th 2012 @ 10:28pm
biltongbek said | July 17th 2012 @ 10:28pm | Report comment
red
kev, you seem to be stuck to one way of thinking and refuse to let the shackles go on your preconcieved ideas of how things work.
I get the financial side, I do, what you don’t get, is that you can have both.
Why, of why is that so beyond your thoughts?
By the way, these yarpies you speak about, do you actually know any of them that you so broadly tar with the same brush?
July 17th 2012 @ 2:10pm
Jerry said | July 17th 2012 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
“How many times in the last 5 years (please don’t bring up ancient history) have they won?”
As many times as Australian teams?
July 17th 2012 @ 5:19pm
beyond the stump said | July 17th 2012 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
I don’t really understand all the commotion about this system. It is what it is and every team knows that. Every other system has its flaws too. Points aside though, the Reds did WIN more games then the other teams coming in 4th, 5th & 6th. Less bonus points sure, but more wins so I don’t really see any great injustice.
July 17th 2012 @ 7:57pm
Aaron said | July 17th 2012 @ 7:57pm | Report comment
The injustice is that they got LESS points than the rest. I have no issues with the Reds qualifying, and I do believe that talent wise, they are deserving of a top six place. My issue is purely on the standings and the fact that they can host a play off game when they clearly didn’t deserve to. The Sharks would destroy them at home (and most of the other teams as well imo) but based on this ludicrous draw, the Reds are now given more than an even chance of winning.
July 17th 2012 @ 10:04pm
AndyS said | July 17th 2012 @ 10:04pm | Report comment
Which is funny when the big whinge in previous years has instead been that bonus points meant teams with less losses were higher than teams with more wins.
But you might be right, the Sharks would certainly have a better shot at home. After all, that is the main reason they are there – they played the other top six teams at home, other than the Crusaders who they didn’t face at all. As Ryan noted above, if playing at home confers such advantage, how does that make them more deserving than the Reds who had to play all of the other qualifiers and three of them away?
July 17th 2012 @ 10:14pm
biltongbek said | July 17th 2012 @ 10:14pm | Report comment
There is no right or wrong answer here, they bth played different opposition, the reds won more games in their conference, than the sharks did (be it the quality of the two conferences or otherwise). The Sharks won more games outside of their conference.
The reality is that the conference system brings about a situation where who is deserved of a home knock out match comes into question.
And that in my opinion is where as a competition it lacks the credibility it should have.
Both teams played those put in front of them, it is not their fualt.
So this debate can go in circles for as long as any of you want.
July 17th 2012 @ 10:24pm
AndyS said | July 17th 2012 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
Exactly. We are never going to get everyone in a proper home and away competition, so it has and always will be distorted by the draw. It is all paper windmills.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:09pm
CraigB said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
Bet the judicial officer was south african
July 16th 2012 @ 8:19pm
biltongbek said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
Nope.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:20pm
atlas said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
Brisbane lawyer Paul Tully was the SANZAR judiciary officer for this matter.
Feel better now?
July 16th 2012 @ 8:26pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
reds fans cant have that thrown in their faces too, atlas!! they wanted it to be a kiwi conspiracy the whole time so damn bad, their heads were gonna pop off. will this evidence allow a few of them to wake up a bit and move on? probably not, but itll make theroar very interesting the next couple of days.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:37pm
atlas said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
I think a week if about right – they’ve followed the process – white card, citing commissioner said it warranted a red and referred to judiciary. If a red had been issued on the field expect he would not have had further suspension – we’ll never know if that could have affected game outcome though.
One more to wind people up though, quote from a Queensland paper today: “Reds coach Ewen McKenzie admitted that he knows the judiciary officer in charge, Paul Tully, but added “that doesn’t mean anything, they [SANZAR] are a law unto themselves.”
in unrelated news, Paul Tully seen in private box at Suncorp . . . joking!
Have no problems with the decisions, all season we have had NZ or SA judiciary officers ruling on, and suspending, players from their home country.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:53pm
Jonny G said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
got no qualms with having a South African Ref, just that its Kaplan
July 16th 2012 @ 9:02pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
i’ll probably ride the sharks, but kaplan is not a good ref at all, and will kill the game. so who wins? harris’s boot or the sharks boot? mind you, the reds are always good for one or two sneaky tries no matter how they are playing.
can we sign a petition for joubert?
July 16th 2012 @ 8:36pm
CraigB said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
Oh he must be a kiwi, that’s where they all live now isn’t it?? You must have missed the tongue planted in my cheek
July 16th 2012 @ 8:51pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
hard to tell, craigB. how exactly would someone know the intent of your post? this isnt the matrix!! but your right, been here 22 long years, and love it (brisbane). damn us kiwis.
July 16th 2012 @ 10:34pm
Xiedazhou said | July 16th 2012 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
The Citing Officer,the one who reviewed the “evidence” ,deemed it a “red card threshold offence” , and thus the person who determined that it had to go before the judiciary was a Christchurch lawyer (Nicholas Davidson). If the duty officer (Davidson) determined it a “red card threshold offence” it was always likely that a suspension was going to be handed out. Davidson, as the citing officer basically put the case for the prosecution in this matter, so it is disingenuous to suggest that it was handled by Australian officers.
July 17th 2012 @ 9:14am
stillmatic1 said | July 17th 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
so your saying the “judge” in this matter wasnt australian? it matters not who the lawyers were, or where they were from, simply that the decision was handed down by paul cully. pretty simple really.
i thought all you guys were impartial and not open to being swayed by sentiment? so what of paul cully? is he simply doing the bidding of the powers that be?
July 17th 2012 @ 10:37am
Xiedazhou said | July 17th 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Stands to reason that if Davidson was truly impartial, more than one tackle during the round would have been passed on to the judiciary. Coopers tackle wasnt the worst in the game, let alone the worst in the round, but good old NZ Nick found plenty wrong with it, deeming it a “red card threshold” offence. Once he did that Tully was always going to find it difficult to overturn. They (Tully and Davidson) are part of the same “team” (the SANZAR judiciary) and Tully would have found it very difficult to overturn the review of the tackle passed onto him by the learned NZ QC Davidson.
But I dont see much point in arguing with you, you are one of the guys that believe Richie never transgresses aren’t you?
July 17th 2012 @ 1:58pm
AussieKiwi said | July 17th 2012 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Weakest argument I’ve read in a long time. Probably defamatory of Cully too. You are implying that he spent five hours on a predetermined outcome, and was incapable of making his own independent assessment of the seriousness of the infringement????
Its a bit like saying that because a magistrate in a commital hearing says there is sufficient evidence that the accused should stand trial, it is the magistrate’s decision, and not that of the trial judge (or the jury), that the accused is guilty.
July 17th 2012 @ 9:56am
Richie (Melbourne) said | July 17th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
So how does the threshold system work? Is it like the AFL grid system where it’s categorised based on the injury that it caused, how preventable it was, and the history of the player?
July 16th 2012 @ 8:12pm
Jutsie said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Reds looked good against the sharks when lucas was at 10, hopefully he gets the 10 jersey ahead of harris as he is more creative.
Reds pack needs to bring their a-game though as the sharks pack has hit peak form.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:23pm
jeznez said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
Why on earth did Cooper plead Not Guilty? He was definitely guilty – the argument had to be that it wasn’t malicious or intentionally high and that the yellow card was already sufficient punishment.
I don’t get that – were they banking on selling Barnes falling into the tackle?
July 16th 2012 @ 8:38pm
WQ said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
Agreed jeznez, I thought when McKenzie was talking about the lessons they learnt with the Ioane debacle they may have done better than pleading not guilty.
I mean ask yourself did he expect that they were going to believe that it never happened! Of course it happened, they needed to argue that it wasn’t intentionally high and try to get some leniency as a result of his good record.
July 16th 2012 @ 9:09pm
AJ said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
My Dad says “Never plead guilty..they’ll throw the bloody book at you!”
Is that what happened with Digby?
July 16th 2012 @ 11:00pm
Mick H said | July 16th 2012 @ 11:00pm | Report comment
Jeznez, wouldn’t Cooper get 1 week if pleading guilty ? And get off completely if pleaded not guilty and won. Think that is the reason for his plead.
All speculation of course
July 16th 2012 @ 11:21pm
jeznez said | July 16th 2012 @ 11:21pm | Report comment
I don’t know Mick. Plenty of high tackles only cop a penalty without the addition of any card so not sure if there is an automatic week if you plead guilty. Have never had to front a judiciary in all my years of playing so am thankfully still a novice in that area.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:25pm
WBGL said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
Cooper was lucky to just get one week. It was a lazy tackle compounded by the fact that he went on with it, with Barnes staggering off. The SANZAR committee had no choice but to give him at least one week due to a ‘yellow’ and ‘white’ card. Ioane got 4 weeks for a dump tackle, Cooper’s tackle was far worse, end of the season or not. Cooper is a gifted player, but at times does some stupid stuff on and off the field, hopefully maturity will kick in soon. Some of the comments by Foxtel commentators about the tackle were inappropriate and an attempt to water down the danger, that’s not on, best to say nothing. Good luck to the ‘Reds’ on Saturday, they have fought hard to get there, more than can be said for the Waratahs.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:36pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
exactly. we applaud the zero tolerance philosophy in regards to head high tackles in union (as opposed to league), but when the prodigal son is involved, its all “its a mans game blah blah blah”, “rugby is getting soft” etc etc!!!!!!! barnes got clocked straight in the head by a lazy stupid tackle and people wonder why cooper might be in trouble? like jeznez says, his team obviously let him down by trying the not guilty card and he copped it. his lawyers may have rolled the dice a bit too much.
July 16th 2012 @ 8:38pm
CraigB said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
Then give us consistency. Every high shot gets a week. SA and NZ will struggle to field a side
July 16th 2012 @ 8:47pm
WQ said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
It didn’t take long did it CraigB?
July 16th 2012 @ 8:55pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
which side of the cheek is your tongue now, craigB?
July 16th 2012 @ 9:04pm
biltongbek said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
I think Craig spoke with a forked tongue right there.
July 16th 2012 @ 9:18pm
WQ said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
This article had less than 30 posts and CraigB had had a sledge at both South Africans and Kiwis!
July 16th 2012 @ 9:26pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
i know WQ. its fun hey.
July 16th 2012 @ 9:58pm
CraigB said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
Ive been a but harsh no doubt, but do you believe that there was not one other high tackle in any game last week? That’s my point, if Steve Walsh didn’t white card he would have been fine. Waiting until the last round to suddenly start policing things with added scrutiny is wrong. I have no issue with protecting the head, but do it wash round. I bet that no high tackle gets looked at next week despite the fact that there will be several.
July 16th 2012 @ 9:38pm
AndyS said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:38pm | Report comment
Agree Craig has maybe gone a bit broad brush, but compared to the some of the hits SBW has put on over the last couple of years without anyone saying boo it does seem a bit inconsistent.
My understanding was that a guilty plea would be a guaranteed week anyway, so why wouldn’t they ask to try it?
July 16th 2012 @ 8:50pm
Brett McKay said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
WBGL, I’d say he was luckier it wasn’t earlier in the season, judging by the wording: “the SANZAR Rules allow consideration be given to the importance of games to be played during the Super Rugby Finals Series and as such, this has been taken into account as a mitigating circumstance.”
July 16th 2012 @ 8:55pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 8:55pm | Report comment
thats amazing if true, brett. can we get a bunch of jurors in now, just to add to the nonsense. too many kiwis in oz though, so quade wouldve got fried!! still dont see how the time of year should count as a mitigating circumstance, but can understand they want to keep the players on the park for revenues sake.
July 17th 2012 @ 12:00am
peter brian okwiri said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:00am | Report comment
i agree Brett,its a pity Cooper will miss this game,to be honest the match would have been way better if he was playing,i must admit though that having Frans Steyn eligble would also have been much better.either way hoping travel and jetlag aint a factor im looking foward to some great rugby this weekend,genia thrives on such occassions and i would love to see the sharks forwards in full voice,cant wait,althougjh im a sharks fan i know the odds are stacked againts them due to quality of opposition and maybe the travelm factor but its my pick of the playoffs with both teams smack on form
July 16th 2012 @ 9:06pm
Jonny G said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
Could be a blessing in disguise, Cooper sometimes goes missing or becomes a liability against more physical teams, which the Sharks most certainly are
July 16th 2012 @ 9:15pm
stillmatic1 said | July 16th 2012 @ 9:15pm | Report comment
im hoping for that from the sharks, but the reds forwards really know how to get stuck in. that could be due to the weakness of the tahs forwards last week though. be very interesting to see how the reds go against a physical side that doesnt give up after 5 minutes. the highlanders pushed them around a bit 2 weeks ago (landers just forgot to play this way for the first 50 minutes!!), so thats the way for the sharks too.
July 16th 2012 @ 10:41pm
Coxinator said | July 16th 2012 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
Kaplan was the one who kept the Highlanders in the game! I’m sweating already about his decisions.
July 17th 2012 @ 9:41am
Team Taniwha said | July 17th 2012 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Keep the Highlanders in the game, you are kidding. That many penalties should have resulted in cards, the reds spend the whole second half infringing.
July 17th 2012 @ 12:09pm
Ryan said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
that last penalty to end the game was dubious and controversial none of the Reds players were supporting their own weight.
July 17th 2012 @ 12:58pm
Xiedazhou said | July 17th 2012 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Sorry Ryan, the Goebbels principle isnt working for you. Keep trying, you might get some traction.
July 17th 2012 @ 1:05pm
Ryan said | July 17th 2012 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
I think you may want to lay of the personal attacks xiedazhou it really does nothing for your standing and makes you look extremely immature
July 17th 2012 @ 1:35pm
Jutsie said | July 17th 2012 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
I actually thought X’s call was quite witty, what I find immature is people who get so wound up by a sports competition not living up to their expectations that they spend their entire work day ranting on a sports blog about the perceived injustices.
July 17th 2012 @ 4:37pm
Kuruki said | July 17th 2012 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
You have just insulted most posters on this site.
July 17th 2012 @ 4:46pm
Jutsie said | July 17th 2012 @ 4:46pm | Report comment