Rebel Byrnes Super Rugby ban over-turned


 , ,

29 Have your say

    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 2018

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (29)

    • March 22nd 2012 @ 4:33pm
      mikeylives said | March 22nd 2012 @ 4:33pm | ! Report

      Because it didn’t happen. Fair outcome.

    • March 22nd 2012 @ 5:30pm
      formeropenside said | March 22nd 2012 @ 5:30pm | ! Report

      So he got two weeks for nothing, in the end.

      • March 22nd 2012 @ 9:24pm
        mikeylives said | March 22nd 2012 @ 9:24pm | ! Report

        I meant outcome of the appeal.

    • March 22nd 2012 @ 7:44pm
      Russell said | March 22nd 2012 @ 7:44pm | ! Report

      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

        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

          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

      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

        Carter’s eye was evidence!
        Read what Sanzar said
        He was dismissed on a technicality – plenty of guilty people are.

        • March 23rd 2012 @ 9:11am
          Justin said | March 23rd 2012 @ 9:11am | ! Report

          You need evidence to convict, there was none. Simple as that.

          • March 23rd 2012 @ 5:42pm
            stillmatic1 said | March 23rd 2012 @ 5:42pm | ! Report

            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

      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

      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

        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

        • Roar Guru

          March 23rd 2012 @ 10:46am
          Cattledog said | March 23rd 2012 @ 10:46am | ! Report

          You obviously haven’t played rugby, Brendon. Unfortunately, in the real world it’s NOT as simple as that.

    , ,