SARrugby.com

Ex Supersport

Now, we’ve certainly seen worse cases of physical violence on a rugby field, but the way in which it was handled by the officials, on and off the field, left a bad taste in the mouth.

In both clips there a clear punches to be seen, and that is only from the angles we had available to us from live coverage. Yet, despite this, only props Jannie du Plessis, Ben Daley and Dan Palmer got mentions by the judiciary officers in charge. And it was nothing more than mentions, because let’s face it, an off-field yellow card is hardly the world’s best deterrent. (Wonder what he would have said re ethe Haskill punches!!!)

We’ve been told by many a judiciary panel in the past that a punch is to be met by a red card (Please note windpomp), and if not spotted on the field, a noticeable sanction off it. But when they were confronted with it over the weekend, Sanzar officials on both sides of the touchline decided to stick their heads in the sand.

Over the same weekend we had reports in the Sunday papers of an instance in schoolboy rugby where a player knocked a referee unconscious because he disagreed with a previous decision.

We are in no way trying to draw parallels between any of the incidents, but we do feel that we have to bring it up, because this weekend the wrong message was sent out to players at all levels of the game throughout our hemisphere.

Ignoring foul play is akin to condoning it, and if officials at the top level don't stick to the laws, what chance do they have of convincing players at any level to pay those laws any respect?

Some comments by Keo posters (Lunatic this is strong stuff so please pass on bye!)

·         This is an absolute joke, the guy should have got a minimum 5 weeks and not 3. He didn’t throw one punch but two which ended up causing the player who he punched to be subbed. (Please note)

and whats the point you're trying to make Beeny?

Hahahahahahahaha good one black adder!!! Talk about denialism!!!!

Beeno - labouring to get the kiwi's to come to a point of truth. Oh that they would forego more obfuscation and simply admit the error of their ways!

No i mean it sounds like Greek

Now ou black udder cant understand plain english!!  Lots of educating of kiwi's needed!!

The first step is to ignore the drivel from Keo posters. The second step is to observe the laws of the game. Did Jonker go against the laws of the game, yes or no? Was it a mistake not to give a red card? Maybe, maybe not. Should the guy who grabbed Haskell in the nuts not have been sanctioned as well?

 Seriously, Beenos Keo posts seriously turn this forum to sh!te

@ Ceradyne, you are right about the fact that Jonker did not break any laws by not issuing a red, but I am more concerned at why he did not take the recommendation into consideration by perhaps asking the asisstant for a better explanation of what he saw. Jonker simply dismissed the reccomendation without question. Now, I dont want to sound controversial in any way, but did the asisstant's inexperience have anything to do with it, or were there other factors?

Well said Green ou windpomp continues to dodge the issue.  "We’ve been told by many a judiciary panel in the past that a punch is to be met by a red card (Please note windpomp - clearly windpomp preffered not to note this)

Now you see windpomp a red is the usual treatment for a punch. Now this oak throws two which lead to the Cheetahs player leaving the field because of their effect. Now what rule stops ou Jonker issuing a red . None. No rule stops bonkers issuing a red according to the accepted norms ofthe game. THose norm encourage a red to be given. TWO PUNCHES!!!!!

Why did Jonkers simply ignore the touch judges recommnedation with no dicussion as Green has pointed out.

No wwindpomp as a rabid bulle supporter very thankful to jonkers for all his efforts on behalf of the bulle over the years I do understand your lack of objectivity but its time to rise above this  and support the calls for a red!! No more twisting windpomp!!

Green please feel free to be a little contraversial!

 A red card is the norm for eye gouging yet Schalk burger stayed on the field during the lions

A red card is the norm for head butting but Bakkies stayed on the field

It is the ref and AR who make the recommendation based on the interpratation of the law, if you can't accept that then rugby's probably not the game for you.

Get this into your thick skull Beenbal. I have no issue with the fact of whether or not it should have been a red card. I have an issue with you declaring that the ref ;

1. was not entitled to go against the recommendation by the AR that it should have been a red card; and

2. that he had to, by law, send the offending player off with a red card.

Windpomp get it into - well into what is the question! Please just understand the law requires him to excercise his mind and clearly he didnt. That is what the OR implies windpomp. Got it!

Wheeeew ou windpomp is certainly having an off day even by his lametable standards!

10.5 SANCTIONS

(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.

ardictionary.com/Or/1924

Or
Definition: A particle that marks an alternative; as, you may read or may write, that is, you may do one of the things at your pleasure, but not both. It corresponds to either. You may ride either to London or to Windsor. It often connects a series of words or propositions, presenting a choice of either; as, he may study law, or medicine, or divinity, or he may enter into trade.

How did he not excercise his mind? He had three choices according to the laws of the game. In addition he had a recommendation by the AR. You could clearly see that he was considering what to do and then made a decision. The only thing that is unclear is the reason why he discarded the AR's recommendation, which he was fully entitled to do (once again according to the laws of the game).

Once again, your opinion that he had to give a red card is just that. Your opinion. Jonker did nothing that was not in the lawbook. In fact he followed the lawbook to the letter. You just do not like what he did.

Beeno and Ceradyne, lets stick to rugby boys, the insults are childish. If you really don't like each other, hire out a boxing ring and issue each other with a couple of PK's. Eish boytjies!!!!

Back to the topic, this is why laws should be well defined. A punch is a punch, there should be a fixed penalty for punching, and it should be harsh! This ambiguity is what is causing the problems and it leaves a gap for corrupt/suspect officiating. Simple, if an oke knows he will get an 8 week ban for punching, he aint gonna punch...full stop.

The mad hatters tea party continues.

Look windpomp how in the world can he have followed the law to the letter and have applied his mind as required  when he totally ignored the touch judge? What possible reason could he hav efor not discussing a recommenrdation from the touch judge calling for  red?

 Hmmmmm ou windpomp still in a very tight corner with no way out!  More hot air I suppose will be forthcoming - this is a hot air windpomp after all!

Bluebok, the entire thread is about a decision surounding a punch up, so I cannot see wht the problem is. Be that as it may, the fact is that rugby is not always black or white and there will always be grey areas. I think it is because they have been trying to hard to turn the grey areas into black or white that we are sitting with these dilemas. No sane person, in his right mind just decide to throw punches just for the sake of doing so, and especially not in front of millions watching on TV, and when it has severe financial implications. There are many reasons one would just start throwing punches and yes, sometimes it could well be pure frustration. I have seen Gary Teichmann throwing punches out of pure frustration when Natal was busy losning a game that they should never have been losing, but that is not the norm. This guy was provoked and I am wondering if Jonker did not expect something like that. There is a clip of Kobus Wiese knocking out a B&I Lions player, and even though, I never liked the guy, I cannot believe that he would just do that for the hell of moering the oke.

@BB. I disagree. All punches arent created equally. A blanket 8 week suspension is overly simplictic and ignores mitigating/extenuating circumstances.   So, is it 8 weeks per punch or 8 weeks total regardlesss of the number of blows traded?Will a punch to the face be treated the same as a punch to the torso,abdomen or groin? What about a punch by a heavy weight forward that concusses another player or worse still breaks his jaw. Is that to be treated the same as a lightweight punch from a pocket rocket (eg Cruden?Goosen/Mvovo) that barely produces a bruise? What about missed punches? Is an unlanded blow to be dealt with the same as a punch caught flush on the chin?  What about blind punches from behind (ala Geldenhuys or Kobus)? Are they the same as a punch from a guy directly facing his intended victim who is capable of defending himself? Are you really saying that ALL these possible eventualities should be shoehorned into a  simple, one size fits all, 8 week suspension?

If one punch carries the same punishment as two or 3, what incentive is there for the offending player to stop throwng jabs,crosses and uppercuts? Does the retaliating punchee get the exact same punishment as the puncher who initially provoked the scuffle by throwing the first blow? What about repeat offenders? Does the guy who is up on his 2nd or 3rd punching citation still only get 8 weeks? I could go on and on! 

Sorry, I think a blanket suspension is a terrible idea. Haskell got a 5 week suspension (reduced to 3 because of his clean record)  which should be the end of the matter. 5 weeks is more than fair. Perhaps your real quarell is more with the fact that he was able to mitigate his suspension because of his unblemished playing history.

Ceradyne and Nuke, you both make good points regarding punching and a blanket punishment for it, So I can admit my suggestion above is not necessarily the answer, but my logic is simple, a harsh enough sentence and people will basically, even if not always, stop punching. Answer me this Ceradyne, how often are players absolutely furious with a referee at TOP LEVEL, but they somehow manage not to throw punches at him...because they know the punishment will be massive. Look, I am not saying 8 weeks is the answer or even a blanket rule, but a very severe punishment would certainly remove punching as an option for most players. In other words, if you know you'll only get a three week suspension for punching the fellow that has been p!$$ing you off all game, then why not? And Nuke, I this is not specifically about Haskell, but punching in general. His was just the most recent event and therefore brought up the topic. Stop being so defensive about your NZ rugby players, the rugby world doesn't revolve around them alone. I am not sure if I read it in this thread or heard it on the news, but anyway, somewhere in the country a school boy DID punch and knock out a referee this weekend, and Nukie, it could just have easily have hapened in New Zealand, so please don't see this as a gap to jump up on your horsie. And if punching in the game at the highest level is basically, acceptable, then things like school boys punching other players, Refs etc will become more and more common.    

Nuked did you miss this?

How much should lying to the citing commissioner bring him?

Damn Beeno, based on your post above these guys have some explaining to.

Bluebok they do indeed so that is why I do not allow them to obfuscate and slip away. The dodging and twisting is very typical tactics but yours truly has a firm grasp on the core issues and there is no escape for them.

Winpomp cant explain why bonkers ignored the touch judge and hence he is up the creek without a paddle. The diciplinary hearing was again very embarrassing for the nz aoplogists as it so often is with the double standards applied. Hehehhehehehehe - its like taking candy from a baby. Makes me feel a bit mean really. Shouldn't laugh.

Beeno - leaving the oaks with no place to hide.

Argh BB. dont get too excited. That Haskell suspension was widely regarded as high farce. Haskell was forced to intervene in lieu of incompetent officials who failed to act after a particularly brutal incident where Haskells teammate was being repeatedly punched (you of all people should be sympathetic here) without ANY intervention from the referees. Judge Jeff Bleckett said as much in his closing summary and saved his most scathing rebuke for the referee and citing official. He (Bleckett)  almost apologised for having to suspend Haskell (Hence the paltry 1 week ban).

 Before buying into Beenos one eyed conspiracy agenda, read for yourself the subplot of the whole Haskell  fiasco. Anyone with reasonable intelligence will see Beenos drivel for the paranoid rabble rousing it really is. Just as all punches arent created equal, all suspensions arent created equal either. The Digby/Hougaard spear tackling sham should illustrate this premise perfectly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/sep/24/premiership.londonwasps

@Bluebok. If there was lying about the guy's previous record, it has nothing to do with the ref. It was the disciplinary comitee who slipped up. The incident took place in SA, so guy in charge would have been a Saffer.

Once again. Jonker did not ignore the AR. He did listen to him, and he did get a reccommendation from him, and then decided that he would rather go with a yellow card, but he still pulled out a white card as well, for the inciodent to be looked into as well. In his mind,  he was onviously not too sure if it really waranted a red card or not, which is why he went for the white card as well. That is my opinion on the matter.

Ou Beenbal has this elaborate conspiracy theory, and that is his right and his pride and joy. So be it.

windpomp we all know the disciplinary committee slipped up as I have pointed out. We do know that this was no tjonkers fault but we also ask hy the sloppy investigation yet again allowing a player playing for nz to get off the hook? Answer that one

We know ou bonkers didn't apply his mind as he ought to have done. He never asked the touch judge what he had seen or discussed this very important issue. He heard the recommendation and that was it. It was a huge decision and he did not apply his mind- he simply ignored the recommendation. This is NOT applying your mind. Big difference windpomp. He made no attempt to establish the facts or get to the truth.

Winpomp still seeking a place to hide.

Sorry nuked but he did have a record and you have also not explained - "head but and punch to the head…report also said he had TWO previous yellow cards

So how come they say Haskill had no previous record.

The harsher penalties dished out to SA rugby players has been repeatedly noted over the years.

Next (the hole they are digging just got deeper!) 

Ou Beenbal,you have certainly either not even seen the match, or you have not paid any attention while watching the match, and you clearly have no understanding of the proceedings. Now look at this clip and do two things.Look what happens and listen to the discussions:

www.youtube.com/watch

First of all pay attention to the fact that the referee was nowhere near the incident and did not see it. He was told by the AR about it IMO, hence his remark "I got it, I got................ don't forget it". That was obviously in reply to the AR telling him that something funny has happened. Also take note that Coenie Oosthuizen als punched/shoved somebody in the face.

Next take note of the fact that Jonker started talking to the AR closest to where the incident started, and he said: "After I got your call, I saw a bit of handbagging, and I didn't see what started it, so I am going with your call." Then Blob Stinkstert kept on having his turn in the limelight, so one cannot clearly hear the rest of the discussion. Then he tells everybody to step away and says, "let's take our time". In other words, get all the facts and listen to all the sides. Then the AR on the othert side of the pitch arrives and says: "It is definitely 25 Green............ straight to the face". Jonkers then says: "Your reccommendation.............?"

At this point the other AR, the only one who really saw everything that happened, stepped in and said: "Let me just tell you that there were multiple punches, it was just not one punch...............". Jonker then turns to the other AR again (the one from the opposite side of the pitch) and said: "So, you are talking about red............?", and he confirmed and said that they were also go to refer it. He then calls Haskell over and tkaes quite a long time to get his cards out while, in his head, clearly going over what has happened, again. He then makes sure that he has the right player, and pauses again before turning to the AR and saying: "I am going yellow............... I'm going yellow............. all right"

He then calls together both the captains and explains to them that the decision has been made and that it has been referred and that there may be some repercussions for the guys involved.

In my opinion, he know as good as everyone else how severe a red card is, and he is the one who has to make the decission, not any of the AR's, or the TMO or anybody else. He, Jonker. I think the fact that he did not see what happened himself, as well as the fact that the AR who saw everything, appeared to be unsure about the red card, created doubt in his mind whether or not it was the correct decision. I would reckon that his thinking could have been:" If he, the AR, was so sure about a red card, why did he stop me and started telling me about the multiple punches when the other AR agreed with a red card?" The fact, once again IMO, that the closest AR kept on making sure that Jonker knows that there were other punches thrown, created the impression that there was mre to the entire episode than just the punch by Haskell.

So, for you to say that he ignored the AR and he did not consider blah di blah di blah is just farting in the wind. You are clutching at straws to support your stupid conspiracy theory. Someone made a remark about Lunatic's nicname. I think you should swap nicnames with him.

the AR, on the opposite side of the field came on and suggested a red card. His words were: "The AR, closest to where the incident happened said:"

@ Nuke, point taken about Haskell in 2008, but just because the other players got away with murder when they should not have, and the officials were useless, doesn't change the fact that he got a card for a head-butt. If we allow players retribution for wrongs commited against them, then rugby is  going land up being a free for all. The point is, Haskell did have a yellow card and it was rightly given for head butting, and in this case, the argument that he had a spotless record was invalid. Anyway gents, we can go back and forth on this specific case, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I still think the punching issue in general needs more stringent and specific guidelines regarding disciplinary action. There are legal ways of reminding a player that he is not invited to your next braai. The good old hard push at the chest, elbow squeezed into ribs, hardcore tackle, I once even had my nipple twisted full circle etc etc, are all ways of making a point, but that won't have you suspended or cause serious injury (Except maybe a nasty tackle)., but stricking a player is just a different kettle of fish. 

@Ceradyne I never commented on the ref, I think he should've been red carded, but I can understand why he went with a yellow and a white, because he didn't see the incident, and if it really warranted a harsh sanction, then the citing comittee could deal with that. I think Beeno had more of an issue with that point. I do however stand united with Beeno on the punching thing in general.   

@Bluebok, I have no issue with the stamping out of punching and other crap in rugby. In fact, anybody who does not have a problem with fould play in rugby has got a screw loose somewhere. My issue is with this crazy conzpiracy theory and the idea that refs are being bribed, etc, etc.

I have said it often enough and I will keep on believeing it. We tend to see the mistakes, by refs against us (meaning the teams that we support) and we conveniently miss those that goes in our favour.

I actually sometimes have to laugh at myself, and sometimes have to hang my head in shame as well. I can start watching the S15 games at the start of the weekend, and notice the odd mistake by referees in the games. Sometimes I would, sort of by the way, mention  to my wife: "Team so and so has got away with murder with that move, etc", The moment my team starts playing, all hell breaks loose and the f$&*))ing useless blind idot with the whistel kas no F(*&^^ng clue what he is doing, etc, etc, and my wife starts moving away objects that could be hurled at the TV. About half an hour after the game, after I have sat down and calmed down, I realised that I ahev once again made a poepol of myself.

Well said Bluebok. Please also note however that it was not just the  "head butt and punch to the head incident. Note that Haskill had two yellows before that incident  - see above (report also said he had TWO previous yellow cards!)

As for windpomp the case gets no better after his bleat. Fact is the Assistant Ref recommending the red was not asked any questions or anything. His views were rejected out of hand with NO discussion, no due consideration at all. When an AR  recommends a red a ref must  discuss thematter with him if he has any intention of applyinghis mind in the sense required by the rules.

Beeno's water tight case remains intact. Windpomp is suffering a severe blowout!! So much hot air he is about to leave the planet!

When Bryce Lawrence suggested a yellow for Schalk Burger's red card worthy eye gouge we see what happens when referees take the wrong action based on the advice of the AR.  Jonker was well within his rights AND the laws of the game to take the course of action he did. 

Beeno's water tight case looking increasingly water logged, Beeno's argument shot with more holes than swiss cheese, Poi-e will educate Beeno one day, with enough time....

Ou Beenbal, go read this one, sarugby.com/forum.cfm and then come back here and repeat your last post on this thread.

LOL @ Ceradyn, I think that goes for all rugby fans. When my team plays, all class goes out the window! I think I am a fair observer for the most part though, and I really try to be neutral from a stricktly rugby point of view. I was the first to stand up and admit that the Sharks were the better team in that final in 2007 when my Bulls won their first Super Rugby title. I have often had that slow head shake, you know the one, from friends when I comment on the Bulls/Boks getting away with something they shouldn't have. But even I probably get a bit of blue fever from time to time.

Nope, Blue. You will never hear me admit that the Sharks were better in 2007. It was their own fault that they landed in a possision to have the Bulls win the game. They should have kicked the ball out and finished the game off. The Blue Bulls also lost a game in that manner last year, against Griquas IIRC. Also, the last tryo by the Sharks was dodgy in any case. LOL

windpomp just because ou bonkers heard the AR recommendation for a red which clearly went in one ear and out the other does NOT mean he applied his mind - dont be like your hero bonkers windpomp is my advice!

Bwahahhahahahahahaha

As for the poo around here please keep it real and address the issue. Bonkers did not apply his mnd - he simply rejected the AR recommendation for the red out of hand as he had clearly decided there was no room for  a red here! 

I do note that poo and windpomp are totally stumped re the previous convictions debacle that handed the thug in question a lenient sentence and have been silenced thereto. Some progress is being made so hang in there all concerned!!!

Keep on digging Beenbal. The decision at the disciplinary hearing had nothing to do with Jonker.

At last you are getting somewhere: "he simply rejected the AR recommendation for the red out of hand as he had clearly decided there was no room for  a red here! "

That is what I have been trying to tell you. It was well in his right to hear the AR's reccommendation and then decide on what he thought was the right thing to do under the circumstances. Those circumstances are proven by the video as well as the discussions between Jonker and the AR's. As I have said, from the video footage, the only one of the two AR's who  really had the best view of what happened was the one on the near side, closest to the incident when it happened, and he was clearly not too convinced about the red card either. That makes it Jonker who has not seen the whole incident as well as the one AR, who was not convinced. The other AR's only comment was that he saw one punch to the face and his other comment was: "yes", when Jonker asked: "So, we are talking red here?".  That was the sum total of that particular AR's contribution to the discussions. Had the other one been that convinced he clearly would not have hesitated and have confidently agreed with the call for a red card, and then Jonker would have had no choice. but to send the player off, as he has not seen the incident, and the tw AR's would have been in definite agreement that it was a red. Simple as that. Now you can carry on pissing and moaning til you are blue in the face. I know that you like to have the last say, even if you thereby make a fool of yourself, so the floor is yours.

Cheers