KSA Shark ©

Bismarck gets 3 weeks

Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :In the news, Springboks, Tri Nations on 13 Jul 2008 at 09:55
Tagged with :

Springbok hooker Bismarck du Plessis has been suspended for three weeks for an incident in the South Africa’s 30-28 Tri-Nations victory over New Zealand at Carisbrook, Dunedin, at the weekend.

Rugby 365 reports that Du Plessis appeared before SANZAR (South Africa, New Zealand and Australia Rugby) Judicial Officer Kim Garling at the Otago Rugby Football Union (ORFU) offices in Dunedin on Sunday.

He was cited by Citing Commissioner Dick Byres under Law 10.4 (k) – for contact with the eyes or eye area of All Blacks flank Adam Thomson in the 11th minute of the first half.

The ban – which will rule Du Plessis out of the encounter with Australia in Perth this coming Saturday – leaves him free to play again when the Boks face Argentina in Johannesburg on August 9.

The other two weeks of his ban will see New Zealand and Australia go head-to-head in back-to-back Tri-Nations matches in Sydney (July 26) and Auckland (August 2).

It is a cruel blow for the Boks, who are still without injured captain John Smit, as they head to Perth to face the Wallabies.

Smit injured his groin when he was spear-tackled by All Black lock Brad Thorn in the 19-8 win in Wellington in the Tri-Nations’ opening match on July 5.

Thorn was later cited and banned for just one week – although he and Du Plessis miss the same number of games.

Du Plessis played a crucial role in the Boks’ comeback victory in Dunedin at the weekend.

At the hearing on Sunday Garling viewed video footage of the incident, heard evidence from Du Plessis and received reports from the match referee and assistant referees.

Du Plessis was represented by legal counsel Robin Bates and Springboks manager Andy Marinos.

Du Plessis acknowledged that his fist had come into contact with Thomson’s lower cheek and then, as it rolled across his face, his left hand knuckle appeared to come into contact with the face near the eye area but did not come into contact with his eye.

Television footage confirmed that there was no visible mark to the face of Thomson as a result of this contact.

Bates submitted that the contact was momentary and had come about through a series of factors, including the impact of another player locking Du Plessis’ arm in the ruck as he moved to the ground. He said the contact, while careless, was not deliberate.

Garling determined that there had been contact between the left hand of Du Plessis and Thomson’s face as conceded by Du Plessis. His closed hand had first come into contact with Thomson’s cheek and then his eye area, but not the eye. Garling concluded that the contact was careless and not deliberate.

In delivering short reasons about the incident, Garling said that “any action by a player in which fingers, a hand, or a knuckle comes into contact with the eye or eye area of a
player is very serious and the [International Rugby Board] IRB recommended penalties reflect that because of the potential for permanent damage to the sight of a player”.

He said Du Plessis had conceded the carelessness of his actions at the first available opportunity when the matter came before the Judiciary and had shown regret for his actions.

Garling said this was the first blemish in Du Plessis’ playing career which, apart from his early years in rugby from the age of five, had encompassed eight seasons of professional rugby at a first class level. He was also highly regarded by his peers. Garling said the appropriate entry point for sanction was at the lower end, as the contact, while unacceptable, was minimal.

After taking all the matters into account, Garling imposed a suspension of three weeks up to and including August 3.


  • He should have lifted the guy, turned him and dumped him on his head. He would only have gotten 1 week for that. :wink:

  • Comment 1, posted at 13.07.08 09:56:49 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
  • this is pathetic! They all acknowledge that it was basically a nothing infringement, but give him 3 weeks anyway.

  • Comment 2, posted at 13.07.08 10:05:39 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
  • Disgrace. :evil:

  • Comment 3, posted at 13.07.08 10:55:41 by ra-cheltjie de' be-er Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
  • He should have punched the bastard’s lights out.

  • Comment 4, posted at 13.07.08 11:08:03 by ra-cheltjie de' be-er Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
  • So Brits will play, but who’ll be on the bench?

  • Comment 5, posted at 13.07.08 11:08:28 by ra-cheltjie de' be-er Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
  • This is a disgrace. When will our administrators wake up + realize that the aussies + new zealanders have it in for us? why dont they appeal?

  • Comment 6, posted at 13.07.08 11:23:43 by wpw Reply
    wpwAssistant coach
  • In 2003 Ali Williams was cited for standing on England wing Josh Lewsey’s head. The panel found his actions were ‘inadvertent and incidental’.

    The following year Keith Robinson punched Lawrence Dallaglio in front of the referee without facing sanctions. A week later England lock Simon Shaw was sent off when his knee brushed Robinson’s back.

    Then in 2005 was the incident involving Tana Umaga, Keven Mealamu and Brian O’Driscoll. The All Blacks weren’t even cited but, in that same game, footage showed Danny Grewcock had bitten Mealamu and the Lions lock was sent home.

  • Comment 7, posted at 13.07.08 11:33:28 by ra-cheltjie de' be-er Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
  • Is anybody surprised? :evil:

    We are in serious trouble for next week. :sad:

  • Comment 8, posted at 13.07.08 11:57:20 by Big Fish Reply
    Big FishAssistant coach
  • @ra-cheltjie de’ be-er (Comment 5) : I’d send Adriaan Strauss.

  • Comment 9, posted at 13.07.08 12:23:28 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
  • in fact, I’d let Strauss start and keep wing-hooker on the bench

  • Comment 10, posted at 13.07.08 12:23:59 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
  • I agree rob. Damn but we r short of good quality hookers…

  • Comment 11, posted at 13.07.08 13:19:08 by wpw Reply
    wpwAssistant coach
  • Not good any takers on who will be called in..?

    This is however a excellent opportunity for Schalk to perform and get into the starting squad.

    And the media keep saying Smit got injured during the tackle which is utter nonsense as he managed to play for most of the 1st half with no sign of being injured.

  • Comment 12, posted at 13.07.08 15:39:27 by CoffeeShopBok;-) Reply

    csbSuper Rugby player
  • Free State hooker Adriaan Strauss has been called up to the Springbok camp to serve as as cover for Schalk Brits after Bismarck du Plessis was suspended.

  • Comment 13, posted at 13.07.08 15:52:36 by ra-cheltjie de' be-er Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
  • @robdylan (Comment 9) : Seems you were right.

  • Comment 14, posted at 13.07.08 15:53:25 by ra-cheltjie de' be-er Reply

    McLovinAssistant coach
  • @ra-cheltjie de’ be-er (Comment 14) : I usually am, dude… I usually am ;)

  • Comment 15, posted at 13.07.08 16:01:21 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
  • If one is guilty of Dirty Play,then you must be punished, however the punishment must be fair. Dirty Play is dirty play. I do feel SA players seem to draw the short end of the stick. I might be wrong , but did Dan Retief publish something to this effect. Coffee you are wrong, so did Ali Williams leave the field on Sat because of a head clash, or as you so eloquently put it maybe he was injured later, because he was able to play for a further 20 min. Or isn’t it more probable that you are hurt but you hope to run it off with time as I am sure John Smit was hopeing, but it got worse and now he has had to have an Opperation to repair the damage. I see Dan (Baby) is still crying and saying he was unfairly targeted again on Saturday, maybe he doesn’t have as much of a rough time when he is poseing in his Jockey Undies, so maybe he needs to be on the catwalk if he doesn’t want to be tackled. However a squeeky wheel is heard, remeber how the Kiwis whined about Butch James often enough, well it nearly ruined he career, maybe if the whine enough their players won’t be allowed to be tackled. Talk about whinging Poms well theses Kiwis & Ausies are past masters at it and then blaming everybody else.

  • Comment 16, posted at 13.07.08 23:51:17 by Dynamite Reply

    DynamiteVodacom Cup player
  • He gets 3 weeks, but actually just miss one game… :roll:

  • Comment 17, posted at 14.07.08 07:30:37 by Charlie Reply

    CharlieSuper Rugby player
  • This is a whole lot of crap I tell you….

    Did Thompson even realise that he was eye-gouged!??!

  • Comment 18, posted at 14.07.08 09:21:22 by Hmmm Reply

    HmmmSuper Rugby player
  • Is permanent damage to the spine of a player not seen as serious!??!

  • Comment 19, posted at 14.07.08 09:22:55 by Hmmm Reply

    HmmmSuper Rugby player
  • @Charlie (Comment 17) : :mrgreen:

  • Comment 20, posted at 14.07.08 09:26:45 by blackshark Reply

    blackshark - I'm back!Super Rugby player
  • It was my understanding that citing and penalties were brought in to deal with dirty play…

    The Commissioner says that the hand went across the face due to another player pulling his arm and that he NEVER came in contact with the eye…so it was more of a push in the face which happens like every 5 minutes in a rugby game…but gets 3 weeks for the fear of permanent damage to the eye…

    Thorne on the other hand…he dives onto a ruck with his elbow…Smit pushes on his head (very harmless push)…and Thorne…after the whistle had blown…stands up and drop’s Smit on his head…but unfortunately spinal injury is nowhere near to as serious as eye injury…I mean you cannot still see out of your other eye nor are you as fortunate to have medical assistance such as a wheelchair when you are paralyzed for eyes….

    SO I guess Bismark was very fortunate for only getting 3 weeks….I am soooooo pissed about this…

  • Comment 21, posted at 14.07.08 09:36:47 by Hmmm Reply

    HmmmSuper Rugby player
  • @Charlie (Comment 17) :

    That is not the point…the same penalty would have been imposed had this happened in the first game and then he would have missed two!??!

  • Comment 22, posted at 14.07.08 09:38:17 by Hmmm Reply

    HmmmSuper Rugby player

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.