Hertford Highlander

Michael Rhodes banned for 6 weeks


Written by Gwyn Pratley (Hertford Highlander)

Posted in :In the news, Lions, Super Rugby on 31 May 2011 at 07:12
Tagged with : , , ,

Stuff.co.nz reports Highlanders wing Siale Piutau has been found guilty of punching but escaped being banned because of “exceptional circumstances”. However, Lions flanker Michael Rhodes has been banned for six weeks from the same incident in last Friday night’s Super Rugby match in Dunedin.

The pair attended judicial hearings in Wellington yesterday and Sanzar released the decisions today.

Both players were cited after an incident in which Rhodes used a dangerous headlock to clear Piutau at a ruck. The wing retaliated by twice punching Rhodes to the head.

Sanzar judicial officer Nick Davidson QC ruled that Rhodes had flipped Piutau over in a dangerous manner “placing his head and neck at serious risk of injury”. Davidson added that video evidence showed Piutau in a highly compromised and dangerous position.

Davidson ruled that to make Rhodes’ suspension effective it should encompass six matches and rule him out of all rugby up to July 31. Rhodes has the right to appeal.

But while Davidson found Piutau guilty of punching he decided not to sanction the wing because of the “exceptional circumstances” of the incident.

Davidson ruled that whilst Piutau admitted to foul play he had been “seriously compromised” in the incident.
Piutau’s reaction was that of someone who had been “seriously endangered”.

Davidson added that to impose a sanction in these circumstances “would not reflect the effect on Piutau of the incident and a reaction that was the product of shock rather than retaliatory intent”.


99 Comments

  • And once again the fairness of the citing committee can be questioned. Retaliation is red cardable no matter what happened before. Both players should have been suspended, yet once again, the kiwi players walk free while the South African players get hefty sentences. It is time SARU looks at walking away from SANZAR and look at creating its own Super competition. But as much things change, things stay the same.

  • Comment 1, posted at 31.05.11 07:22:53 by waje Reply
     
  • Going on this judgement, expect Deysel to get at least 4 weeks. Very little difference in either case.

  • Comment 2, posted at 31.05.11 07:25:11 by waje Reply
     
  • This was for being in contravention of 1law. Deysal was cited for contravention of 2 laws. 8 weeks?

    That punch to the head should have been cited.

  • Comment 3, posted at 31.05.11 07:26:07 by Mocho Reply
    Mocho
     
  • If I was the Sharks Union I would appeal the decision as Deysel’s sentence was prejudiced by the other other judgement. As originally he was supposed to be sentenced yesterday, but it was clear they were using the Rhodes case as a precedent which is unfair on Deysel.

  • Comment 4, posted at 31.05.11 07:29:33 by waje Reply
     
  • According to Tank Lanning Rhodes has been banned for 8 weeks! 🙄

  • Comment 5, posted at 31.05.11 07:30:19 by wpw Reply
    Author
    wpw
     
  • What a joke!

  • Comment 6, posted at 31.05.11 07:32:52 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • 8 weeks for deysel no questions 😀

  • Comment 7, posted at 31.05.11 07:42:40 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • According to SARugbyMag tian Meyer is on his way to the Sharks. .

  • Comment 8, posted at 31.05.11 07:51:37 by Mocho Reply

    Mocho
     
  • It did look bad but gosh the other player needed to be banned 2!

  • Comment 9, posted at 31.05.11 08:09:03 by Poisy Reply
    Author
    Poisy
     
  • @Mocho (Comment 8) : I read on Supersport that Ross Cronje is more likely to take Hoffman’s place

  • Comment 10, posted at 31.05.11 08:10:00 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    vanmartin
     
  • @Mocho (Comment 8) : that, I can assure you, is not true.

  • Comment 11, posted at 31.05.11 08:14:14 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylan
     
  • I didn’t see the Lions game but I saw the clip of the incident with Rhodes on youtube……he deserves every minute of that ban and he is lucky that it wasn’t more. The clip actually made me feel sick to the stomach because it could have cost that player his life. What makes it worse was the way he twisted his neck. That type of thing should never be tolerated in rugby.

  • Comment 12, posted at 31.05.11 08:23:17 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • Unfortunately this judgement isn’t going to do Deysel’s case any good.

  • Comment 13, posted at 31.05.11 08:24:16 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • @waje (Comment 1) :

    I quite happy with the judgement……if somebody did that to me I would have kicked the shit out of him……there is no excuse for what Rhodes did.

  • Comment 14, posted at 31.05.11 08:25:41 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 14) : I never condoned Rhode’s behaviour, but hitting a guy in the back of his head twice is no better. It is as cowardly and deserves to be punished.

  • Comment 15, posted at 31.05.11 08:38:19 by waje Reply

     
  • deysel watched the earlier game and thought, “i can do thjat WWE headlock thing better” 😈

  • Comment 16, posted at 31.05.11 08:39:14 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • @waje (Comment 15) : he was in “shock” 🙄

  • Comment 17, posted at 31.05.11 08:40:29 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • @waje (Comment 15) :
    That is a matter of opinion I reckon……I agree with the citing commissioner though.

  • Comment 18, posted at 31.05.11 08:41:46 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 14) :

    Remind me of that before we have our next get-together! :mrgreen:

  • Comment 19, posted at 31.05.11 08:43:44 by Hertford Highlander Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    Hertford Highlander
     
  • @Hertford Highlander (Comment 19) :
    Hey I’m a peaceful oke…..just not when someone tries to kill me. 😆

  • Comment 20, posted at 31.05.11 08:45:59 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 20) : retaliation ia a no no 😛

  • Comment 21, posted at 31.05.11 09:06:50 by Megatron Reply

    Megatron
     
  • What Rhodes did was absolutely unacceptable. He could easily have snapped the guys neck. Deysel only laid on the ground and choked the guy, not as serious or dangerous as what Rhodes did. Rugby players need to start learning to think on their feet.

  • Comment 22, posted at 31.05.11 09:08:46 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @Megatron (Comment 21) :

    Ok Megie…..like peace brother….. :mrgreen:

  • Comment 23, posted at 31.05.11 09:09:09 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • Happy with Rhodes’ ban, he couldve ended that guy’s live. But that punching deserves a ban as well. Deysel will get 4 weeks imo.

  • Comment 24, posted at 31.05.11 09:15:38 by Jarson (AddicteD) Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition WinnerCompetition Winner
    JarsonX
     
  • The players need to be taught a lesson, not only should they be suspended for a x amount of weeks but they should be fined. Maybe then everyone will stop the dangerous and malicious stuff. Before someone gets seriously injured.

  • Comment 25, posted at 31.05.11 09:19:21 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • In Siale Piutau’s case, I think he should have copped at least a 2 week ban. Referees always say the players must not take the law into their own hands, that’s exactly what he did.

  • Comment 26, posted at 31.05.11 09:21:43 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @Ben (Comment 22) : Ok: so its more reasonable to kill someone by asphyxiation someone than by break their neck? 😉

    Jokes aside, I think Deysel is gonna get hit hard here.

    Regarding the punching: I guess it depends whether he was being punched to let go or afterward, in retaliation.

    If the latter, then I think a ban was justified.

  • Comment 27, posted at 31.05.11 10:09:53 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big Fish
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 27) : He let go of him before he killed him didn’t he? 🙂

  • Comment 28, posted at 31.05.11 10:14:41 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 27) : The punches happened after he let him go.

  • Comment 29, posted at 31.05.11 10:16:36 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • I agree with Pokkel here, Rhodes’s clear out had seriously malicious intent, and it would be VERY hard not to retaliate. I’m “happy” that he didn’t get a ban. A really embarrassing weekend for SA rugby in terms of our thugness tag.

  • Comment 30, posted at 31.05.11 10:42:00 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @Mocho (Comment 3) : Agreed. Watch them throw the book at Deysel now.

    Oh well, he should be back and well rested for the CC.

  • Comment 31, posted at 31.05.11 10:47:42 by Original Pierre Reply
    Author
    Original Pierre
     
  • So let’s see: its ok to rataliate but not if u wanna hug a guy on the ground… So make love not war does not count in rugby 🙂

  • Comment 32, posted at 31.05.11 10:54:48 by franshark Reply
    Author
    Franshark
     
  • @Ben (Comment 22) : It wasn’t as bad but he did continue with the headlock when the guy was on the ground.

  • Comment 33, posted at 31.05.11 12:03:29 by GreatSharksays Reply

     
  • the one that’s confusing me here is how Bakkies Botha got off after doing essentially the same thing to Duvenage earlier in the season…

  • Comment 34, posted at 31.05.11 12:23:33 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylan
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 34) :
    I was also surprised that Bakkies got off. Bekker did something similar to McLeod and was never even cited.

    But Rhodes deserved his punishment but I hope this doesn’t affect the Deysel verdict too much.

  • Comment 35, posted at 31.05.11 12:29:29 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 34) : I don’t think Bakkies’ was nearly as bad. There were quite a few peeps saying “there’s nothing in it” and “doesn’t deserve a ban, its a legal clearout” not many people saying the same in these cases.

  • Comment 36, posted at 31.05.11 14:12:10 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @molly (Comment 30) : So you are saying that its ok to retaliate in certain instances even to such a degree as punching from behind.

  • Comment 37, posted at 31.05.11 14:31:13 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 37) : yup.
    Are you having more of a problem with the “from behind” part?

  • Comment 38, posted at 31.05.11 14:33:03 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 37) : This is such a seriously extreme case. That was ridiculous from Rhodes, really.

  • Comment 39, posted at 31.05.11 14:44:43 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @molly (Comment 39) :

    He did deserve a punch for what he did..

  • Comment 40, posted at 31.05.11 14:45:29 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @molly (Comment 38) :
    Mostly yes, but retaliation is not allowed, simple as that.
    By your reckoning it would be ok to kick a guys head 1n, or burst his eardrum with a punch from behind because the retaliator was severly wronged first. I think not and I think that is why they brought the retaliation rule/ law in.

  • Comment 41, posted at 31.05.11 14:49:41 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 41) :

    But why then did the guy not get a suspension?!

    Think of it this way, if you were headlocked and turned around in such a way, would you have left it there?

  • Comment 42, posted at 31.05.11 14:51:09 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 40) : Whether he deserved it or not, should be besides the point, the action was illegal, simple.

  • Comment 43, posted at 31.05.11 14:53:35 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 42) : Of course I would retaliate, but Im not a pro rugby player playing a game with set rules and regulations.

  • Comment 44, posted at 31.05.11 14:57:13 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 43) :

    Yes.. but you have to wonder when the commissioner says that the player was guilty in striking Rhodesm, but that the action was expected…

  • Comment 45, posted at 31.05.11 14:57:36 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 40) : He actually deserved a few punches from Mike Tyson for what he did. 🙂

  • Comment 46, posted at 31.05.11 14:57:51 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 44) :

    But you would retaliate, as would I…

  • Comment 47, posted at 31.05.11 14:58:07 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Pokkel (Comment 12) : [email protected]waje (Comment 15) : You can hardly call that punches……. 😆

  • Comment 48, posted at 31.05.11 15:10:25 by Honey Badger Reply

    Honey Badger
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 43) : I agree, so from now on every player that is Spear tackled will retaliate by punching the guy and then he will expect to get away with it.

  • Comment 49, posted at 31.05.11 15:14:22 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @Ben (Comment 49) : Why not, a precedent has been set, we now even having the presiding official who has handed out the heftiest ban of the season excusing it.

  • Comment 50, posted at 31.05.11 15:24:07 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • you guys are missing the point. First, you can’t compare a punch with “kicking a head in, bursting an eardrum”. And Second, you can’t compare what Rhodes did, with a spear tackle, maybe with eye-gouging, which if you do compare, Rhodes got a MUCH lighter sentence.

    And then to your third point about it setting a precedent, I hope to goodness we NEVER see something like that ever again, so that there will NEVER be a case like that again. It was special circumstances and will be treated as such.

  • Comment 51, posted at 31.05.11 15:31:13 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 50) : Its a joke I tell you. No don’t Rhodes deserved what came his way but that doesn’t change the laws. You are not allowed to take the law into your own hands. These citing officials are a joke!

  • Comment 52, posted at 31.05.11 15:32:22 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @Ben (Comment 52) : Sorry that was meant to be “no doubt Rhodes deserved what came his way”

  • Comment 53, posted at 31.05.11 15:34:53 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • Rhodes set the precedent with his foul play and I’m sorry, there is no excusing what he did, it almost seems like you guys are trying to justify what Rhodes did by shifting the blame/attention to the other guy.

    What I didn’t like about the other guy (what the hells is his name anyway?) is that he threw the punch and then ran away, and it even looks like he may even have done it twice… but anyway, I don’t blame him for retaliating to THAT.

  • Comment 54, posted at 31.05.11 15:35:33 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @molly (Comment 51) : So can you get us a piece out of the rugby law book that says you are allowed to take the law into your own hands and retaliate under special circumstances?

  • Comment 55, posted at 31.05.11 15:36:41 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @molly (Comment 54) :

    Siale Piutau

  • Comment 56, posted at 31.05.11 15:37:15 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @molly (Comment 54) : Molly the point is the rules are the rules, you are not allowed to retaliate NO MATTER WHAT. Like I said Rhodes certainly deserved what he got in being the punches. I’m sorry but 2 wrongs doesn’t make a right.

  • Comment 57, posted at 31.05.11 15:42:39 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • SA Law (Not rugby) states that if you are hit and you retaliate immediately, you are not in the wrong..

    Just an FYI, but still not really a rugby law..

  • Comment 58, posted at 31.05.11 15:44:40 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @Ben (Comment 55) : thats why he got cited.

  • Comment 59, posted at 31.05.11 15:44:45 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 58) : Lol thanks for sharing.

  • Comment 60, posted at 31.05.11 15:46:33 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • ok, here’s my thing. He got cited for the punch, right? Probably one of the only times someone’s been cited for throwing a punch (how many have been ignored?)… is there a minimum banning for punches? is there a set amount of games? Or is it dealt with on a case by case like just about every other case that gets cited?

  • Comment 61, posted at 31.05.11 15:46:37 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @molly (Comment 51) : So are there now categories of retaliation that are allowed. Please enlighten us.

  • Comment 62, posted at 31.05.11 15:47:24 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 58) : first time I’v actually seen the two platinum stars used “for real”.
    Congrats on the promotion

  • Comment 63, posted at 31.05.11 15:47:55 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylan
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 62) : Please do tell me when you last saw someone actually banned for retaliation? I’ve seen lots of yellows on the field for punching, but not actually anything in the citing commission, but I am working from memory here, so I am prepared to be wrong.

  • Comment 64, posted at 31.05.11 15:49:26 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @molly (Comment 61) : Look if he got a yellow card in the game for the punch I would say fine that was punishment enough. But if I’m not mistaken he didn’t so imo he has to be punished in some way, in this case being a 2 week ban or whatever.

  • Comment 65, posted at 31.05.11 15:49:42 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 58) : Can see the stars right now I’m on my BB. But congrats on your Promotion.

  • Comment 66, posted at 31.05.11 15:52:16 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @Ben (Comment 65) : but thats the point, what is the precedent? I seriously can not remember a time when someone got a ban for punching.

  • Comment 67, posted at 31.05.11 15:52:44 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @molly (Comment 67) : Can’t think of one right now but I’m pretty sure there have been a few cases.

  • Comment 68, posted at 31.05.11 15:54:01 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @molly (Comment 54) : No one is trying to excuse Rhodes or shift the blame somewhere else. Its the officials comment that the other chap did no harm because of the degree of provocation he suffered that riles me. Thats not how you are going to stamp out dirty play.

  • Comment 69, posted at 31.05.11 15:54:44 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 63) :

    Thanx boet..

  • Comment 70, posted at 31.05.11 15:57:39 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • @molly (Comment 64) : I cant think of any off hand but thats not my gripe, my gripe is that you and the official say retaliation is condoned under certain circumatances.

  • Comment 71, posted at 31.05.11 15:57:45 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 63) :

    Thanx boet

  • Comment 72, posted at 31.05.11 15:58:02 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
     
  • Im going to start the “blind eye movement”
    Free for alls allowed for a max of 3 minutes per game. Thereafter teams are forced to play attractive entertaining rugby.Rucking is encouraged. And NO UNCONTESTED SCRUMS will be allowed.

  • Comment 73, posted at 31.05.11 16:01:47 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 69) : I honestly think it won’t change a thing, it’ll have no influence on how players play. I don’t think there is a rugby player out there thinking “I must wait for a good opportunity to retaliate, cause I can get away with it now”, maybe I’m giving rugby players too much credit.

  • Comment 74, posted at 31.05.11 16:02:53 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @molly (Comment 74) : I personally think retaliation is natural and far more forgivable than the person evoking the retaliation as this is mostly done in a sinister underhanded way.

  • Comment 75, posted at 31.05.11 16:25:47 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @molly (Comment 74) : Where are the good old days when thinking “I must wait for a good opportunity to retaliate, cause I can get away with it now” was the norm and if you had wronged someone you FEARED going into the next ruck.

  • Comment 76, posted at 31.05.11 16:31:00 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 76) : Yup and every time you walk past one of you’re oponents they tell you “jys gemerk bliksem” 🙂

  • Comment 77, posted at 31.05.11 16:40:06 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 76) : Where are the days when the ball was not allowed to be fed beneath the hookers feet. A tighthead hook in those situations was greeted with thunderous applause.

  • Comment 78, posted at 31.05.11 16:42:37 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @Ben (Comment 77) : And at LO time.
    “My ball is mine and your ball is also mine” 🙂

  • Comment 79, posted at 31.05.11 16:55:25 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 78) : YES!!!!!!!!!

    And nowadays even IF the ball is fed straight it is nor fed at the center of the scrum. 🙁

  • Comment 80, posted at 31.05.11 16:56:10 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 79) : Oh yes! 🙂

  • Comment 81, posted at 31.05.11 17:09:15 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 75) : sounds like some natural laws 🙄 what about the sportmanship 🙄

  • Comment 82, posted at 31.05.11 17:13:43 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    rekinek
     
  • Ooh goodie, debate! So here’s my two cents (15.8 Zambian Kwachas at current exchange rates):

    The laws, and by extension the citing process, exists to eliminate foul and/or dangerous play from the game. Based on that, I would think that the logical process to be followed during an inquiry would be as a first step to determine whether the charged party(s) has in fact transgressed any of the laws. If this has been found to have happened, a sanction should automatically be imposed, with aggravating/extenuating circumstances only being used to determine the severity of the sanction.

    Looking at it from another angle, just for chuckles, let’s assume that the punches thrown by Seal Pitabread (or whatever his name is) had actually inflicted damage to Mike Rhodes; say, for argument’s sake a detached retina, resulting in the eventual loss of sight in one eye. Would all of you feeling that the no sanction verdict was justified still feel so secure in your convictions?

  • Comment 83, posted at 31.05.11 17:42:26 by Culling Song Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Culling Song
     
  • @rekinek (Comment 82) : For spotmanship they can shake each others hands at the end of the game, then go and have a shower and dress nicely and then attend an after match dinner where both teams and management are present. 😀

  • Comment 84, posted at 31.05.11 17:49:01 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @Culling Song (Comment 83) : missed this last night. irt your last paragraph, by the same token, if Rhodes had actually managed to snap Pitabreads neck, would I be happy with a 6 week ban? Nope, never.

  • Comment 85, posted at 01.06.11 10:40:31 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @molly (Comment 85) : The point is Rhodes could have broke his nech so he got a 6 week ban. The oke could have seriously hurt Rhodes by hitting him so surely then he should get a ban as well.

  • Comment 86, posted at 01.06.11 10:46:09 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @molly (Comment 85) :with thanks to David Isaacsons blog,

    “Blog by David Isaacson
    Lions flanker Michael Rhodes was deservedly banned until the end of July for his dangerous headlock on Siale Piutau last Saturday. But Piutau, who punched Rhodes twice in the head in retaliation, was let off the hook because of the “exceptional circumstances” surrounding his case. “Whilst the player admitted to foul play he had been seriously compromised in the incident involving Rhodes,” judicial officer Nick Davidson said. “Piutau”s reaction was that of someone who had been seriously endangered and to impose a sanction in these circumstances would not reflect the effect on Piutau of the incident and a reaction that was the product of shock rather than retaliatory intent.” Excuse me? What was he smoking? How many rugby players haven”t been the victims of dangerous play? Stiff-arms, clean-outs, high tackles, you name it – since when have they been allowed to punch back? Two weeks ago Manu Tuilagi was banned for five weeks after punching England winger Chris Ashton three times in a club match. Judge Jeff Blackett, who chaired the hearing, said Tuilagi should have been suspended for 10 weeks, saying his actions were “very damaging to the image of the game”. But his ban was halved because of his youth, admission of guilt, remorse and that he was considered to have been provoked by Ashton. For as long as I have been watching rugby – since the 1970s – retaliation has never been considered an appropriate defence for punching. No matter the provocation. Punching on the rugby field is illegal. Period. But the decision to let Piutau off without any sanction raises a dangerous precedent in rugby (it also sets a terrible example for school kids). You can bet that Davidson”s ruling is going to be used in disciplinary hearings during the upcoming Rugby World Cup – which kicks off in just more than 100 days – to defend the inevitable flying fists. What Davidson has effectively done is told players that punching can be okay. He has just approved vigilantism; fighting thuggery with thuggery. He should have at least given Piutau a slap on the wrist, banning him for one match, maybe two or three. The bottom line is that Davidson”s decision should have echoed the ethos of rugby – punching is not okay.”

  • Comment 87, posted at 01.06.11 11:04:53 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @molly (Comment 85) : I did not see the incident, so I can’t comment on whether 6 weeks was appropriate. My stance is basically that if you transgress the lwas, regardless of circumstance, there should be a sanction, but the severity of the sanction should be determined by the circumstances. So based on that, both Mike and Pitabread should have been punished, but obviously Mike should have had the book thrown at him, whereas Pitabread should be on the other end of the scale.

  • Comment 88, posted at 01.06.11 11:06:29 by Culling Song Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Culling Song
     
  • @Ben (Comment 86) : you can’t hurt Mike Rhodes by punching the back of his head.

    You’re more likely to break your hand.

    Maybe that’s why they gave Rhodesie such a long ban. He seriously compromised the Kiwi by forcing him to break his hand against Rhodes’s massively thick skull 🙂

  • Comment 89, posted at 01.06.11 11:10:53 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylan
     
  • ok, I’m done arguing, lets just agree to disagree, we’re going around in circles.

    What we have done is found ONE case of there actually being a ban for punching, and geez that was a serious case of punching, never seen anything quite like what Tuilagi did there.

    And Isaacson is overreacting so badly its actually funny. Did anyone agree with him? “He has just approved vigilantism; fighting thuggery with thuggery.” hahaha, I actually chuckled out loud at how he got to that conclusion.

  • Comment 90, posted at 01.06.11 11:14:22 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @molly (Comment 90) : oh, you got it from Reitzworld…

  • Comment 91, posted at 01.06.11 11:18:41 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 89) : Lol 🙂

  • Comment 92, posted at 01.06.11 11:21:18 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 89) : FYI he punched Rhodes from behind on his jaw. Not on the back of his head.

  • Comment 93, posted at 01.06.11 11:24:12 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @molly (Comment 90) : Agreed to have disagreed! 😉

  • Comment 94, posted at 01.06.11 11:25:13 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Ben
     
  • @molly (Comment 91) :
    Talking about Reitz, you are the one saying its fine to retaliate….
    Reitzworld – wrong again, here is the link if you want to see where it came from http://m.timeslive.co.za/?i=3692/0/0&name=thetimesbeta&artId=4150987&showonly=1

  • Comment 95, posted at 01.06.11 12:11:46 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 95) : yes, I googled it too… thats how I found it on Reitz.

  • Comment 96, posted at 01.06.11 13:00:40 by molly Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    molly
     
  • @molly (Comment 96) : If I took it from Reitz I would have given them the credit, as you can see I gave the credit to the original source, from where it was taken.

  • Comment 97, posted at 01.06.11 13:18:52 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • @molly (Comment 96) : I went and read the Reitzworld version. Comment 3 is interesting. 😉

  • Comment 98, posted at 01.06.11 13:45:41 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
     
  • that is along time but he got what he needs maybe he’ll cool a bit

  • Comment 99, posted at 01.06.11 21:18:02 by chaz Reply

    Chaz
     

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.