SANZAR hsa announced that Jean Deysel’s disciplinary hearing will take place at 11 am (SA time) today.
Here is the text of the release:
“Jean Deysel of the Sharks will appear at a SANZAR Judicial Hearing after he received a red card during a Super Rugby match at the weekend.
Deysel received the red card for contravening Law 10.4 (b) Stamping or trampling. The incident occurred during the match between the Crusaders and Sharks at AMI Stadium, Addington in Christchurch on Saturday 17 May 2014. The referee for the match, Rohan Hoffman, issued a red card for the incident which occurred in the 16th minute
The Judicial Officer for the hearing will be Jannie Lubbe SC which will be held by video conference on Tuesday 20 May 2014 at 9pm NZST, 7pm AEST, 11am SAST.“
Tweet
I am cautiously optimistic for an off-field yellow! Come on SANZAR! 😐
From the footage I saw it looked more like a kick and not stomping or trampling. I dont think he tried to make contact on purpose.
Jannie Lubbe, being a Saffer, will probably overcompensate to make NZ and SANZAR happy and give quite a lengthy ban.
Well lets hope for the best.
@Another Nick (Comment 1) : that can’t happen, if you think about it.
He’s already been shown an on-field red. An off-field yellow would be a reduction in that sanction, which clearly isn’t on the cards.
Beggars the question, how come the case against o’donahue is done and dusted and Deysel has to wait. Oh and the Reds game was after the Sharks…….. I get so pissed off with the double standards of the citing process.
We need to brace ourselves for bad news here.
The reason for the delay in the hearing is obviously because Deysel and the Sharks weren’t happy with the “plea bargain” ban they were offered. SANZAR will always try to get these things concluded quickly, by offering a ban of a certain length in return for an early guilty plea. This saves on the cost and hassle of a full hearing.
My feeling is that whatever initial ban was offered was considered unduly harsh, hence the Sharks opting to rather chance their arm in a full hearing. That could go either way, but I think we have to accept that the starting point here is probably something like 9 weeks.
I read an article from Mehrtens this morning about the incident and it was quite refreshing. On the stuff website
@robdylan (Comment 7) : Sadly I agree. Deysel was looking directly at the player when he stepped on him. Call it reflex or instinct but ultimately it was a horrible incident and deserves to be punished. I hope Jean’s good track record will count heavily in his favour.
A red card is exactly what he deserved. No more no less.
@Pokkel (Comment 3) : ja boet nothing but a long ban will make NZ happy.
@robdylan (Comment 5) : Well, there goes the optimism.. If we have to be realistic here, his boot did make contact with the player’s face. While looking down. Rob, I think you are right. We are looking at a fair amount of weeks. SANZAR will probably want to make an example of him and set a precedent.
@robdylan (Comment 7) : If the starting (on appeal) point is 9 weeks then I dont see the reason why the Sharks would have appealed here. The minimium sentence would then mean that Deysel would not play for the Sharks again in this contract period of his anyway…or am I missing something here.
So, since we are more or less certain that Deysel will not play Saturday, how will JW shuffle the loose trio? 6 Tera, 7 Alberts, 8 Kanko? Keegs on the bench? Not a bad loose trio by any means..
@Another Nick (Comment 14) : I’m sure he will be able to play, red card was enough.
@Another Nick (Comment 14) : ja we are very well stocked in loose fwds. We have been for a while. I just hope we have back up plans in place after Keegan and Deysel leave. Jacques Potgieter would be really nice. He is an ex sharkie after all
@West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 16) : don’t think they will buy any “big name” loose forwards, JW will back some of the youngsters.
He looked down – so he can’t claim it was accidental.
I think Jake should get a WWE wrestler to teach the players that move where you fall down with your full weight on the guy on the ground holding onto your leg. I reckon the full weight of a Deysel or Alberts on your chest, and you won’t try that nonsense again. And the player can claim he lost his balance and fell.
I really don’t want Deysel to end his Sharks career on a lengthy ban 🙁
The red he deserved without a doubt, a lengthy ban I’m less sure of.
@Bokhoring (Comment 18) : I like this idea – the only problem in this case is that Deysel is a loose forward, he is wired to be up with the ball as much as possible and he unfortunately made this happen by the wrong choice. Just give the victim the same punishment that Deysel gets and he wont do it again and there wont be a reason for another guy who just wants to play the game to put his career in jeopardy in the heat of the moment.
@Bayshark (Comment 6) : there can be two reasons for that, one we still had some traveling to do while the reds didn’t, the more likely reason is that the reds appealed the decision and applied that the hearing is brought foreword because they thought he would be cleared and he was , doubt the sharks would have appealed.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 20) : That would be my first choice too (I suggested a yellow for the Saders player), but the IRB has been ignoring this Kiwi cheating for years now.
@BR (Comment 21) : or what rob said , I would love to know what the officials wrote in their report about where his boot made contact, if they said the head area he is in big trouble but if they said on the head I hope the sharks have a good lawyer.
What’s the NZ time 9 o’clock at night? Bit of a bad time for a hearing?
@JD (Comment 15) : if he is cleared it will be because of some law technicality and the way the report was written and where the judicial officer think the boot made contact.
@BR (Comment 23) : think they will look at the videos to see where the boot make contact and not just use the match report when making a ruling.
@JD (Comment 26) : the match report that the refs submit is “like” a affidavit and what you are accused of in their is what you are being “trailed” for.
Ed O’Donoghue was found not guilty of eye gouging. 😯
What ridiculous decision is this. Aperanlty Scot Higgenbothem presented evidence to show that he wasn’t injured and that he did not complain to the ref. And on that evidence and reviewing the issue Zanzar has given a not guilty verdict to O’Donoghue’s hearing??? So that’s it then. I’ve seen a lot more inconspicious incidents getting severe punishments. Higgenbothem clearly don’t want O’Donoghue to be punished for something he had done in the heat of the moment.
So if the Crusaders guy that held Deysel back comes out and says, Deysel was aiming for my arm and I just got in the way, will Deysel get of free?
That’s ridiculous.
I’m sorry, I don’t think Deysel wanted to make contact with the players face – I don’t care if he looked down before he did.
It look to me more like he was stepping away from the guy and his face got in the way. If anything I would sanction Deysel for not taking care where he steps, but I honestly don’t think he stomp.
Maybe it’s just me – he didn’t even look angry or anything. He just jogged away, as the player had now released his foot.
@Letgo (Comment 29) :
I’m sure I’m just gullible like that, but Deysel didn’t seem guilty to me.
@Letgo (Comment 28) : yes his fingers was in his face but there we’re definitely no eye gouging, this is a prime example that Tmo’s have to much say and power , I thought Steve Welsh made the correct call for awarding the penalty to the reds for retaliating then when the line out was about to take place the Tmo said Welsh should have another look at it he wanted too stay with his original decision but the Tmo basically told him to reverse the penalty, too be honest hiiggenbotham’s head but was more clear than the eye gouging. The reds have every right too feel aggrieved about this loss and it is only right the the guy is cleared of eye gouging.
@Bokhoring (Comment 18) :
Where is his foot supposed to go down? Maybe he looked down intending to miss the player, but couldn’t find any other place for his foot to come down. Unfortunately that foot has to come down. The player on the ground put himself in that position. Pulling on his feet. Maybe if he hadn’t looked down he would have stepped square on his nose, but he didn’t, did he. He basically missed his face and stepped on his jaw, then the grass next to the Crusader, to push himself of in a job.
That’s my view, was right from the start.
If I was going to stomp on a guy, I’m going to step and the jog away, not be in the process of jogging away. If it is believed Deysel is so cunning that he thought, I’ll make it look like I’m just jogging away, then Deysel should be banned for months. Then that’s premeditated.
This is a guy that very rarely gets on the wrong side of the law… as far as foul play is concerned.
@BR (Comment 31) :
I don’t agree. What I saw, was a guys fingers going into another players eyes. So how is that wrong from the TMO if I saw exactly what they saw. Bent finger at all. I don’t think O’Donoghue is just completely innocent in this matter, just because he didn’t manage to damage the players eyes.
@BR (Comment 31) :
So if you agree so completely with the view of Zanzar on this, while I agree with the TMO on the day, then basically Deysel just has to get lucky?
Another thing, which no one ever seem to notice in this apparent stomping independents. Humans have to have at least one foot grounded to keep themselves upright. Deysel’s right foot lifted and his left came down. If you’re pulling my foot in that direction for 30 seconds how could it be my fault when I eventually make contact with your face. Look at the complete incident, Deysel actually does well not to step on Taufau earlier.
So now. That’s my view of the incident and was from the first moment I saw it. Yes, one could say I’m biased, but neither of us are regarding the eye gouging incident. So why is Ed getting of when Jean certainly won’t.
@Letgo (Comment 33) : but he just happened to miss the head but and the ref already dealt with it and higgenbotham didn’t even complain and I don’t know of a player who wouldn’t complain about eye gouging, I would agree it looked suspicious and there is only two people who would know the truth and the recipient didn’t complain about it makes you wonder.
@Letgo (Comment 32) : Exactly how I feel. Taufua put his head is a dangerous position by holding onto Deysels ankle for dear life.
My biggest concern is what message does this send out? Not only do you get off scott free by employing this cheating tactic but you can get massively rewarded by getting an opposition player sent off. Sick and tired of these BS tactics in the great game of rugby. If instigators are not dealt with then there is a danger of Rugby becoming like soccer where everyone is trying to get the opposition carded in any way possible. Instigators should perhaps share the fate of the retaliators.
Why does it matter where his boot made contact? Intent is the important factor!
Why if the player looked down did he intend to step on the players face. You can intend to miss him, but still step on him, because of the already close proximity of your foot to his face.
How can you prove that Deysel intended to step on the player? All you can prove is that his boot made contact with the players face. You can also prove that he looked down just before his boot made contact with the players face, but if he says, “I looked down, because I thought I might step on the player below me and wanted to take care not to step on his face, but failed to do so.” There is no way that you can disprove that and this being the first incident like this involving Deysel, I would say, the plausibility of intend becomes much smaller.
So the question is, do you suspend a player for accidentally stepping on a player?
@BR (Comment 35) :
It looked suspicious. I’ve never heard of opposition helping the offenders case. They could be good bud’s of the field, but what if O’Donagheu acts like this against other teams? ASk yourself that question.
Higgenbother should probably also have been sanctioned. Have you ever thought that there was maybe not an agreement made?
You let me of the hook and I won’t have my team make a complaint about the pretty obvious headbutt you did to get out of my grip.
What happened on that field by both players was not in the spirit of the game, and really not something you want to explain to you children or nieces and nephews watching the game with you.
@Letgo (Comment 34) : just quickly it is not Sanzar who found him not guilty it is the judicial officer appointed by them there is probable people in Sanzar who felt he is guilty but I completely agree with him it is not clear that there is eye gouging , then deysel should have fell and made a scene about it that would have been able too keep his side clean , he reacted and reacted badly so he deserved to be banned if found guilty by the judicial officer. The only thing that could save deysel is the way the report is written and the the guy said he had forgiven him.
@BR (Comment 35) :
I’ve seen players step on an over and into players laying in there way often in general play in rugby. So Deysel does it, when seemingly he was provoked to “stomp”. He most probably gets handed a heft suspension, while two guys blatantly wrestling on a rugby field gets way with it, barely a mention or a second thought????
@gregkaos (Comment 36) : The crusader should have gotten a yellow card for sure but the way deysel reacted can not be tolerated what message would that send out
I feel like accidentally tripping and falling with my fist right in someones mouth.
@BR (Comment 39) :
Taufau already said he had forgiven Deysel. Search google, there’s articles.
Deysel falling down and making a scene – That just doesn’t sound like something he will do, hence me vouching for the fact that he actually just wanted to get away from Taufau and get on with it.
@Letgo (Comment 38) : it was a close game higgenbotham would have done anything to get his side the penalty and yet he didn’t complain about eye gouging while the reds profusely complained about the head but , but the Tmo made it of as nothing
@Letgo (Comment 43) : that is why I mentioned it
@BR (Comment 39) : Soccer players fall and make a scene.
@Letgo (Comment 40) : @BR (Comment 41) : I put it to you……………….. Barry Roux should have defended Deysel.
@Letgo (Comment 43) : he didn’t look off balance to me
That’s it. I just wanted to get that of my chest.
I don’t think Deysel is the type of player that would stomp.
@gregkaos (Comment 46) : so you think he had the right reaction , make me wonder
@gregkaos (Comment 46) : like Jordan did holding his head like Deysel just performed “Lord of the Dance” on his head.
@JD (Comment 47) : he would have gotten away with it and the crusader and the refs would have to apologized to him
@Letgo (Comment 32) : This is what I see after watching that video closely:
– Deysel’s weight is on his right foot while he pulls his left foot from Taufua
– He looks down at Taufua, lifts his left left and steps backwards towards Taufua and unfortunately connects to the jaw area. If he wanted to move forward, he could have just placed his left foot in the direction of play. He did not seem off balance at the time – in effect his momentum was away from Taufua.
To me that was not accidental. I don’t think he went for the face intentionally though, but it happened none the less.
Personally I have no sympathy for Taufua.
@BR (Comment 50) : No I never said that. It is hugely regrettable. Which also happened in less that a second.
@gregkaos (Comment 46) : let me restate he should and have a good chat with the ref and told him we won’t tolerate it and next time I will take matters into my own hands ala bissie against the warathas and then there captain got a yellow for nothing , that was the best bit of captaincy I have seen for a long while
@BR (Comment 31) : If there was no gouging then what were his fingers, balled as a claw, doing in the guys face / eye area? We obviously see these actions quiete differently.
@Letgo (Comment 49) : don’t think he is a dirty player but he does seem too be a hot head , if I were playing against him I would also target him
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 56) : Aussies obviously look out for one another.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 56) : too me he tried to push his face away so that higgenbotham would let him go , he didn’t scratch at his eyes , a finger might have ended up in his eye but so did higgenbotham
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 56) : if he was eye gouging higgenbotham would have had a scratch mark or two below his eyes
@BR (Comment 48) :
I never said that he looked off balance. He kept his balance by putting down his left foot, when his right foot didn’t support his weight anymore. I assume he looked down to asses whether he could put down that left foot, since that happened as his right was lifting up. Basically, his assessment was inaccurate and maybe he didn’t take as much care as he would have, had a little girls face been in the same place.
So no, he didn’t lose his balance and fall down to avoid making contact with the players face. That foot had to come down at some point and it came down on the players face. No issue would have been made if there was no instigation before hand.
Like I said, players step on each other all the time, now there is just reason to believe, that there was intent, but can it be proven?
We’ll have an answer soon I’m sure
@Letgo (Comment 61) : he could have put it forward and not risk stepping on the guy but instead he looks down and stamps on the guy
@Bokhoring (Comment 53) :
Like I said, I didn’t mention of balance, but his right foot did lift when his left was coming down. I think had he tried to step with his right foot again and not bring down his left, he would have been of balance.
He should have taken more care, because he had to know the incident will be looked at under a microscope, because of the instigation factor, but I don’t think he stomped. I think he didn’t take care to insure that his foot does not make contact with the player.
There’s a difference. Intent to make contact. An no intent “not” to make contact.
@Bokhoring (Comment 58) : Yep, Im sure this came down to Higgenbotham and O,Donnoghue sorting it out over the beer after the game. After all what can outcome be if the “victim” says that nothing untoward was done to him.
@Letgo (Comment 64) : I get where you are coming from with the intent but if you can show me one place in the whole law book where that word is used, as a ref myself I would go mad if I had too judge the intent of every incident , refs are there to ref actions not intent.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 65) : even in the game he didn’t mention it
@BR (Comment 63) :
How do you know that he could have without losing his balance?
Here’s the deal, I don’t think Deysel intended to step on the player, you do. That’s what you call a difference of opinion.
I would say Deysel will get at least 4 weeks. There’s really no point in further pushing my view. We’ll be without one of our star players, probably for the rest of the Super Rugby,
I wish Deysel had taken the action that would have prevented that…
And I think we all can agree with that.
@Letgo (Comment 64) : I don’t believe they even try and establish intent for a guilty or not guilty verdict in rugby. I am not sure if it is considered in the extent of the sentence.
@Letgo (Comment 68) : if he gets 4 weeks he would be available after the test window
@BR (Comment 66) :
Well it’s not up to the ref anymore and I didn’t disagree with the red card, because you can’t step on a players face and think you’ll get away with it (although I did think the player holding on should have been sanctioned at least a yellow or even a red to prove a point), but surely the judicial officer will consider intent?
@Bokhoring (Comment 69) :
Well, that’s just stupid!
@Letgo (Comment 68) : I don’t think he intended too , I also think with most dangerous tackles the guys never intend to do it but once again a ref is the to ref actions not intention
@BR (Comment 70) :
I know, but I said at least and I call myself a pessimistic realist, when at times being able to be an optimistic realist! 😉
Not this time though.
@Letgo (Comment 71) : even in the hearings you can’t go intention , everybody would say the didn’t’ intend to do what that are been accused of.you are opening yourself to lot of trouble if you take intention into account in the rugby world.
@BR (Comment 59) : Maybe but pushing away would more than likely be done with a flat palm and fingers straight onto the surface and not clawed fingers.
@BR (Comment 60) : He may have, I havent seen his face after the act.
@BR (Comment 55) : That probably would have been the best course of action. However bear in mind that in real time that whole incident happened in less than a second, 5m from our tryline, and the psyche of a player is not from a comfortable chair where he can mull over the best course of action to take. He is under huge pressure and wants to get back to the ruck ASAP. To me he regrettably lashes out in anger as an opposition player is cynically holding him back to prevent that.
@BR (Comment 73) :
That’s a bit of a broken system, don’t you think.
And am I wrong, but haven’t I heard refs talk about – no malice intent, therefore giving yellows, instead of red?
@BR (Comment 75) :
Well, unless you throw a punch, or put your fingers into someones eyes?
@Letgo (Comment 71) : I also said he should have got a yellow for his troubles
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 76) : the showed his face right after the call being made and even the Aussie commentators who wanted the rebels to win said the couldn’t see a mark
@JD (Comment 51) : Don’t recall the Jordaan incident, cept for the Sbura try when he was blatantly held back and pushed the player away.
@Letgo (Comment 78) : and believe me those refs would have gotten a talking too about the can of worms he have opened
@Letgo (Comment 79) : no always , I really don’t think there is clear evidence of eye gouging never mind the intention
@Bokhoring (Comment 69) : @BR (Comment 75) :
Wow! My whole argument has fallen flat then, hasn’t it?
Then I would say. Deysel tried not to step on the players face, but in the process of bringing down his left foot realised that he might not miss the players face, therefore looked down, and couldn’t avoid not stepping on his yaw area, but did manage to stay away from the head and eyes of the player. Deysel wishes that he had taken more evasive action, but at the time could only think about defending his line, 5 meters away. Deysel regrets not taking more care in where he stepped and wishes to apologies for for the event.
@BR (Comment 83) :
Wow, I seriously didn’t know. But I suppose it’s better that way. To much opinion in intent.
@Letgo (Comment 85) : It is a unfortunate event that probable have a sad outcomeand I don’t believe his intent was to step on the guy, but it happened and that is what must be judged .
@Letgo (Comment 86) : he would can yourself what some club players do with inexperienced refs by using intent and smuggling with their heads , that is why the first thing they tell you is to forget about intent .
@gregkaos (Comment 77) : Thinking about this. What is premeditated here… The stomp or the holding onto Deysels leg?
Taufua knew exactly what he was doing and specifically targeted Deysel to keep him out the game. He continued to hold onto to him long after the game have moved on and brought his head up right under Deysels feet. Deysel also tried to get him off repeatably before getting free. This is why I believe that he should share Deysels fate.
There is a need to address the instigators, as you remove that from the game and we’ll see a huge drop in citings and bad incidents.
But let’s hope deysel’s lawyer can get a loop hole somewhere
@gregkaos (Comment 89) : that is why he should have got a yellow card , but to say he moved his head under deysel’s foot is going a bit far
@BR (Comment 81) : Im trying to get a clip on Youtube but its apparently not available in “my country”.
@BR (Comment 91) : True probably need to reword that. He was holding onto Deysel so tight that his head came up right by Deysels feet. So probably better to say his actions brought his own head into the firing line.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 92) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAYB8vGFQHY
@Letgo (Comment 86) :
You need to ‘Letgo’ Letgo! He is guilty.
@Pokkel (Comment 94) :
Oops, I only wanted to put the link in.
Rob any one any news of outcome of hearing?
@Pokkel (Comment 94) : he wanted one of the reds vs rebels game , I only seem to find the incident and not the close up shot afterwards
@Pokkel (Comment 94) : Thanks Pokkel but Im looking for the O’Donnoghue eye gouge clip. I have this one safely saved on the PVR – to be viewed when necessary.
@Sharksmad – The Blog’s Dudette (Comment 97) : it will be hours still
@Pokkel (Comment 94) : @Pokkel (Comment 95) :
Wow, Even after watching that. I can’t see that Deysel were so “disgusting” as the commentators say.
He pushed of to get away. The more I see it, the more I am infuriated by Taufau!
@Letgo (Comment 101) : Ja, not exactly a “stomp”.
Boot to the face, yes….but a stomp, I think not.
The eye gouge dismissal makes no sense to me. Battled to find a direct link but you can watch it here:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/rugby/reds-skipper-james-horwill-fumes-after-gouging-sendoff-for-ed-odonoghue-in-loss-to-rebels/story-fnii0ksb-1226921477612
If this is not justification for a suspension then I do not know what is … Burger was suspended not for “Eye gouging” but for making contact in the eye region and got 8 weeks.
Hearing is over – verdict to be delivered in 24 hours.
@robdylan (Comment 104) : ANOTHER 24 hours 😯 😥
@robdylan (Comment 104) : That’s not good. Always nice when they make a decision there and then….also thinks it takes away any potential outside influence.
@robdylan (Comment 104) : thanx for the info Rob.
@Letgo (Comment 101) : I dont care what anyone says. To take food off this guys table for 9 weeks, 6 weeks or even one week would be a travesty. He did nothing more than shake off an annoying cheating A-hole with his foot. The red card to me is debatable but probably maybe possibly almost fair. No more than that.
The slo-mo makes it look waaaay worse than it is. Watch it in real time. Its nothing really. Its no more than a reflex like “get off my leg coward, I need to follow the ball!”
@West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 108) : exactly what I think. Spoke to a ex-referee I know and he think red card should be enough punishment and anything longer than two weeks would be excessive. And no he’s not a Sharks supporter.
Don’t know if I’m right but does it not seem as if this whole case is dragged out way longer than it should be for a team who’s playing a game on Friday?!?! How must the coach prepare a team without knowing if one of the star players will be able to play?!?!?! Something smells fishy and it’s not the Sharks!!!!!
@JD (Comment 111) : I suppose he’s preparing as if the player will not be available.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 112) : yes I also think that’s what JW will be doing. Once again SANZAR dropped the ball as this is not the way to handle it, two days before a game (it Wednesday now in NZ) and the coach and player does not know if his banned or not.
@robdylan (Comment 104) : Rob I see the Brumbies want R240k from JW cause he coach a Super rugby team before 2015. If it’s true I wonder if they will take a payoff plan? 😉
Good luck Jean.. 😐
@BR (Comment 39) : Deysel should have fallen down and made a scene…the way the whole team did when one of the crusaders players came running from an offside position and just shoved Reinach down at a breakdown? The ref never gave it a second thought and the tmo was silent. Fact is, this of the ball stuff from the saders are never punished, that is why things like this happen. Sanzar should accept that their failure to act is responsible for this as well. It’s not like other teams haven’t complained and the refs not aware of this.
My prediction
Since Low end is 2 weeks
Mid = 5 weeks
Top = 9 weeks
And there can be discounts or additions
I reckon 5 weeks – 2 weeks discount = 3 weeks effective.
So he misses Blues, Stormers and Free State.
Lets see if I am right
@Biscuit (Comment 117) : I think max 2 weeks, but because he’s a “SA thug” and he “stomped” on an innocent little NZ angle he will probably get 8-9 weeks.
@HeinF (Comment 116) : that is where you must be consistently nagging the ref and tell him that if he don’t act you are that worked for many a team even against nz teams, you must just handle the situation the right , we barely said anything about it too the ref .
Going with 4 weeks , the fact that the crusader held him and he said he had forgiven deysel will probably help him but then again they might want too make a example of him so who knows
@HeinF (Comment 116) : there is ways too handle these things, in a club game where I were a AR a guy slapped a player that held him back so hard on the arm we later found out that the players arm where fractured and there were nothing done to the guy slapping the guy and to add insult to injury the player who held him back copped a yellow card.
3 weeks it is
Yeah 3 weeks isn’t too bad
@RuckingFun (Comment 123) : so he will be back after the Cheetahs game.
I wouldve been surprised if it was more than 4 weeks.
I like the way this guy shows how the All Blacks play beyond the ruck and off the ball.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdr-W775hk4
@JD (Comment 124) : He is banned until the 7th June (if news24 has it correct), which means he will be available for the Cheetahs game
@Letgo (Comment 126) : Yeah – the IRB needs to decide if they preside over NFL or rugby. Actually even in NFL you can’t take out defenders near the end zone
I can live with 3 weeks. We get him back on the field after the international break.
How’s Coetzee’s injury?
@Bokhoring (Comment 127) : great news. He will be ready rested and hungry to play against the Cheetahs. Somehow I feel sorry for the Cheetahs! !!!
@BR (Comment 119) : I get that we could have played the ref better…I just don’t think it should be necessary as the refs know this is the way the saders play, why are they not themselves just making an example by penalising a few players in the first 10 mins? This will set the tone and the players should do it less at least