|
|
|
Forum Guru
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/10/2009 21:27:35
Posts: 60,
Visits: 331
|
|
Despite the SA commentators informing us last night that this meant "justice for all" I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to realise it is a pretty direct attack on the IRB regarding the suspension of Bakkies Botha. I mean Matfield even had justice across the front of this head gear
I have looked at the video of the Botha "incident" many times and can find absolutely nothing wrong with it and no reason he should have been cited let alone suspended and feel Botha was made into some sort of scapegoat because of the injury Jones was unlucky enough to receive.
Having said this though, I can also see no justification for the SA players and obviously management to deliberately challenge the IRB in this way - mind you if the IRB are as on the ball as the SA commentators there is no danger of them realising they have even been challenged 
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/10/2009 21:27:35
Posts: 60,
Visits: 331
|
|
After posting this I saw there was a statement about the protest on the SA web site so they have brought it into the open so it will enable us to see how it is handled between the IRB and the SARFU
As coaches I believe inconsistency in the interpretation and application of the laws is one of the hardest things to handle
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 01/04/2011 11:43:39
Posts: 30,
Visits: 345
|
|
I've looked at the replay several times at full speed and in slow motion. I would assume the citing was based on him having shoulders below hip height as well as leading with his shoulder with no use of the arms. Basically a shoulder charge as there’s no attempt to bind onto the ruck or wrap up the player. Technically a penalty but not sure whether it was worthy of a citing, the Lions management didn’t think so the citing officer did. At the end of the day Botha has injured a player through illegal clearing out at the ruck. This demonstrates exactly why this is illegal and it should be enforced consistently, Botha is not the only player guilty of this week in week out on a rugby field at all levels.
As for the armbands - everyone wearing one of those armbands should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Players and management should not be allowed to publicly challenge the legitimacy of the disciplinary processes with impunity.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 07/12/2011 11:18:42
Posts: 98,
Visits: 231
|
|
| I agree with ruckoff and I also agree with Angus. An example was made of Botha but what about everybody else? I don't know if we will ever get the consistency we need. Do you think rugby needs to move to an American football-style set up with more than one referee on the pitch? That would enable more infringements to be picked up. On the other hand it could lead to a "flag" on virtually every phase of play. Controversial suggestion for a wet Tuesday morning .... Cheers Ferret
Cheers - Ferret
U16s Backs Coach "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England" (Sir Winston Churchill)
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 13/01/2011 13:13:40
Posts: 72,
Visits: 246
|
|
| ... think I missed something here! In an age where the world is full of cowards who simply accept the status quo, I think the SA team very brave to have made a stand primarily for their team mate, but I believe it is crucial, essentially on behalf of ALL coaches who want a game that is CONSISTENTLY refereed on the pitch and judged in the Disciplinary hearings... whether their action was right or wrong is not the point- the point is they stood for SOMETHING they believed in, as a TEAM, UNITED... is that not what we coach? On the Botha incident, I was happy enough with its legalities & there are some coaches i highly respect on both sides of the equation- the call was made by the judge & if thats the decision, then the game as we know it will need to change & counter rucking is essentially illegal... As for the Bok 'coach' (I hesitate to call him that!) HE is the guy who should be answering a bringing the game into disrepute charge! UNBELIEVABLE stupidity coming out of his mouth...SA Rugby would do well to put a muzzle on him!
Rugbia floreat ubique
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/10/2009 21:27:35
Posts: 60,
Visits: 331
|
|
Where does it stop though?
If they felt that the ref was a twat in the second game would it have been ok to have armbands saying "no more twats" and Matfield with TWAT across the front of his head gear? 
Seriously though while I still feel Botha was very hard done by I don't think this is the way to get any resolution and instead it gives the impression that the Boks are a species apart or at least think they are
What else could they have done other than just grit their teeth? I don't know but surely that should have come down to their appeal when they had the opportunity to put forward the arguments in favour of the ban being dropped but unfortunately we are not privy to the case presented and how it was viewed apart from the fact it was rejected
Possibly the publication of international tribunals and appeals would help clarify for everyone on how rugby is being judged at the international level and laws interpreted
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 07/12/2011 11:18:42
Posts: 98,
Visits: 231
|
|
| I wasn't going to add any more but I have to say I like the mental image of Matfield conjured up by Angus' last post! Cheers - Ferret
Cheers - Ferret
U16s Backs Coach "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England" (Sir Winston Churchill)
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 01/04/2011 11:43:39
Posts: 30,
Visits: 345
|
|
| Red & Black fan You have missed something – It is NOT brave to write ‘Justice 4’ on an armband and wear it on a rugby field. If they believed in this so much as a TEAM, UNITED then they should have gone to the formal appeals process in fancy dress of their choosing and chant Bakkies name over and over to get their point across. They should not have brought this to the field of play! We don’t want players questioning/arguing with referees throughout matches over every decision like we get with football, the same should be applied to the disciplinary hearings. Rugby is a game of respect. Inconsistency in refereeing will always happen as the laws of the game are interpreted differently by all referees. The disciplinary hearings are usually correct in their judgement, it is the length of the bans that are inconsistent. As I previously said, I think the judge got it right as Bakkies did an illegal shoulder charge. No, the game will not have to change as counter rucking is still legal, as long as your shoulders are not below hip height and you attempt to bind onto the ruck or wrap up the player. The IRB issued a directive to referees in 2007 to strictly enforce this ruling and clamp down on illegal shoulder charges at rucks, (as we have also seen with directive to enforce straight put ins at scrums in 2008), the directives aren’t always applied by referees (Inconsistency in refereeing )plus the fact there are 19 different offences at the breakdown to watch for. One good outcome of the Botha incident might be that the game will cut down rapidly on incidents of defenceless forwards being blindsided.it is a thoroughly dangerous and petulant act. Indeed, the sooner the game returns to proper rucking with bound forwards driving over the top of the ball, the better. If this type of charge happens in open play the refeeree gives a penalty 9 times out of 10. It makes no differnce that it happened at a breakdown. If the South Africans don't like it they should go and play American Football where you don't have to use the arms in a tackle or bind on to a player. And as for Bakkies Botha as a player, He has a colourful disciplinary record. It started in his debut for the Springboks against France, where he was handed a yellow card, and continued to such notable sentences as being suspended for eight weeks after allegedly spitting at, biting and eye-gouging Australian hooker Brendan Cannon in 2003.
The following year Botha also made the headlines for the wrong reasons as it was alleged that he committed a similar offense on All Black lock Chris Jack during a Test match for the Springboks in Christchurch.In this year he was banned for 3 weeks after he admitted striking Waratahs captain Phil Waugh with his forearm. So I really don't see what the fuss is about - A player with a bad disciplinary record gets a 2 week ban for an illegal shoulder charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 13/01/2011 13:13:40
Posts: 72,
Visits: 246
|
|
If his shoulders were below hip height in this particular 'illegal' charge then my daughter is a monkey... How does a 2m tall person hit a guy in a ruck who is on his feet with his hips below his shoulders? I think my Biomechanics supervisor mustve been |REALLY poor  ... the hit was legal, the issue here if we stick to the letter of the law (which refs at MOST levels dont!) is with the binding & IF he'd been pinned on that, I suspect ALL coaches, including the learned B & I Lions coaches would have had less to say? And if that is the case, then ALL the players we see on tv are doing it wrong 7 we're all coaching it wrong anyway because it happens ALL the time...
Rugbia floreat ubique
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 01/04/2011 11:43:39
Posts: 30,
Visits: 345
|
|
“How does a 2m tall person hit a guy in a ruck who is on his feet with his hips below his shoulders?” – Naturally your hips are always below your shoulders, so yes your Biomechanics supervisor was REALLY poor! It was a shoulder charge which is illegal, no use of the arms, watch the video again - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CM-_JlG64 Do not assume that all coaches will coach the way you do. The coaching courses I have attended always taught the use of arms and binding at the ruck. Just becuase referres don't always penalise players, it doesn't make it legal.
|
|
|
|