South African boss blasts Sanzar judiciary

[Flamethrower]

South African boss blasts Sanzar judiciary
By MARC HINTON - RugbyHeaven | Tuesday, 15 July 2008

Top South African rugby officials are fuming at the three-week suspension handed out to Boks hooker Bismarck du Plessis after the weekend's famous 30-28 Tri-Nations upset over the All Blacks in Dunedin.

The South Africans have long held a deep-seated suspicion that the Sanzar judiciary system that presides over the Super 14 and Tri-Nations competitions is a flawed one and produces too many inconsistent decisions, more often than not weighted against players from the republic.

And the latest citings, and subsequent suspensions, have served to infuriate them even further over the perceived injustices.

After the opening Tri-Nations test in Wellington All Black lock Brad Thorn was suspended for one match after dumping Springbok hooker and captain John Smit on his back in a deliberate off-the-ball action. Smit was subsequently ruled out for the competition after injuring his groin in the incident.

A week later new Boks hooker du Plessis was picked up for careless, though not deliberate, contact around the eye area of All Blacks flanker Adam Thomson and suspended for three weeks (though also one match).

Full Bok bitchin story: South African boss blasts Sanzar judiciary - New Zealand's source for sport, rugby, cricket & league news on Stuff.co.nz

[jargan83]

weighted against players from the Republic?? How about they clean their game up?? Not our fault that through advancements in TV coverage they get caught now
Posted via Mobile Device

[BLR]

The Saffa administrators are as dirty as their players.

[jargan83]

and their Coach is a puppet
Posted via Mobile Device

[Moses]

Smit DIDN'T injure his groin in Thorn's tackle

IMO; it [the injury] happens at the 35:40 mark when he is caught up on one leg driving against Williams. He goes up high on his right leg and the inertia rotates him outward, ouch I can feel my own, there is a slightly audilble yell and after tumbling down on the right side of the breakdown, he is very slow to get up and when he does, he is limping. During the ruck, you can see him struggling to get his left leg back on the ground.

Prior to that, I tracked him from the 29:50 mark and he is fine. From this point: he drove hard into 3 breakdowns, ran back 30 meters after AB grubber, no limp, and seconds later a strong, low driving tackle on Thompson at 30:26, Not the kind a person with a severe groin pull makes, all this while continuing to scrummage and generally get aroung the field. The same tackle that Nesbitt so strongly credited Burger with but it was Smit that drove him back. To me it is clear, and clearly unsportsmanlike to falsely accuse Thorn.

Thorn's one week suspension was appropriate. I believe he should have got a yellow card and no citing, but the one week is about right as he wasn't penalised.

DuPlessis attempted eye-gouge was pretty ordinary, a 1 game suspension is pretty light really.

YouTube - Adam Thompson gouged by Bismarck du Plessis

and what happened to Chiliboy Ralepelle? The guy's captained his country and he doesn't make 4th hooker?

[jargan83]

thats what gets me, the intent was there. He should have copped more then 3 weeks

The only good thing in SA Rugby is the Cheerleaders
Posted via Mobile Device

[Moses]

Don't have to do much to get smote around here these days, Pieter why enlighten us as to which part of my post you disagree with? or is it just frustration of not being able to get up on Saturday?

[BLR]

Don't have to do much to get smote around here these days, Pieter why enlighten us as to which part of my post you disagree with? or is it just frustration of not being able to get up on Saturday?

Saffas are a spiteful bunch.

[pruc]

the punishment shouldnt be done on the injury to the player
but the intent of the player
if someone does a hig tackle
accidental and the other player isout for a few weeks
his punish showed not reflect the injured player
more the intent in the tackle

[Moses]

indeed, though my point was that Smit wasn't injured in that tackle - he played on a further 30 minutes without needing surgery. Now he bitches and moans that a 1 week penalty isn't enough. I blame Thorn though, should have just punched him.

[jargan83]

broken jaw = no whinging

Not that i am an advocate of violence on sporting fields
Posted via Mobile Device

[lara93]

thorn should have got a longer suspension

[jargan83]

and yet in another thread you were arguing that the saffer with the eye gouge, who was found guilty of eye gouging, should have been let off??

Bok sighted for gouging - Western Force Rugby Supporters Site
Posted via Mobile Device

[Moses]

I thought both punishments of one week were about right. Thorn should have been yellow carded at the time and that could have been it, but as the ref let it go, the 1 week was right. Smit incited the act by rubbing his head into the ground, Thorn picked him up and dropped him on his back.

There's no place for that after the whistle blows, but had Smit simply king hit him, what would the feeling be then? Should there be a difference cause he tried some wrestling move?

[greenandgoldrugby]

Didn't want to start a whole whiney-bitch thread on this, but what about Botha's hit on Mortlock? Shoulder, at pace to the face of a player lying prone no-where near the ball (it was by then at the back of the Aussie ruck) and concusses him.

Botha knew what he was doing, you can see him checking out his handiwork as he ran off. On top of that, he actually did the same thing about 2 rucks earlier.

What does that get?