FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  breaking down hikas and bizzys red cards...

breaking down hikas and bizzys red cards...

Started by Monkey D Luffy13 REPLIES341 VIEWS· 22 Mar 2015, 12:08
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MD
Monkey D LuffyPro6,277 posts
22 Mar 2015, 12:08
#1
22 Mar 2015, 12:08#1
the only thing more shocking than the number of red cards in the sharks v chiefs game, were some of the comments regarding the severity of those red cards.
according to the one eyed saffa commentators, hika elliots red card and bizzys red card were pretty much the same, WTF??? o_O

heres my two rand on hika elliot and bizzys red cards in the game...

hika elliot
imo hika got exactly what he deserved, a shoulder charge to the back of beasts head could have had some serious ramifications for the popular zimbabwean born sharks player.

but hikas actions was just very reckless and not malicious. he was trying to clear out the ruck which just formed from the collapsed rolling maul, and while he had a ton of aggress ion, he had no skill and even less brains with the manner in which he went about it.

red card was warranted, and i got no probs if he gets banned for a few games, cos a shoulder charge into the back of a head is just unacceptable.

bizzy
i was at a loss for words when i saw this incident on the replay, what a disgusting act from bizzy, and im shocked at how it all went down.

bizzy clears a ball from a messy ruck and gets tackled as a result, his response, kick the chiefs no8 in the face, WTF??? o_O
it takes a special level dumbf**kery to respond in that manner, i mean seriously, in this day and age why is it not just automatically known that u just shouldnt do that???

bakkies is prob the dumbest player ive ever seen in my life, his level of dumbness is why theres not a single kiwi i know who would rate him in top 100 locks, theres no point in having a player who is phenomenal physical player, but has poos for brains.
bismarck is now the official 2nd dumbest player ive ever seen, and i cant believe hes the sharks captain.
when this spXV season ends and the sharks finish without another trophy again, it will be because of all the negative things which piled up to have a detrimental effect, like making brain dead bizzy a freaking captain.
way to lead by example numb nuts, lolz,
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Mar 2015, 14:07
#2
22 Mar 2015, 14:07#2
 Sasue
I agree with you 100% - but want to add that there are two other factors complicating the issues.  After Elliot hit Beast's head he did another disgusting thing - he kneed Reinach in the back while the latter was on the turf in the maul.   That could also cause a dangerous injury on its own - so at least three weeks ban is appropriate.
In the case of Bismarck - no excuse, but he will have one and that may count in his favour.    New Zealand players have a habit to hang onto players after a tackle and the ball is gone already - thus avoiding  a player from  going on to play further.  Leitch was hanging onto Bismarck after the ball was gone - and that irritates the hell out of players.  I say again - no excuse - but there was mitigating circumstances and that may count in Bismarck's favour.     
MO
moolaaPro2,380 posts
22 Mar 2015, 20:38
#3
22 Mar 2015, 20:38#3
 Mike, mitigating cirremovedstances my removed! The Chiefs player was holding on to Retardmarck's legs but it was only momentarily and as soon as Brainlessmarck started wriggling he let go,  so don't bring the mitigating factor in on this one!!
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Mar 2015, 20:51
#4
22 Mar 2015, 20:51#4
 Moola 
Why after the ball was gone - did he not let go of Bismarck immediately?   He hang on for a few seconds longer to stop Bismarck from joining the maul on the Chiefs tryline.  That is factual and unfortunately a tendency in NZ rugby often used by players when their team is under pressure. 
However, that is no excuse for Bismarck kicking out at the player - and I agree his four week ban is justified.
i can remember a similar incident in a game between a New Zealand team and the Stormers where the NZ team was attacking near the tryline and a player hung onto Burger and the latter had to hit the NZ player on the arms repeatedly to let him go. 
The TV review caused a penalty to be given to the Stormers and it afterwards transpired that some NZ coaches in fact instructed players to do just that - which I think is unethical. 
The Burger saga was one case - there are others as well.         
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
22 Mar 2015, 21:10
#5
22 Mar 2015, 21:10#5
 CleverMike: I believe SA teams do the same but will check the tapes to confirm. 
Players like Peterson also do a lot of  small things to impede opposition players. Just watch him play and you will see one example of what I mean. I am not saying this is ok but I am saying that all teams do this.
MO
moolaaPro2,380 posts
23 Mar 2015, 02:54
#6
23 Mar 2015, 02:54#6
 Mike, did you notice Vermeulen hanging on to Tameifuna in more than one ruck situation just over a week ago??
MD
Monkey D LuffyPro6,277 posts
23 Mar 2015, 07:47
#7
23 Mar 2015, 07:47#7
leitch wasnt holding on to that dirty thug bizzy, he simply made a tackle on him and released him within two seconds, and bizzys response was simply insane.

because of all the spotlight on the holding scenario around the breakdowns last year, south africans are using this as an excuse for why bizzy kicked another player in the face.
the simple truth is, no one in their right mind would say that making a tackle and getting up within 2 seconds constitutes holding a player.

too many locals are trying to justify bismarcks disgusting pig actions imo.
its shameful that people try to justify it, cos even if leicth was holding down pigmarck. theres no excuse for deliberately kicking someone in the face.  
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
23 Mar 2015, 08:07
#8
23 Mar 2015, 08:07#8
 The kick to the head too place at the 17.18 point on the clock. I agree Sasuke San bismark was released instantly by the tackler. A definite foul and Bismarck was not held. Shameful.
CL
ClaydogClub Pro691 posts
23 Mar 2015, 08:24
#9
23 Mar 2015, 08:24#9
 I agree, was just tackled and released. Should have been sent off just for being so dumb let alone for the offense.
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
23 Mar 2015, 08:31
#10
23 Mar 2015, 08:31#10
 Bismarck banned for four weeks; Planet Rugby

The Sharks have suffered a major blow after their captain Bismarck du Plessis was suspended for four weeks for kicking a player.

The SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Adam Casselden accepted a guilty plea from du Plessis of the Sharks for contravening Law 10.4 (c) A player must not kick an opponent, after he was sent off following a Super Rugby match at the weekend.

Du Plessis has been suspended from all forms of the game for four weeks up to and including 18 April 2015.

The incident occurred in the 18th minute of the match between the Sharks and Chiefs.

In his finding, Casselden ruled the following: 

“The player’s kick was pre-meditated, intentional and unprovoked. It was reckless, that is the player knew (or should have known) there was a risk of committing an act of foul play. In my opinion the offence was a grave one and the possibility of serious injury existed.

"The Chiefs' number eight (Michael Leitch) was in a vulnerable position on the ground. He did not see the kick, even if he had, he had limited means available to him, given the position of his arms and body, to protect himself from the player’s actions.

"Whilst the player claims he was frustrated by Chiefs number eight not releasing him from the tackle earlier that does not, in my opinion, entitle him to retaliate by kicking his opponent in the area of the head with a studded boot. The head is of course sacrosanct.

"Mr. Swart, the Player’s representative, submitted that the offence was in the lower end of seriousness, particularly given no injury was sustained by Chiefs' number eight. I was unable to accede to that submission. Whilst it was fortunate that the player did not sustain an injury, he was nonetheless placed in a vulnerable position and the risk of him sustaining an injury to his head including in and around the eye area was clearly present. Accordingly, I found that the offence should be categorised as a mid-range offence and that the entry point of an eight-week suspension was the relevant starting point.

"I was informed that the player was suspended for three weeks in 2008 for dangerous contact to the head area of an opponent. Apart from that indiscretion, the player has not been found guilty of any foul play.

"In 2012 he received two yellow cards (a red card offence) in the one Test match against New Zealand which resulted in him being ordered off the playing enclosure. At the subsequent judicial hearing there was a finding by the judicial officer that the referee’s decision to issue one of the yellow cards was wrong. As a result, the red card issued in that Test match was expunged from his record.

"Although the player was suspended seven years ago for dangerous contact to the head of an opponent that does not, in my opinion, categorise the player as a repeat offender of the game to warrant any uplift on the entry point as an aggravating factor.

"Since 2008 it seems he has been a model player and in my opinion, no other aggravating factors existed for consideration other than those which were taken into account in determining the appropriate entry point.

"The player has played professional rugby for approximately 12 years. He has played 77 Test matches for South Africa, 125 Super Rugby matches and in the order of 47 Currie Cup matches. Apart from a three week suspension in 2008 the player’s disciplinary record is unblemished. This is his first red card offence in a lengthy first class playing career.

"I accepted that the player’s remorse and contrition for his offending was genuine and his acceptance that he committed an act of foul play at the earliest opportunity.

"Having regard to the above mitigating factors and the overall culpability of the player’s offending, I was satisfied that the eight week entry point should be reduced to four weeks. Accordingly, I offered the player a four week suspension as a preliminary indication of penalty in accordance with the DJO process, which was accepted."

"The player is suspended from all forms of rugby up to and including Saturday 18 April 2015."

Chiefs hooker Hika Elliot, also sent off on Saturday, was suspended for one week for a dangerous charge. 

Francois Steyn's hearing will be held on Monday, with Liam Messam's then taking place on Tuesday.


The article includes this text:

"Whilst the player claims he was frustrated by Chiefs number eight not releasing him from the tackle earlier that does not, in my opinion, entitle him to retaliate by kicking his opponent in the area of the head with a studded boot. The head is of course sacrosanct.

This is complete BS as Bismarck was released in the tackle. The judiciary should have stated that this was uprovoked.

sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,285 posts
23 Mar 2015, 08:38
#11
23 Mar 2015, 08:38#11
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,285 posts
23 Mar 2015, 08:44
#12
23 Mar 2015, 08:44#12
 It is marginal, Looks like he was still holding Bismaark or just in the process of letting go.  When Bismaark was being held he had allready decided what he was going to do. 

The still photo shows his hand is holding Bismaark- as he is getting kicked. 
It seems all New Zealand posters instantly said that their player was not being held .

sasuke uchiha
 
Status: Rugby Legend 
Posts: 5904RE: breaking down hikas and bizzys red cards...
March 23, 2015, 07:47:49leitch wasnt holding on to that dirty thug bizzy, he simply made a tackle on him and released him within two seconds, and bizzys response was simply insane.

because of all the spotlight on the holding scenario around the breakdowns last year, south africans are using this as an excuse for why bizzy kicked another player in the face.
the simple truth is, no one in their right mind would say that making a tackle and getting up within 2 seconds constitutes holding a player.

too many locals are trying to justify bismarcks disgusting pig actions imo.
its shameful that people try to justify it, cos even if leicth was holding down pigmarck. theres no excuse for deliberately kicking someone in the face.  
BL
bluebokPro3,977 posts
23 Mar 2015, 08:44
#13
23 Mar 2015, 08:44#13
There you go Sharkbok: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsHpBeeI_rY
Just watched the incident a few times. He really did not hold on long at all! Bismarck was just being the dirty liability that he is. Disgraceful!!!
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,285 posts
23 Mar 2015, 08:45
#14
23 Mar 2015, 08:45#14
 Bluebok, I just searched on YouTube as I posted and found it!
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news