Deysel Twin 1's cleanout on George Smith

That's not even an attempted cleanout. It's just diving onto a player's neck. Horrible disregard for a fellow player's safety.

This is another classic case of an attack in the youngsters,  Poor George Smith is under the age maniacs defensive screen .

There were no penalty given - there was no penalty given - there was no disciplinary issues raised after the match,  I read the article and looked at the incident and has seen that kind of thing  hundreds of times in matches and I have seen why in some cases penalties are given and carding is affected  - namely shoulder charges against the heads of players.   Was that the caser here,

So sure neck injuries are seriously problematic and need to be dealt with harshly.   Let me think about a specific incident where that was the case - O yes, Matfield's  neck wrench on an AB player in the WC semi which resulted in a penalty-turnaround and in whcich Mozart and co proested that it should not have been turned around.   

What a  farce you two make of this site.         

Come now Oom Mike, that was stupid dangerous play by Du Preez, but you are right, lots of players escape sanction for similar offences ...doesn't make it right though.

Mike, you need to decide which side of the safer rugby debate you are on. You can't passionately advocate lower tackles one moment and then defend a player diving onto the neck of another the next.

No- I am firmly on the side of safer play, and does not necessarily support the type of thing Du Preez did.   However the fact is the level of danger to players are clearly defined and my problem in this case it was not as dangerous as propagated in the media eagerly caught on by Mozart as another standard attack on Du Preez,   

I looked at the clip a number of times and saw no direct hit on the neck or head of George Smith  that would justify action being taken and there was no action taken, .      

I looked at the clip a number of times and saw no direct hit on the neck or head of George Smith

Then you are blind. Go read through the 300+ comments on Twitter if you think this is some sort of vendetta against younger players.

I do not care what is written on Twitter at all and use my own eyes.   One must assume that  is the case with the referee, the line judges, the TV monitor and the citing commissioner as well, or do you consider them as blind as well?

All of them missed what happened - but a media writer and twitter members think otherwise,   I would rather believe the officials than the twittering crowd. 

Try again!!!!!! .     

Pakie, the clip in the link is not all that clear, but logic dictates that a hit like that would be dangerous to a player with his upper body in close proximity. It looks bad in super slomo, but might look different from the player's perspective ...looks like a brainfart by Du Preez to me...and the jab from Moz didn't go unnoticed either.

Mozart

How come you and your normal supporters can see what have happened and the referee, the line judges, the TV monitor and the citing commissioner did not consider what happened  as serious enough to warrant any punishment in this case?

IF  is the cliché here - Smith was not injured at all - so the IF is a flight of your imagination and anther funny attempt and rather futile attempt to get at Du Preez.      

Not in my land at all - in the case of the rugby land worldwide.   Sorry Mozart - this is a story created by you beyond the limits to what in fact actually happened, 

Pakie

If there WERE what you claim was there then the citing commissioner would have taken action in this case - but this look very much like your imagination running wild again.  But then the video clip was very vague and the citing commissioner would have a much clearer clip to deal with, 

So all I can say you got caught out again - and I do rather believe the officials involved than in this case yo ur musings.  

What makes you think a citing commissioner was involved, Mike? Do you have additional information on this? As far as I can see it was something that was picked up by the Fiji Sevens coach and shared on Twitter. The available information doesn't mention any citing or review process.

With the rules as they stand, this type of hit will continue to be made.

It's easily one of the most dangerous situations possible on the field.

One struggles to think of anything else more consistently dangerous.

What type of rule change might negate it?

Maybe something like both hands/arms need to be used in attempting to shift the opposing player.

How would that lay out in practice. No idea :/

The majority of the present rules were drawn up in the time prior to creatine, testosterone boosters, high protein diets and teams composed of bodybuilders. 

The sheer power present on the field these days should logically see some rule changes looked at.

What type of rule change might negate it?

Pakie

The citing commissioner as part of his duties studies all incidents in matches and then decide whether action  should be taken.   It I totally impossible to imagine that he would miss out on an incident like you described.   

I do not have to have inside information - but I do know that citing commissioners in the past have taken measures  in the case of incidents not even penalized and players have even got banning for what they have done wrong.   There do not even need to be penalties awarded or cards issue for that official to act.

The report did not mention anything of the sort - do you religiously believe what is in newspapers?   I only think that Ceradunce is a fool who does - but if you are happy to join him you are of course welcome to go that way.   

It is not necessary to create new rules - plenty players have been penalized, carded and subsequently banned for exactly  and the same will happen future for exactly that type of irregularity- so why should there be a rule change.   Because of that the referees are fully aware that they must be on the look-out for such incidents.

This sound to me a typical newspaper story to force action being taken against Du Preez and none was taken.  So why did the story makes headline news on site?

He went off his feet...that's a penalty, but for some reason players often get a pass from the reff for this offence. It was not a tackle, so he doesn't have to use his arms, but it is still dangerous and reckless play and should not be allowed . The problem is that this is a subjective test and therefore open to interpretation by the officials. The rules/laws should be tweaked to make them more definite...either a yes or a no, with much less room for interpretation. 

Mozart

And by everybody else involved in the match - all rugby officials 0 but the picked up by a newspaper report and used by you to get at Du Preez.   Kind of a sick idea - but then noting else can be expected who saw what happened from a very vague clip and then carry on embroidering on what he thinks did happen - but did what he wrote actually happen?   Evidence is it did not- otherwise Du Preez would get a long ban. .        

Extracts from Law nine of the laws of rugby (Foul Play):

DANGEROUS PLAY:

11. Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.

A routine tackle could be deemed as dangerous because players get injured when getting tackled. For example, the tackle of Bismaark on Dan Carter. This was a legal tackle, but is was also clearly dangerous because Carter was injured? It is a contact sport like Boxing- people are going to be injured with routine tackles.

---

20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul. a. A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul. b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders. c. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.

His arms were open when he made the tackle, so I think this could be considered binding. It was not a shoulder charge. 

-

Above the shoulders was again debatable. I would have to see it in slow motion in a few angles to be sure. 

The law could be more explicit and say that if a players head is below his own waist when competing for the ball- then tackling him is illegal. 

If someone is so low like that, the only way make a tackle is to dive low parallel to the ground. 

Mozart

I do not agree with dangerous play - but it cannot be based n a newspaper report and a very vague clip and deductions made by a member on site,   There is no real evidence that what Du Preez did was as dangerous as Pakie implies above. 

He advocates bringing in a new rule to prevent dangerous play - bit the rule is very clear and what actually happened is that NO action was taken in this case and there is enough evidence that what you and others wrote are not backed up by the match officials.      

The law could be more explicit and say that if a players head is below his own waist when competing for the ball- then tackling him is illegal.

SB, funny enough I found a law in the SA Rugby lawbook of 2018 (page 38) that says the following:

3. Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower
than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick

Mozart

Are you not seeing things from a very vague video clip or are you not imaging things like Pakie? 

Or is it because you think it is an incredibly inept, incredibly clueless act that could have severely injured a rugby legend?    That while the officials and especially the citing commissioner did not see what you and Pakie believe you two saw.

No Mozart the issue is not the "rugby legend" angle - if it was irregular conduct would it not be the case against any player?    

Finally there was no injury, no penalty, no carding, no disciplinary action against Du Preez - so why all the scribblings on the issue?   Looking at the heading of the thread the wholes tory is n attack on DDu Preez as a player - so why not admit that being the case?    

That while the officials and especially the citing commissioner did not see what you and Pakie believe you two saw. [..] Finally there was no injury, no penalty, no carding, no disciplinary action against Du Preez - so why all the scribblings on the issue? 

You can appeal to authority all you want - it doesn't negate the available evidence.

Read this article about the neck injuries David Pocock suffered after a game against the All Blacks. He was on the receiving end of at least one shoulder charge cleanout to his neck area and two neck rolls in that game - visual evidence provided.

The All Blacks actions against Pocock in that game sidelined him for more than two weeks with neck injuries. The sum total of the action taken by officials both on and off the field? One penalty.

So if you think that officials taking no action somehow proves that nothing dangerous happened, think again.

Of course, it's all a conspiracy started by the Fiji coach against JL du Preez

Yes it did happen that Du Preez tried to clear Smith out of the rug - very obvious.  the issues that followed was the BS that smells more like a conspiracy.   Starting of with Mozart using a newspaper report and starting a thread being an all-out attack on Du Preez strongly supported by his normal minions.

All the evidence of the video was very unclear and are so embellished that it is unbelievable.  The fools think that the referee, the line-judges, the TV monitor and the citing commissioner are all too blind to see what they saw.   

What a farce.  LMAO     .   -

Yes Deadhead - There was an attempted clear out of Smith - but according to the referee, etc it was a perfectly legal attempt.  What you lots of duds made out of the situation is totally farcical.  How do you lot manage to be so totally rugby ignorant as you are?.