Disciplinary charge against Cane Dismissed

The following from News 24:-
" A SANZAAR Judicial Hearing has found Chiefs skipper Sam Can not guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous Tackling, after he was cited during a Super Rugby match at the weekend.

No further sanction has been imposed on the player.

Cane was alleged to have contravened Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous Tackling, when he made contact with the Jaguares prop Nahuel Chaparro at a tackle contest during the match between the Jaguares and Chiefs at Velez Sarsfield in Buenos Aires on Saturday.

The Judicial Committee of Michael Heron QC and David Croft held the hearing by video conference on Tuesday morning. 

In their finding, the Judicial committee ruled the following: 

"The judicial committee tonight has considered the citing of Sam Cane for dangerous tackling contrary to Law 10.4(e).  The committee determined that it was not satisfied the citing was made out.
 
"A full decision will be issued in due course. In summary, the Committee found that the incident was an unfortunate combination of Mr Cane joining to create a maul in a permissible manner at the same time as Mr Chaparro fell rapidly to the ground.

"The contact between the shoulder of Mr Cane and the head of Mr Chaparro was unintentional and not able to be foreseen for that reason. 

"The Committee considered that what occurred could not be described as a tackle because Mr Chaparro was not the ball carrier.

"The Committee considered whether the contact between Mr Cane and Mr Chaparro could constitute foul play other than that described in the citing.  It was not satisfied that any other ground of foul play fairly described what occurred here.
 
"For those reasons, the citing was dismissed."

Who is this Michael Heron (QC) and David Croft?   This seems to be an abuse of the situation.  It is not what happened at the issue.   Cane was not carrying the ball and there was no tackle made on him.  He was shoulder-charging the Jaguares player and afterwards used his arm and elbow to pin him down with his arms on the neck of the player.  This makes a serious joke of application of laws and what we see here is a serious abuse of the system.     

 Reminds of Messam's headlock agains the Sharks last year.

 mike, mike, mike,..... what are you talking about?

"the incident was an unfortunate combination of Mr Cane joining to create a maul in a permissible manner at the same time as Mr Chaparro fell rapidly to the ground.

"The contact between the shoulder of Mr Cane and the head of Mr Chaparro was unintentional and not able to be foreseen for that reason."

this is exa ctly what happened,...... you can watch it here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/78176180/chiefs-flanker-sam-cane-found-not-guilty-of-dangerous-tackle-against-jaguares

ABF
Sorry to disagree with you in this case.
This was a way of whitewashing an incident - sad to say.   You do not enter a maul with a shoulder-charge and then to have your arm pressing down at the throat of a player flat on his back is absolute crap.
I do not believe this is in the interest of protection of players from injury - but it seems to be a decision made by NZ officials in the interest of NZ rugby players.
In any event Cane was coming from the side and not from the back to enter the maul and he went for the player with his shoulder and ended up with his arm pressing on the neck of the Jaguares player.     

 it wasn't a shoulder charge,...... he went with his arm,.... and, precisely, because he went with his arm he has to put it somewhere,...... and he put it over Chaparro's chest (not his throat)

watch the footage


@DbD,
this has nothing to do with Messam's "headlock",..... apart from being both players from the same team

 I saw exactly what happened - Cane came from the side of the maul  and his arms did not knock out the player - his should did - And he was definitely pressed down on the neck of the player not the chest.  Arms cannot giver anybody a knock-out injury unless it is a stiff-arm tackle. 
 

 

 He came from the side of the maul and what hit the player was his shoulder not his arms.  Sorry - but that remains my opinion on the issue.  Even the video clip never showed where his arms were in the process - it showed clearly the hit by his shoulder.     He also ended up with his forearm on the throat of the player - shown many times in slow motion during the game.  

 "what hit the player was his shoulder not his arms,.... it showed clearly the hit by his shoulder"

really? WTF are you argueing about ?
since when a player cannot hit with his shoulder?

 Under the new law players can enter the ruck from the side, there is no longer this "must enter through the gate" law.

 Difficulty to really make a case either way from that angles, but it was a bit dangerous. Not necessarily intentional, but it should have been obvious that the player was going down. Split second stuff, but he did not enter safely. Bans have been handed out for less. It's a contact sport afterall.

Watching it again - I reckon they got it right. Initially I thought he should have been suspended .
1. It was a tackle situation - no maul was called because in real time he was held up for only a split second and it hadn't gone to ground so it wasn't a ruck therefore no illegal entry.
2. Cane clearly had his arm out the whole time. Of course the shoulder contacts first because that is how a proper tackle is made. To shoulder charge, the arms must never be involved and that isn't the case here
3. In the aftermath on the ground, there is no intent on Cane's part to put his arm on the players throat (does it even get there?) or to hold him down.
4. The whole situation was fluid and moving. If it had been a set maul or stationary ruck which Cane targeted, maybe it goes the other way but it wasn't

 There you are Mikey ,Oimatey has shot you down with the twin guns of logic and dispassionate reasoning .

 the only thing Cane did wrong was not taking the mouth guard out of the unconscious players mouth and rolling him into the safety position.

 He could have rung ahead to the hospital and also a florist .Plus a complimentary muffin basket and some grapes .Organize for the front row to give him a sponge bath that should make him want to be up and about ASAP !Nah kidding hope the wee chap is OK .

oimatey
In a tackle situation the first things making contact are the arms - not the shoulder.  If your interpretation is correct - there never ever will be a shoulder charge in rugby - since most players bring their arms into contact later on.   It really is crap to say it is the shoulder that first make contact.   Also - the scene was repeatedly showed on TV and the neck issue was absolutely clear.
Why was Cane charged in the first instance - the disciplinary officer saw what really happened - but it now seems that some people think they saw something different from what he saw.
This was a whitewash of a situation and there is really nothing else to be said.    

 Mike, wee cane is the new mcaaaw to the kbbs. As such he may not be penalised or have any sentence against him. The endless bias in favour of blowhard nz rugby players has become legendary.
Ask yourself one simple question. What would have been the outcome if wee cane had been a saffa?  I rest my case.

Welcome back Hakwa, I am sure beeno is benefiting from your presences, he was confused but now has "rested his case" so all is well now. Overwhelming evidence of innocence is sometimes not enough for him.

 Thanks Wardad
JW evidence is not one of Beenos strong points but he is strong on the rhetoric

 mike, you are talking crap,...... and you know it,........ don't place yourself at Mr. Been's level,....... it's the lowest

this is an example of a big shoulder hit (or tackle with the shoulder) that was reclaimed legal by all the saffas (correctly)



Bismark hit Carter with his shoulder (not with his arm) but that wasn't a shoulder charge because Bismark was going with his arm. Or are you going to say that it was a shoulder charge (hence deserving at least a yellow if not a red)?

According to the rules:

Law 10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

nothing about hitting with the arm first,....... nothing,..... this "trying to grasp" always has been interpreted as going (no hitting) with the arm first which is what du Plessis and Cane did.

Beeno, since we are talking bent refs how about reviewing the role of Peyper in the latest Stormers vs Brumbies game

"Admittedly it was back in 2012 when Peyper was an inexperienced Super Rugby referee but his handling of the Bulls-Crusaders pool round match at Pretoria had Todd Blackadder fuming. With the Crusaders in rampant form and running away with the game, Peyper allowed the Bulls to allege, on no evidence, that two of their players had been eye-gouged.

Penalties flowed strongly to the Bulls after the allegations. Morne Steyn kicked eight out of ten penalty attempts and the Bulls won a match they should never have come close in 32-30. Incidentally, towards the end of the match, Peyper ruled a shepherding decision against the Crusaders disallowing a try, on the advice of the assistant referee.

When Keiran Read pointed out to Peyper and the assistant referee that teammates are allowed to run alongside the ball-runner, as long as they don’t block in front of them, he was told to go away.

Given this sort of history, it is hard to see how Peyper fits the three key criteria to referee the Crusaders in South Africa.

Johan Greeff, too, was involved as a TMO (with referee Stuart Berry) in a bizarre decision a couple of years ago when the Lions were awarded a try against the visiting Blues after a blatant knock-on that went metres forward.

That decision so bewildered Blues coach Sir John Kirwan that he contacted SANZAAR’s boss of referees Lyndon Bray.

As a consequence of a number of other bewildering decisions, including decisions affecting the Reds in their loss to the Sharks, Bray announced a crackdown on match officials"

 This is stupid. Bissie and Bakkies were sanctioned for less.

  Bismarck 'cleared' by
SANZAR Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:24

SANZAR judicial officer Terry Willis has removed a red card from the disciplinary record of Bismarck du Plessis.

It comes in the wake of the International Rugby Board announcement that French referee Romain Poite was "wrong" to issue the first yellow card to Du Plessis during a crunch Rugby Championship match between South Africa and New Zealand at the weekend.

(...)

 I see that Bissie ahs bee cleared - whata disgrace that incident and underlines how the abs are getting away with murder via bent refs.
A Sa ref can have a bad day. I have also noted Craig Joubert handing the RWC on a platter to nz and then crooking Scotland out of a in against the wobblies. I fear C raig is in the pocket of the bent down under Oz and nz. But what is for sure thee is no system matic get the kiwis agenda. BIG BIG difference.Its all a disgrace oaks and rugby needs a clean out.

Beeno, poor wee Bizzie was cleared shortly after the incident. Of course he was so stupid that even though he had a yellow (unfairly but still given) he continued to push the boundaries & got a second yellow (so automatic red). 
Blaming the refs for the sorry state SA rugby is in is very limited thinking Beeno. Plus, would you please tell SA players if they don't follow the laws of rugby they may be penalized?

 Blaming crooked refs is the way to go JW. It will only st op when the reffing is done properly.So no whining about it JW it only makes the kbbs look more foolish! 

 Beeno, kiwis prefer winning over whining I suggest you try it as it feels better