Thats an easy one Clevermike . Just get someone to elbow you in the throat and get back to us.
What penalty do you think they will hand out to Bismark i wonder ?
Two things:
10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick
The Oom has his facts wrong again?
You should know better Mike!
Mike, when you suspect that people think you are dof it is better to keep quiet, because if you open your mouth you will remove all doubt.
When you make a comparison, compare apples with apples else you make life difficult for yourself.
Groete.
Sorry... but am I the only one who noticed the required sanction for such "misconduct" as quoted in Ceradyne's post?
"Sanction: Penalty kick" - remind me... what was the sanction during Saturdays game again?
Yes Play Fair but he hit him in the throat! Had he hit him lower it would only have been a penalty. You obviously do not understand the difference between illegal and dangerous play!!
You mean like taking players out in the air? Few instances of that by All Blacks players during the match?
It is legal to hand someone of with your hand, but illegal and dangerous to hand someone of with your elbow.
Just like you cant kick someone or punch someone when they try to tackle you.
It looked like an accident but it is still a penalty because it is illegal, and also a yellow for being dangerous.
A referee may have considered if it was on purpose when deciding if to give a card, but a player can't complain either way as it was reckless play, or at the very least clumsy.
play fair
Status: Orange peeler
Posts: 3 RE: Etzebeth and Bismarck
September 15, 2013, 22:32:14
Sorry... but am I the only one who noticed the required sanction for such "misconduct" as quoted in Ceradyne's post?
"Sanction: Penalty kick" - remind me... what was the sanction during Saturdays game again?
If you read the law book, you will find that everything is not always black or white, and it is like that for a reason. It is because rugby, as a game, is not always black or white, and unfortunately the ref has to have and sometimes use some discretion. I have mentioned elsewhere that the lawbook only mentions a yellow card on two pages in the lawbook. There is no single sanction in the lawbook that says something about yellow card or red card. The only sanctions are penalty, free kick and scrum. The only mention of cards is basically that there is such a thing as a red or a yellow card and that, in short, a yellow card means a caution and a suspension (sin bin) and a red card is used for a send-off. It also says that a player that is sent off (red card) cannot return to play (Law 10.6) . It also mentions that a second suspension culminates in a sent-off (red card) (Law 10.5). That is why there was a penalty.
The yellow card is at the discretion of the ref for the severity of the offence. If you look at it practically, it happens like this. The ref first issues the penalty, as a sanction prescribed in the law book, and then (based on the severity) chooses to issue a further sanction in the form of a warning and temporary suspencion by showing him a yellow card, or a send-off by showing him a red card.
I thought Ceradyne's explanation was fine according to how I understand the rulebook. I thought the right call was made but I think I understand your confusion Mike.
Striking with an opponent with an elbow was what Bismarck was (quite rightly) penalised for. Etzebeth's pushes Bismarck off, if his elbow was extended before Bismarck then it would be the same.
My confusion with this law is when it comes to handoffs. Cory Jane has a fantastic fend, and I've seen him fend people in the face a few times. How is an openhanded fend to the face legal? Or maybe the question should be, when is a fend an open-handed strike?
Mike,
Although I (along with everyone else) think Poite had a complete shocker, I believe he handled this incident correctly. He went upstairs. The TMO defined it as a strike with the elbow to the neck hence was deemed dangerous. I'll admit it was soft, but not wrong. Therefore the red was in fact the correct call on this one. In context with the first yelllow, this ruined the game. But as an isolated case, the correct course of actoin was taken.
The first card. Though there was nothing wrong with the tackle itself, I did think Biz was offside making it a rather cynical tackle. Definitely not card worthy, just an offside penalty
Can someone explain how Read was carded?? I watched the game several times and still can't see why the game was even stopped.This is the most baffling case
Nonu: Late hit. no problem with the yellow
Other cases to note:
Piutau did tackle Lambie in the air
Habana did take out Dagg off the ball. In fact, Habana was not even looking at the ball, he ran right past it and directly to Dagg
Yeh fair enuf, I see what your are saying about Retallick. That was dangerous play no doubt. I was tempted to say it was reflexive but that is no excuse.
As for the Etzebeth /Bismarck vs the Bismarck/Messam clash, we will have to agree to disagree. My interpretation of striking is extending a stiff limb (LOL did I really say that?) before impact with another player. What I see in the Etzebeth /Bismarck video is Bis hitting Etzeebeth's forearm/elbow and Etzebeth pushing him off. Against Messam, Bismarck extends his elbow before contact with Messam, which again is probably reflexive but no excuse.
So both could have been yellow, both could have been warnings. NZ gets the rub of the green again.
there seems to be a unanimous agreement with bizzys first yellow, but not so the second.
IMO the second yellow was justified, he struck the throat and messam was instantly hurt, which is not surprising if anyones been hit there with enough force, they will know the feeling.
the only problem i have with the 2nd yellow card is the fact that the first yellow was complete BS, and the yellow + yellow = red was too much. it would have been justice of sorts if poite had just given the penalty, but them be the breaks.
@mikey,
when did the referee warn retllick about playing th man in the air??? i saw him warn retllick after he was penalised for grabbing lady elizabeth, but not before.
and do u really thik messam was doing a hollywood???
if u want to watch real hollywood performances, watch le roux and habana who have quite a reputation with this, especially le roux who IMO is the worst in the world, the drogba of world rugby.
u also say he hit him with his forearm, but that still constitutes an illegal hit by the definition.
and no mikey, even when the ruling on bizyy does come out, ti wont be the last we hear from it, this is SA site and the one thing saffas do better then rugby is play blame the ref on groundhog day.
the matter will finally be put to rest once the All Blacks beat the Boks at ellis park where hopefully nigel owens dosent play as much of a role as poite did.
and make no mistake, im as sure as one can be without knowing the future that the All Blacks will win in ellis park, cos poite performance has put the Boks woeful performance in a blind spot.
Ou Maaikie's problem is that he either does not understand the laws or he does not read them at all. Let me explain why I referred to the yellow card as a caution. It was because a yellow card, according to the law, is a caution. It is a caution that any further foul play will result in a sent off.
10.6 YELLOW AND RED CARDS
(a) When a player has been cautioned and temporarily suspended in an International match the referee will show that player a yellow card
As expected. Ou Maaikie does not even believe his own eyes. Please explain go me exactly how the Bismarck/Carter incident is identical to the Bismarck/Etzebeth one. You are making a complete fool of yourself again. But carry on. I enjoy my laugh a day. LOL. You have slipped up on almost every argument that you have offered on this thread and now you creep back to your normal "liar" argument without anything to support your argument.
Oh, and by the way. Just like on another thread...... show me a law that prescribe pulling down in a line-out as being a "red-card" offence.
Listen you fart. Let me suggest something. Why don't you start a new thead and include both the clips (the one from Saturday and Bismarck/Eben one). Then we aske everybody on here to give their opinion on whether the two incidents are identical. We can do the same with the Stade Francais issue. If you want to, I can bump it up to the top again, and then we can ask the rest of the poeple to judge on whose account of that clip is the most accurate. Deal. Come on. Lets see if you have the balls tio do that.
Yes, jou drol. I did, and I will acknowledge that I got that part wrong. You are totally wrong in saying that the two incidents were even similar, let alone identical. Fact is that on Saturday, Bismarck stuck out hi elbow straight to the head/face of Messam. In the case with Etzebeth, Eben had both his arms in front of him, which at first glance looked to me like he was holding the ball with both hands. He did not stick out his arm/elbow/fore-arm into Bismarck in a dangerous manner. I would say that Bismarck got knocked down like that because of the way that his head snapped sideways during the impact. Like someone else has mentioned, Eben only pushed away at Bismarck after he made contact with him. Have a look at this series of pictures. You will noticed that his arm really went out after the impact, by which time Bismarck was probably out already, judged by the way that his knees started buckling under him and the way that he was already falling backwards. Now how about that suggestion of the poll.
Ou Maaikie trying to avoid the issue again. Have you spotted the difference yet? Let me help you. Watch how Bismarck was watching him and watch how he picked up his elbow to go for his face. That in contrast to Eben's reaction when Bismarck was tackling him. Nee boet. Stop digging or else you are going to kak to get out.
You are beyond Mike...
"However, I asked a decent question and got in return the standard Ceradyne lies and the standard Mozart's personal attacks"
You've just called Moz dishonest in your comment before the last one and now you've been proven wrong you still have to attempt to have one over on him, hypocritical...
"Mozart
Speaking of dishonesty - you take the prize all the time. You first of all took Cerradynes lie fully. .
"You really are a piece of work aren't you? You start fo by insinuating that there is nothing to choose between the two incidents. You have a video clip at your disposal and I have made the picture strips for you, yet you keep on attacking me and call me a liar and then you have the nerve of bitching about personal attacks.
The essence is that there was no danger in Etzebeth's actions and he did not strike Bismarck with his elbow and he did not strike him in the face. Bismarck put his head in such a way that there was no way that he was not going to avoid taking a knock. There was no malice on Etzebeth's side. In the incident on Saturday, there can be no other conclusion that there was intent on Bismarck's side, and this is what really disappointed me. He knew that he was already on one yellow card and he should have been extra careful. It is common sence. What is even more embarrassing is the you brought the Etzebeth incident into the discussion and your assumptions were plain bullhit. To top it all, you are probably pissed off with all the Kiwis on here making a mockery of the situation, as it is, and nobody can blame them for gloating about the situation.
Fact is that no matter what happened eralier in the game or what happened in whatever other game you want to bring into the discussion, those actions of Bismarck on Messam was dealt with correctly, and he can be lucky, IMO, that he got off the hook due to Poite's balls up. John Smit got cited and received a 6 or 8 match ban for doing exactly the same thing. In view of that, the red card and the subsequent resindment thereof could well have been a blessing in disguise. He could have ended being cited and receiving a lengthy ban. It is not a case of "suddenly not being allowed to 'fend off' a player". It was dangerous and illegal back in 2005 and still is today, eight years later. Think about it.
John Smit's ban:
www.theguardian.com/sport/2005/nov/28/rugbyunion.sport7
www.news24.com/xArchive/Sport/Rugby/John-Smit-gets-six-week-ban-20051129
Mike, this is a better comparison, apples with apples - same people in the picture just the other way around. And what happened? Bismark got no oscar because he did not act well enough..
Oviously taught by the best in the business https://twitter.com/NelioDeSa/status/379594267666448384/photo/1
So what is the difference Mr Kiwi?
@mikey,
"Before the line out throw in Poite did speak to the All Black forwards about the line out issue. Was not the first time there was a line out problem and he definitely issued a warning to the forwards not to transgress. Retallick did - and the end result was a penalty."
i ahve watched the game 4 times already and the first 8mins which leads to retallick getting penalised for the tackle in the air and i can assure u that u got it worng, not once does poite ever raise the issue with anybody, let alone the All blacks and retallick.
the only time poite evens mentions it is when retallick garbs lady elizabeth in the air, that is the only time.
i think u got ur wires crossed a bit and are maybe thinking of another incident, but if u watch it again and can show me when with the time the incident took place in the game, i will gladly take another look.
Forget it Sasuke. No matter what evidence you provide, you can be expected to be call a liar. Don't think that there is any chance of ou Maaikie providing any proof of his claim either.
