The three horribles....much ado about something, but not very much.

 After his yellow card in the match against the stormers Steyn - after making two very questionable plays involving Kolbe - was indeed extremely lucky in this case.
However, I think that what bothers me most is Steyn's sub-par performances in all three games he played in.   His ball carries are virtually non-existent.  His tackling is poor - a missed tackle ratio of 26 is not acceptable in any form of rugby.  His tendency to lose possession (4 in 3 games) and give away penalties (6 in 3 games) are totally unacceptable.   Whether he was found guilty or not was meaningless - he was given a red card and was off the field for 53 minutes during the chiefs game and for the yellow card against the Stormers - he was off for 7 minutes.   Just not good enough for a player punted by some for international selection.
Incidentally - whatever the reason was - there can be absolutely no justification for kicking a player in a game of rugby.  That is thuggish behaviour.
  
 

 
A kick in the face ... provoked??

Your kidding!!

It may have deserved a reaction, but not that one.

 Kicking a player in the face is not on. 
Coles did this in a game recently & even though that was with more provocation that is still not acceptable. These two guys and others like them have to realize that players will now provoke them hoping they will lash out & get a card. 
In the RWC there will be no mercy. Grow up, show some maturity or it will end up hurting your team.

 Sorry, Moz. I don't agree. Let me first say that I have not seen the game yet, so anybody is free to crucify me for having an opinion about an incident that I haven't seen
In hindsight, and according to the findings by the hearing, the Frans Steyn one is one of those things that happen in rugby. It looks serious and malicious, at the time, but when the dust has settled and everyone has had a close look at the chain of events, they realise that there was nothing much in it. To argue that "he could have been seriously injured" should not determine whether there should have been a serious sanction. A player can break a neck and die from landing badly in a collapsed scrum. Sh!t happens. 
In 2012, in a the first game of their S15 campaign between the Bulls and the Cheetahs, Francois Hougaard was also red-carded for a spear tackle and he was also eventually exonerated. It was a similar situation. It never started off as a spear tackle but due to other players - and in this case, Cheetahs players - getting involved, it culminated in a spear tackle. The referee, IIRC, was Craig Joubert. IMO there should have been nothing more than probably a penalty, or a yellow card at the most.
Bismarck..... Now there is a different kettle of fish. He was transgressing three foul play laws. He retaliated and he was guilty dangerous play when he kicked the player and he made contact with the face/head. His job is not to enforce the laws of the game or dish out punishment. That is the ref's job. His so-called clean record is academical. Everybody knows that he is no saint on the field. Just because his previous red card was rescinded does not make that OK. His actions in that game was equally stupid. He did go, elbow-first, into Messam's neck/face. He knew he was already on a yellow card (albeit wrongly) and he should  have known any further slip-up would have resulted in a red card. Like JW has said, kicking someone in the face/head is not on and that was deliberate. He got off lightly, IMO.
I have not seen or read much about the Ellis one, so I cannot make any comment.
I don't think there is something seriously wrong with the laws on foul play.
In the game between England and France, James Haskill was suspended late in the second half when England was throwing everything at France to try and get to the 26 point margin. He clearly tripped a player. The sad part is that he had a really good game and Nigel Owens seems to have acknowledged that but he still carded him. He showed him the yellow and said: "That was a trip. Sorry, James", indicating IMO, something like: "Y ou had a great game, and I understand that you are eager to get get that points difference, but that is against the law".

 Any news about the 4th horrible? 

He was found guilty but not punished here is the link:
Messam guilty but no punishment 
Surely we all agree with the ruling?
 

 The way they described the incident, I am sure that it was not the headlock incident. I'm afraid that if the keep on letting this headlock/wrestling moves continue, it won't be long befor someone gets his neck broken or strangled to death. Poor show by the siting commissioner by either missing it or getting the charge wrong.

Db: see the other thread .  

More a sideways stomp?  You would make a good lawyer Moz, lol 

Too much passive aggressive stuff in life. We punish the person that reacts and the slimy instigator goes free. It was not an act an international player and captain should ever engage in.....but I have some sympathy with players who react to these off the ball nigglers . 

 So Bismarck gently used his freed foot to try and get his other foot free - it was not a kick but a shove to free his other foot.  Dream on - even the judicial officer would not buy that one.  

 And Sanzar has lodged an appeal against the Steyn ruling and appointed an Appeals Tribunal to deal with the issue.
I think Steyn was guilty and am not at all surprised by the Appeal.  The end of this story has yet to be decided and the appeal will be heard on Friday morning at 08:00 SA time.
The Sharks better keep Lambie playing for one additional match or select Zeilinga as flyhalf for Saturdays game.  To select Steyn for the Saturday game is under such circumstances a gamble.  Maybe Kaplan was correct in his assessment anyway.    
In any evenmt - Steyn was so hopeless in the three games he played in - any other  selection would be an improvement of the team      

 Steyn was earmarked to start at 10 this week. This poorly timed appeal will severely disrupt the Sharks planning.

 Whether it is poorly timed or not -  it is real and must be atten ded to at some time or another.  

 The misleading issue can only be expected from Mozart.  The TMO tried the influence the decision - the line judge (Van der Westhuizen) and the referee were in agreement as to the red card.  The ref ultimately had to decide and he decided on teh red.
Then there is the convenient issue of Dofdoos Mozart to just ignore the comments of Kaplan on the issue - where Kapalan gave details reasons for the card before the Steyn hearing.
Dofdoos goes on and state as follows:-
"But the ref union are rallying around their man. At best this is a somewhat grey, if undoubtedly dangerous incident." 
As per normal he has gone off the track completely - it is not about "rallying around their man" - it is about applying the laws of rugby.  So go amnd read Kaplan's verdict in this case - doffies - maybe at some stage in your life you will have a lucid interval.
 Looking at his three recent matches, Steyn is - like he was last year - a desperately inadequate tackler.   Is that the reason for his illegal tackles?