Thomson cops one-week ban

three6three6 says...

Thank you Euskadi for helping to strip some of the emotion away from this.

It is clear from the IRB guidelines (2-9 weeks) and the fact that this was at the lower end of the scale.... Factor in the discipline record of Thomson and a one week suspension is both logical and understandable. The victim impact statement would also have supported this course of action. It was quite right that Thomson should have been yellow carded (his boot did make contact with an opponent's head) and then it was correct for him to be sighted. The suspension is understandable and logical.

Those bleating about special treatment for the ABs need a better understanding of the rules and sanctions in relation to displinary matters.

Posted 01:40 16th November 2012

porridge_time says...

Have been listening to a debate on NZ Talk Sport Radio. The majority of people think that one week is enough. However, when it was pointed out how would they feel if it was an action against McCaw or any other Kiwi they were quiet.

The judiciary system is inconsistent and seriously needs looking at, but for those muppets out there that think there is a different rule book for the ABs then you guys really need to grow up. If NZ were being looked after then all the illegal and premeditated hits on McCaw would been ruled with an iron fist. The fact that Greyling and Higginbottom only got two weeks for their actions merely highlights that those who think NZRFU are untouchable are in need of medical help for the envious ways.

For the record I felt that Thomson should have got between 2-6 weeks.

Posted 23:59 15th November 2012

bigb6969 says...

A friend pointed out that 2-9 is just a guideline, you can be correctly found guilty of stamping, but you can get no suspension at all. What is funny after a raft or worse incidents against McCaw in particular were people have slid away from any punishment at all, a perception an AB got treated leniently has prompted the IRB to finally review the system !!

And another thing making reference Mealamu and Umaga, it was 7 years ago and the rules were different. They clean out at a ruck, as happened many times in the English premiership on that same weekend I remember, and the rules were difference. It was in response to this apparent leniency to the pair (it was a South African citing commisioner, I thought they were reckless and should got a couple of weeks) that the IRB changed the rules the next year, defining a tip tackle, and making specifically illegal to pick a player up past the horizontal and let go. You seem to forget the laws of the game were actually different at that point in time

Posted 19:26 15th November 2012

Trader2 says...

@BokAvenger

Well at least the AB's are marketable, as against, er your lot.

Posted 12:56 15th November 2012

jamesliveinhope says...

@ruckingkiwi I'm inclined to agree - this was reckless rather than malicious and, with no harm done the ban probably reflects the red card that should have been shown on the day.

Personally a 1 match ban seems pointless as a meaningful sanction generally rather than in this case. Minimum 2 for any finding of guilt in a citing case.

Posted 11:15 15th November 2012

BokAvenger says...

Why don't the IRB just publish an alternative rule book for the All Blacks. It already exists in the minds of IRB officials so why not just make it public so we're all in on the scam. Next time an AB stomps on someone's head just send him to bed early with no egg nog.

Posted 11:10 15th November 2012

Spartacus says...

@kpe12 - in fairness, as a Bok fan, this is very similar to Burger incident on Lions tour. Both should have got instant red as the touch judge was right there. The error was compounded by weak action afterwards.

Posted 10:39 15th November 2012

melkdave says...

@ToAll

Well im happy most posters feel the ban was a joke.and sent the wrong signal.Also let me be clear,i am only calling for 4 weeks min,and not more ,because of Stockoshs support ,without it i would be saying 8 weeks min.The head is just a NO GO AREA,shouldnt matter if it was done hard or softly,and it doesnt matter if the player was kiwi,french ,english or a little green martin to me.Why do i feel this way because today i have a loverly scar just below my left eye,a quater inch higher and i would have lost my eye.The player who gave this didnt do it intenionallyand was very remorsefull ,he just hit the ruck,and stated rucking didnt even realise my head was there until i screamed in painThis of course is going back to the days when rucking was legal ,and the now illegal blade studs where just coming into vogueRugby is a hard contact sport,and players suffer enough injuries,from normal legal gameplayas it is,also EVERY PLAYER knows the head area is a NO GO AREA .Wheather with a fist ,forearm,elbow knee headbutt,and espically the BOOT.

Posted 10:06 15th November 2012

Ramage says...

Hmmm Im very surprised it is a light sentence, very light.

Posted 08:00 15th November 2012

kpe12 says...

Interesting... I can hear the SA posters crying for blood now.

Posted 07:04 15th November 2012