Doing the time: Scott Higginbotham
Related links
Teams
Also see
Scott Higginbotham was left frustrated at missing the November Tests due to his ban for an attack on Richie McCaw.
The Melbourne Rebel was recently banned for two games after a kneeing and head-butting incident in the Bledisloe Cup fixture earlier this month.
It effectively means a four-match ban, with Wallaby coach Robbie Deans saying he could not take a chance on including Higginbotham in his touring squad due to the fact the back-row would only be available for the final two Tests against Italy and Wales, leaving Higginbotham upset.
"I copped the two-week penalty and, in that I also missed the tour, it's hard to swallow but if you do the crime you do the time and I guess I'm paying for it now," he told reporters.
"It feels like a double punishment but they have to cover all their areas and in that they needed a No.8 to come on tour to back up Cliffy (Wycliff Palu)."
He said he was trying to look at the upside of the ban, with unexpected time to integrate himself in the set-up at his new Super Rugby employer the Melbourne Rebels.
"Blokes down here, there are some big boys," he said.
"Being with the Reds previously we were a small pack. We were a good team and we won the premiership with that pack but there are a lot of solid boys (here) and a lot of stuff to look forward to playing."
Comments
ArmchairGeneral says...
I think all Higginass is trying to say is "some of you think I got a lenient sentence but I just want to highlight its worked out twice as bad so please like me again because I want to be Captain."
Posted 13:26 11th November 2012
melkdave says...
@TO ALL
Let me say in noway am i defending A.Hazel, he deserved a hefty ban for losing it even to provocation and recived one. i was using him as an example of how much things have seemed to get out of sync between the two hemispheres,in regards to disapline on the pitch.Hazel got 16 weeks for his reaction,while Higginbottom got just 4 weeks for 2 premeditated attacks on a prone player,wheather that player was hurt or not is irrevalent ,the intension was to hurt that player,THAT more than anything is what i feel hasnt been addressed by this weak limp wristed ban 4 weeks for each attack and annother 4 weeks for the intension /premeditation looks alot more resonable to me ie 12 weeks ,and would hopefully deter others from being so stupid ,.Just what would have happend if he had actually hurt McCaw or broken his jaw /nose ect ,which im sure he intended otherwise why attack him at all.We all want to see this behaviour banished from the game we love ,big fines and hefty bans ,hopefully will achive this
Posted 10:31 01st November 2012
Ramage says...
@melkdave test match jurisdiction over disciplinary action comes under the IRB not Sanzar. So whilst I take your point it is only fair if there is any blame that it be directed at the right organisation.
Posted 23:22 31st October 2012
Piriaka says...
Should have bought a Lotto - goose!!
Posted 10:42 31st October 2012
myhatmycoat says...
Make the bans a worthy threat - hurt them financially (IE, they don't get paid whilst they are banned and fine them the equivalent match fees for the period that they are off the park) - then watch and see the change.
It's a simple issue of if you are dumb enough to do this - in full visibility of the TV camera's, then what do you expect. It isn't rocket science.
Yes, these things do happen - but don't be bleating about being hard done by - or that it was a bad decision - it is what it is - regardless of who does it.
No one thinks that all professional players are capable of this - regardless of where they come from - just a mad moment of red mist.
Posted 09:23 30th October 2012
hybrid187 says...
Thug.
He shouldnt be frustrated, he should be thanking his lucky stars it wasnt a harsher ban.
Posted 08:35 30th October 2012
kiwilad says...
You are paying for it now Shagginbottom??? What did you expect?
Posted 02:22 30th October 2012
Ripzy007 says...
Should be more but still serves him right to get suspended and miss the tour...
Posted 02:00 30th October 2012
crunchfit says...
@melkdave
Something needs to change, but this is not comparable to the Hazell incident. Hazell's was a particularly vicious attack / attempted attack, even if it was a reaction. Higginbotham's was stupid and reckless, but not even particularly aggressive.
Posted 21:30 29th October 2012
kennyisgay says...
Live and learn scumbag. Tho I doubt you'll learn being a dumbaz that you are
Posted 21:22 29th October 2012
missionary says...
@ melkdave. Just an aside here. That last BC game was not under the jurisdiction of SANZAR. But yeah, get what you are saying in terms of managing the game by SANZAR. Very avergage and very inconsistent. Look at what happend to Digby in comparison to others who got sweet FA. Disgraceful.
Posted 20:45 29th October 2012
Bones7 says...
He got off fairly lightly but ultimately he didn't knee McCaw hard and he pushed his face into his, he didn't headbutt him, which is why his sentence is lenient. I wouldn't have thought McCaw was overly traumatised by the experience which was standard fare for most opensides, Higginbotham was just daft enough to do it all in very clear view of the referee. His legs were being held and he was trying to step away, he clocked McCaw who reacted and they had a scuffle. Hardly anything worth writing home about in my opinion. Anyone who actually plays the game would realise that Higginbotham was in the wrong but McCaw will have copped worse hits in pretty much every breakdown or tackle he went in to. Hazell's attack was far far worse, there was no face to face stuff at all, he was striking a prone opponent much more viciously who could not defend himself. He lost control completely, and while I agree that it would be tempting to do the same after having your eyes gouged it ultimately does not help anyone. No comparison between the two situations in my opinion.
Posted 19:30 29th October 2012
paulynz says...
I'm not disagreeing with anyone here but...
I say respect to that man. He did the crime and now he's openly sucking it up and doing his time.
Posted 18:23 29th October 2012
jmanngod says...
No mate....You aren't playing for it yet - Just ask Quade Cooper how one pays for attacking Richie McCaw. I suggest your payment is being deferred.
Posted 17:59 29th October 2012
kinsman says...
@Melkdave, as much as I am no defender of Higginbothams actions and agree his punishment was unduly lenient, there is no way you can compare them to Hazel. Not even remotely comparable and to suggest Hazel was not premeditated because of an unproven allegation by the offending player is no more than bias.
Posted 15:49 29th October 2012
Trader2 says...
4 weeks for a cowardly attack to the head of a defenceless player, he was lucky. Shame he is playing for my second Super side, may have to go back to the Brumbies.
Posted 13:28 29th October 2012
Ramage says...
No sympathy at all for the rogue he got his punishment which was light.So Stop whinging Higgenbotham you are staring to sound like, as Trinuts would say,a pom. Where were you born Scott? According to Trinuts Ozzies never whinge.Could you possibly be from Hexham?
Posted 13:28 29th October 2012
startledwombat says...
There is a rather good dictionary of Australian idiom called "Let Stalk Strine" (say it aloud to understand it).
This is straight out of that book:
sag rapes
Posted 11:26 29th October 2012
melkdave says...
Shouldnt have been so stupid then should he.As it is the bans a joke 4 weeks for a double premeditated hit on McCaw.A.Hazel got 14 weeks for a non premeditated reaction to an eye gouge so he claimed.Limp wristed SANZAR punishments are becomming a problem ,as players feel they can get away withaything atm.
Posted 10:35 29th October 2012