South Africa lock Eben Etzebeth has been cited for alleged foul play during their Rugby Championship defeat to Australia in Perth on Saturday.
Etzebeth is alleged to have contravened Law 10.4 (a) Punching or Striking, when he made contact with Australian lock Nathan Sharpe with his head. The incident occurred in the 25th minute of the match between Australia and South Africa at Patersons Stadium in Perth on September 8.
Upon further review of match footage the Citing Commissioner deemed in his opinion the incident had met the Red Card threshold.
The Citing is to be considered in the first instance by SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron.
Comments
Sharkies says...
So who started insulting who, clearly as a youngster you were allowed to sit in adult conversation instead of being told to play outside and now think you have an opinion on every topic. My suggestion is for you to move to cricket aahhh maybe not...... try darts or snooker mate. You can't go through life handing out insults then whinging when someone gives it back.
Posted 09:04 14th September 2012
Sharkies says...
APV1 says...
@ safehands - Hear! Hear! I'm not after tutus, but deliberate hurting of a rugby player is not on.
@ Sharkies - to suggest that, "For two weeks boet you should have planted him."
just shows what an ignoramus you are. He did make contact - see the report, if you can actually read.
All you've managed to do is reaffirm the perception that some Saffas are ignorant clowns, who want the Boks to go out and deliberately try to hurt people. I do hope you move onto another sport, as rugby is played with respect for your opponent, not a desire to hurt them.
That aside, it looks like he's not available anyway:
and by the way HPV 1 - (APV1) is a plantar wart.
Posted 07:33 14th September 2012
Sharkies says...
@AVP1 Then state it and move on you don't have to start picking out other peoples opinions, and calling someone an ignoramus is also an insult and I didn't intend to have a go at anyone else but you so trying to drum up support won't help, my intention is to call you a wart, nothing to do with cervical cancer what so ever, learn to read idiot. the fact that you would go straight to that shows your ignorance, now go play with your English lads,
Posted 05:37 14th September 2012
APV1 says...
@ Sharkies - we are all entitled to our opinions. Mine is that headbutting has no place in rugby. Yes, I am very opinionated, but have been known to be wrong and accept that too. I'm no couch potato (I play rugby regularly for a local club and run 1/2 marathons every year for charity), so please refrain from the petty insults.
You don't have to agree with me - many don't. But let's keep the debate civil, shall we?
P.S. I just hope no-one on this forum knows anyone who has been affected by Cervical Cancer. Your poor attempt at wit was ill-thought-through, to say the least.
Posted 11:49 12th September 2012
Sharkies says...
@APV1 Boet who made you this sites big brother, we are entitled to our opinion, so buzz off somewhere else, you probably some couch potato that thinks everybody must see it his way, are you related to Meyer or what...
Posted 02:14 12th September 2012
Ramage says...
As expected he has been banned one more week than I thought but if you read what was said you will see despite opinions offered on here contact was made and as I expected intent was shown. The fact he got 2 weeks shows the intent of the judiciary to rid of us this foul play. The young 19 year old has been taught a very important lesson and whether we can walk away form any provocation is for him to decide now he has this record. In other words the Old Bull taught the Young Bull a very important lesson.
Posted 12:13 10th September 2012
APV1 says...
2 week ban and a return for Bakkies. Interesting couple of weeks coming up for the Boks...
Posted 11:49 10th September 2012
Ramage says...
@atg77 The South African citing commissioner in that game believed there was no case to answer and did not cite Umaga or Meleamu. As a result of what happened the laws were strengthened and were that incident to be committed under current law both would have been cited. So atg77 whether someone gets away with something deemed not to be an offence years and years ago is irrelevant what we are talking about is the current citing. I can see how some see it as innocuous but head butting, biting hair pulling and testicle grabbing need to be eliminated and if intent is shown and it was then the effectiveness is of no concern.
Anyone who has served on a Rugby judicial panel knows this, as there is a rather large book outlining such offences of foul play and their consequences. The citing officer has done his job now it is over to the judicial committee to rule. The lesser possibility is a reprimand but it is more likely to be a standing down of one or two weeks. One being more likely depending on Etzebeth's record..
Posted 11:42 10th September 2012
APV1 says...
It deserves a citing, so that it can be reviewed. Whether or not he deserves sanction is a different story. I have little faith in the Commission, but I think a 1 week ban would be suitable.
The fact that other people didn't get punished or cited for their actions bears no part in this.
@ benski - the trivial handbags you mentioned were an intent of one player to headbutt another. The fact that he didn't succeed in hurting the other player is not the issue. There was, in my opinion, clear intent to headbutt, but a lack of success.
"Handbags" should only really apply to those small and minor scuffles which happen from time to time. Emotions boil over and a few shirts are grabbed. That sort of thing. An intention to headbutt isn't "handbags", it's more serious than that and has no place on a rugby pitch.
@ BananaBok - Hear! Hear!
Posted 11:25 10th September 2012
BananaBok says...
It was a stupid move and deserved a second look by the commission, this will (hopefully) prove a good learning point for Etzebeth and teach him to keep his temper when other players are trying to get him wound up.
Unfortunately I have to agree with the NZ and Australian supporters on here, rather than the blinded Boks who are defending his actions. You cant justify trying to headbutt a player by pointing out that a high tackle or some other offense went unpunished, Etzebeth is getting what he deserves. If Sharpe had done that to Etzebeth I bet all us Bok supporters would be calling for his head, you cant have double standards and the rules need to be enforced.
Posted 09:35 10th September 2012
benski says...
Although I cant condone foul play, where have we reached when such an inocouous incident is seriously investigated with the chance of a player being suspended. What has happened to our game when such trivial handbags are red carded.
Posted 09:03 10th September 2012
philipjfry says...
@hellovanite: Get off your high horse.
Posted 08:48 10th September 2012
2EyedKiwi says...
Only himself to blame. Regardless of how hard he nutted him (or not), and despite all the "but what about AAC, Brad Thorne, Tana Umaga,...." rhetoric BS, fact of the matter is that Etzebeth bought this upon himself when he (not the citing commissioner) chose to thrust his head in to Nathan Sharpes nose.
Idiot.
@atg77 - no one batted an eyelid? Where have you been the last 7 years? People are still batting their eyelids, as your post attests.
Posted 05:20 10th September 2012
hellovanite says...
I can't believe the double standards of some of you saffas. If an AB headbutted one of your precious Boks there would calls for dawn hangings. However when one of your own commits a foul it's full on finger pointing and defelection bringing up totally unrelated crap, pathetic! Do you really think head butting is something he should get away with, maybe we should ask the french football team? Half the south africans on this site are so myopic as to be reminiscent of greek mythology
Posted 23:30 09th September 2012
georgesmith says...
@ meneer... I agree with you. N.Sharpe was made to look like a fool by the young lock. If anyone, it should be the veteran who should be cited for being a clown and trying to get the Springbok lock into trouble. When he couldn't compete effectively, he tried to start cheating. Poor sportsmanship displayed by N. Sharpe.
Posted 22:44 09th September 2012
ruckingkiwi says...
Carpelone, because it wasn't a spear.. the word spear indicates that the object would land on a point, or head in this case. Smit gets dumped on his back, ass first from memory but considering the brains on some of these guys then maybe his head is there! And wasn't that about 4 years ago, I doubt that would hold up as a defence. Tackling is part of the game and you're going to get few bad ones now and then but headbutting, like eye gouging, is just dirty and it shouldn't be in the game. And the the BOD whingers, google Darcy spear, now that is something that no one batted an eye lid
Posted 21:32 09th September 2012
Carpelone says...
Red card threshold is however laughable.
What about Brad Thorne spear tackle on John Smit which went untocied and unpunished? Martial law could have been applied.
Posted 20:28 09th September 2012
Carpelone says...
I have to say that it was useless, but the intent was there. To be honest, in the good old days in SA, your own management would have summoned you and it was not pleasant. Eben, eventually take this on your chin and make the most out of it. You have the chance to become the dominating enforcer in the SA and world rugby.
Posted 20:26 09th September 2012
Kloofer says...
I'm trying to look at this objectively (not always the easiest thing to do) but if it was the other way round, with Sharpe doing the headbutt and him getting cited, I would have found this just as ridiculous. There was NOTHING in it, and Sharpe was the first to move his head towards Etzebeth, when he then reacted. Maybe a penalty for Aus but this? Insanity.
Furthermore, while guys like bakkies had a bit of a dirty streak in them, I don't believe Etzebeth is like that. He has always been a good sport and never shown any tendency toward foul play. Ludicrous citing!
Posted 14:10 09th September 2012
philipjfry says...
I'd like to see those of you with holier than though attitudes step away from confrontation and not react in some way or another. It's stupid to try and head-but someone in front of a TV audience but come on, put it into perspective. It's not the end of the world.
Posted 13:05 09th September 2012