Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Dan Carter suspended for a week following high tackle

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Dan Carter suspended for a week following high tackle

All Blacks flyhalf Daniel Carter has been suspended for a week following his high tackle that went unpunished against Wales on the weekend.

The tackle occurred with ten minutes left in the match, as Wales were hot on attack. Neither referee Craig Joubert, nor any of his assitant referee's, saw the incident clearly. Joubert said from the angle he was at, he was unable to make an accurate judgement on whether it constituted a dangerous tackle.

Following Carter being cited after the match, a disciplinary hearing took place in London earlier today as he appeared before IRB judicial officer Jeff Blackett.

Carter, who has apologised to replacement scrumhalf Roberts already, has the right to appeal the ban that will see him out of action for a week. He will miss the Test against Italy, but can return on the 17th of November.

Some had thought that he might get more than a week, but with just a week's suspension, he will be available for the big clash with England on the 20th at Twickenham.

Carter's good disciplinary record helped at the hearing, as he's yet to be sent off in his career.

Time: 01:45

This tackle is nowhere near the extent that the British media have hyped it up to be, and this video proves it. Truely pathetic journalism, none more so than the stupid woman interviewer at the BBC on the day.
High tackle, yes, great recovery tackle, yes. Penalty at most.

By Dozzy_X, at November 10, 2009 5:16 pm
High tackle defo, but a weeks ban is a bit much. Warranted a penalty during the game, nothing more.

By theboss, at November 10, 2009 5:17 pm
High-Tackle yes... doesn't look intentional. Penalty but that's about it... nothing to brag about.

By jay, at November 10, 2009 5:18 pm
Yeah penalty, but I think the reason he's been suspended is because he wasn't penalised on the day. If he was, I doubt there would have been a suspension.

I also found that a bit rude/lame of her there at the end. Sounded really petty.

Hard shot though, definitely should have been punished at the time, if it was seen.

By Dave, at November 10, 2009 5:18 pm
A weeks ban won't change anything since he probably wouldn't have started against Italy, and he'll be able to start against France.
True the British media milked it as much as they could but not much he did really.

By Oli, at November 10, 2009 5:18 pm
Roberts should have been on from the start, much quicker and better passer in my view than Cooper.

By Kenny, at November 10, 2009 5:22 pm
Wow...that interview at the end actually made ME feel awkward, why would she even say that?

By istya, at November 10, 2009 5:27 pm
What kind of a miserable bitch is that reporter at the end? 'High tackle or no high tackle, you are the man of the match'. For God's sake, it's not as if he eye-gouged him or something, he just made a bad tackle. I've seen far worse, and she just ruined the mood of the interview. Far too biased, she's got to go.

By Kearney for tests, at November 10, 2009 5:31 pm
Yet another crazy decision by the IRB

If the referee had penalised the matter Carter would probably have received a yellow card.....that would have been the end of the matter

A one match ban is crazy.....although the Italians will be somewhat relieved

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 5:32 pm
Carter looks SO annoyed at the end. Smiles and then is just like 'yep..thanks'. Hilarious and a pretty obnoxious question especially since she already asked.

He's a very fast runner too.

By decepti0n, at November 10, 2009 5:45 pm
A possible penalty, nothing more.

By WelshOsprey, at November 10, 2009 5:48 pm
Yeah pretty bad tackle. No need to be banging on about it though, 1 week ban at most. Probably just a penalty to some refs. I doubt he meant it either, he doesn't seem like that sort of bloke.

By Andy, at November 10, 2009 5:53 pm
I think the question about the booing is fair enough....

do you think you owe him an apology is pushing it, id say much much too far for a BBC reporter (just because they normally have more class than that!!!) also because, its a fooking rugby game...yes it was illegal (no doubt!) but you arent going to apologise for everything, and its carters choice to apologise. People will say, 'ah good man saying sorry for the high hit' or 'what an ass, didnt even apologise...' but its his choice....so to outright ask him...

and the bit at the end was just stupid! no player deserves to have a MOTM tainted with a comment like that!

(I'm an Eng supporter btw..so with wales being neighbours i wanted them to win!)

By Nathan, at November 10, 2009 5:54 pm
the tackle should have been penalised, but a 1 week ban?

but who cares? carter wouldn't have played against italy anyway...

By opfazonk, at November 10, 2009 5:54 pm
I think this time the rugby supporters of the world all agree. Should have been a penalty, one week ban is a joke. Enough said about the BBC girl too. Carter would have been rested for the Italy game anyway so it doesn't concern him at all but still it is a very strange decision.

By Thomas, at November 10, 2009 6:03 pm
The ban is nonsense, maybe even more so than all the hype that surround this "incident".

Unlucky high shot, penalty. The current citing system is ridiculous: I'm glad there are teams, like Leicester, that refuse to use it.

Maybe the IRB thought it looked good on them to give one of their superstars a slap on the wrist (with no impact at all, since Carter probably would've been left out of the AB team in Rome).

Pretty classless by the Beeb reporter, btw.

By Sander, at November 10, 2009 6:07 pm
Poor tackle, poor journalism and poor decision on the one week ban.

Glad he'll be back for the game against England - if we want to get better we need to be measuring ourselves against the best players in the world.

By Ted, at November 10, 2009 6:07 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 6:11 pm
Agree with everyone's comments. Not exactly a terrible tackle, nothing compared to the spear on BOD in the Lions against NZ for example.

Reporter thinks she's Jeremy Paxman.

By Phil, at November 10, 2009 6:19 pm
Perfect tackle! Yeah Dan!

Cheers from Perpigan mate!

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 6:30 pm
Yes it was a high tackle but a penalty at the most, also the Beeb reporter is a stupid bitch (gabboy Logan).

Well played the AB's gave us a good game. Also Mccaw was everywhere.

By BigTaff, at November 10, 2009 6:46 pm
it deserved a penelty if the ref saw it so why does he get a week ban? pointless! you should want to see the worlds best players not have them out because of a stupid citing panal.
james

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 7:00 pm
I'm welsh and I didn't think there was that much wrong even at the time. Yes a penalty but it wasnt malicious, pretty pathetic banning him.

By geraint, at November 10, 2009 7:01 pm
Good on Dan Carter for giving that reporter a dirty look and walking away with nothing more than a mumbled, obligatory, "Thank you."

Yes - a yellow card. No - a 1 week ban.

If Carter has to miss any game, at least it's against Italy. Could have been a problem if it were against France.

By www.realrugby.com, at November 10, 2009 7:02 pm
i'm welsh and even i think that it deserved a penalty and nothing more.

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 7:06 pm
not worthy of a suspension.

By goodNumber10, at November 10, 2009 7:16 pm
she is always asking going on isnt she?

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 7:26 pm
tbh I was really surprised they even cited dan, its not even that bad, he didnt go in with any intention b the looks of things.
btw im english.

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 8:17 pm
wasnt intentional and i ddnt think it was worthy of the ban...the british media made it out to be the worst tackle ever when it was slightly high at best

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 8:20 pm
great first post sums up how everyone feels about the incident.
a truely terrible job by the reporter.

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 8:37 pm
that woman should be banned from tv for 2 months..what she did is worths than what burger did to that lions winger :P

By Alain Weyers, at November 10, 2009 8:40 pm
I agree with the majority: it's daft that he was cited for it and even dafter that he got a one
match ban.

Still, Carter would probably have been rested against Italy this Saturday anyway so it's of little consequence. It just means that he'll be fully fit to help demolish England on the 21st: bad news for me as an England fan, but excellent news as a big fan of Dan Carter, and not just for his skills on the pitch :-)

http://studsonthe22.blogspot.com/

By Bamberio, at November 10, 2009 8:43 pm
oh my god, what embarrasing reporting from the BBC, im not a brit and that was cringe-worthy. "was it a high or low tackle" - Carter is not a dirty player, jesus get a life!

We playing rugby, it happens to be a contact sport - as PDV says, lets all go down to the local store and buy some tutus..

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 8:44 pm
I'm sick of those comments saying "a penalty at most, nothing more". It's a high and illegal tackle, it deserved a sin ban. Come on guys, there's no point for discussion...

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 8:53 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 9:27 pm
The female BBC interviewer at the end of the game should be embarassed with her post-match intervew of Dan Carter.

"do you owe roberts an apology for that high tackle"? she asks...this is what happens when you have dolly birds doing rugby inteviews for the BBC's "diversity" bs.....yes it was high, but it was just one of those things that happens in the game at speed.....it wasn't deliberate or malicious.

A week ban is harsh..

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 9:29 pm
It wasn't high. Carters bicep hits Roberts shoulder and Carters forearm clips Roberts chin. Looked worse because Roberts head jolted on impact.

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 9:59 pm
Was high. Definitely not malicious. Should've been a penalty and MAYBe a yellow card.

Thought the interview was awful but to be fair most of the British Media have been talking about the fact that the incident was played over and over again on the big screen in the stadium !!!! And been incredibly critical of it.

By Third Centre, at November 10, 2009 10:05 pm
Oh and fair play to carter for not punching the interviewer or at least walking away mid-interview

By Third centre, at November 10, 2009 10:06 pm
The much improved level of maturity on this discussion is highly appreciated. Please let's keep it that way guys and girls.

Thanks

By GMC, at November 10, 2009 10:26 pm
i like it how he looked really annoyed at the end, it was a completely immaure comment

By tom, at November 10, 2009 11:21 pm
^^^^^^^^
Pfffftt.....

NH > SH!!!

I joke I joke...

By themull, at November 10, 2009 11:25 pm
he only got the one week ban because nothing happened in the match. if he got yellow carded, there wouldn t be much talk about it after the game

By Anonymous, at November 10, 2009 11:33 pm
themull

yeah you better be joking

By Bro from downunda, at November 10, 2009 11:50 pm
Jones kicked a kiwi scare in the face, ref missed it and no one made a big deal of it, because it was an accident.
Carter head high tackles (it was a bit high), ref misses it, and he gets banned because the the bbc coverage team and Welsh coaches make a big deal of it.
Double standards.
And that reporter, FFS, get her off the air, she knows nothing about rugby. Idiot.

By Bill, at November 11, 2009 12:00 am
I dunno, i can sit back and say that citing commissioners have a job and carter should ave been pinged in the match, no doubt, it was clearly high, whether malicious or not it doesnt matter, i suppose they dont want to leave the crime unpunished, so as much as i feel its harsh (the ban) i can see the side they come from.

i think if i was an italian fan id be somewhat relieved but at the same time if you beat a full strength team it is more satisfying than a missing link team (SA...all missing links....sorry couldnt resist lol!)

BEEB reporter is a waste of space!!!

Thanks RD.

ooooo, also RD quick question, what happened to the prop that pushed the ref?

By No.7, at November 11, 2009 12:21 am
Same ol northern hemisphere shite. All the talking around the game is a pain in the ass. I thought Gatland and his assistants sour-pus stance was much worse than the reporters snarkiness. They made it sound as if the game was theirs and they were robbed cause of that tackle.

While Im on it you dont hear any stuff about AB players gang banging girls in the hotel (England) or getting in fights and making false accusations (France) so why do they get so much shit from the press when they are on tour?

By Mikey Mike, at November 11, 2009 12:26 am
Awful interview, made me cringe at the time. Ban is a bit harsh

By martin-offload, at November 11, 2009 12:28 am
i hope RD don't mind if i post a link to the Jones,Leonard incident.I watched the game again and had some time to put the clip up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uGwb_-iDNw

By Grayditch, at November 11, 2009 12:31 am
No. 7 Mujati (the Nigel Owens pusher) was suspended for 6 weeks. The recommended lowest sanction is 24 weeks, but due to 'mitigating factors' (he was apparantly concussed at the time), he got away with 6.
That concussed thing sounds like a load of hooey to me. If he was clear-headed enough to run around getting into rucks and stuff and play rugby, then he was surely clear-headed enough to know not to push the referee.

By Kearney for tests, at November 11, 2009 12:53 am
Anybody that's been playing rugby as long as him, is sometimes going to tackle high. He didn't mean to do it so come off it. That reporter at the end was a joke, fire her!

By Hendrick, at November 11, 2009 1:03 am
this is soft, rugby is getting to soft. it is only worth at max a penalty to wales. and im welsh

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 1:05 am
No mention of Leonard getting kicked in the head hey?
Where's the ban for that?
Same as this high tackle, they're both accidental, both blows to the head, equally dangerous.
Why didn't the BBC show Jones kicking leonard 20 times on replay? Why didn't the NZ coaches come out afterwards and demand a yellow card?
Why didn't a stupid, vaccuous kiwi reporter get to ask Jones 50 times why he kicked Leonard?
Double standards, and it's all because Wales lost.

By Jon, at November 11, 2009 1:35 am
@Greyditch
Thanks for the footage. I don't think it was intentional, but very reckless. And looks poor that after connecting with Leonard's head that Jones didn't seem to bother checking up on him during the subsequent break in play. Let alone apologise...
But, speaking as a Kiwi, I'm glad it didn't result in a citing. Clumsy rather than malicious - a bit like the end of the 2nd Lions test.

By JD, at November 11, 2009 1:42 am
I am an idiot. Obviously the Lions 2nd test replacement 10 was O'Gara, not Jones. Think the rest of my post still stands though. Anyway, back to the game at hand; thought Wales played well, though possibly needed a little more creativity at 10-12, and a little more power at the breakdown

By JD, at November 11, 2009 1:55 am
Warren stirred this up a bit imo ..... im a kiwi, the tackle was high (yes it was), think its not intentional, max a penalty imo, depends on the ref.

Dan's the gentleman. Good on him not teaching the reporter a lesson!

By JLH, at November 11, 2009 2:23 am
Penalty and a warning. Nothing more. Ban is a joke. Seen much worse high tackles. Interviewer was embarrassing. She interviewed McCaw, Ryan Jones and NZ assistant coach after match and mentioned high tackle in all of them. Where's d logic behind that? Trying to accuse NZ of getting away with murder when they were the better team, although wales were very good.

By MCB, at November 11, 2009 2:33 am
Should have asked Jones :
"Did did you apologise to Leonard for kicking him full on in the head while he lay on the ground?"
It would have been equally stupid of course, since they were both accidentals, but at least the ridiculous commnetary from someone who knows nothing about rugby would have been even handed.

By Tommo, at November 11, 2009 2:47 am
Intent is everything. I doubt someone with DC's squeaky clean record would deliberately go high. Yellow card at most, if at all.

By RevFredPhelps, at November 11, 2009 3:04 am
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 4:12 am
One of the biggest non-incidents ever. Not that you shouldn't have posted it up, I'm sure lots of people want to see what all the fuss was about.

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 4:27 am
Should have been suspended for at least 2 weeks.

By McBull, at November 11, 2009 5:39 am
^^^^Anonymous, you dickhead. I highly doubt the collective attendance of the Welsh audience (or as you suggest, the whole of NH team supporters) gathered and proposed the BBC reporter ask Carter that question. Mudslinging is in journalism.

I would think that if you'd read through these posts before making as ass of yourself (you're not the BBC reporter, by chance, are you?), so you could see that almost every NH supporter thought that while the tackle was high, it was nothing malicious and Roberts himself didn't find any offense in it.

So, no, it's not about accepting that Wales lost; I think you'll find most people are very gracious about the defeat. It's about sensational journalism, and most rugby fans here deplore it. The booing, well, c'mon, like that doesn't happen when you've got 30,000 passionate fans, most of whom are inebriated seeing a close-to-try-saving tackle? The replay made it look much worse than it was, so maybe that's why they booed.

Chill out and think before you comment next time.

By Simma-don-nah, at November 11, 2009 6:18 am
@ KearneyforTests, I'm not trying to cause trouble, but what you say about Mujati being concussed sounds a bit like double standards to me. After the Lions tour, Lions fans defended ROG's mindless kick and tackle with the reasoning that he was concussed at the time. I don't know if you were one of them, so I apologise to you personally if you weren't. But it's the same thing. You can't accept it in one case (ROG) then say it's rubbish in another (Mujati).

Regarding this vid (staying on topic), it has been sensationalised a bit by the BBC, and the media in general. To show that many replays, and basically treat Carter as though he committed THE most heinous of crimes? That's pretty embarrassing imo.
Gatland has also come across as a sook, and won't be too popular when he eventually returns to his HOME, New Zealand one day.

By Scotsdale, at November 11, 2009 7:16 am
Ben Robinson is oh so fine.

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 10:44 am
Hey guys im french and Dan carter accent is quite tough to understand.
So someone could tell me what he answer to the BBC girl when she asked about an apology??
thx

By Brice, at November 11, 2009 11:24 am
To Brice^^^^^

"Yeah I've already given him an apology it was unintentional, I was sort of running back, you know they had broken through our line so umm you know it was just one of those things, it wasn't intentional and uh hence all the booing at the moment"

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 12:10 pm
The interviewer should be fired, how dare you talk to the million dollar man that way. Respect the All Blacks.

By Tui Avi, at November 11, 2009 1:12 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 1:13 pm
Does anyone else feel that this consistency policy is anythiing but.

Penalty yes. That is all.

'if Dan Carter gets banned for that tackle then by end of November internationals there will be no one eligible to play'
Will Greenwood.

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 1:14 pm
Thanks a lot ;)

i thought he said he didnt give any apology... anyway he didnt have to and this question from the BBC girl was a bit stupid...

By Brice, at November 11, 2009 1:33 pm
The guys tiny and Carter wrapped him up, it's high but not intentional. With a record like Carter's you'd think they just tell him to be a bit careful in the future.

The british press will do anything to make either of the weekends matches seem unfair. The only unfair thing is the difference in ability levels.

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 1:51 pm
If it were Botha, OH MY ban him for life. But when its Carter its "Oh pleaaaaze! he didnt mean to do it"

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 1:54 pm
Carter's final look summed up what he thought of the interview, it basically seems to say 'how about you shut up and get over it'.

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 1:54 pm
"Guys, lower the aggressive tone, especially you JLH."

RD, to be honest I don't think I sounded aggressive at all? .... :o I tried to view the incident in a kiwi perspective and a welsh perspective....

"Warren stirred this up a bit imo ..... im a kiwi, the tackle was high (yes it was), think its not intentional, max a penalty imo, depends on the ref.

Dan's the gentleman. Good on him not teaching the reporter a lesson!"

By JLH, at November 11, 2009 1:56 pm
I take it everyone missed Martyn Williams head-high on Brendon Leonard earlier in the match...oh right, he's in the home team!

You definately won't hear the ABs coaches singling out incidents which didn't go their way.

By the way i'm an eskimo!

LOLZ

By inuit, at November 11, 2009 2:16 pm
I just saw the link posted by greyditch about the jones kick thing....

Come on guys, now yes i did want wales to win, but i am no means a welsh supporter and the fact they lost means very little if nothing, it was more of a case of i see the welsh play more (6N) etc so would be nice to see them win. but really there is a big difference between carters tackle and jones kick.....

For starters carter was running back with the intention of tackling the guy, and he went for a high tackle (as in upper body not neck) but he caught the guys neck/chin etc....now as unintentional as that may be it is a penalty....put yourself in those players positions, if you were Roberts and you got caught high, you might think, would be nice to get a penalty for that....or if you were the welsh team. but if you were leonard, then you might think 'ouch' but you cant really expect much more, you were diving for the ball and jones fly hacks it....

I have been kicked in the face charging down a ball, its a hazard of the tactic..hurt like hell, the fly half was nice enough to apologise, personally i didnt think he needed to.....

I think Carter didnt need to apologise, and i didnt think he owed roberts an apology, it again is a hazard of the game, although if you injure someone its nice to give a quick 'sorry'

I think carters tackle was not worthy of suspension at all. but maybe its because he didnt get caught in the match that they wanted to punish him.

To sum up:
Carter's tackle as accidental as it may be is worthy of a penalty.

Jones' kick as accidental as it may be is worth nothing, effectively the scrum half was similarly charging down the ball.... (not that its nothing to consider because its not nice having your nose poking out the back of you head)

and the reporter is a tool (think we have all done that to the death!)

By No.7, at November 11, 2009 3:01 pm
To the anonymous that stated 'Rugby seems to be getting soft in the UK.'

'a disciplinary hearing took place in London earlier today as he appeared before IRB judicial officer Jeff Blackett.'

Pretty sure IRB stands for International Rugby Board....

By Nathan, at November 11, 2009 3:07 pm
the citing and suspension is a total joke - there were at least 3 tackles of near identical size/shape/severity - all made by Wales - including 2 consecutive tackles in one attack by the All Blacks - without a cry or word from the crowd, nor repeated on the big screen, and not carped about in the press . . it was high and should have been penalized - but then again, many things in that game should have been and weren't - to cite Carter was as pathetic as it was political

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 4:02 pm
@ JLH - That wasn't actually me, but some imposter. Apologies. New site is on the way, with improved commenting systems, logins etc

By GMC, at November 11, 2009 7:30 pm
Justice 4 Dan. We need to make some armbands.

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2009 7:40 pm
Jon, this is a WELSH program by a WELSH tv channel (BBC2W) showing WALES vs NZ in WALES! Thats why it may be a tad biased.

But hey... at least our commentators have the decency to learn the opposing players names.

By BigTaff, at November 11, 2009 7:55 pm
The tackle was marginally high it was not malicious and or dangerous - his arm rode up that is all.

Maybe due to Wales' attacking position at the time it deserved a penalty but that was all!

A yellow card is ridiculous; citing is the most over the top reaction and unnecessary action.

I'm getting concerned with the pathetic nature rugby is turning to. Yellow cards are being handed out for tackles and incidents that are totally unwarranted - Matt Banahan against Stade for example.

Rugby is a contact sport, same tackles get a bit high, sometimes a player hits a split second late and sometimes things boil over, that's the nature of the sport - if this continues the sport I love will be ruined.

Wales were never going to win this game, New Zealand were the better team on the day and deserved to win.

get over it and man up!

Ow and that journalist has been useless for years she knows nothing of the sport and shouldn't be anywhere near a rugby pitch

Matt, Scotland

By Unknown, at November 11, 2009 11:13 pm
Matthew I think you are watching a different video....if his arm rode up then he would have missed roberts altogether....it hit him square in the jaw.....

Im sorry but that is the truth, I agree the citing is ridiculous but you have to remember players do not get cited for no reason. He did a high tackle and was made to pay for it, as much as anyone thinks it is harsh its still a fact!

So your comment about it being marginally high and riding up is ridiculous. Carter hit roberts HIGH...END OF!

By No.7, at November 12, 2009 12:00 am
Well said Matt, you're 100% right.
There will always be accidental head highs or late hits, and don't even get started on this obsession with calling good tackles shoulder charges.
It's terrible for the sport.

By Jon, at November 12, 2009 12:01 am
I guess we have to ask, is this now going to set a precedent in citings.

Will every marginally high tackle that is missed by the officials be cited and subsequently banned?

It seems the threshold for citings is getting less and less whilst the inconsistency of bans handed out is getting greater and greater.

By Simon7, at November 12, 2009 1:43 am
it wasnt that bad a tackle even though it was high..stupid decision to suspend a nice and clean player...we really need to look into the high tackle rule as players are dodging the tackle and resulting in a "high tackle"..it's nonsense..so what if i bring myself shorter to get a "high tackle"..is the tackler gonna be suspended...idiots..

By Anonymous, at November 12, 2009 2:48 am
THATS IT!!!... Im going to rugby league, had enough of the state of rugby these days.

Farewell guys.

By Let-of-some-steam!!!, at November 12, 2009 7:09 am
McBull said... Should have been suspended for at least 2 weeks.

McBull - you chose your name well.

By Jimmy, at November 12, 2009 9:56 am
No. 7 if you look at the picture of of the tackle Carters arm is across Roberts' shoulders. Actually on closer viewing the hand of the 'guilty' arm never goes above shoulder height neither does the Carter's bicep it hits Roberts' shoulder - the fact that Roberts has no neck doesn't make it any easier.

As I said possibly a penalty due to the attacking nature of the play, no way a yellow card and no way a one week ban!

The problem is in full speed when watching everybody thought great hit, the crowd ooosss rather than erupts with anger, the problem now is super slow replays allow us to over analyse a tackle or contact situation and always makes the situation look worse.

By Unknown, at November 12, 2009 10:56 am
When seen in realtime on the telly feed I thought 'great tackle' - this is the angle the ref would have had on it too, if you look where he is on the first angle (not the replay angles).

On the replay, I think it is definitely high. Thing is, during the game it is probably no more than penalty. What's annoying is that if the ref misses a high tackle like this in the game, even if the reality is its no more than a penalty, for some reason a ban MUST be imposed. Why don't the disciplinary people accept that sometimes 'foul play' is no more than a penalty and no ban is required ?

I think the week ban is harsh to say the least.

By Eoghan, at November 12, 2009 1:16 pm
Fuck matthew...seriously....I totally get your super slow mo over analyse stuff and i agree with your non yellow and no suspension thing...(a harsh ref might give a yellow but really its more of a quick 'keep it low' talking to tackle) But really....i have frozen the frame and im looking at it now...Carters right hand is holding roberts left shoulder and carters shoulder is higher than Roberts right shoulder....simple anatomy buddy...his arm is going up...his forearm is on roberts chin and his bicep is on roberts ear....

im not trying to ruin carters reputation, he is a great player and not a dirty player, and no doubt if there was any intent on the high tackle it wasnt personal or a loss of head, probably more of an 'stop the offload' kinda tackle....but it is high... 0.46 seconds... at 0.47 carter slides down somewhat but it is a high tackle.....

I repeat it doesnt tarnish carters reputation in my view and i dont believe it should in anyone elses im simply stating it is high, and with the citing commisioners having all the angles and slow mo's in the world to come to the conclusion of a weeks ban im pretty sure that sums it up....

Think about it, there is uproar because of the stupidness of the ban, but to actually ban someone for something they didnt do would cause jobs to be lost, and in this political day and age im pretty sure the commissioners would cover their asses....

By No.7, at November 12, 2009 2:34 pm
if carter gets suspended for a high tackle why didnt stephen jones get suspended for kicking brendon lenard in the head? it was shown on the replay at the game

By Anonymous, at November 12, 2009 9:40 pm
Because he's Welsh and the BBC didn't replay the incident forty times, the BBC interviewer didn't ask Jones about it thirty times and the BBC commentators made a joke of it.
Funny that when a kiwi gets kicked in the head it's funny, but when it happens to a Welshman it's a terrible crime according to the BBC and the IRB.
Ridiculous.

By Bill, at November 13, 2009 2:10 am
ja lol, carter got lectured by some female

By Bakkies Botha is my hero, at November 13, 2009 7:01 am
why do you guys have chicks involved in sports journalism anyway?

By Anonymous, at November 13, 2009 10:34 am
who are "us guys"?

By Anonymous, at November 13, 2009 1:13 pm
ja lol, carter got lectured by some female

ja bakkies would have never put up with that

gimp

By Anonymous, at November 13, 2009 1:30 pm
No.7 ...

I am sure you are now prepared to revisit any criticisms that I am guessing you may have directed at a certain Mr Umaga back in 2005. After all, the the citing commissioner saw the tape and judged there was no case to answer.

By RememberTheMer, at November 14, 2009 9:08 am
Well, 'Remember the mer' it would be odd of me to accept one thing and not the other. So I guess i cant argue with the 'proffesionals' over their decisions....

In his case i dont believe carter should have been cited, but he was and to be honest i think even a die hard carter fan could say that was high...so i mean there was a reason, a pretty weak reason but a reason none the less.

In the case of Umaga, i really dont know, i saw the video, and id imagine you did too.....it doesnt look right...now im not saying this because im a fan of BOD (which i am) because im also a massive fan of Umaga, but its easy to see they pick up BOD by his waist and he then ends up top half first into the ground (driven or not driven...) i dunno about you, but i never got told to clear a ruck like that....

All im saying is that I saw a high tackle on this video (not that i agree with the rulings), and the Umaga clear out was a bit iffy....so im guessing im open to 'double standards' comments but really, im nottrying to come across as that type of person!

By No.7, at November 14, 2009 3:51 pm
no7

I have no idea how Umaga and Mealamu were not cited. They should have been.

I have no idea why Carter was cited. It was worth little more than a penalty and warning from the ref.

The problem is the punishment for these things tends to be directly proportional to the number of replays they receive and the shrillness of commentators.

PS you seem a perfectly reasonable sort of chap. Or is it chap-ess, no 7 is a bit gender ambiguous.

By RememberTheMer, at November 19, 2009 7:37 am