Bitter IRB chief declares war on All Blacks

Well, if the citing commissioner's show any consistency then Adam Thompson can't get more than a two week ban. Which should be reduced to one on the basis of his clean record. So he should just miss the Italy game.

Any more than that, and the "open season on McCaw Sponsored by the IRB" drums will surely start to beat louder.

Yeah another dumb act. Didnt look like any force in the action- looked more like he was using his head to scuff the dirt of his boots if anything.

But...foot...head...dont go there. Simple as that.

243 - 10.4(b) Stamping on an Opponent:

LE – 2 weeks
MR – 5 weeks
TE – 9+ weeks

So yea potentially 3/4 weeks because he stamped on the players head not his back/arm etc but then halved for good behaviour, being a devout christian, family man, All Black, very remorseful, father of two, All Black, clean record, All Black.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Well, if the citing commissioner's show any consistency then Adam Thompson can't get more than a two week ban. Which should be reduced to one on the basis of his clean record. So he should just miss the Italy game.

Any more than that, and the "open season on McCaw Sponsored by the IRB" drums will surely start to beat louder.

Isn't it just you and some overly Wummish Kiwi journos that beat that though?

yappysnap wrote:243 - 10.4(b) Stamping on an Opponent:

LE – 2 weeks
MR – 5 weeks
TE – 9+ weeks

So yea potentially 3/4 weeks because he stamped on the players head not his back/arm etc but then halved for good behaviour, being a devout christian, family man, All Black, very remorseful, father of two, All Black, clean record, All Black.

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

I can see it getting a middle entry because of head, or a low because it was so weak. Either will probably be reduced if he has got a clean record.

It's a reference to Keven Mealamu yappy who has sinned a couple of times before.

As Low say's its a tongue in cheak reference to Mealamu who's whole defence after headbutting Moody was that he was a really nice bloke, top dad and devout Christian.

Obviously I didn't mean any form.of offense but sarcasm can be lost in text

Sorry I mixed the names up yappy. Don't worry I had a chuckle about your comment.

If the Scottish player had been McCaw, no doubt there would be some who say who deserved it. When it's a player whose name I don't know how to write then nobody makes that comment.

That said, doesn't excuse Thomson and he should get a 2 week ban at least I think.

Just simply a very dumb thing to do. Foot to head is asking for problems no matter what.

A two week ban is in order but Thompson does not have a history of foul play so should be reduced to a one week ban as a warning to future conduct.

I'm actually stunned that nobody has yet said "He was lying on the ball on the wrong side of the ruck and deserved it".

Surely that is the normal response? Or is that only when the victim as an All Black?

Mike cleary basically said it in the telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/9673255/Ban-on-rucking-to-blame-for-All-Blacks-Adam-Thomson-trampling-on-Scotland-forward-Alasdair-Strokoschs-head.html

Exactly as Taylorman said-don't go there with feet to the head. What also irked me was his punch beforehand. NZ (and any other team for that matter) shouldn't have to resort to that. Ruck him for sure, but that's the head. It should be sacred along with the twig and giggleberries.

I'd say the actions deserve four weeks but cut down to two probably for a clean record. Also he got carded and put his team in a precarious position. Stupid.

The thing that stands out for me, is that this was a rugby action, rather than a thuggery action. Thompson was at a ruck, trying to clear quick ball and in frustration put his foot on the head of the opponent, he didn't do it with intent to hurt, but possibly partly out of frustration and partly to let the guy who he should move.

In the circumstances, I don't they he could actually move away, there were six guys on top of him and he looked pretty wedged in there. However it was clearly a Scottish tactic to get into these body positions.

Contrast this to the flying elbow to McCaws head (2 weeks), the kick to the head and head-butt (2 weeks), or Dylan Hartley's elbow drop on McCaw (not even a fricken penalty). Niether of these were rugby actions, they occurred when the ball was out of play and away from the game.

If these are worth just 2 weeks, then Thompson should walk free, especially since he already was punsihed through a yellow card...

From the history of All Blacks in the NH though, I can bet he'll get much much more.

Awop Etzebeth got two weeks for just aiming at Sharpe, he didn't even headbutt him, how do you now suggest Thompson should get away with nothing?

anotherworldofpain wrote:The thing that stands out for me, is that this was a rugby action, rather than a thuggery action. Thompson was at a ruck, trying to clear quick ball and in frustration put his foot on the head of the opponent, he didn't do it with intent to hurt, but possibly partly out of frustration and partly to let the guy who he should move.

In the circumstances, I don't they he could actually move away, there were six guys on top of him and he looked pretty wedged in there. However it was clearly a Scottish tactic to get into these body positions.

As far as I can tell you are saying it is OK for him to stamp/stand on the head of a player out of frustration? Especially as it was a deliberate ploy by Scotland to slow the ball down. Hypocritical much?

Biltong wrote:Awop Etzebeth got two weeks for just aiming at Sharpe, he didn't even headbutt him, how do you now suggest Thompson should get away with nothing?

That's because he's a Saffa Biltong. Automatic doubling of any ban as he's bound to have done it before and gotten away with it

anotherworldofpain wrote:The thing that stands out for me, is that this was a rugby action, rather than a thuggery action. Thompson was at a ruck, trying to clear quick ball and in frustration put his foot on the head of the opponent, he didn't do it with intent to hurt, but possibly partly out of frustration and partly to let the guy who he should move.

In the circumstances, I don't they he could actually move away, there were six guys on top of him and he looked pretty wedged in there. However it was clearly a Scottish tactic to get into these body positions.

Contrast this to the flying elbow to McCaws head (2 weeks), the kick to the head and head-butt (2 weeks), or Dylan Hartley's elbow drop on McCaw (not even a fricken penalty). Niether of these were rugby actions, they occurred when the ball was out of play and away from the game.

If these are worth just 2 weeks, then Thompson should walk free, especially since he already was punsihed through a yellow card...

From the history of All Blacks in the NH though, I can bet he'll get much much more.

what history?

if he was French though, he would get 12 month straight away.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Biltong wrote:Awop Etzebeth got two weeks for just aiming at Sharpe, he didn't even headbutt him, how do you now suggest Thompson should get away with nothing?

That's because he's a Saffa Biltong. Automatic doubling of any ban as he's bound to have done it before and gotten away with it

Involving a South African and doubling bans go hand in hand Pete. In Etzebeth's case it was doubled for what he would still do though, as he hasn't played enough rugby to have done it previously

It did look to me more like a warning - "leave your head here again and it will be stomped on"

Ah,

But McCaw is a Terminator sent back from the future to lead a black army of orcs to destroy humankind. He knows what crimes people will commit before they happen.
His acolytes at the IRB, who are in danger of showing their hands by appointing him greatest player ever - every year, are acting at his behest.

Thompson no doubt told the citing comissioner that it was "an accident" as per standard AB admit nothing protocol and he will probably get off or get the minimum.

He should get two weeks for stupidity alone.

Did anyone see how Jarrod Hoeata went this morning against Leicster?

He will come into the ABs if Thomson is suspended.

Biltong wrote:Awop Etzebeth got two weeks for just aiming at Sharpe, he didn't even headbutt him, how do you now suggest Thompson should get away with nothing?

Because this is the benchmark for a one match suspension Blitong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH8tmL8n1ps

And this doesn't get cited at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttY0jl1LAFU&feature=fvwrel

And neither does this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=53ygseQDp_o#t=138s

And this was cleared by the citing commission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9RYZStDdDI

So your point is there is no consistency?

Its the flip side of McCaws invisibility screen / cloaking device. He does not get pinged for being on the wrong side but also people who hit himn don't get cited.

In all honesty hartley is a nasty thug and should not be anywhere near the england side. No place in the game for somone who behaves like that. he should have been cited and banned for that and given his previous a nice long ban.

Possibly even worth a criminal charge as he deliberately and with intent hit a man who was unable to defend himself

Biltong wrote:So your point is there is no consistency?

Exactly, my post is tongue in cheek. I'm awaiting (with one eyebrow raised) Thompsons judgment. My bet is he will cop a disproportionate ban for what was a stupid, reckless and unnecessary but otherwise innocuous action even by admission of the victim, but if he doesn't the howls of protest will be loudest from the usual suspects who will fail to acknowledge that the ruling is inconsistent.

TJ wrote:Its the flip side of McCaws invisibility screen / cloaking device. He does not get pinged for being on the wrong side but also people who hit himn don't get cited.

In all honesty hartley is a nasty thug and should not be anywhere near the england side. No place in the game for somone who behaves like that. he should have been cited and banned for that and given his previous a nice long ban.

Possibly even worth a criminal charge as he deliberately and with intent hit a man who was unable to defend himself

I think all All Blacks get invisibility cloaks, it seems Ellison's wasn't working.

yappysnap wrote:243 - 10.4(b) Stamping on an Opponent:

LE – 2 weeks
MR – 5 weeks
TE – 9+ weeks

So yea potentially 3/4 weeks because he stamped on the players head not his back/arm etc but then halved for good behaviour, being a devout christian, family man, All Black, very remorseful, father of two, All Black, clean record, All Black.

Very true.

Thompson is an all black. He'll get a 1 week ban at the most.

Did anyone notice Thompson punching Strokosch in the head just before?

Strange to see Thompson grinning when the incident was played on the big screen at the game. He must have been thinking: "I won't be banned because I am an All Black".

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Did anyone see how Jarrod Hoeata went this morning against Leicster?

He will come into the ABs if Thomson is suspended.

He was one of two Maori ABs to be given yellow laurie. Discipline issues won't endear him to the selectors.

...and as a wise old rugby sage once said: "it's rugby not ballet"...discuss

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Biltong wrote:Awop Etzebeth got two weeks for just aiming at Sharpe, he didn't even headbutt him, how do you now suggest Thompson should get away with nothing?

Because this is the benchmark for a one match suspension Blitong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH8tmL8n1ps

And this doesn't get cited at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttY0jl1LAFU&feature=fvwrel

And neither does this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=53ygseQDp_o#t=138s

And this was cleared by the citing commission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9RYZStDdDI

That Irish one is a disgrace. Who is that in the scrum cap? He should have been banned for a long time for that. If you have to cheat then you aren't good enough

Have a look at this journo's take on the incident from the New Zealand Herald.

To be fair the comments section are more realistic and distance themselves from his myopic standpoint.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10847228

A disgracefully poor article. Good to see those comments at the bottom of the page.

More worrying though is the worrying tendency to spell his name Thompson. The AB lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee and are already concocting a cunning plan. They will enter a plea that Adam Thompson be suspended for a month and it'll be approved and then Adam Thomson will run out against Italy this weekend.

Its quite amussing that people complain about the Sun and Sky when theres rags like the Herald still in print. It does make it a bit more apparent where AWOP his material from though

Funny thing is Gregor Paul's a Scot.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:A disgracefully poor article. Good to see those comments at the bottom of the page.

More worrying though is the worrying tendency to spell his name Thompson. The AB lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee and are already concocting a cunning plan. They will enter a plea that Adam Thompson be suspended for a month and it'll be approved and then Adam Thomson will run out against Italy this weekend.

So long as they do not ban Adam Thompstone

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:A disgracefully poor article. Good to see those comments at the bottom of the page.

More worrying though is the worrying tendency to spell his name Thompson. The AB lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee and are already concocting a cunning plan. They will enter a plea that Adam Thompson be suspended for a month and it'll be approved and then Adam Thomson will run out against Italy this weekend.

"A raging sense of injustice can often become a bedfellow for the All Blacks in Europe. The rugby world is prone to conspiring against them on these November tours and the outcome of Adam Thomson's judicial hearing is much bigger than determining the immediate playing fate of a bit-part All Black. It will establish whether there is justice for all or a giant conspiracy to make an example of the All Blacks at every opportunity."

Sad thing is some people actually believe this shoite. No such thing as a guilty AB.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10847522

Huh, only one week for 'stamping', that's very surprising.

The All Blacks have received a double batch of good news with Ben Smith declared fit to be considered for selection against Wales and Adam Thomson handed only a one-week ban for stamping.

Very fair judgement which at least shows some consistency in the context of recent rulings in my view.

Well, well, Etzebeth gets two weeks for a headbutt that never happened and Thomson gets 1 week for stamping.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Its quite amussing that people complain about the Sun and Sky when theres rags like the Herald still in print. It does make it a bit more apparent where AWOP his material from though

Gee thats a bit tough, The Harold is my towns only daily newspaper. I do agree that the Herald is not the paper that it used to be, it dropped in standard when a particular Irishman that you may know bought it approx ten years ago.

Biltong wrote:Well, well, Etzebeth gets two weeks for a headbutt that never happened and Thomson gets 1 week for stamping.

I think this proves that Etzebeth got off light, because didnt he stamp as well, or am I confusing banned Springboks? theres been so many of them.

Nope, he didn't stamp. We don't stamp, we headbutt or use stiff arms.

Argh you should learn the noble art of stamping.

I guarantee Thompson took the usual cowardly AB stance and denied all intent and therefore got a reduced ban.

Can anyone ever remember an AB ever admitting guilt at any citing? Nope.

Have you attended all previous AB hearings GG?

Johnny Cochran must be the ABs lawyer. I'd say the punch beforehand indicated enough intent and a three to four week ban should have been given to set a precedent.

Though he's giving himself a self-imposed ban for years apparently soon.


Agree with Kia though. Settle down GG.

It's a fair question. Can anyone ever remember an AB admitting foul play because I can't yet I can think of many examples of AB denying all responsibility and getting off with small bans. I've played rugby, I've lashed out at opponents we all know it happens in every match however if you aren't man enough to admit you have done something wrong then it is fairly lame if you ask me.

Should have been two weeks. My initial reaction was the same as the crowds and the intent, regardless of the 'ferocity' of it, was there.

Completely out of character for Thompson but thats probably more reason to be strict on first timers...

Why should an AB admit committing foul play when theyve done nothing wrong?...In fact it would be dishonest, maybe even misleading the court.