How long a suspension should Thomson get?

All Black no 6, Adam Thomson, was yellow carded for using his boot on a prone Scottish player. How long should he be suspended for. ESPN's website (http://www.espnscrum.com/new-zealand-tour-2012/rugby/story/172696.html) summarises the events as follows:

" The All Blacks' delight may be tempered by a citing for flanker Adam Thomson who was yellow carded for some reckless rucking to the head of Scotland's Alasdair Strokosch. Citing commissioner Murray Whyte is set to review the tape but Strokosch was quick to play down the incident.

Strokosch said: "It certainly wasn't malicious. There was no damage done. He barely grazed it. I would say the yellow card's fine. I wouldn't take it any further. It wasn't a big deal."

New Zealand head coach Steve Hansen said: "It looked like he (Thomson) got frustrated because someone was lying over the ball. He placed his foot on the guy's head. He didn't stomp him, which was one good thing, but the rules say you can't, so I'm sure someone will be looking at it.

"Someone will look at the game and they'll make a decision if what he did was with malicious intent or reckless. I suggest probably reckless and from there it will take its course. Apart from that incident I thought he played particularly well." "

The question for me is about consistency. Obviously I'm an AB's fan. But more to the point I'm a rugby fan and I'm tired of inconsistent punishments being handed down by the judiciary. I think there are two points that the players and coaches agree on:
1: he used his boot on a players head.
2: there was no malixe involved and the player was not in any real danger of injury.

In my view he should get at least a 2 match ban, because he used his boot on head (irrespective of damage or intent) and it sets the minimum at a level that affects the player. That's even though it's right at the lower end of a cite-able offence. Your thoughts.

Punched him first then stamped on him- dirty animal who should be banned. Pity Stroker didn't kick the bejeezus out of him afterwards.

Either way, reckless or with intent at least two weeks, Etzebeth got 2 weeks for a "mock" headbutt.

AWOP will be weeping you got to this thread first.

It's Richie McCaw's fault. He should be banned as well.

Agreed. I think that would be the best result. I think he may get less given that Strokosch said he didn't think it warranted more than a yellow.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:AWOP will be weeping you got to this thread first.

It's Richie McCaw's fault. He should be banned as well.

I think they tried to ban him as a weapon of mass destruction.

By all accounts, not particularly malicious or damaging, but anything involving the boot and the back of the head/neck is sheer stupidity and potentially horrific, so an area I suspect the IRB will want to send a message out about.

couple of weeks would seem to be right to me

Can we ban the Welsh squad too?

blackcanelion wrote:

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:AWOP will be weeping you got to this thread first.

It's Richie McCaw's fault. He should be banned as well.

I think they tried to ban him as a weapon of mass destruction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpnIenTjXUU

http://www.therugbysite.com/videos/16-richie-mccaw-tackle-techniques-defence-breakdown

Yup, idiotic thing to do and I bet the team and coaches are very dissapointed in his ill discipline. No excuse, wo weeks. Although you raise a point BCL about consistency, and especially when looking at what others have got. Being in the NH, he'll get the book thrown at him so he'll no doubt play no further part in the AIs. Probably serves him right, shame cause he played ok otherwise.

Stupid thing to do given how much in control his team was.

Although it shouldn't, of course, it will help him that he did it to one of the hardest people in the game (one of Big Al's main hobbies is MMA) who genuinely doesn't really care and doesn't think it was that big a deal.

Two game ban would seem reasonable.

It was reckless not malicious but it was a boot to the Head,given recent citings and the fact he is an All Black.Four weeks and in practical terms the end of his AB career.

emack2 wrote:It was reckless not malicious but it was a boot to the Head,given recent citings and the fact he is an All Black.Four weeks and in practical terms the end of his AB career.

a boot to the Head - the only relevant part in the discussion when deciding if a ban is needed. Intent to hurt etc comes in to play when deciding any length of ban - having only seen it in slo-mo I cannot comment but feels like a low end offence.


and the fact he is an All Black - how is this relevant to anything - unless you are a believer that ABs are treated more leniently because of who they are?

Just had a look at it again on iplayer. To me it looks more like he gave stroks a warning "put your head there and look what could happen" sort of thing so minimum ban. No significant pressure / force at all

ebop wrote: Being in the NH, he'll get the book thrown at him so he'll no doubt play no further part in the AIs. Probably serves him right, shame cause he played ok otherwise.

Yeah if hed done it at home it wouldve been written off as a "clear out" right?

Not sure if I'm up to date but I've heard he's not signing a new contract with NZRU even though he's only 28.... has received a big offer from Japan so this may be his last AB cap.

Would be a sad way to go but he wasn't forced into the act.

Got to have at least a 2 game ban... he's not first choice anyway so if he was banned for two games it wouldn't hurt NZ's plans given NZ next match is against Italy. To be fair, he should receive an end of tour ban...based on the act alone.

It was a daft thing...but it was a nothing aswell.

I wouldnt ban him...and Care being binned for that tackle was a joke aswell.

We're in danger of becoming a ballet class like football....

its intent should get a shorter ban than what I want to give him after it was replayed on TV.

Sorry, but that sort of thing should be erm.. stamped on.

3 week ban reduced to 2 after it has been made clear to the press and others that the intent wasn't as bad as it looked and the victim can still count up to 4

Saw a discussion on the Now Rugby forum about another incident where Tamati Ellison twists Ryan Grant's arm, maybe not so serious but painful and it's away from the ball, after the whistle and unprovoked, totally unneccessary stuff. Around 19:57 on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lYm_gpQCo

Haven't heard it mentioned anywhere else. Nothing in it or the potential to cause damage?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

ebop wrote: Being in the NH, he'll get the book thrown at him so he'll no doubt play no further part in the AIs. Probably serves him right, shame cause he played ok otherwise.

Yeah if hed done it at home it wouldve been written off as a "clear out" right?

Nah, I meant he'll probably get the 'fair' number of weeks, 3-4.

I say 2 weeks just based on what has been issued in SH competitions for cheap head shot related incidents, which seems a bit light. So if he gets 3-4, serves him right, but does show some inconsistency. But then again, a foot, knee, or elbow to the head are probably treated different in terms of suspension, I wouldn't know.

Adam Thomson has been cited and won`t play again on tour that is certain,it is relaven t that he`s an All Black.Because of the perception in the Media and on these Boards that AB`s are treated differently to other teams.
Thomson`s future has`nt been declared Japan season is well under way,at Super /ITM level he is one of the best around.Cursed like so many with the utility bit,it is likely next year he will be a late starter for the Highlanders a gap has been left in there squad.He still values AB caps and if a regular starter would`nt leave NZ.

I dont think he will get a ban to be honest. After all he is an All Black.

How long did mialamu and umanga get for that spear tackle on Bod in the Lions tour?

He should be banned for the rest of the tour though IMHO.

Pat_Mustard wrote:Saw a discussion on the Now Rugby forum about another incident where Tamati Ellison twists Ryan Grant's arm, maybe not so serious but painful and it's away from the ball, after the whistle and unprovoked, totally unneccessary stuff. Around 19:57 on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lYm_gpQCo

Haven't heard it mentioned anywhere else. Nothing in it or the potential to cause damage?

Quite deliberate by the NZ player, Ellison. The hold technique has a name that escapes me - Kimara?? Not sure what he was trying to achieve - injure him for the match?

Pot Hale wrote:

Pat_Mustard wrote:Saw a discussion on the Now Rugby forum about another incident where Tamati Ellison twists Ryan Grant's arm, maybe not so serious but painful and it's away from the ball, after the whistle and unprovoked, totally unneccessary stuff. Around 19:57 on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lYm_gpQCo

Haven't heard it mentioned anywhere else. Nothing in it or the potential to cause damage?

Quite deliberate by the NZ player, Ellison. The hold technique has a name that escapes me - Kimara?? Not sure what he was trying to achieve - injure him for the match?

Look closer, the Scottish prop grabs Ellison's hand first. Ellison then reacts and ends up with the better grip. Visser attacking Ellison's head afterwards is something that should be more worthy of the citing commisionners time.

Or how about the McCaw being taken out by a shoulder to the head immediately before Savea's first try?

majesticimperialman wrote:I dont think he will get a ban to be honest. After all he is an All Black.

How long did mialamu and umanga get for that spear tackle on Bod in the Lions tour?

He should be banned for the rest of the tour though IMHO.

I think he was lucky not to receive a red card, but I think the TJ called inappropriate use of the feet (or something like that), which doesn't necesarrily mean he went for the head. Sure if the ref/TJ were certain of head contact it would have been red.

As for a ban, well any attack to the head should be dealt with severely. But what was the SA players punishment for a flying forearm to McCaw's head? I guess if there is consistency Thomson will get less than he did.

Interestingly the BBC are reporting the charge as "stamping or trampling" . Now to my eyes his offence doesn't really fall into either category. So will he get off on a technicality? I would love to see that happen, just to see the full wrath of the the tinfoil-hat brigade erupt.

that arm twisting / Vissers reaction is all a storm in a tea cup. Forget it.

Can't do with this rubbish about ABs being treated differently from others because they're ABs. Don't believe it. As for this incident it was an illjudged response to an annoyance which had no consequences on the field. Citing panel has no choice but to punish but 3 weeks reduced to 2 seems about right.

aitchw wrote:Can't do with this rubbish about ABs being treated differently from others because they're ABs. Don't believe it. As for this incident it was an illjudged response to an annoyance which had no consequences on the field. Citing panel has no choice but to punish but 3 weeks reduced to 2 seems about right.

The voice of reason.

2: there was no malixe involved and the player was not in any real danger of injury

I'm sorry but a kick or stamp to the back of the head can cause very serious injury. I know someone who suffered brain damage from that, which happened during a game of rugby.

Watched it again today and I think it looks pretty bad. There was enough force to push his head down to the floor and it wasn't just a prod on the head, he dragged his foot. You can see he makes contact with the neck first.

I originally said 2 weeks, but I think a bit longer now.

goneagain wrote:

aitchw wrote:Can't do with this rubbish about ABs being treated differently from others because they're ABs. Don't believe it. As for this incident it was an illjudged response to an annoyance which had no consequences on the field. Citing panel has no choice but to punish but 3 weeks reduced to 2 seems about right.

The voice of reason.

The voice of finding a friend in the wilderness, possibly.

A 3-8 week ban is the lower entry level for using the boot on an opponent's head. Forget forearm smashes - different category of offence. And often viewed as reckless rather than malicious. In many of those cases 'you see what you want to see' as a fan of your team.


Given Strokosch's view it should be deemed a 'low entry' ban. So maybe 4-5 weeks and reduced to 3 if Thomson has no previous.

Hound,
Strokosch didn't think there was much in it. I read a quote of his in one of today's papers saying he felt if Thomson really wanted to do damage, he could have, but didn't.
Clearly a boot to the head is a suspension offense. That part is non-negotiable. But when the victim says he didn't believe there was anythig in it, then the suspension should be short. Two weeks works for me.

Still - he threw a punch and stamped on a player who could not respond - actions of a coward - a disgrace.

doc - I think it will be 2 weeks, if he gets anything. I read 3-8 weeks was the lower entry level, but apparently it is 2-4 (can't trust these journos)

21st - it was not a stamp by Strokosch's own admission. And I don't think Thomson is a 'coward'. A bit daft maybe, because you just don't do something that has every chance of being picked up by the cameras.

I'll refer to my earlier comment about seeing what you want to see.

So its not the actions of a coward to stand /stamp on a man's head when he is face down after throwing a punch to the same player when he cannot react or even see who was doing the punching / stamping ?

Ok let it all go mental out there then.

Guess it was a bit cowardly. Would have been a heck of a lot more cowardly if he'd intended to cause serious harm. Just lucky he didn't or else.

Just looks like he's tapping him on the head with his boot to say "move your head I want to get the ball" and Thompson did. Nothing more than that.

Pot Hale wrote:

The voice of finding a friend in the wilderness, possibly.

Gets awfully lonely barking at the moon with only the spirits to keep one company.