Did Du Plessis Get Off Lightly?

A lot has been made of Poite's mistake in the initial sin-binning of Bismark. So uncharacteristically apologetic were those responsible that Bismark's judicial hearing was quashed.

However contrast this simpering leniency with Flip van der Merwe's ban for an incident almost identical to Bismark's second offence and we are left wondering if the springboks talismanic hooker should be lining up against the All Blacks at all.

The All Blacks certainly don't think so and are openly questioning the validity of both Bismark's apparent let off and the tactics of the Springboks in general. Taking a look at the sheer number of incidents arising from the South African's famously physical style it's hard not to wonder if crossing the line isn't part and parcel of the tactics.

Greyling, Butch James, Burger, Botha, Etzebeth, Van Der Merwe and even Bismark himself are amongst the long list of Boks who seemed to believe that targeting All Blacks and other teams star players might be easier than besting them within the spirit of the law.

Will this weekends encounter be any different?

No, we're thugs.

Probably more thug'ish than being pure thugs. Hey, if you're big and mean, why not play on that to create a fearsome reputation. Just means having a few players in the bin every now and then which can be costly if it's not done right. Can do thug'ish legal tackles that hurt just as much as an elbow to the throat.

Such a whinge about nothing...

You can also have players in the bin for tackling Carter.

GE, is this true?

"The All Blacks certainly don't think so and are openly questioning the validity of both Bismark's apparent let off and the tactics of the Springboks in general".

What an irritating little man you are GE..

Can the mods not please ban GE for simply being so annoying? Surely it must break some rule.

Or just ban him anyway and nobody will tell a soul..

Nah, this way he exposes himself more.

Like calling Etzebeth out for thuggish behaviour when he has been the most disciplined Bok this whole year.

ebop wrote:GE, is this true?

"The All Blacks certainly don't think so and are openly questioning the validity of both Bismark's apparent let off and the tactics of the Springboks in general".

Yes.

"The All Blacks were not about to let the issue drop though, Hansen suggesting du Plessis was fortunate to get away with a yellow for leading into a tackle with his forearm.

A similar offence by Bok lock Flip van der Merwe last week against the Wallabies means he will miss this Rugby Championship decider."


Source: NZ herald.

...."and the tactics of the Springboks in general"

That bit true?

It is all gamesmanship Ebop.

NZ complains about our ohysicality in hope that they can get a man advantage and Meyer complains that Nz gets awaybwith murder in their 22, repeated infringements by them is not met with a yellow card and all of it is for the benefit of Nigel Owens.

ebop wrote:...."and the tactics of the Springboks in general"

That bit true?

Yes. Google it.

GE

You portray the Nz people to be such poor winners, and whinging pre gamers, most kiwi's I have met are far more gracious and sensible. Are you always like this or is it just the forums?

I'm merely pointing out things said in the media, I didn't say I agreed with it. I'm asking a question if you look again, not making an assertion.

My only concern with the so called physical play of the boks is that it serves to offset the inadequacy of other areas of their game- namely their backs. Ive no qualms about it at all in that the amount of energy centered in the one area looks silly when compared to that focussed on backlay in general- kind of like the guy that goes to the gym to build up a huge torso, shoulders, chest and arms, and completely neglects the legs- that image sums up bok rugby perfectly for me- though this year it looks as though the calves have been getting a bit of a workout too...

Though the likelihood is that after Eden park the resolution will be to go back to the gym...and do 3000 more bench presses...

The Boks' physicality serves to hide other inadequacies.

I find that rather hilarious.

Isn't the definition of futility to do the same thing repeatedly and expect different results?

It is actually the definition of stupidity as well.

Biltong wrote:The Boks' physicality serves to hide other inadequacies.

I find that rather hilarious.

It is a good description of many night club bouncers though.

Biltong wrote:It is actually the definition of stupidity as well.

I'd never go that far! But, your words...

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:It is actually the definition of stupidity as well.

I'd never go that far! But, your words...

Well your context is all wrong with your "saying"

Hence me just helping you further into the hole you are digging.

Biltong,

You are of course assuming that GE is looking for a different reaction when he continues to make these posts. I suspect he keeps repeating the same action because he enjoys the reaction he gets.

You do have to wonder what everyday life must be like in GE world don't you?

That is the little time he spends away from here of course.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm merely pointing out things said in the media, I didn't say I agreed with it. I'm asking a question if you look again, not making an assertion.

the only piece about Bimark I found int he NZ herald is rather balanced :

NZ herald wrote:Like many who play international rugby there is nothing angelic about Bismarck du Plessis when he runs into international rugby conflict. Nor should there be.

His role demands loads of skilful nerve and more bluster than some local body politicians hawking their credentials.

You fancy du Plessis' work would get admiring nods from men like Sean Fitzpatrick, Phil Kearns, John Smit, Mario Ledesma and Raphael Ibanez who were similar beasts in their test careers.

Like that group, du Plessis uses every fraction of the laws to impose himself and is often loitering a shade over that acceptable line. Before you start unfurling some nationalistic tut-tut finger-pointing routine, remember that Keven Mealamu and Andrew Hore have also been up before the law.

when you quote a media, it is easy to cherry pick and create controversy when there is none...much ado about nothing again GE.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11134391

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

Biltong wrote:The Boks' physicality serves to hide other inadequacies.

I find that rather hilarious.

It is a good description of many night club bouncers though.

yes I read somewhere that etzebeth is from a long line of them...how apt...

Taylorman wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

Biltong wrote:The Boks' physicality serves to hide other inadequacies.

I find that rather hilarious.

It is a good description of many night club bouncers though.

yes I read somewhere that etzebeth is from a long line of them...how apt...

That is in fact true, a family of very hard men

I thought they got off lightly last week, Hooper was unlucky with the yellow - Bismarck should have seen yellow for his role in the scuffle after words and yer man(?) should have seen red, rather than yellow, for the elbow ...

That said I'm looking forward to a ferocious physical old school battle in this game...

I'm surprised by the comments of Sean Fitzpatrick and Justin Marshall, that the ABs may have the edge physically? Do the kiwi fans feel this?

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

Biltong wrote:The Boks' physicality serves to hide other inadequacies.

I find that rather hilarious.

It is a good description of many night club bouncers though.

yes I read somewhere that etzebeth is from a long line of them...how apt...

That is in fact true, a family of very hard men

Really? You'd never guess this with his placid nature.

The Aussies got frustrated last weekend and tried to "pull" a Nathan sharpe on the Springboks, the fact that nobody got a bloodied mouth speaks volumes about the restraint of the Springboks.

Throwing a couple of Ozzies around like rag dolls is nothing in comparison to what happened on rugby fields when I was a boy.

We used to box the hell out of each other, walking off the field with a bloodied rugby jersey was a thing of pride. It meant you didn't back off.

Biltong wrote:Nah, this way he exposes himself more.

Like calling Etzebeth out for thuggish behaviour when he has been the most disciplined Bok this whole year.

I called him a thug too but I havent seen him play too much this year admitedly

rodders wrote:I thought they got off lightly last week, Hooper was unlucky with the yellow - Bismarck should have seen yellow for his role in the scuffle after words and yer man(?) should have seen red, rather than yellow, for the elbow ...

That said I'm looking forward to a ferocious physical old school battle in this game...

I'm surprised by the comments of Sean Fitzpatrick and Justin Marshall, that the ABs may have the edge physically? Do the kiwi fans feel this?

That was a ridiculous yellow. It looked like Ezebeth tried to almost jump the tackle.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Isn't the definition of futility to do the same thing repeatedly and expect different results?

Yet you still keep writing these articles.

I feel sorry for the real NZ fans.

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:Nah, this way he exposes himself more.

Like calling Etzebeth out for thuggish behaviour when he has been the most disciplined Bok this whole year.

I called him a thug too but I havent seen him play too much this year admitedly

I am still trying to figure out why people think he is a thug.

He was taunted last year by a few players trying to rile him up, the only ban he recieived was for a non headbutt which I thought was rather pathetic.

This year he got slapped in the face by Jameson? in the Scotland game, yet he has received no yellow cards or bans.

People read an article that he is the new enforcer and the next Bakkies Botha, and immediately assume he is a thug.

That is most likely why the Judicial officer gave him a ban. Same perception.

I would love to know if any other player ever got banned for mocking a head butt. Doubt it.

Was it another team, the guy would most likely not even been cited.

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:I thought they got off lightly last week, Hooper was unlucky with the yellow - Bismarck should have seen yellow for his role in the scuffle after words and yer man(?) should have seen red, rather than yellow, for the elbow ...

That said I'm looking forward to a ferocious physical old school battle in this game...

I'm surprised by the comments of Sean Fitzpatrick and Justin Marshall, that the ABs may have the edge physically? Do the kiwi fans feel this?

That was a ridiculous yellow. It looked like Ezebeth tried to almost jump the tackle.

The reason he got that card was due to circumstances.

He stood up in the tackle whilst holding a leg. Had he not stood up in the tackle and not been holding onto Etzebeths leg, he would have not received a yellow card.

Like Garces said at the time, "I know it isn't intentional, but it is still dangerous"

Ignoring the tone of this article, I actually think that in Strauss the Boks have a very very good replacement, arguably if he was from any other country he would be a guaranteed first choice.

I hope South Africa really go for it, could be a cracker of a match.

This is what Etzebeth did to Bismarck.

In the one game he has played against Ireland he blatantly kneed Sexton in the head in open play. It was cynical but he got away with it. I have seen him involved in plently of niggle and cynical stuff. He is possibly just young. Besides I like a bit of niggle in rugby. It makes the sport more exciting. I believe that a certain level of dirtiness should be allowed.

Me too Guns, the game is becoming too sanitised imo.

Intentional dangerous play should be punished but the confrontation aspect of the game is being watered down too much, the game needs fiery players like Etzebeth and Bismark.

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:I thought they got off lightly last week, Hooper was unlucky with the yellow - Bismarck should have seen yellow for his role in the scuffle after words and yer man(?) should have seen red, rather than yellow, for the elbow ...

That said I'm looking forward to a ferocious physical old school battle in this game...

I'm surprised by the comments of Sean Fitzpatrick and Justin Marshall, that the ABs may have the edge physically? Do the kiwi fans feel this?

That was a ridiculous yellow. It looked like Ezebeth tried to almost jump the tackle.

The reason he got that card was due to circumstances.

He stood up in the tackle whilst holding a leg. Had he not stood up in the tackle and not been holding onto Etzebeths leg, he would have not received a yellow card.

Like Garces said at the time, "I know it isn't intentional, but it is still dangerous"

Thats a fair explaination.

rodders wrote:I thought they got off lightly last week, Hooper was unlucky with the yellow - Bismarck should have seen yellow for his role in the scuffle after words and yer man(?) should have seen red, rather than yellow, for the elbow ...

That said I'm looking forward to a ferocious physical old school battle in this game...

I'm surprised by the comments of Sean Fitzpatrick and Justin Marshall, that the ABs may have the edge physically? Do the kiwi fans feel this?

I thought the ABs were more physical when it mattered at eden park, all the tries going through the bok defences, sam cane, read and retalik particularly strong. Boks were better scrum time but not a lot else...but of course...the card negates all that.

Rodders I think the physicality would be usually a slight advantage to the Boks but the first up tackles in Auckland were just huge and I actually think we were (only just mind you) shading the physical battle. If wasn't to do with 14 on 15 either the collisions were with the lines set and I was mightily impressed with how NZ's forwards (particularly Cane) handled it. Though Luatua didn't impose himself as well as I thought he would have late in the game. I still feel we were robbed of a cliffhanger but there is no way you can say the Boks were robbed of a certain win at any stage of the game. But they were a chance and it irks us and them that it was taken away.

To know that you can match and beat the Boks physically-this is huge psychologically for NZ-they'll relish it and just watch the venom in the tackling tomorrow.

rodders wrote:Me too Guns, the game is becoming too sanitised imo.

Intentional dangerous play should be punished but the confrontation aspect of the game is being watered down too much, the game needs fiery players like Etzebeth and Bismark.

100%

Fair enough Disney and Taylorman - missed the previous encounter...really looking forward to this as a neutral! Should be epic!

oooh...pay to watch that one first if you can...was one of the most brutal tets for a while...pputs this weekends into perspective.

I shall chase that up!

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:I thought they got off lightly last week, Hooper was unlucky with the yellow - Bismarck should have seen yellow for his role in the scuffle after words and yer man(?) should have seen red, rather than yellow, for the elbow ...

That said I'm looking forward to a ferocious physical old school battle in this game...

I'm surprised by the comments of Sean Fitzpatrick and Justin Marshall, that the ABs may have the edge physically? Do the kiwi fans feel this?

That was a ridiculous yellow. It looked like Ezebeth tried to almost jump the tackle.

Exactly the laws state that it is illegal to jump into a player who is attempting to tackle you so the penalty should've been the other way around. 

It's also illegal to bind to another player or players in open play and run into a tackler, it's called the flying-wedge and there is a specific law that prohibits it . But this is something the springboks do increasingly, especially near the goal line.

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:I thought they got off lightly last week, Hooper was unlucky with the yellow - Bismarck should have seen yellow for his role in the scuffle after words and yer man(?) should have seen red, rather than yellow, for the elbow ...

That said I'm looking forward to a ferocious physical old school battle in this game...

I'm surprised by the comments of Sean Fitzpatrick and Justin Marshall, that the ABs may have the edge physically? Do the kiwi fans feel this?

That was a ridiculous yellow. It looked like Ezebeth tried to almost jump the tackle.

The reason he got that card was due to circumstances.

He stood up in the tackle whilst holding a leg. Had he not stood up in the tackle and not been holding onto Etzebeths leg, he would have not received a yellow card.

Like Garces said at the time, "I know it isn't intentional, but it is still dangerous"

Thats a fair explaination.

yeah thats how i saw it too. It was one of those where a player is expected to change what hes doing suddenly because of the awkward situation the ball carrier got himself into. Eben E was turning in and avoiding the tackle at the same time, that and hoopers connect forcing his legs up.By not stopping immediately he made it dangerous. I thought warburtons was similar- in the heat of the moment the aggression needs to turn to almost prevention of harm in a split second and thats not always easy.

Warburtons was worse IMO. Warburton lifted the player all by himself. Ezebeth jumped and Hooper followed through. I think he was a little more unlucky.

yep, and WBs got the bigger penalty as well. The similarity comes in the how much can you do to alleviate the situation without an abrupt change of your positioning. not a lot warburton could do n the way down so he probably didnt bother. the difference here is the initial intent- neither started out to injure intentionally, they were just guilty of not preventing a dangerous situation once it unravelled and part of that is how quickly that danger is recognised to do anything about it...then do it.

Cane looked like Robocop in Eden Park. Sometimes I think players play better when they're bandaged up. Zinny springs to mind. I think they feel tougher when blood is spilling over the place. It's like actors' tears. You don't want to wipe blood away. It's a sign of strength.