How Long Will Higganbotham Get?

First topic message reminder :

Again Brisbane, again Wallaby thuggery targets Richie McCaw, again a casual knee to the head, another headbutt on the AB Captain.

Despite looking right at it, it was one of those nights when the usually accurate Craig Joubert apparently "couldn't see it", maybe the South African has cataracts, it seemed to be a continuous issue for him, the inability to spot a Wallaby infringing. Will the citing commissioner have clearer vision? and how long will the Higganbotham get rested for? It must be clear to the citing commission that this tactic is a predetermined and premeditated and conscious approach from the Wallabies.

He should get a decent rest, I'd suggest the judiciary should rule him out of the AIs altogether.

Wow, he's more targeted than Richie!

Wales 3, NZ 2

Never thought I'd see that score.

Go figure, a football score on a rugby forum.

Frankly i`m bored rigid by the whole debate he was cited and got 4weeks so will miss 2 AI`s matches.THE two worst areas in modern Rugby are the Scrum and Breakdown Area.The Scrum problem exists because of the ritual dance and skin tight shirts.Props can`t get a decent bind,and fighting for the Hit is the main problem.Going early is penalised,diving in often is not crooked feeds are a fact of life.What was once a decent weapon is now a total mess due to constant fiddling.Breakdown is a joke,law states player must when tackled to ground must .Use the ball immediately or release and roll away,the tackler MUST release him.At EVERY breakdown the Ref a can blow for about a dozen offences
against EITHER team.
McCaw like every decent 7 plays to the limit of the laws,he does what Neal Back,George Smith,Pocock does.BUT he has adapted his game andplays to the Ref .As any decent Forward does he will try something at the firstBreakdown
if he`s not pinged he will continue to do it.IF he`s pinged he will adapt his game
teams hate him because he is so good at it.BUT you wish if your honest he was on your side.Also it is naive to think your own players are`nt at it too.
Pinged for not rolling away? whats the betting half the time player pinged is pinned down by half a dozen bodies?
Or the old support player running thru you accidently? crash into him throw your arms up and shout "Obstruction Ref?" works a treat sometimes.
If the method of setting scrums reverted to being set by the Ref,or the Ruck was reintroduced.A lot of the injuries would be negated,for the younger generation here.A Ruck was formed by 2 or more players standing over the ball
BOUND as in a Scrum .Players joining hit the ruck at a correct angle momentum causing the balll to be released.Offside laws applied as in the scrum so the Ruck[loose Scrum] moving forward defending team had to retreat behind the rear most foot and join from there.

Here's a 'McCaw-head-cheap-shot' 606v2 1st XV, not a bad spread across the park.

1. Greyling (elbow head)
2. Hartley (elbow head)
3.
4. McLaughlin (gouge)
5. Williams (head stamp)
6. Higginbum (knee head/head butt)
7.
8. Heaslip (knee head)
9.
10. Cooper (knee head)
11. Tuqiri (spear head)
12.
13.
14. Rougerie (gouge)
15.

Reserves
Powell (clothesline)

Not that this is a joking matter, but I am relieved to see only one dumass south african on that list and surprised Bakkies Botha isn't on there.

In fact when yu consider that NZ and SA must have met 25 or so times during McCaw's career and we only this year had foul play against McCaw, it shows that we are in fact not the percieved thugs in world rugby, considering Australia makes up most of that list.

Yeah, fair point biltong

I'm probably overcooking it, it's just crazy the battering he's taken and never once got up and took a pop.

Actually, this is the worst he reckons, from one of his own

10 April 1, 2006

Hurricanes 11 Crusaders 20, Wellington
The two best teams in New Zealand went for each other and would later meet in the final. This game had the intensity of a test as McCaw discovered when he was strangled at the bottom of a ruck for 24 seconds. He came close to passing out and described it as one of the worst experiences of his career.

Taken from 'Top 10 crimes against McCaw'

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/all-blacks/news/article.cfm?c_id=116&objectid=10835953

ebop, when you look at the list it has become more frequent, by my count there are 4 incidents just in the last year.

The question is why is it becoming more frequent?

Dunno biltong, teams probably just want McCaw to bugger off on permanent sabbatical. In NZ, there's talk that teams target McCaw as a legitimate game plan, but not sure if that's fair.

That list doesn't make for pleasant reading but if I made a list of every time McCaw came in from the side, fell on the wrong side, played the ball off his feet, held someone down, held someone back, or elbowed or kneed his way through a ruck I'd break the internet.

Keep in mind he's not a winger playing his 4th test, he's an openside flanker with over 100 tests. After 8000 mins plus of tough, gruelling, intensively physical test match rugby where he's often the first to each breakdown to either to secure or disrupt ball.... well, not excusable but understandable.

there is probably some truth to it, you need to consider the fact that he plays close to the margins and teams know they have to negate him as the ruck laws are so hard for referees to police that teams now have plans to do it themselves, obviously not always legally.

Full Credit wrote:That list doesn't make for pleasant reading but if I made a list of every time McCaw came in from the side, fell on the wrong side, played the ball off his feet, held someone down, held someone back, or elbowed or kneed his way through a ruck I'd break the internet.

Yes, I agree with that wholeheartedly.

But FC you don't think Pocock doesn't do the same (when he's playing) or any other decent openside. I don't accept this holier than our white pooh doesn't even smell attitude of other teams as a justification to illegally try to take a player out or hurt them. Believe me if an AB did any of the stuff McCaw has recieved I'd be very angry at them. Management would try to paint a rosy picture no doubt as in the Mealamu case or the Umaga and Mealamu incident but Deans said flippantly remarked he was taking notes when Higganbotham did what he did.

Australia competed well at the breakdown on Saturday and that played a huge part in their ability to control the game for large parts of it. Some was legitimate and some was not. But that doesn't justify when it isn't legitimate trying to take out a player. Higganbotham's effort were pretty meek compared with other efforts but foul play should have a zero tolerance policy. Trying to get an edge at the breakdown is what all teams do. Why are there so many penalties in that area? But gouging, punching, headbutting etc is a different category. Hooper got binned for a cynical late tackle but that can at least be understood. Higganbotham's actions were stupid more than anything but should not be tolerated.

Absolutely Kia, any half decent 7 should be making a total pest of themselves to the extent the ref allows it. Let me also say I don't like what Quade or Higgers has done and don't like our nation associated with foul play. Deans should have just said something like 'I'd need to have a closer look at it' or 'that's up to the judiciary'. Incidentally Hansen has been shouting from the rooftops on this issue, yet, as you mention, staunchly defended Mealamu for the same thing because his character couldn't be called into question (for some reason) but Higginbotham's apparently can, even though he's never been before a judiciary.

Remember some of the treatment George Smith used to cop? I remember David Wilson's eyes nearly falling out of his head after the working over the French gave him after the '99 RWC final. All I'm saying is that when you constantly put your body in harms way, occasionally you get harmed. As an international 7 a certain part of it comes with the territory. Personally I think that anyone found guilty of deliberately going for a players eyes or junk should be banned from the sport.

Speaking of cynical, didn't Saint Richie try and knock the ball out of our half backs hand at one point while on the ground? I've seen yellow's for less than that. Drew Mitchell's been sent off for 2 offences, Richie had at least 4 (that were noticed) and nothing.

Higginbotham's actions were stupid and I can't for the life of me figure out how he thought he'd get away with doing that in broad daylight but Greyling gets 2 weeks for launching his full body weight square into McCaw's head via an elbow in what could be legitimately classified as 'trying to take a person out'. Higgers walks into McCaw then gives him the world's softest headbutt (Etzebeth's doesn't count cause he didn't make contact) and gets twice the punishment?

FC in 99 that's where we went wrong and you didn't. Your pack handled themselves (including Eales threatening to take the team off). Ours surrendered meekly and that lost momentum was the catalyst for the French revival. Disgusting for an All Black fan to see-imagine what Kevin Skinner must have felt. I remember George Smith getting targeted all right. Sadly a couple of ABs did-think Collins had a crack at his dreads.

Wouldn't have been surprised if McCaw did-he has to niggle and disrupt anything he can. That's his job. The cynical point of view is that 7s cheat. McCaw is the best 7 so he is the biggest cheat. But every team would want him. I can't understand people endorsing cheap shots on him. Take him out of play sure, but drag him out. Don't knee people in the head, gouge or squeeze the nuts. That's filth and should be stamped out. I also hate the McCheat gibes as every 7 is supposed to learn what he can and can't do according to each ref. Some people go on like he's Barry Bonds or Lance Armstrong. I'm sorry but he plays the game hard and in the right spirit and he's a great ambassador to the sport.

Also agree about the lack of consistency in suspensions. Getting beyond a joke.

Of course McCaw does so does any other forward worth his salt,none more so than George Smith,Juan Smith,Neil Back ,Pocock,and Higginbotham.Often it is an attempt to get a player to retaliate and be binned.Such things were common in the past.

That's my point emack, by toeing the line and getting away with it you not only get cheap ball but you irritate the opposition. When the lesser minds retaliate and get sent off it's an added bonus. I just find it rich to hear how he's an innocent bystander and never does anything to deserve it. Nobody deserves an eye gouge or a squirrel grip but it does deserve something (ideally a penalty). Whether someone chooses to retaliate or not and the manner in which they might retaliate is up to the individual, I'm just saying I can understand the desire to.

Of course he's doing cynical things. I agree he was lucky to escape with not getting a yellow with that hand on the ruck incident on the AB line which turned over possession vitally to NZ. I get that many times he steps beyond the law but like a child he is always testing those limits. Sometimes you overstep your mark and he got penalised a few times on Saturday. I don't think anyone's claiming at times he's not infringing but like I said show me a good 7 in world rugby who doesn't. I'm saying any physical retaliation other than a legal clearout is unacceptable.

I dislike strongly people who insist on playing their crappy music on their mobile phones with no earphones so the world can know just how bad their taste in music is. Unfortunately I can't blow them away with a shotgun even though many would sympathise with me and a friendly jury might even acquit me. You can't take the law into your own hands.

Two weeks! Great now he'll be rested and pumped up for Wales. I reckon he's the hard man in the Aussie side and will be an extra headache for us. Come on boys no holding back give it your best!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
I dislike strongly people who insist on playing their crappy music on their mobile phones with no earphones so the world can know just how bad their taste in music is. Unfortunately I can't blow them away with a shotgun even though many would sympathise with me and a friendly jury might even acquit me. You can't take the law into your own hands.

Yes but unlike McCaw that certainly would deserve a headbutt

Just don't get Higganbotham to do it. It won't be hard enough.

Hope Higganbotham didn't graze his knee on McCaw's stubble

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I dislike strongly people who insist on playing their crappy music on their mobile phones with no earphones so the world can know just how bad their taste in music is. Unfortunately I can't blow them away with a shotgun even though many would sympathise with me and a friendly jury might even acquit me. You can't take the law into your own hands.

Not exactly a fair comparison Kia. As far as I know there's no law against playing awful music so others can hear it. Perhaps a better analogy would be if that person was trying to steal from someone and the police weren't around to intervene and a passer-by good samaritan sorts them out which seems to appear in the news at least once a week. They take the law into their own hands and nobody sheds a tear for the thief with a black eye.

Of course I take your point, you can't take the law into your own hands, I and everyone else knows that so I'm essentially fighting a losing battle here. Higgers is in rugby jail and Richie continues having carte blanche at the breakdown. The world makes sense again.

Full Credit wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I dislike strongly people who insist on playing their crappy music on their mobile phones with no earphones so the world can know just how bad their taste in music is. Unfortunately I can't blow them away with a shotgun even though many would sympathise with me and a friendly jury might even acquit me. You can't take the law into your own hands.

Not exactly a fair comparison Kia. As far as I know there's no law against playing awful music so others can hear it. Perhaps a better analogy would be if that person was trying to steal from someone and the police weren't around to intervene and a passer-by good samaritan sorts them out which seems to appear in the news at least once a week. They take the law into their own hands and nobody sheds a tear for the thief with a black eye.

Of course I take your point, you can't take the law into your own hands, I and everyone else knows that so I'm essentially fighting a losing battle here. Higgers is in rugby jail and Richie continues having carte blanche at the breakdown. The world makes sense again.

Maybe a better analogy is a village, where one family is more prosperous than the others. Because they look different, the other families say they must be dishonest. Eventually, they decide to beat the father up. Whilst violence isn't condoned, it's ok in this case because everyone knows they are evil... It's understandable.......

How about Ned Kelly? I believe he did some dastardly things like getting offside with the law but he's a celebrated Australian hero isn't he?

blackcanelion wrote:Maybe a better analogy is a village, where one family is more prosperous than the others. Because they look different, the other families say they must be dishonest. Eventually, they decide to beat the father up. Whilst violence isn't condoned, it's ok in this case because everyone knows they are evil... It's understandable.......

Hang on. Who's got the shotgun in this example?

ebop wrote:How about Ned Kelly? I believe he did some dastardly things like getting offside with the law but he's a celebrated Australian hero isn't he?

Not everyone thinks he's a 'hero', ebop.

I'm fighting it don't worry FC. Along with navel-bearing t-shirts worn by overweight people, spatially impaired people wheeling business bags who bang into people with reckless abandon, people who use air punctuation and countless other little things that when encountered all in the same day can cause depression, anxiety, rage and a court date. Believe me Higganbotham is getting off lightly.

Linebreaker wrote:

ebop wrote:How about Ned Kelly? I believe he did some dastardly things like getting offside with the law but he's a celebrated Australian hero isn't he?

Not everyone thinks he's a 'hero', ebop.

I get ya LB, probably would have made a great wallaby 7

Right, what's this thread about again? Higganbotham, ah forget it, for now.

Kia kaha Kia, one day at a time buddy

Kinda hard running as a 7 with all that tin armour on though...

Full Credit wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I dislike strongly people who insist on playing their crappy music on their mobile phones with no earphones so the world can know just how bad their taste in music is. Unfortunately I can't blow them away with a shotgun even though many would sympathise with me and a friendly jury might even acquit me. You can't take the law into your own hands.

Not exactly a fair comparison Kia. As far as I know there's no law against playing awful music so others can hear it. Perhaps a better analogy would be if that person was trying to steal from someone and the police weren't around to intervene and a passer-by good samaritan sorts them out which seems to appear in the news at least once a week. They take the law into their own hands and nobody sheds a tear for the thief with a black eye.

Of course I take your point, you can't take the law into your own hands, I and everyone else knows that so I'm essentially fighting a losing battle here. Higgers is in rugby jail and Richie continues having carte blanche at the breakdown. The world makes sense again.

Carte blanche? I haven't seen McCaw issued a single white card since its introduction.

Biltong wrote:Number 11 boot, that was.

At least i have some cohones Biltong whereas you are clearly attacking the poster by attempitng to ridicule me for being banned...surely that contravenes the 606v2 policy?

mowgli wrote:

Biltong wrote:Number 11 boot, that was.

At least i have some cohones Biltong whereas you are clearly attacking the poster by attempitng to ridicule me for being banned...surely that contravenes the 606v2 policy?

Then report it.

There is no such thing as cohones! You might as well say I have some squigglemufflers. The word is cojones.

On a side note, I never understand that expression I have some balls. At most we can have two, without some genetic deficiency. I have some balls sounds as though you have a collection. Look, I have some balls.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:There is no such thing as cohones! You might as well say I have some squigglemufflers. The word is cojones.

On a side note, I never understand that expression I have some balls. At most we can have two, without some genetic deficiency. I have some balls sounds as though you have a collection. Look, I have some balls.

look kia spanish is not my first language and phonetically it sounds like coHones.....this is not an english grammar webiste - although AWOP might think it is -and i am not sure that your failure to understand the commonly used phrase 'having balls' widely used in colloquial and vernacular terms in the English speaking world, is a good benchmark of it's lack of relevance.

I thought you were au fait with words from other languages as you generously gave your time to explain what schadenfreude meant. My apologies.

Biltong wrote:ebop, when you look at the list it has become more frequent, by my count there are 4 incidents just in the last year.

The question is why is it becoming more frequent?

Well two reasons immediately spring to mind:

1. A dumass South African in the shape of the judicial panel has sent a clear message to players thats its quite ok to knee and head butt McCaw by way of his ridiculously light suspensions.

And

2. There is no right of Appeal against the dumassed South Africans decision.

Those pesky South Africans again. If it isn't one thing it is another.

You asked the question.

Asked and answered.

I see that the NZ professional rugby players association has come out and asked for change to ensure consistency (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10842658).

"The framework is there, but the support and expertise isn't," Nichol said. "The people in the key roles aren't delivering and consequently the application of sanctions that people need to see to gain confidence in the system isn't happening. We need to get it right.

"Talking to the players, they are bamboozled by it as well.

"It's a really important area of the game. There's a lot at stake for the players. They are going out on the field and have to be focused on their jobs rather that whether someone is going to take their head off.

"The days of that happening are over. The players have no tolerance for that sort of crap any more."

I think they have a point. The latest judicial call just reinforces what we all know, We are all going to better off if there is a a consistent approach to managing foul play. I see that Higgenbottom isn't going on tour. I'm guessing it relates to the incident. probably more to do with the fact that he risked a red card, which would have put them under pressure.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I thought you were au fait with words from other languages as you generously gave your time to explain what schadenfreude meant. My apologies.

battle of wits...unarmed man etc etc

Mowgli
You haven't addressed the issue of how long you think Higgs would/should get banned for. Instead you've used this thread to make fun of AWOP for being a sore loser and make fun of NZ for choking.
Yes AWOP is a sore loser and yes we didn't win. But all you've done during this thread is ridicule people - as you have just done with. Sure Kia was being a d*ck with the cohones thing but after just serving a ban why don't you just move on. It's not worth it.

Sorry for going on.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Biltong wrote:ebop, when you look at the list it has become more frequent, by my count there are 4 incidents just in the last year.

The question is why is it becoming more frequent?

Well two reasons immediately spring to mind:

1. A dumass South African in the shape of the judicial panel has sent a clear message to players thats its quite ok to knee and head butt McCaw by way of his ridiculously light suspensions.

And

2. There is no right of Appeal against the dumassed South Africans decision.

Not so dumass seeing as he is not picked for the entire AI's.

I'm not sure why I am being cast as a "sore loser", for merely pointing out a couple of things that have also been raised in the "serious" media.

The cheap-shots on McCaw are now beyond ridiculous, and the blind eye collectively turned by the IRB is verging on reckless.

Also I stick by my claim that Joubert had a poor game. My feeling is that referees cannot "turn off" the context of the game and become too aware of things like a run of 16 victories and they start to over-think situations and in the last few weeks we've seen a lot of home team bias affecting the All Blacks.

I'm not saying they are faultless, and certainly there were poor in the first half against SA and consistently for 80 minutes against Aus, but regardless of whether a team is having an off day or not is irrelevant to whether the referee had a good game or not.

Not referring the Conrad Smith try to the TMO was just brazenly dodgy.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Biltong wrote:ebop, when you look at the list it has become more frequent, by my count there are 4 incidents just in the last year.

The question is why is it becoming more frequent?

Well two reasons immediately spring to mind:

1. A dumass South African in the shape of the judicial panel has sent a clear message to players thats its quite ok to knee and head butt McCaw by way of his ridiculously light suspensions.

And

2. There is no right of Appeal against the dumassed South Africans decision.

Not so dumass seeing as he is not picked for the entire AI's.

Only a dumass would think that he was...

aucklandlaurie wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Biltong wrote:ebop, when you look at the list it has become more frequent, by my count there are 4 incidents just in the last year.

The question is why is it becoming more frequent?

Well two reasons immediately spring to mind:

1. A dumass South African in the shape of the judicial panel has sent a clear message to players thats its quite ok to knee and head butt McCaw by way of his ridiculously light suspensions.

And

2. There is no right of Appeal against the dumassed South Africans decision.

Not so dumass seeing as he is not picked for the entire AI's.

Only a dumass would think that he was...

I must be a dumass, cause I am losing the plot here.

It started with a dumass South African Judiciary.
Then the dumass can't be appealed against.
Now I am wondering who the dumass is not is not picked for the AI's.
And who is the dumass who think he was?
Who were the dumasses in the other 3 judiciary hearings in the Quade saga, Greyling Saga and Rougerie Saga?

Pretty much confused right now, I know we are Dumass Neanderthals with prejudices, where will it end?

nganboy wrote:Mowgli
You haven't addressed the issue of how long you think Higgs would/should get banned for. Instead you've used this thread to make fun of AWOP for being a sore loser and make fun of NZ for choking.
Yes AWOP is a sore loser and yes we didn't win. But all you've done during this thread is ridicule people - as you have just done with. Sure Kia was being a d*ck with the cohones thing but after just serving a ban why don't you just move on. It's not worth it.

Sorry for going on.

then why stir it?

I think the kiwi solidarity is touching though

You'll have to put me down as a dumbass too as I can't follow what's going on now either. The wheels have fallen off this thread.