Should Higganbotham's Ban Be Extended?

The unrepentant Higganbotham says he would head-butt and knee Richie McCaw in the head again if he got the chance (link below).

Clearly this shows his ban was not enough of a deterrent.

Since he is in the business of getting personally involved, maybe the new IRB chief should review his ban, since it was clearly not effective, and add a few more games until he realises he was banned because his behaviour was unacceptable?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10848701

Would it be bias and nepotism if the Australian did not review the ban of an errant yet unrepentant Australian?

it aint like minority report here yet! you dont go and ban players for something they say they will / might do
obviously if he does engage in foul play in the future, his next ban should be even higher.

Who cares... was thinking the same thing.

What is this... the mind police? You going to ban people until they are genuinely repentant?

I'd rather he be open then be sly and say he's guilty when he feels no guilt what so ever.

Some people should just grow a pair.

I know how he feels, I saw Mccaw, Whitelock, Franks etc in Cardiff yesterday and I wanted to Knee and head but the ugly buggers!

Hang on should I get a ban too? Maybe everyone who thinks anything other than love of all blacks should be hogtied and shot eh AWOP?

Am I surprised the NZ Herald missed the quote 'It really did point out where you can get to and where to draw the line. It is a physical game, but I suppose it taught me that sort of stuff, the off-the-ball stuff, you can sort of leave out of it.'?

Probably not.

No. The decision was made and the time period is up.

However, it is fair to say if the IRB really is concerned about leniency and consistency they would have reviewed this and Greyson's bans as they are effectively the same as Thomson's. They might also want to review and extend Simmons ban and look at a number of other instances in the recent internationals.

Definately look at recent Int's.

The IRB tends to go through periods of leniency toward certain sides, of course NZ get free passes more often than not because they are the IRB's rugby rugby commercial overlords with the Haka, but recently it's become popular to aid certain nations (Argentina, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga) and help them become tier 1 nations, partly through huge inconsistencies surrounding the citing issues!!!

These are not the nations that need help and support, and certainly not regarding citing, IMO citing slightly heavier would help these nations far more in the long run. But lets look at the teams lower in the rankings, teams with potential and ability to build the game not only in there nation but the continent. Teams such as Germany and Spain hold the key to mainland europe, Russia holds the key to hundreds of thousands, and Japan, China etc could ignite asian interest!!

talking about your man crush again.

boohoo the world is so unfair on my native NZ brothers. we get all the raw deals. moan moan moan.

If you follow the game you'll notice it's the ARU that's doing most of the moaning. I don't think most kiwis are particularly worried if Thomson gets a 1 game or 10 game ban in terms of it's affect on the AB's. He's probably on his last tour and isn't a certainty to make the reserves. Personally I think Thomson should have got a longer ban.

It's more about the inconsistency of the judicial system, the lack of good reporting and the lack of real ownership by the IRB. The current system is worse than the NRL's. I'd just like a system, that was independent, open, and consistent. I think all fans should be concerned when the politicians intervene in the judicial process, irrespective of sport or nationality.

blackcanelion wrote:If you follow the game you'll notice it's the ARU that's doing most of the moaning.

Our guy gets banned until the 3rd week of super rugby, while your guy gets one (1!) and Chickenwing Ellison gets defended as the victim, yet who has really done the most "moaning" on these boards?

How about you leave us out of it.

My apologies if I'm wrong. I haven't read the decision. My understanding is he banned for 8 weeks, and it runs out in early January, prior to the Super Rugby season kicking off. I wasn't aware they put a date on it (a la Higgenbottom).

I agree the bans for the boot near the head is to light and I'd have liked to have seen a longer ban. But is consistent with the 3 latest rulings (in fact it's probably harsh when compared with Graylings). The issue here wasn't intent or potential damage it was about consistent punishment to ensure players don't overstep the mark.

Ellison could have gone to the judiciary. I'd be interested in seeing why he wasn't. I'm assuming it relates to incident as a whole, etc.

I'm not accusing you or any other Australian fan of moaning. My statement is in response to a couple of other posters, merely pointing out the the ARU and their representative on the IRB are the ones complaining about the decisions (the appeals).

We put criminals in jail to punish them and rehabilitate them. When they come out they are often on parole, and to be eligible part of the deal is that they have learned, been rehabilitated and are remoresful.

I think in the case where guys get lenient bans they should have to go through a similar process and remain on parole.

Saying "I'd do it all again, and I think my ban was rubbish" is hardly the attitude you want to be reflected from your judiciary.

Please stop trying to get NZ and the Haka involved in the thread because it has nothing to do with them. It's all about Higganbotham and the IRB...

anotherworldofpain wrote:Saying "I'd do it all again, and I think my ban was rubbish" is hardly the attitude you want to be reflected from your judiciary.

But he actually said the opposite of that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Saying "I'd do it all again, and I think my ban was rubbish" is hardly the attitude you want to be reflected from your judiciary.

But he actually said the opposite of that.

"I don't regret anything I did"

"It took about a day or so and then I got the call and the suspension... I was pretty filthy"

'It really did point out where you can get to and where to draw the line. It is a physical game, but I suppose it taught me that sort of stuff, the off-the-ball stuff, you can sort of leave out of it.'

Don't just read selected quotes and you get the bigger picture.

Like this? ""I don't think I'd really change anything."

Jeez next thing this guy will be eating biscuits at his hearing

No 7&1/2 wrote:'It really did point out where you can get to and where to draw the line. It is a physical game, but I suppose it taught me that sort of stuff, the off-the-ball stuff, you can sort of leave out of it.'

Don't just read selected quotes and you get the bigger picture.

I hope youre not suggesting that the Hearld would selectively misquote someone to write its own narative?

Surely not!

Read the full quote AWOP. He talks about his career then when specifically asked about this ban responds with quote i put above. Read the full quotes and don't try to cherry pick.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Like this? ""I don't think I'd really change anything."

Yeah I have made some pretty major howlers in my work and private life, that said I would not change anything, as those howlers have taught me lessons, however it does not mean that I would do them again given half a chance. SO to assume that Higginbothom would attack McCaw again given half the chance.

anotherworldofpain wrote:We put criminals in jail to punish them and rehabilitate them. When they come out they are often on parole, and to be eligible part of the deal is that they have learned, been rehabilitated and are remorseful.

Similar to the 'Sin Bin' rule on here AWOP and the banning of Members.

Most on here would probably agree (from what I've read) that you fail that Test like the ultimate serial repeat re-offender.

By the way, I think Kiwi was waiting at NZ House for you to report to him last Friday... as is clearly set out in your parole conditions.

He'll be very upset I know.

anotherworldofpain wrote:We put criminals in jail to punish them and rehabilitate them. When they come out they are often on parole, and to be eligible part of the deal is that they have learned, been rehabilitated and are remorseful.

To be fair that system clealry works better than shipping them off to the colonies, look where that got us

That one sure backfired didn't it?

Oh well, better luck in the parallel universe.

Commiserations on the loss Peter. Good luck against SA. They'll probably bounce back a la the Wallabies.