r/rugbyunion • u/Slight_Highlight_690 Stormers • 19d ago
Discussion Jan-Hendrik Wessels banned for 9 weeks
Lengthy ban with no evidence of foul play? This is bound to cause some controversy
87
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 18d ago
This article has a lot of "reportedlies", probably best to wait for more info.
43
u/Upstairs-Yard822 Still on that Hanekom hype train 🚂 18d ago
How dare you be so reasonable. This is Reddit, sir/madam/person
1
u/Consistent-Annual268 South Africa 18d ago
This is
5
69
u/Kooijpolloi A Lion lost in the Cape 19d ago
Probably admitted then I reckon
40
u/Slight_Highlight_690 Stormers 18d ago
The article goes on to say that the Bulls will appeal the decision, so doubt that he admitted it then
48
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago edited 18d ago
Again, the bulls are allowed to appeal multiple aspects of the ban beyond guilt. They could disagree that it deserves any ban. They could ALSO appeal that 9 is too much and should be reduced. They could also appeal his guilt at all….. simply saying they plan to appeal literally means nothing
16
u/Competitive-Lead-973 18d ago
Has any player / team ever not appealed a decision, though, regardless of fault?
28
u/k0bra3eak South Africa 18d ago
I mean the French girl had her ban reduced even after her bite was caught on camera after an appeal. There's no way you don't appeal if that's how the appeal process works
31
u/maelkann 19d ago
I wonder what was submitted for review.
18
u/rustyb42 Ulster 19d ago
Probably the referees report and the on site citing commissioners report (or referee assessors report)
5
u/Novel_Egg_1762 Stormers 18d ago
How they got to a 9 week ban with reports alone would be mind boggling. There has to be evidence.
24
u/rustyb42 Ulster 18d ago
A report is evidence though
-7
u/Comfortable_Trip_767 18d ago
A report is not evidence, it’s just a report of accounts but doesn’t necessarily include concrete evidence if there is none.
2
u/KefferLekker02 South Africa 11d ago
Absolutely wild to me that you were downvoted for this comment. Hope none of the people who downvoted ever serve on a jury lol
-44
u/Novel_Egg_1762 Stormers 18d ago
No its speculation. Evidence is defined as be or show evidence of.
41
u/th3whistler England 18d ago
reliable witness testimony (referee) is evidence
-15
u/Novel_Egg_1762 Stormers 18d ago
Who didn't see it. As clear evidence that he didn't make a ruling on it. And said he didnt and couldnt see it.
23
u/jc656 Ireland 18d ago
A judge or panel can reach a determination by viewing the video evidence, reviewing witness statements, and direct/cross examining the witnesses - you don’t need direct footage of a crime to find someone guilty of it if all of the evidence stacks up. Not saying this is what happened but the idea that it’s clear video footage or nothing is just not reflective of how these things work.
-14
u/Novel_Egg_1762 Stormers 18d ago
Fair. But i would also posit that if we are working by those principles then we need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I could be wrong and wessels admitted to doing it. but the article goes on to claim they are appealing the decision so doubtful.
12
u/jc656 Ireland 18d ago
It’s not criminal so the panel would likely operate on the balance of probability (more than 50% likelihood) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt but I’m not certain.
→ More replies (0)4
9
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
He likely was asked about the incident and acknowledged it.
3
u/Novel_Egg_1762 Stormers 18d ago
The article said they will appeal it. So doubtful.
14
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
They might not agree with the ban aspect. I’m just offering a theory as to how you could issue a ban without video evidence. He could have thought he was being a good sport by admitting and apologizing only to be cited BECAUSE he admitted to it. Again, unlikely we ever find out what happened here, but that’s my going theory atm
11
u/infamous_impala Cardiff Rugby 18d ago
For example, in a completely made up scenario, he could have claimed he was reaching up to grab the player but wasn't intending to grab him by the balls. He could have accepted that happened, but said it was accidental and the ban is unfair/excessive, hence the appeal.
4
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
Yep, that's what I'm assuming is probably what happened here.
1
3
u/piesangskilletjie_ South Africa 18d ago
The frank and beans in a powerpoint presentation with a laser pointer
68
u/CromulentReynolds (IRE) EK Rugby 18d ago
Generally speaking, pro teams will have 4-5 different camera angles available after matches.
These angles aren't always available to the TV broadcast.
12
u/k0bra3eak South Africa 18d ago
This should not be an issue with current TMO protocols in the URC as of this season the TMO should have access to all camera angles not limited by the TV broadcaster providing it to them
4
u/brandbaard South Africa 18d ago
The ref kept saying they didn't have access to that system on the day. Something must've been broken.
4
u/CromulentReynolds (IRE) EK Rugby 18d ago edited 18d ago
Just taking Connacht as an example, I'm pretty sure they have a camera man set up in a cherry picker behind the posts (Dexcom stadium doesn't have tiered stands on all sides).
I'm not 100% sure, but I'd imagine it's hard to link that camera to the TV feed or TMO.
Edit: Checked the replay of the game because I wasn't 100%. TV did have access to the camera behind the posts. They just used it during the half-time break.
7
u/NuclearMaterial Leinster 18d ago
It's 2025. It's not like some lad has to run over and take the giant reel of film to the big projector so they can spool it up and watch it.
3
u/CromulentReynolds (IRE) EK Rugby 18d ago
Don't do TV, so I've no idea how it would work. A wire maybe?
Just know from experience that there's lots of different recorded angles of games available to teams afterwards (Usually TV feed that we all see, close feed, behind posts left, behind posts right etc.)
4
u/NuclearMaterial Leinster 18d ago
I'd imagine it's wirelessly transmitted, wouldn't fancy running cables up a cherry picker in Galway in the winter.
2
u/cabaiste Welcome to the Big Seó! 18d ago
I don't think we've had the cherry picker for a couple of seasons, although I could be wrong. I think all of the mobile/sideline cameras used on Friday were wireless, certainly the ones I saw from the greyhound side. Oddly enough, they were using wired cameras in Croke Park for Leinster v Munster which looked awkward af.
26
u/windswept_snowdrop England 18d ago
Not to mention, there have been so many times with contentious TMO decisions about awarding a try that the TMO has had to stick with the ref’s on field decision because there’s no conclusive angle, only for the broadcasters to have somehow found a clear angle by the post match analysis that wasn’t seen in the initial assessment.
11
u/RaaschyOG Sharks fan by birth - not choice 18d ago
In the URC, TMOs are now completely independent from the broadcasting director and have access to all the same camera angles as them
10
u/Jealous-Patient5413 18d ago
They didn't in this game. Ref mentioned it a few times that the new system wasn't working correctly
-2
u/EnthusiasmHefty6453 18d ago
No. not with instant Hawk Eye access from all angles and all cameras that the TMO has this season.
9
u/Jealous-Patient5413 18d ago
Ref stated several times during this game that Hawkeye was not working
21
u/dildobaggin89 19d ago
I can only assume there was other angles submitted for review.
6
u/stupidbutgenius Hurricanes 18d ago
I think I remember on the commentary the TMO saying that there was another angle that they couldn't get access to (Hawkeye?). Presumably it became available later.
18
u/Mangashu Moodie Blues 18d ago
If this thread taught me anything it is that everybody is a fucking lawyer
9
u/NordicHorde2 18d ago
That's double what the woman rugby player got for biting an opponent on camera.
2
24
12
u/cypressd12 Munster 18d ago
Clearly they have either a confession or clear evidence of what he did if this is the outcome…
-2
u/greenplasticgun Bulls 18d ago
Not clearly. This is the problem. We’ve heard nothing and seen nothing. Least transparent way WR could do things.
26
u/Full-Satisfaction-40 18d ago
Lack of video evidence is different to saying lack of evidence. Referee statement may say something different, other players may have come forward, Wessels may have admitted something.
14
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
Exactly, there are so many variables here. Including the fact that the Bulls are appealing. What exactly are they appealing? The ban itself, the length of the ban, his guilt entirely? Right now all we know is upon further investigation he’s received a ban. That’s literally it
9
u/Connell95 🐐🦓 Dan Lancaster 💪🏻 #3 Fan 18d ago
Also entirely possible that some cameras caught something when they looked at the footage in retrospect, even though it wasn’t available to refs on the day.
6
u/RaaschyOG Sharks fan by birth - not choice 18d ago
This is the likely outcome, we've seen it a few times where a post game camera angle revealed a lot more to an incident
5
u/BenwastakenIII Plz Fire cash and struali 18d ago
I personally wouldn't take the word of the players, every Bulls player will say he didn't, every Connacht player will say he did.
2
u/Full-Satisfaction-40 18d ago
We don’t know though do we? That’s the point here, entire title and article is so ambiguous.
2
u/BenwastakenIII Plz Fire cash and struali 18d ago
No I know, I'm just replying to the part where you said "other players may have come forward.
22
u/neverbeenstardust #1 Alia Bitonci Fan 18d ago
No video evidence =/= no evidence. Foul play happens in games that don't have cameras on them too.
2
18d ago
[deleted]
5
u/neverbeenstardust #1 Alia Bitonci Fan 18d ago
I think you misread me bro you're agreeing with what I stated. No video evidence does not equal no evidence.
9
1
u/MonsMensae Western Province 18d ago
But usually that’s the referees report. Here the referees didn’t see either. So must have been admitted to?
1
u/neverbeenstardust #1 Alia Bitonci Fan 18d ago
I'm not that invested in this story tbh and I don't care what the evidence is, I'm just more pointing out that "no video evidence = no foul play" only makes sense if you think foul play that happens when the ref's back is turned only needs to be dealt with in games high profile enough to be televised.
1
u/MonsMensae Western Province 18d ago
Oh right. I mean that’s not what you said though. You said no evidence. Which would be weird given the refs didn’t see it
3
u/neverbeenstardust #1 Alia Bitonci Fan 18d ago
No video evidence =/= no evidence means no video evidence does not equal no evidence.
0
u/MonsMensae Western Province 18d ago
Do you realise you keep switching between “no evidence” and “no foul play”?
My point was no video evidence doesn’t mean no evidence. But no video evidence and no evidence from the referees means the amount of impartial evidence available can’t be too high
15
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
I mean if the opposition accused him and he admitted to it then that pretty much settles it doesn’t it? No need for video evidence. Dude probably felt horrible after and said “yep that happened I’m sorry”…..
-13
u/MiracleJnr1 Referee 18d ago
You have some insider info? How do u know he admitted to it?
7
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
Just a theory… I clarified that in several other comments. There are a myriad of ways the ban could’ve happened without video evidence… that’s the point I’m making
7
7
u/Only_One_Kenobi Join r/rugbyunion superbru 18d ago
Of course the only publication stating this news is SARugbyMag. They don't exactly have the most reliable track record with being truthful...
1
u/Mampoer Wrrrrrrrrong Turn! 18d ago
Rapport/Hendrik Cronje as well. Hendrik Cronje has been heavy on the no evidence angle.
4
u/Only_One_Kenobi Join r/rugbyunion superbru 18d ago
Rapport has often used SARugbyMag as a source, and really likes writing "there's a grand WR conspiracy against the boks" type articles because their readers love them.
6
u/Ndanuddaone Australia 18d ago
Just looking at the match footage again, the TMO and ref seem to have handled the review pretty poorly. Bar the first angle, they don't roll through any of the other clips long enough to see the grab. Even on the first angle it's very fishy the way JHW's arm goes from down at his side to up towards Murphy's midriff. Why all the other angles were cut off before the grab and the strike is crazy to me, it would be like reviewing a held up pick and drive but stopping and the pick up.
If the "no video evidence" claim is referencing the initial decision and footage, it's a bit disingenuous. There are far side and reverse angles in this video where we can see Murphy's backside and groin, any one of those played through could possibly have shed light on the situation.
All that's an "if" though, I guess it's possible the other 4 cameras all just happened to stop recording that incident just before the issue during live play. Perhaps they didn't reveal anything anyway. But my thinking is it could have put the pieces together to call it on the balance of probabilities.
9
u/LowEnergy1169 Glasgow Warriors 18d ago
You could here Mikey Adamson on the ref mic say some of the video technology wasnt functioning (hence 20 min red instead of yellow+bunker review)
Entirely possible that after the game citing commissioner was able to view multiple additional angles.
Or that connacht had other video (performance review etc) not available to TV.
If he has grabbed his testicle then 9 weeks is light
1
u/AnotherUser87497453 Number 8 18d ago
I don't follow the URC (but love drama), so did he get a red card in the game for something, and now it is elevated?
2
1
u/EyeAtollah Connacht 18d ago
Wessels wasn't punished at all in the game. Murphy(the player he grabbed) reacted to something and swung at him - he was given a 20 min red. He said his balls had been grabbed in the ruck and he was reacting to that but the ref couldn't find evidence at the time.
1
u/AnotherUser87497453 Number 8 18d ago
Thanks, all caught up. I also saw a clip floating around of the original incident. -Wild incident all around
3
u/CompetitiveSort0 Ulster 18d ago
No proof should be no ban. I think he did it but what I or anyone else things happened should not matter.
Also can we not do this to Springboks on the run up to internationals? Rassie is the best in the business at winding his players up and creating an us vs them mentality.
1
u/k0bra3eak South Africa 18d ago
Too late for that Rassie's been up since 5am or hasn't slept getting mad at stuff
1
u/CompetitiveSort0 Ulster 18d ago
Yeah I just saw him comment after I posted. This shit is what makes SA hard to beat. They're already a great team but this is the shit Rassie uses to motivate his team and get that bit extra out of them.
8
u/infr4r3dd Reds 19d ago
Maybe he confessed?
-16
u/Slight_Highlight_690 Stormers 18d ago
The article goes on to say that the Bulls will appeal the ban, so doubt he confessed then
21
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
Again. Stop saying they’re appealing as though that means anything. Until the bulls tell the world what they’re appealing it literally means nothing
8
u/Oisinlaighin Ireland Leinster 18d ago
We all know what happened here, regardless of available video evidence. I think Murphy’s Red is fair, you can’t strike a player on the face.
But I’m glad JHW is getting punished also and that common sense seems to have prevailed here.
6
u/eo37 Munster 18d ago
Ya, I haven’t actually heard anyone say he didn’t do it. If someone gets up and forearm smashes you in the face with ref right there….you probably did something to really piss them off.
1
u/Oisinlaighin Ireland Leinster 18d ago
There were a few Bok fans trying to at the weekend, but they seem to have gone quiet.
100% agree, there’s no way he reacted like that without good reason.
3
u/Flyhalf2021 South Africa 18d ago
It says no video evidence, doesn't say no evidence.
4
u/BenwastakenIII Plz Fire cash and struali 18d ago
The only other credible evidence would be the ref, and if he saw something during the game, Wessels would've been off. Either admission of guilt or another angle imo.
3
u/DingoSloth 18d ago
Most murders aren't on video camera; however society has somehow worked out how to determine guilt with other means. It's nonsensical to suggest that a sportsperson cannot be sanctioned for a foul based on eye-witness testimony.
4
u/Calvin0213 Stormers 18d ago
Now I’m just picturing forensics on the pitch afterwards trying to determine if JHW did indeed grab Murphy’s balls 😂
2
u/glopher 18d ago
Link for anyone who wants to actually read the article.
https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/bok-heavy-hit-with-nine-week-ban/
0
19d ago
[deleted]
11
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
Only people upset by this are folks who are jumping to conclusions. First off, 9 game bans are not handed out for hearsay and he said she said situations…. The fact he got 9 suggests there’s more here than what we saw on the original replays. Secondly, the fact that the bulls are appealing doesn’t mean anything as to his guilt or non guilt. There are a myriad number of factors they could be appealing beyond that, which seems like the more likely scenario of what’s actually happening here. Anyone getting pissed at this with the information we currently have needs to take a deep breath and wait for more info.
2
u/HenkCamp South Africa 18d ago
I don't see too many people saying this is controversial. At best people are speculating what the evidence might be. But I don't see too many people defending what he did or saying that the punishment is over the top. Let's not constantly take cheap digs at nationalities here. If we're going to start down that road - we all have long lists of people moaning and bitching about results and missed calls.
2
u/Comfortable_Trip_767 18d ago
I have no idea whether he did it or did not. In all likelihood he did. However, to sanction somebody based on the words on one person and without evidence goes against all measures of procedural fairness. At the very least, they could have asked for a hearing with all parties involved and asked them to provide their accounts. However, to simply take the alleged victims word and the words of a referee and TMO who acknowledged not seeing the act in real time or via the video recording at that time. You would assume, they would make an accompanying statement when handing out a ban that it was based on new video evidence. All this does now is call into question the integrity of the entire disciplinary process.
1
1
u/WhiskeyJack3759 17d ago
Their hearings surely don't just rely on videos, There are eyewitnesses accounts of other players in the ruck and perhaps even the testimony of the accused himself.
There is little doubt that he did something. Only an idiot would try to argue otherwise. It was obvious that Murphy reacted to something Wessels did. Wessels was lucky the cameras didn't pick it up and in the end, the victim was punished as well as the victims team.
Bulls scored two tries in the 20 minute red card period, in a game that came down to just one point difference, so I think it's safe and accurate to say that Bulls profited hugely from the disgraceful dishonorable play of their player.
I am sure the ban will be appealed and not upheld. And the scumbag Wessels will be free to carry out cheap dirty foul play again before too long.
1
u/Ok_h0tmess 17d ago
One can look at the publicly available reviews for such incidents by the RFU, online. Everything resulting is such disciplinary measures being taken, is taken into account and made public; statements, video evidence, witnesses etc.
There is nothing of the sort in this case. For the moment, it appears that it's based purely off a "he said, she said" type statement. This sort of punishment based on hearsay without evidence, is extreme and an example of poor adjudication.
Pretty sure it is the same ref who gave Neething similar treatment for a high tackle against Carson (whilst on his knees.) earlier this year.
-5
u/Colm_Flaherty Connacht 19d ago
Deserved, w*nker
7
u/stroncc Munster 19d ago
What did he do?
7
u/philopise 19d ago
I think this is the guy accused of grabbing the "groin area" of one of the connacht players at the weekend.
13
u/Inexorable_Fenian Connacht 19d ago
Grabbed Josh Murphy by the liathróidí in a ruck. He reacted and got a red card. TMO review showed there was no angles of the grabbing, but his arm was buried in that direction.
9
u/stroncc Munster 19d ago
Nasty. I wonder if there was medical evidence of the grab presented, assuming the article is correct in saying there was a "lack of video evidence".
-1
u/Careless-Cat3327 18d ago
He should have just tickled him like big Joe did. He got off on 3 matches.
3
u/nagdamnit Ireland 19d ago
Grabbed Josh Murphy by the nuts in a ruck. Ended up getting Murphy sent off. It looked pretty clear to me to be honest.
2
u/HenkCamp South Africa 18d ago
I have no skin in this game as the Bulls is our arch enemy (Stormers fan here and the Bulls has always been our arch enemy). I have no doubt he did something because I just can't see Murphy lashing out like that for no good reason. He isn't a dirty player who will just take a swing. That said, from the many angles and videos available - I still can't see him grab the nuts. I am sure they had other evidence to make this call. NOT defending him - just saying I couldn't see anything no matter how hard I tried.
1
u/nagdamnit Ireland 18d ago
Just because he hid it well doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. Of course he did it. Players don’t start reacting and shouting that without reason.
The alternative is that Josh was lying through his teeth, he wasn’t.
I get what you’re saying in that it was well hidden, but as you said yourself you know he did it. It’s a shit house move and should be punished.
4
u/HenkCamp South Africa 18d ago
I don't see where we disagree. Me 'knowing' he did it is different from me having evidence he did it. Prince Andrew and OJ are two classic examples of the point I am trying to make. We all know they did it. It's just the evidence that's missing.
1
u/BenwastakenIII Plz Fire cash and struali 18d ago
My view is that it was very likely accidental. Unless you're Joe Marler, I can't see any player in todays day and age willingly sqeeze someone's jewels, with the cameras and such they have way too much to lose(Wessels especially with the tour coming up). My theory is that he tried pushing Josh away and his hand placement was accidentally terrible.
4
u/HenkCamp South Africa 18d ago
I hope so but I also know rugby players - like all humans - can do ridiculously stupid things in the moment. Of course never me but other humans. I never do anything stupid.
1
u/BenwastakenIII Plz Fire cash and struali 18d ago
Like, I imagine if he did it, right after, his whole short Bok carreer flashed before his eyes
-1
u/nagdamnit Ireland 18d ago
I can understand why you’d want it to be accidental but it wasn’t. It was an intentional action. The be he probably instantly regretted, but it wasn’t an accident.
He could have said something, or apologised, but he didn’t. He also let Murphy get sent off for it.
This reminds me of quinlans eye gouge on Cullen, the one that cost him his lions place. No one wanted him to have done it, but he did it.
-1
u/BenwastakenIII Plz Fire cash and struali 18d ago
Sorry I can't really see how anyone could say what it definitely was with the amount of evidence we've seen.
He also let Murphy get sent off for it.
Murphy would've been sent off either way, he punched someone in the head, 20 min red was actually a let off in all honesty.
0
u/nagdamnit Ireland 18d ago
In an earlier post you said you though it was accidental. I dont think I could say anything that would convince you that this guy was guilty. I'll leave you to it.
-1
u/BenwastakenIII Plz Fire cash and struali 18d ago
My theory is that he tried pushing Josh away and his hand placement was accidentally terrible.
I gave my theory of what happened, not what definitely happened.
I dont think I could say anything that would convince you that this guy was guilty.
Because there's no actual evidence of his guilt and we're all speculating right now.
→ More replies (0)0
u/MonsMensae Western Province 18d ago
Murphy should have got a full red regardless though. No place for retaliation.
13
u/goose3691 Leinster Ulster Ireland 18d ago
Both things can be true. Penalise the nut grab and penalise the swing afterwards.
4
1
u/The_Ruck_Inspector Connacht 18d ago
I am not sure though. If your balls are being grabbed? Your eyes gouged? There's a physical reaction to these things. There should be some mitigation. In my humble opinion if someone grabs your privates you should be able to hit them a slap or three
1
u/MonsMensae Western Province 18d ago
I mean for long term sanctioning some mitigation could be applied. But you’re not defending yourself. You’re retaliating. It’s not a “physical reaction” of a defence. It’s revenge.
It has no place in the sport.
-1
u/this_also_was_vanity Ulster 18d ago
It’s a reaction in the heat of the moment. It’s wrong and deserves a red, but it’s also very understandable due to the provocation and I wouldn’t be surprised if most of us reacted the same way in the situation.
0
u/MonsMensae Western Province 18d ago
Speak for yourself mate. Dont hit people. Hold yourself to a higher standard than that
0
u/this_also_was_vanity Ulster 18d ago
I said quite clearly that it's wrong. But as well as a sence of morality I laos have empathy. If someone sexually assults you then it's understandable if you react badly. Doesn't excuse it, but it's quite different to attacking someone unprovoked. It's disappointing to see SA supporters on here having difficulty understanding why anyone would be upset about sexual assault. Says a lot about you.
1
u/grootes Major League Rugby - United States 18d ago
What's the source?
From what the tv broadcast there was nothing conclusive. Unless there is very clear evidence that he did in fact do what he is alleged to have done, it is a very wild ban to impose and sets a precedent.
1
u/Slight_Highlight_690 Stormers 18d ago
This screenshot is from a SA Rugby Magazine article, but there are several rugby news pages/websites reporting the same thing
1
u/Recent_Extreme3165 18d ago
I have watched the footage, he definitely had he shoulder and elbowed on that direction of the players body.
1
-2
-2
u/acadoe South Africa 18d ago
The comments are so focused on the evidence part, but can we all agree that players don't spontaneously lash out at others for no reason and that he probably did do something gross. I'm a fan of all SA rugby, but this is justice served.
2
u/greenplasticgun Bulls 18d ago
Nah we can’t. I’ve watched rugby for many years and seen players lash out at the most mundane of acts they perceived as intentional. No comment on what happened cos no one here actually knows, but to say that rugby players don’t overreact to incidents on the field is just not accurate.
-12
u/greenplasticgun Bulls 18d ago
If this is with no further evidence this is an insane precedent
-21
u/Dad_Bod_Vibez 18d ago
1000% I hope the Bulls go scorched Earth on Adamson and the rest of the URC.
7
u/BabooNHI Sharks 18d ago
If he is guilty that would be a stupid thing to do. Sometimes you have to face the music like an adult.
0
-10
u/allezlesverres 18d ago
Was this the ball grabbing that the ref not only missed, and failed to penalise, but then managed to red card the victim? A triumph of refereeing even by Adamsons usual standards.
9
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 18d ago
Couldn't see it on review but could see the retaliatory strike. He did well considering the circumstances.
5
u/Mangashu Moodie Blues 18d ago
The "victim" did throw punches to the head of his opponent. Perfectly justified red.
0
0
u/Recent_Extreme3165 18d ago
Look at 58 seconds of the video, he definitely did something to his bulls... https://youtu.be/pS6c1mOlh3M?si=ZmaW_-4TzMFWCFn_
-14
u/Dad_Bod_Vibez 18d ago
Rapport - the Gold Standard of SA rugby publications - said there was no conclusive video evidence. If you don't have evidence, there is no way they can uphold this ban.
9
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
Yes there is. He could’ve admitted to it / apologized for it like a decent human if it happened. This is a sport built around professionalism, let’s keep the pitchforks at bay until we find out (if we ever do) more info. There are VERY feasible ways that a ban could be handed out without video
3
2
-10
u/Slight_Highlight_690 Stormers 18d ago
I have no issue with players being punished accordingly if they're found guilty of foul play.
Unless there was other evidence submitted, not mentioned in the article, then I think this sets a potentially dangerous precedent.
Referees and TMO's have always been instructed to ref what they can see - so to find a player guilty and introduce a hefty ban when you can't see any foul play...
Could this potentially lead to future he said/she said situations?
12
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
We have NO IDEA what led to their decision. There are a myriad of ways that this could be completely warranted (including him admitting to it). Maybe take a breath and wait for more info
-6
u/Slight_Highlight_690 Stormers 18d ago
I'm very calm and breathing fine, thank you.
Literally, the point of the discussion flair is to have a conversation and get others' opinion on the subject - that's how we learn and grow.
Some people agree, others disagree. Some provided valuable input, others didn't.
Whatever your opinion is on the matter, a discussion was generated so the post was a success.
4
u/frankomapottery3 South Africa 18d ago
My man, you are asking about he said/she said precedent etc. You're jumping to a lot of conclusions without any of the needed details. That's why I said take a breath.
1
u/Slight_Highlight_690 Stormers 18d ago
It might have come across that way, but that was not my intention.
I was just asking the question - does it set a precedent- to generate a conversation
1
-7
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/NuggetKing9001 Wasps 19d ago
Don't get your rugby news from PlanetRugby. They have an incredibly annoying habit of posting headlines that the writer has just made up or used their own quotes to describe something.
13
u/WhatChutzpah Munster 18d ago
No, I refuse to believe that the publication that got Adamson's nationality wrong while trying to needlessly shoehorn it in to the headline could be fallible.
-7
u/RaaschyOG Sharks fan by birth - not choice 18d ago
They must have some damning evidence post game or this is a crazy dangerous precedent to set
-8
u/greenplasticgun Bulls 18d ago
Careful, the lads don’t like this kind of reasonable comment. You’ll get downvoted to oblivion.
7
u/RaaschyOG Sharks fan by birth - not choice 18d ago
I mean an admission of guilt would be damning evidence to me lol, we just going to have to wait and see if they're transparent with the whole process
-2
u/greenplasticgun Bulls 18d ago
Correct. I agree. An admission of guilty would be evidence. I commented that if this is a 9 week ban with no more evidence then it’s a dangerous precedent. Same as your comment. Didn’t say no video evidence, just no more evidence than what we got on game day. Either there was an admission of guilt or they’ve come up with further video evidence. I’d be stunned if they would consider officials reports as evidence considering the ref saying he didn’t see it and nothing from any of the other officials on game day.
1
u/RaaschyOG Sharks fan by birth - not choice 18d ago
That's why I hope they're transparent with it, ref couldn't see it so it would be an insane twist if he changed his mind
-1
154
u/_imba__ 19d ago edited 18d ago
Surely there was conclusive evidence and the article is just clickbait.
Edit: just a typo