We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Mon 12 Nov 2012 | 03:14
All Black Adam Thomson's boot on Alasdair Strokosch's head

72
Comments

The All Blacks won comfortably 51-22 against a valiant Scotland side at Murrayfield on Sunday, but could be without flanker Adam Thomson for the rest of the tour after he was yellow carded for placing his boot on the head of Alasdair Strokosch.

The incident was brought to the attention of referee Jerome Garces by touch judge Simon McDowell after Thomson has gone in looking for the ball, using his foot as a feleer.

Thomson was sent from the field for just ten minutes, while some, after seeing the television replay, felt that a red card would have been the more appropriate punishment.

Thomson has since been cited, and will face a disciplinary hearing on Wednesday.

Strokosch himself, who was at the bottom of the ruck, said that he felt there was no malice in it.

"I don't think there was any malicious intent by Adam Thomson, there isn't even a mark and hopefully his yellow will be the end of it. I barely felt it.

"If it had been intentional he’d have done a lot more damage. It didn’t feel like a stamp," he said.

If Thomson gets a ban, which could be anything from three to eight weeks, that would rule him out of the rest of the tour, missing New Zealand's matches against Italy, Wales, and England.

"Someone will take a look at it and decide if it was malicious or reckless. I suggest it was just reckless," said All Black coach Steve Hansen after the game.

"I didn't see it at the time but I saw the replay. It looked like Adam was frustrated - he placed his boot on the guy's head, but he didn't stomp him," Hansen added.

Strokosch (@thebigstroker on twitter) just tweeted RD to say the following:

"@Rugbydump I believe it was a mistake, hopefully he's let off. I was lying all over the ball"

Do you think a Yellow card was sufficient, or should he receive a lengthy ban?

Posted By: Grant Constable

72 Comments

  • pretzel
    9:06 PM 22/12/2012

    Regarding Thomson Strokosch incident, I'll use your template:

    With the benefit of watching it twice /thrice .....my Law (insert law number here) decision tree would be
    Offence = Yes
    Intent = No - reasoning is although he certainly put his boot down, it was more a notification than a direct "i'm gonna injure you" thrust (of the boot)
    Decision = Caution [& very stern warning]

    ...

  • browner
    7:15 PM 19/12/2012

    here here !

  • browner
    7:10 PM 19/12/2012

    Sorry for the delay in replying..... Re: Tom James.

    Of course you have to be in the shoes/& the position of the referee to make the call.

    With the benefit of watching it twice /thrice .....my Law 10.5 decision tree would be
    Offence = Yes
    Intent = No - reasoning is although he certainly went forward it was more posturing than a direct "i'm gonna injure you" thrust
    Decision = Caution [& very stern warning]
    Blue clearly guilty of footy overacting = caution only.

    But as i said, my view is a slow-mo replay , not real time, real angle etc.....

    To me .... Dai summed it up nicely.

  • browner
    7:10 PM 19/12/2012

    Sorry for the delay in replying..... Re: Tom James.

    Of course you have to be in the shoes/& the position of the referee to make the call.

    With the benefit of watching it twice /thrice .....my Law 10.5 decision tree would be
    Offence = Yes
    Intent = No - reasoning is although he certainly went forward it was more posturing than a direct "i'm gonna injure you" thrust
    Decision = Caution [& very stern warning]
    Blue clearly guilty of footy overacting = caution only.

    But as i said, my view is a slow-mo replay , not real time, real angle etc.....

    To me .... Dai summed it up nicely.

  • pretzel
    3:25 AM 07/12/2012

    I guess a slow game nowadays suits the old fat bastards in the front row, gives them time to have a breather. Not like the days when the ball used to come out fairly quickly, when players decided lying on the ground in the way or ON the ball was not a good idea... Least it made it painful if they decided cheating was a good idea.

  • browner
    4:36 PM 03/12/2012

    I also this is was a "please desist" request.

    I'm in favour of a zero tolerance for boots on heads, rather than a debate over whether the extend of "the request" was ........ [not exhaustive]

    .......inconsequential,mild, mildly inconsequential, mildly impactive, mildly quite impactive in a non deliberate manner, quite impactive but mildly deliberate, deliberate but not a clean strike , OR .... a glancing blow with on the face of it excessive unintended force albeit delivered in a non deliberate unbalanced style yet in the face of mildish provocation in the heat of the moment & injury unintentioned ........ !!!!

    zero tolerance is just a little bit easier to referee / legislate / cite / protect etc..

  • browner
    4:04 PM 03/12/2012

    "old fashioned rucking".... remains OLD fashioned

    Use of Boot DOWN on a player IS illegal, Q? Do i mind someone going beyond the ball and pushing backwards with his feet attempting to free the ball - no. it's legitimate rucking.

    All downward 'stamping' or boot use in a forward motion isn't either of these things , & it's not toughness-it's normally cowardly cheap shot at an undefended player, usually lying prone.

    Hard fair rugby, is different to dirty play




  • joeythelemur
    11:27 PM 14/11/2012

    Well, 1 week ban. Seems a bit light, I expected 2 or 3, but what do we expect with the way the current judiciary is set up.

  • jonnie
    1:04 AM 14/11/2012

    "Take this video clip here. At around 15 seconds McCaw flops over the ball in the ruck, sealing it off, and not for the first or the last time in the game. But Mr Davies has this to say: "Ah, Richie McCaw's secured it for them, didn't he? He fell very cleverly the other side of the ball...
    Really, Jonathan? Very cleverly? How about very illegally?"

    Watching the video I see the Scottish winger tackled, and tries to place the ball.
    Several things happen at once here:
    1. the Scottish winger attempts to re-gather the ball (illegally)
    2. the Scottish blindside "flops" on the ball (illegally)
    3. the All Black openside goes for the ball on his feet

    Then the All Black openside wrestles the ball away from the Scottish blindside - you could argue that during the process he goes from his footing to leaning on the Blindside - then lands on his side with the ball on the All Black side - which is completely legal.

    This is all clearly in the first 10 seconds of the video clip - please explain to me how you cannot see the Scottish players antics, and just what is illegal about what McCaw did.


  • pretzel
    11:58 PM 13/11/2012

    CC I seem to recall that you have been playing rugby for quite a few years, I don't understand how you can be so dead against using the boot... most players who played in "that era" killed the ball, lay on the wrong side, slowly rolled away, pulled down a maul, and most ended up with nasty lines across their backs and legs as a result. Stamping on the head is not nice, hence why I find this "borderline" as imo it was not a stamp, so I can understand not wanting that in the game, although I believe that was always disallowed, as was "stamping" itself, raking/rucking/the process of dragging ones studs across an oppositions body was never anything I cried about if I was on the receiving end...

  • pretzel
    11:48 PM 13/11/2012

    Totally agree with you there Gonzo, this is definitely going to be one of those "stamp down on players that even THINK about this type of behaviour so it makes the game look nicer"... ;)

  • 6:17 PM 13/11/2012

    Wind it back a bit Gonzoman. The ball was loose and Stroker dived on it. McCaw then dived on him preventing him playing the ball. He then manipulated his body position around to the Scottish side.
    If the referee had any bottle or knowledge of rucking he would have blown the whistle before Thomson entered the ruck. I watch the Top 14 most weekends and find the French refs have little or no idea what's going on in scrums, rucks or mauls !!!!

  • gonzoman
    5:16 PM 13/11/2012

    It struck me as I was reading through the posts that people are comparing this to the Etzbeth headbutt...Not a valid comparison, I say.

    Headbutting is NEVER legal, no matter where it makes contact or where the ball is.

    Using your feet in a ruck to work the ball to a playable position is still very much legal, as long as it's judged to be a legitimate attempt to play the ball, and it's not on the head.

    The only thing that made Thompson's action illegal was where he made contact. I agree, boots to the head is dangerous, but it's a far cry from smashing your head into someone's face when you're both standing up not playing rugby!

    Yellow for Thompson is deserved, but to compare it to Etzbeth's headbutt is harsh.

  • gonzoman
    5:06 PM 13/11/2012

    Except for Kurtley Beale. That man should never be allowed to wear a 'tache.

  • gonzoman
    5:01 PM 13/11/2012

    Fair enough...I agree with the yellow, and with part of your point. It was a "please desist from lying on the ball" request, which the referee then followed up with a "please take 10 minutes to think about why you should desist from applying boots to people's heads" request.

    All good, no harm done. I think any sanction decision (in this, and in many other decisions) is a political one: a bunch of suits in a room looking at game film and saying "we don't want children thinking our sport is full of rough play, otherwise they won't register and we'll be out of jobs!"

    Thompson has learned his lesson, I'm sure. Let it end there...no bans.

  • gonzoman
    4:53 PM 13/11/2012

    And TA-DAH! Browner has hit on the crux of the whole issue. If the ref had been a little swifter with the whistle, and penalized Strokosch for what was a fairly flagrant violation of the rules, then the boots to brains would never have happened.

    While I'm not defending Thompson's actions, he didn't exactly fly off the handle and kick Strokosch...he was reacting to illegal play after trying to get the ball out through legitimate means.

    Ref should have penalized "The Big Stroker" sooner, and it wouldn't have gotten to this point.

  • gonzoman
    4:50 PM 13/11/2012

    Ando, yes...we are generally given guidelines from the unions, and some from the IRB. Where I ply my trade (and until recently, played) we are encouraged to be strict (ie: red card) with boots on heads. It's not set in stone, but very strongly encouraged. Ultimately, it's still up to the referee.

  • guy
    3:19 PM 13/11/2012

    Actually: we play sundays too. Only the top leaugue plays on saturday so that we can face their reserves in the lower leaugues on sunday ;-)

    That was one excellent post. It brings a whole new dimension to the term 'French humor'.

    PS: you guys are also awesome at organising a proper strike ;-)

  • stroudos
    2:48 PM 13/11/2012

    Brilliant post! Especially points 2 and 3!

    I assume you mean best in "wine"? New Zealand have everyone beat at "whine"... ;)

  • stroudos
    2:42 PM 13/11/2012

    Yeah, but you're also the only team with a big cock on your shirts. :)

  • pretzel
    1:55 PM 13/11/2012

    lmao, a rugby bio? so someone requests information and I give it to them? If there was a private message service on this site I'd gladly "PM" them, however there is not, so I use the resources available...

    Not sure what I have done to get your knickers in a twist...

  • pretzel
    1:53 PM 13/11/2012

    I stand corrected, thank you browner. I am glad you have pointed this out. I refer to indiscretions much like Tom James red card for a headbutt ummm, a scottish player years ago also got a red card for kicking out after being late tackled and catching another player in the head and he was red carded, there are a few of these dotted around, where effectively referee's have looked at the crime and said:

    "Ah, headbutt, must equal red" "ah boot touches head, must equal red" etc, without being able to justify it (in OUR opinions)...

    I have dragged it up countless times, but if I could direct you to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rJrZdhtJQ4

    What would be your thought process with this also whilst also applying the respective laws?

    We appear to agree somewhat on THIS outcome, I am not 100% happy with a yellow card, as I do believe this was a "please desist from lying on the ball" sort of request, so that is how I could say "warning", however I can also see why it would/should be a yellow card as it was rather a idiotic thing to do, i.e. a boot on a head is never going to win any leniency awards with the referee...

  • stroudos
    11:50 AM 13/11/2012

    browner: I was lying all over the ball ! as if that excuses a potential shoeing ..... it doesn't

    Oh yes it does!! Preferably not to the head, but that was the only part of his body that was accessible.

    I reckon Bakkies would have no problem with this at all.

    Refs have always been shit at stopping players from illegally killing the ball. (I might add that that's especially true if that player's wearing a black shirt with a 7 on the back, but that would be churlish so I won't!). "Shoeing the bastard" is a very effective way of players policing the breakdown area in the absence of refs properly applying the laws. The law against it was introduced because people kept upping the ante, with stamping becoming way too commonplace. Given the difficulty for a ref to distinguish in real time whether someone's raking or stamping, both - sadly - had to go. If you ask me (which admittedly you didn't), the game is poorer as a result.

  • stroudos
    11:29 AM 13/11/2012

    Browner, I'm a bit surprised, judging from your other comments, that you feel so strongly against good old-fashioned rucking.

    The game was indeed brilliant when you could put studs on someone. It was a lot quicker and more free-flowing, since there was a greater disincentive against illegally slowing opposition ball.

    Re your 2:37 post above. Bloke lying on top or wrong side of the ball? Yes, raking studs across his back is a perfectly reasonable way to encourage him to move! Bloke using hands in the ruck or not releasing when he has to? Yes, treading all over his fingers is again a perfectly reasonable way to encourage him to release!

    In any case, I'm pleased to report that in the "social" level rugby I play, it is standard for the ref to state in his pre-game chat that if a bloke's on the wrong side he *is* still considered a part of the ground. There was one classic incident last season where our scrum-half actually turned to the ref mid-ruck and asked "can I use my boot sir?", which he agreed to but then promptly penalised him, saying "that's not quite what I thought you had in mind by "using your boot!"".

  • jeri
    8:39 AM 13/11/2012

    Massive respect to Strokosch for supporting the oppositional player. As for Thompson, thought the ban was fair. Whatever he was thinking at the time, the result was he looked like he kicked a player in the head, what else can the disciplinary committee do?

  • ando
    8:19 AM 13/11/2012

    I stand corrected, thanks. However I still thought refs had guidelines, i.e. offence x = penalty y?

  • rugbyfan07
    8:15 AM 13/11/2012

    What a joke... This was a foot to the back of the head and made about as much contact as the (south Africans) head butt that received a 2 week ban. If this was a Scottish foot on a All Black head, all of NZ would be screaming. This should 2+ weeks, and what does it matter if he's retiring at the end of the tour???? All Blacks and their fans are whiners......

  • stroudos
    7:33 AM 13/11/2012

    Yep!

  • 5:57 AM 13/11/2012

    So threats of injury are ok as long as it keeps the game flowing?

  • 5:55 AM 13/11/2012

    Much like domestic violence

  • 5:54 AM 13/11/2012

    No he doesn't but the game is bigger than he and Thomson and boots to the head simply can't allow be tolerated.

  • 5:51 AM 13/11/2012

    And u r underthe illusion that anyone would be interested in your rugby bio so I didn't think dc reading ur posts would be much of a stretch for u

  • 5:50 AM 13/11/2012

    Well you said "you"

  • browner
    3:42 AM 13/11/2012

    Just looked at the time of this post - i'm writing in the future !! WOW

  • browner
    3:41 AM 13/11/2012

    More rugby mythology ....... ref has choice for all foul play based on his assessment of severity LAW 10.5

    doesn't anyone know the law book before opionising?....[general - not soley aimed]

  • browner
    3:39 AM 13/11/2012

    Hmmnn.... define stomping? then apply 10.5 sanctions.

    YC always

  • browner
    3:32 AM 13/11/2012

    Yes, 30 years ago, I now coach Youth & Seniors & ref .

    Re...."I thought the game was brilliant when you could put studs on someone" .......

    You've just shown your 'IQ' in that statement .....& it's not a compliment matey

  • browner
    3:25 AM 13/11/2012

    it wasn't a stamp, & yes it does matter, read LAW 10.5

  • browner
    3:24 AM 13/11/2012

    Calum Clark ..... seemingly rewarded for his thuggery into the Saxons squad.... he has a screw loose, if the rfu sign off his rehabilitation certificate with '"another incident sonny & you're out" then i will accept.......

    he's a time bomb waiting to go off ...

  • browner
    3:16 AM 13/11/2012

    Ptrezel....you are taking this all out of context.

    http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/Law_10_EN.pdf

    LAW 10 - FOUL PLAY
    there a list of foul & dangerous play

    EVERY ACTION [apart from time wasting 10.2[b] ] is a penalty offence.

    the sanctions for ALL PENALTY OFFENCES are offences are contained in 10.5 and are as follows
    - admonishment [a warning]
    - caution [Yellow card]
    - sent off [red card ]

    ALL these sanctions are at the referees judgement, based on his assessment of severity & contextual judgement.

    I referee, and my decision making process would be .....
    Is it an Offence? - Yes
    Was there intent - Yes he deliberately went towards the head area with Foot
    Was it serious - No, He withdrew after the threat was offered [again contextual judgement being applied here]

    Correct Decision = Yellow card ...... IMO

    So, no Pretzel, the letters of the law do not prescribe punishments in the black & white way that you state..... Hey, i've an idea - why don't you take up the whistle .. it's enjoy it - at grassroots level , purely for social involvement reasons

    I enjoy reading many of your posts though !
    x
    Browner

  • pretzel
    3:07 AM 13/11/2012

    I do play rugby, however in order to remain somewhat "anonymous" I choose not to disclose the location, that way I don't get accused of being biased when making any comments regarding hemispheres. I play Saturdays the same as everyone else. Up until fairly recently I have been "unfit" due to an injury which has left me to do a fair amount of rehab, which in turn, has given me a fair amount of spare time. As for my commenting, I enjoy RD, it is one site I click on everytime I go on my laptop. Where most people load up Facebook, I load up RD... it's sort of my "addiction" as it were.

    A bit more info on me, I played through school, for both school and local team (as and when I could) both Union and league (league in the summer) I finished school and went to University, I played through University for both for the University and a local club within the city, again playing league through the summer holidays. I then finished Uni, and moved to where my work is and have continued to play for a club near that town until, as I said before, I suffered a nasty, albeit temporary, injury and as such have missed out on a large amount of rugby in 2012. Once I have completely recovered and have got my fitness levels back up (which have dwindled significantly) I hope to be back playing week in week out again..

  • pretzel
    2:56 AM 13/11/2012

    Lmao, don't worry about it browner, Strokosch is from an era when you accept an element of punishment for cheating... you evidently are not...

  • pretzel
    2:55 AM 13/11/2012

    Did you start playing rugby a few years ago?

    I have played senior rugby for 6-7 years now, I am by no means an "oldie" and I thought the game was brilliant when you could put studs on someone in order to speed up the game, and guess what, IT WORKED.

    Gouging someone? In what world could you possibly connect the dots in that one! Well done genius!

  • browner
    2:50 AM 13/11/2012

    I was lying all over the ball ! as if that excuses a potential shoeing ..... it doesn't

    All I can say is thank god Bakkies Botha wasn't in the vicinity !!!

    How coem ref allowed stoko so long to slow down the ball?


  • browner
    2:37 AM 13/11/2012

    Studs are gripping aids on for use on grass, not weapons of retribution.

    Ask the referee for the penalty decision ..... I don't understand the logic of your arguments ! whatever next he had his fingers on the ball so I stood on them with my 18 stone, I know a couple broke but he should have let the ball go .......... or He was clearly staring at me...so i poked his eye out???

    c'mon .... sport has moved on, achilles raking has been outlawed in football as well , and butting with the end of the hockey stick has gone also .....



  • spicksandspecks
    12:11 AM 13/11/2012

    I know it's for a good cause, but that moustache deserves a yellow card all on its own.

  • stroudos
    12:09 AM 13/11/2012

    Maybe a bad day at the office for him, Davies is usually a brilliant commentator, albeit one with red-tinted glasses.

    Had to +1 your comment though for this brilliant turn of phrase:
    "I can't listen to the Welsh whiner cream his chinos..."

  • stroudos
    12:02 AM 13/11/2012

    Couldn't have put it better!!

    Cracking Twitter username too - @thebigstroker!

  • pretzel
    11:19 PM 12/11/2012

    I suppose that was supposed to be "yeh, I'm talking about Carter".... I was not under the illusion that Dan Carter himself was logging into RD and reading everyones posts....

  • pretzel
    11:15 PM 12/11/2012

    What other gentle reminders are you referring to?

    I simply said I would love to see this thing just be let go seeing as it was nothing to write home about, however the governing bodies are unable to control how referee's relax the rules therefore they have to do things EXACTLY as the laws state...

    So my point is, I would expect this to receive a ban (as I also expected Etzebeth to receive a ban) I do not particularly want to see it receive a ban as it was hardly ban worthy. However perhaps a ban would teach Thomson to use his brain a little more (as it probably has done to Etzebeth)...

  • pretzel
    11:09 PM 12/11/2012

    My point was Etzebeth's indiscretion was not "attempted" it actually happened...

  • yannoche
    10:22 PM 12/11/2012

    Man on the mic daring to say 'That's is silly play', could have added 'murderous too'.

  • frenchie
    10:21 PM 12/11/2012

    By the way: horrible AIG logo on the AB jersey...I believe now france is the only team not showing any sponsor. Class!

  • alasdairduncan3
    9:07 PM 12/11/2012

    Initially I though he had mistaken the scrum-cap for the ball, but the punch clearly proves that he knew exactly what he was doing.
    On the other hand, in rugby terms, what he did seems little more than a "tap on the shoulder" to alert Strokosch that he was in the wrong place, could he kindly move. Yellow is sufficient.

  • 8:46 PM 12/11/2012

    Hey pretzel I somehow doubt carter is reading your posts.

    Nice on stoker to let Thomson off but that's kinda like an abused wife saying she had it comig and asking the cop to not arrest her husband for hitting her.

    Boots to the head, passively or not, warrant a red card and a 4 week ban.

  • yorffeo
    8:43 PM 12/11/2012


    "Very illegally" that's for sure, but it seems there are special rules for McCaw anyway.

    Other point: it doesn't feel right to see a sponsor on this jersey.

  • katman
    8:35 PM 12/11/2012

    He knew what he was doing, or at least he realised it halfway through and sheepishly stopped it. So you had half a stomp which was kind of deliberate. So I'd say a couple of weeks and a strongly worded letter.

    Done.

    So now we can move onto the other, far more sinister part of this particular game, and also this video clip: The world's worst commentator, Jonathan Davies. What the feck is his claim to a microphone?

    Seriously, I can't listen to the Welsh whiner cream his chinos at everything the Kiwis do. At one point he even admitted he'd run out of superlatives, and we were still in the first bloody half.

    Somewhere in the second half he marveled at the replacement AB scrumhalf's "wonderful kicking technique" as he screwed a ball directly into touch. Didn't they arrest this fool for a pub brawl the other day? Who the feck bailed him out?

    Take this video clip here. At around 15 seconds McCaw flops over the ball in the ruck, sealing it off, and not for the first or the last time in the game. But Mr Davies has this to say: "Ah, Richie McCaw's secured it for them, didn't he? He fell very cleverly the other side of the ball..."

    Really, Jonathan? Very cleverly? How about very illegally? If anyone can direct me to the petition to have this drunkard removed from the BBC team, I'd be very much obliged.

  • pretzel
    8:34 PM 12/11/2012

    How about placing ones studs on an opposition players back who is intentionally lying on the ball slowing it down?

    Not talking about stamping, talking about raking...

  • juggernauter
    8:33 PM 12/11/2012

    Finally, a good mo! Anyway, silly stuff from Thompson, knew exactrly what he was doing. It's dangerous, you just can't be stamping on people's heads with those metal cleats... So I'd say a ban, and bye bye tour. Shame, cause he's one heck of a player.

  • pretzel
    8:31 PM 12/11/2012

    And just to add, lovely to see Strokosch taking Thomsons side here... we all know when we're in the wrong, and in the grand scheme of things, to let Thomson go down in flames here without owning up to your own mistakes is a bit weak...

    To further echo others, brilliant tache by Thomson and a lot of the players from both sides.

    I find it a little sad that some of the "pretty boys" (yeh Carter, I'm talking to you!!!) didn't enter into this. Carter carries an awful lot of clout both on and off the pitch, he has a large rugby contingent following, and also a large drooling contingent (the ladies...and probably Nigel Owens) so it would be brilliant to see someone in such spotlight take a "retro, negative" effect on his own image for a good cause. A few of the Scots had tache's not sure how many/who had them, but again, there weren't as many as I'd have liked to see. I always find the Aussie's pull off the mo very well.

  • skid986
    8:26 PM 12/11/2012

    Laying all over the ball or not, that's no excuse for studs to the back of somebody's head. It was deliberate and Strokosh was in no position to defend or protect himself. Even more shameful for an AB is that he did it to the back of his head, therefore effectively 'in the back', so showed his cowardice as well. 70s tache - 70s play. Retrospective red card and a ban are in order.

  • pretzel
    8:26 PM 12/11/2012

    I am a bit like the others on here. I am all for referee's "loosely" referring to the law book for incidents like this; it was clearly not a nasty stamp, it was a gentle (hah) reminder. HOWEVER my only problem is that I don't personally believe referee's can be trusted in allowing personal judgement into the game. Time and time again we have seen pathetic calls given, or horrendous incidents NOT being penalised.

    So in effect, I would be more than happy to see this "love tap" just end up with a yellow card. We all know Thomson was not trying to "stamp" on Strokosch in a brutal way, however according to the letters of the law, boot to the head should = red. Headbutt = red, etc etc etc...

    So unless the governing bodies take a step back and say, "ok guys, this is just getting silly, we all know that Thomson was being a tool, but he was not trying to harm Strokosch, so from NOW on, we are going to look at each case individually. This time we'll give Adam a kick in the backside and tell him not to be a clown, but it will end at that." And then from then on, judge each case without law coloured blinkers.

    I blame it all on the lawyers involved actually. NO DOUBT, they will come out with things like "Ah, but by the letter of the law, the angle in which Thomson applied his boot was not beyond 45 degrees therefore blah blah blah" which means that the governing bodies then have to adjust the laws accordingly so that it covers EVERY aspect and then it leads to the governing bodies punishing EVERYTHING that fits the criteria (Etzebeth's headbutt) yet does not actually, and would never actually, result in damage...

  • 8:25 PM 12/11/2012

    @Guy I agree with you here, nice gesture by Strockosch (hoping in Karma, I'm guessing it's something he'd do himself :D) but mistake my arse, he could see what he was doing. That said I think the card is enough, he didn't go in with any force, was just a little shove with the foot, (if that makes any sense) to let the big man know he was in a bad position

  • historyboys2
    8:21 PM 12/11/2012

    @Guy, I think the ref's view was blocked by the backside of an All Black player. The incident happens on the far side of the ruck and it doesn't look like the ref can see that it's a head on the receiving end of Thompson's boot.

    Personally, I think a yellow card is punishment enough for Thompson. As Strokosch admits, he was lying all over the ball and I'm pretty sure Thompson just wanted to remind him of his responsibility to roll away. I don't think it was particularly malicious.

  • guy
    7:50 PM 12/11/2012

    A few things:
    1) A stamp is a stamp just like a gouge is a gouge, damage done or not. Punish it properly!
    2) For fuck's sake: it happens right in front of the ref. Is he blind?
    3) Stamp in my opinion: straight red. Blacks would still have won off course.
    4) Very nice gesture by Strokosch. Soccer players: take notice!
    5) Great mo by Thompson. Needs to get his ban reduced for supporting a good cause.
    All in my humble opinion off course.

  • colombes
    7:20 PM 12/11/2012

    For me, this yellow card should be sufficient. No damage ad don't seem so malicious
    Got the impression that he was annoyed by Strokosh laying all over the ball, and he begins the stamp but without in any pressure. anyway, silly to do that in front of a touchline ref and 3 camera angles...

  • ando
    7:20 PM 12/11/2012

    Mistake? It was only a mistake if he mistook the guy's scrum cap for the ball. Thomson knew exactly where he was putting his boot. And it doesn't make a difference if the guy was all over the ball, you just can't ruck like you did in the good ol' days.

  • rugbydump
    7:13 PM 12/11/2012

    Strokosch just tweeted saying that he hopes Thomson doesn't get punished. '@Rugbydump I believe it was a mistake, hopefully he's let off. I was lying all over the ball'

  • ando
    6:56 PM 12/11/2012

    I might have to reach for the rule book, but I thought rucking to the head (intentional or not) was an automatic red card? At least it used to be - I got done for that one myself once.

  • moddeur
    6:54 PM 12/11/2012

    I agree with both of @browner's comments.
    I agree that Thomson got a fair punishment already, and I agree that old school rugby doesn't always mean "better rugby". Last Friday I played against an "old timer" team (all my opponents were aged 40+, and had a good 20 years of amateur rugby in them), and at some point I screamed at one of their flankers, in front of the public: "DON'T *%$ PUNCH PEOPLE IN THE FACE IN RUCKS!". He looked at me with a bland expression (looking fully guilty, which he was) and that was the end of it.
    Let's keep it fair.

  • 5ft8flanker
    6:51 PM 12/11/2012

    Ah Thomson was only reminding Strokosch to release and he obliged. Play on

  • browner
    6:47 PM 12/11/2012

    'old school'ers idea's need to be confined to the dustbin of life, the game was littered with thuggery & brutality ..... get rid of em all.

    Thomson's shouldn't get any more punishment. He knew what he was doing, and withdrew .....end of subject.


Related Articles