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

Wed 21 May 2014 | 06:39
Jean Deysel suspended for three weeks for stamp against Crusaders

17
Comments

Sharks flanker Jean Deysel pleased guilty to a charge of stamping following the red card he received against the Crusaders in Christchurch on Saturday. He has been suspended for three weeks. The Sharks went on to win the match 30-25. 

Deysel saw red in the 16th minute of the much anticipated clash between the two powerhouse sides. Early on it looked as though the match would be ruined as a spectable following the sending off, but the Sharks fought back courageously despite playing 65 minutes with 14 men.

Deysel has since faced a SANZAR judicial hearing, with Advocate Jannie Lubbe finding that Jordan Taufua illegally held on to the foot of Deysel, preventing him from joining the line of defence.

"In order to free himself, Deysel stamped with his boot on Taufua and made contact with the neck/head area of the player. Taufua sustained a minor injury to his mouth but was able to complete the match and subsequently provided helpful testimony that supported the medical evidence," the statement said.

The offence was categorised as mid-level which carries a five week suspension, but was reduced to three weeks due to mitagating factors such as Deysel's apology to Taufua post match, his clean record and his guilty plea and genuine remorse for his actions.

Meanwhile Taufua has said that he isn't holding a grudge. "He came up to me and apologised to me at the end and I just told him 'no hard feelings mate, it's a contact sport'," Taufua said.

"I think it was just a heat of the moment thing you know? I think he was trying to get back on his D-line and just reacted. I'm not angry at him or anything. I have got no grudge. I was just holding on to him in a ruck and then he just got me good. There was a bit of blood but that's rugby mate."

Sharks coach Jake White wasn't pleased with what happened, but defended Deysel's character.

"I can't stand here and protect a guy and condone that sort of thing.. It's not like him, that's the thing I feel most embarrassed about. He's not a dirty guy, he's got an unbelievable record.

"He's a tough man, carries the ball hard but I think he's as remorseful in the changing room as I would expect any player to be. It's not him," White added.

Posted By: Grant Constable

17 Comments

  • foxy
    5:04 PM 22/05/2014

    I cannot believe he has got away with a three game ban! Utterly disgusting bit of play and has to deserve a ten figure ban minimum. It takes a special sort of dirt bag to stamp on the neck / face of somebody who is on thee ground.

    The guy holding on should have been given a yellow card for slowing down other player. To be fair though it is something you see in every game and it goes unpunished, it is only highlighted here because of the reaction of black 7.

  • finedisregard
    2:09 PM 22/05/2014

    No, I think stamping is justified, just not to the head.

    The voiceover says that players need to trust refs to pick up on this stuff and not take matters in their own hands. The problem is refs will never ever stop play and issue a penalty or card for somebody being held away from the ball. There is simply too much going on. So what's a guy to do then? Just accept being taken out of the game by some cheater?

    The self policing aspect of rugby is really vital and when we take it away we have inequalities such as this where it pays to be negative (like Taufua).

  • finedisregard
    1:51 PM 22/05/2014

    Holding jerseys MOST DEFINITELY has resulted to blows to the head in the past and rightfully so. Deysel was trying to play rugby and Taufua was preventing him from doing so. Taufua was cheating and got what he deserved.

    What is a player on defense supposed to do when he is being tackled by a player on offense? Cry to the referee? File a complaint a week later with the disciplinary board?

    A player holding on to another and cynically preventing them from playing deserves everything they get.

  • danknapp
    1:47 PM 22/05/2014

    @DrG - the truth is I added the names of O'Connell and Hines to my post because I was worried it'd sound racist. #FirstWorldProblems.

  • oldflyhalf
    11:52 AM 22/05/2014

    "The instagating player shoukd get the same treatment... Red:red"

    you're sure, red card? :) ...only red card ? excluded from sporting life ! :)

  • drg
    10:14 AM 22/05/2014

    @Dan, I'm pretty sure some of the African teams could become the most feared...

  • drg
    10:13 AM 22/05/2014

    The point is Thomnz yes it is part of the game since time began, but then a bit of fair retaliation was also part of the game until fairly recently. A clip round the ear for holding on wouldn't have caused many to batter an eyelid.

    The clips I have shown are not designed to show what to DO in those situations, they are designed to show the lack of policing in those areas which inevitably resorts to a more violent act - which is THEN policed...

    "Yes in the old days, a bit of hows your father often sorted these situations out but no one cried about it. Not like you lot, you bunch of whiners. Holding jerseys does not equal blows to the head. Never has and never should be."

    Rather hypocritical paragraph no? Well unless you honestly do mean a bit of intercourse... but what you're probably trying to say is that players self policed some situations but it never resulted in blows to the head? Well what exactly did they do? Pull out feathers dusters and tickle each other???

  • drg
    10:05 AM 22/05/2014

    HAHAHAHAHAHA Stroudos and the rest.

  • stroudos
    9:45 AM 22/05/2014

    Sounds like a very effective policy to me.

    Get caught with your hands in the ruck -> get sodomised in the middle of the pitch -> Never use your hands in the ruck ever again.

  • danknapp
    9:35 AM 22/05/2014

    If 'how's your father' was allowed on the pitch then Courtney Lawes, Paul O'Connell and Nathan Hines would be even more terrifying enforcers.

  • akared
    9:14 AM 22/05/2014

    3 weeks seems a bit lenient to me! There is no doubt it's deliberate as you can see him looking down directly where he is stomping.

  • danknapp
    5:56 AM 22/05/2014

    There is no way the guy holding on needs a red card, but a yellow card - certainly. It is indeed a professional foul.

    I don't believe anywhere in the above comments has anybody justified the act of stamping on someone's head, simply pointing out that the person holding on (and committing an offence) has gone unpunished.

    I assume nobody is trying to justify stamping because it is so obviously wrong in this instance.

  • cdmj
    5:44 AM 22/05/2014

    rugby is about controlled aggression if you can not control it then you get punished!
    and if you can never control it then rugby is not for you go to UFC.

  • drg
    11:53 PM 21/05/2014

    Couldn't agree more! :)

  • reality
    11:45 PM 21/05/2014

    DrG, to add to your point, if I remember correctly Hines later in that game slyly blocked an Ulster defender thereby allowing Clermont to score a try. If he had been punished, and punished properly for what he did in the link above, I don't think he would have been so ready to commit another professional foul. A penalty for something as insidious as that is stupid and leads to an increase in professional fouls because players know they can do them with relative impunity.

    In this case, if the player on the ground had been yellow-carded for his foul which caused the stamp, I think most would agree that justice would have been served. I'd actually be inclined to allow stamps in this case, not to the head or particularly sensitive parts of the body, but to the arms. It's like the old rucking argument; if people start putting their hands where they shouldn't and they get rucked/stamped as a result, then they'll learn not to put them there again. Self-policing and not particularly dangerous.

  • drg
    11:21 PM 21/05/2014

    With Bongo on this. Ok, I'm not condoning what Deysel did, but there is a huge list of similar sorts of incidents where it's EXTREMELY rare that the instigator gets any punishment which is wrong.

    Examples:
    http://www.rugbydump.com/2010/01/1266/danny-grewcock-suspended-for-seven-weeks-for-stamping
    http://www.rugbydump.com/2008/02/349/nathan-hines-swinging-arm-on-lee-byrne
    http://www.rugbydump.com/2010/12/1749/paul-oconnell-red-card-for-swinging-arm-on-jonathan-thomas
    http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/06/3214/schalk-brits-suspended-for-three-weeks-for-striking-owen-farrell

    Another example of holding on:
    http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/05/1948/sean-obriens-backhand-strike-on-yannick-nyanga

    A similar example of how things can escalate - http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/10/2176/paul-williams-red-card-for-strike-on-heinrich-brussow

    And on the rare occasion it does get penalised look how fooking obvious and ridiculous it has to be...
    http://www.rugbydump.com/2012/01/2314/nathan-hines-hangs-onto-two-ulster-players

    There may not be any more, but frankly after re-watching some of those I feel sick to see the injustices so I'm fed up of looking for more..

  • 9:10 PM 21/05/2014

    3 weeks seems a bit light no?

Related Articles