New Zealand hooker Keven Mealamu has had his ban for headbutting England captain Lewis Moody reduced from four weeks to two weeks, following an appeal hearing on Friday.
rugby365
That means that although Mealamu will be ruled out of the All Blacks’ internationals against Scotland in Edinburgh on Saturday and Ireland in Dublin next week next week, he will be available for the tour finale against Wales in Cardiff on November 2.
His suspension was reduced after an appeal panel decided he had not intentionally meant to headbutt Moody during the match, which the All Blacks won 26-16.
Mealamu can also play for the Barbarians in their match against world champions South Africa at Twickenham on December 4, having previously been selected for the invitational side.
Hikawera Elliot will make his Test debut in Mealamu’s absence against Scotland at Murrayfield this weekend.
“For me it’s been a tough week, having something like this hanging over me,” Mealamu told reporters at New Zealand’s hotel on Friday.
“I’ve never played the game to hurt anyone. I feel a lot better, I will take a lot more care the next time I do a clean out like that.”
The All Blacks were furious Mealamu’s previously “exemplary” disciplinary record in his 82-Test career had been called into question.
New Zealand assistant coach Steve Hansen, who earlier in the week said the team would “fight to the death” to overturn Mealamu’s ban, was delighted by the appeal decision.
“There was no intent, Kev’s not like that,” said Hansen. “That’s why we supported him so strongly.”
An initial International Rugby Board (IRB) disciplinary hearing here on Tuesday saw Scottish judicial officer, Professor Lorne Crerar, ban Mealamu for eight weeks, but reduced it to four weeks because of ‘mitigating’ circumstances.
That suspension, had it been upheld, would have ruled him out of the remainder of New Zealand’s tour.
But his ban was reduced after an appeal panel chaired by South Africa’s Peter Ingwersen, together with Robert Williams (Wales) and Jean Noel Couraud (France), decided Mealamu had not acted deliberately.
A statement issued by the appeal committee said that although they upheld the original decision that there had been an act of foul play, having had the opportunity to review the video footage, they concluded the act was not intentional and that it merited a lower end entry point in the IRB list of sanctions.
Effectively, this meant the appeal panel thought the offence was now worth only a maximum ban of four weeks and, because of Mealamu’s record, they reduced it to two just as Crerar had, in his original verdict, reduced the ban from eight weeks to four weeks.
Their statement added: “In view of the compelling mitigating factors and the absence of aggravating factors, this was reduced to two weeks meaning that Mr. Mealamu is free to resume playing on Monday 22 November, 2010.”
a goddam disgrace…… enough said
I guesss there will now be even more moans and groans….
For a moment forget about your views or feelings about Mealamu, the All Blacks, Bakkies Botha… and let’s look at this clinically, from a Legal Perspective…
I’ve got one FUNDAMENTAL problem with the merits on which the decision on Appeal is made.
They ruled that Mealamu did not INTENTIONALLY head butt Moody…
Intent is AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT or NEEDED INGREDIENT in a finding of guilty for a head butt, one cannot mistakingly be guilty or be guilty by means of negligence.
In this case an ACT is committed, not an OMMISSION…
To be found guilty in this instance the ACT (head butt) is either intentional, in which case you are guilty, or not intentional or “nie opsetlik” as we say in Afrikaans, in which case you are innocent. If it was not intentional then Mealamu’s forehead bumped into Moody’s head, that’s all…
…. and that’s not the case….
There is no grey area here… none!
@ grootblousmile:
dagse my maat
thus i declare it a disgrace
Again the double standards in rugby shine through
3@ sharky_forever:
Hello Ty, how the hell are you?
good and you bro??
having a busy dinner
restaurant is full , and here i sit talking crap 😆
6@ sharky_forever:
Moerrrrrrrrrrr moeg, arrived home this morning at 04:05, returning from business in Mpumalanga…. feels as though I have someone else’s eyes in my head….. hulle willie saamwerk nie korporaal!!
GBS, don’t agree with you.
Schalk was cited for eye gouging, which obviously requires intent, but was found guilty of “recklessness” which is an ommission and got baanned none the less.
Same deal.
9@ Pam Anderson:
Not the same deal… not at all…
Are you saying that one can have your head recklessly in position….. hehehe
A Head Butt is like a punch, there must be deliberate directed movement of the head towards a goal, otherwise it is a mere clash of heads…. in which case some negligence could be ascribed.
Recklessness is a manifestation of intent.. in Schalla’s case maybe not the intent to eye gouge, but nevertheless reckless use of the fingers in the area of the eyes, KNOWING (intent) that that action could cause harm, it’s clearly intentional.
The appeal committee consisted of Peter Ingwersen (South Africa), Robert Williams (Wales) and Jean Noel Couraud (France) and Mealamu was represented by UK lawyer Owen Eastwood and Hansen.
GBS, a headbutt in classic sense clearly needs intent, driving a player down which results in a clash can be reckless.
Anyway, its like arguing with a speedcop why he caught you and not the fucker you were tailgating hoping he gets pulled over, it aint gonna change a thing (unless you have a R100 in the pocket).
Let me warm up , this is a bloody disgrace.
Mealamu is now an angel
Bakkies a devil who cant be believed
Mealamu will be forgiven
Bakkies will always be called a thug.
@ superBul:
dagse super duper , ek stem volkome saam
12@ Pam Anderson:
A Head Butt is nothing but a PUNCH (with the head used as the tool), it needs to be intentional to be a Head Butt, end of story.
If he was found guilty of a reckless tackle which resulted in a head clash (Foul play)…. then the Appeal Commission would have changed the guilty verdict on Head Butt to guilty of Foul Play… I don’t read their findings like that though.
Seems they are saying he Head Butted the guy, without intent… cannot be… impossible!
Maybe what they should possibly have rather said is that there was no prior meditation to head butt or… cite some other reason why it is suddenly less of an offence, declaring it foul play (in which event the guilty verdict by means of an intentional act of foul play still stands, though not the intentional act to head butt)…. as well as consider mitigating circumstances (which only slants towards punishment and not about the actual guilty verdict) = Lessor sentence
Maar dis reg die refs gaan gatvol raak vir die ABs en hulle gaan betaal, eendag waneer dit die seerste maak.
@ superBul:
and it will be in the WC final as we win it 😆
grootblousmile wrote:
That will open a can of worms
Just read Mealamu’s own comment:
To finally get this come through to say the way I did things was pretty reckless and I didn’t take care in how I did it is a lot better than saying I intentionally tried to headbutt someone,
So he was found guilty of recklessness.
Big difference.
@ sharky_forever:
Ek dink hulle het nou meer skade aan hul reputasie gedoen as wat hulle besef. Almal het hulle soos un-touchable beskou. Nou gaan die lang messe uitkom.
@ superBul:
daai is waar woorde
meer en meer mense van ooral die rugby wereld sal besef hulle word voorgetrek, hulle word alhoemeer skelm wat my betref
19@ Pam Anderson:
In which case he was found Not Guilty of Head butting, and found Guilty of Foul Play (still intent needed.. in the form of recklessness)….. semantics, my friend, semantics….
You say potato, I say potaaato….
@ grootblousmile:
😆
@ grootblousmile:
Nou se my in kort like jy die beslising
GBS, recklessness is not intent, but does constitute foul play.
Big difference.
Would you rather have Schalk labelled an eye gouger or a player found gyuilty of recklessness?
People are barking up the wrong tree here trying to equate it with Bakkies’ ban.
Bakkies intentionally headbutted Cowan, no room for any other interpretation.
Get over it-its done and dusted.
Pam Anderson wrote:
Bakkies could have said that he wanted to say something in his ear and then he slipped. 😆 no serious i am joking. or not.
The problem with Bakkies he had a coach who the whole world makes a joke off and he did not get a great lawyer.
Superbul
🙂 🙂
Maybe wanted to tell him what pretty eyes he has?
25@ Pam Anderson:
How do you argue that recklessness is not deliberate??
Reckless driving…. you are deliberately driving a vehicle in a manner which is dangerous.
Rugby Foul Play (Reckless play)…. You are deliberately playing in a manner which is dangerous.
… there is still intent….
On de udder hand Derm….
Negligent driving…. you are negligently driving a vehicle in a dangerous manner.
…. there is no intent, only negligence…..
Braai calls.
If I have unprotected sex tonight am I reckless or negligent? 🙂
24@ superBul:
Ek veroordeel of misoordeel nie die beslissing nie, nes ek ook nie die beslissing maklik wil vergelyk met ‘n ander insident nie.
My houding was dat daar deurgaans ewewigtig opgetree moet word deur Citing Commissions, met dieselfde standaarde en maatstawwe wat oral geld…
Maar ek is huiwerig om op die wa te klim van “Ons Suid-Afrikaners kry die kortste end van die stok” asook op die wa van “Die All Blacks verneuk met alles”….
Min mense verstaan die beginsel van verswarende en versagtende omstandighede en hoe dit werk…
In Schalla en Bakkies se geval is dit erg verswarend by die beoordeling van straf of vonnis dat hulle weer en weer oortree en al voorheen gestraf is.
Aan die anderkant MOET dit in jou guns tel as jy nog nooit voorheen in die moeilikheid was nie. Verder moet dit ook in ju guns tel as daar ander redes of versagtende omstandighede aanwesig was toe jy oortree het… dinge wat die blaamwaardigheid so bietjie minder maak of afwater, soos provokasie deur die opponent….. ensovoorts.
So, wat dink ek van die Mealamu geval…. ek dink hy het goeie regsverteenwoordiging gehad….. hehehe
Users Online
Total 538 users including 0 member, 538 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,827,546 Page Impressions
_