Adam Thomson Head Stamp

[Chobbsy]

Has Adam Thomson been cited for the stamp on Alasdair Strokosch's head?

Or has he just got away with the sin binning?

[MJ Chairman]

Hearing is today along with Simmons the Aussie who did a spear tackle in the French game that tight shorts Owens missed.

[G.K]

"
New Zealand flanker Adam Thomson has been cited for stamping on Scotland forward Alasdair Strokosch during yesterday's Test match at Murrayfield.

Thomson was reported by independent International Rugby Board citing commissioner, Ireland's Murray Whyte, following the 43rd-minute incident.

A statement issued by Six Nations organisers, who oversee autumn Test disciplinary matters, said Thomson would face a disciplinary hearing in London on Wednesday.

Thomson was sent to the sin-bin by referee Jerome Garces on advice from touch judge Simon McDowell.

Television replays showed that Thomson brought his boot down on Strokosch's head, suggesting he was fortunate to escape with only a yellow card.

New Zealand cruised to a 51-22 victory, but Thomson now faces a ban that could rule him out of the world champions' remaining autumn Tests against Italy next Saturday, followed by Wales and then England.

Asked after the game if it should have been a straight red card awarded to Thomson, Scotland head coach Andy Robinson said: "You would think so."

If he is suspended, then it is likely that Thomson could be sidelined for anything between three and eight weeks.

Australia lock Rob Simmons, meanwhile, will also appear before an independent IRB judicial officer on Wednesday.

Simmons was cited by South African Freek Burger for a dangerous "tip" tackle on France flanker Yannick Nyanga midway through the second half of Australia's 33-6 defeat against Les Bleus in Paris on Saturday.
"

[4071]

And today in the NZ Herald, one journalist is already claiming that the length (if any) of Thomson's ban will be a test of the fairness of the system.

But not in the way you would expect...

Thomson hearing a test for justice

A raging sense of injustice can often become a bedfellow for the All Blacks in Europe. The rugby world is prone to conspiring against them on these November tours and the outcome of Adam Thomson's judicial hearing is much bigger than determining the immediate playing fate of a bit-part All Black. It will establish whether there is justice for all or a giant conspiracy to make an example of the All Blacks at every opportunity.

Jarrad Hoeata being put on standby is a hint of the lack of faith the All Blacks hold in the process and an indication that they have come to accept they will forever be cast as villains north of the equator.

The pain the Six Nations feel every November at these All Black-inflicted ritual humiliations shouldn't be underestimated. A full house at Twickers is not an ideal place for England to discover how much better the All Blacks really are. The Welsh, for more than a decade, have tried to convince themselves they have discovered a team to dominate for the ages only to be systematically taken apart by New Zealand.

Not since 2002 have the All Blacks lost a November test and that's a statistic that weighs heavily on the Northern Hemisphere: what's to enjoy about discovering every year that the gap remains enormous? Every year the All Blacks arrive and play rugby that is smarter, faster and better executed than any European side they encounter. It's not so fanciful to theorise that the judicial system has been tapped as a means to exact some kind of revenge on the All Blacks - a blunt instrument to wield and inflict some kind of damage.

For some, this is too outlandish to even consider - but the evidence to support it is far stronger than what's available to dismiss it. In 2009 Wales coach Warren Gatland was indignant about a high tackle committed by Daniel Carter that ultimately had little influence on the outcome of the contest and in the context of the game was significantly less vicious than three other high shots from Welshmen. Gatland accused referees of being in awe of the All Blacks and essentially goaded IRB chief executive Mike Miller into proving that wasn't true. Carter was cited and suspended in an outrageous charade of a hearing.

The following year England hooker Dylan Hartley took lumps out of Richie McCaw off the ball in what was obviously an intended and malicious attack. He wasn't cited, yet Keven Mealamu copped a four-week ban - reduced to two - for a poorly executed cleanout of Lewis Moody.

And then there have been the endless lame sanctions imposed on the disturbingly long list of players for assaulting McCaw - the worst being Dean Greyling's one-test ban this year for almost breaking the skipper's jaw.

Much rests, in terms of creating a perception, on the outcome of the Thomson hearing. His footwork was needless, undeniably worthy of punishment but more for its stupidity than its intention. It was hardly malicious. There was no conviction, no commitment to the act and could anyone, given the precedents set elsewhere, really argue it was worthy of more than a one-game suspension?

The outcome will be fascinating and potentially more damaging to Italy, Wales and England as the last thing they need is to encounter an All Blacks side with better skills and better motivation.

Apparently anything more than a one-match ban would be unjust, and a sign of how the ABs are victimised by officials.

The level of delusion is genuinely unbelieveable.

[G.K]

Good Rugby players but even more one eyed than the Welsh!

[tigerburnie]

His footwork was needless, undeniably worthy of punishment but more for its stupidity than its intention. It was hardly malicious. There was no conviction, no commitment to the act and could anyone, given the precedents set elsewhere, really argue it was worthy of more than a one-game suspension?

The rest of the comment is typically foolish low grade journalism, but the bit I've left is a fair observation.Strokosh was not only laying all over the ball but after a playfull slap he moved to make it even more difficult for the player to ruck the ball out. It didn't look malicious and the yellow card seemed appropriate to me.

[biffer]

Strokosch has also said on his twitter account that there was nothing much in it and it didn't even leave a mark.

[Southernsoftie]

I certainly don't think the act justifies any sort of ban at all. Thomson tapped Strokosch on the back of head as if to say..."you really shouldn't be there mate" Strokosch was in the wrong place and Thomson let him know as gently as anyone could expect.

Having said all that...that piece of "journalism" is an absolute joke and makes all of NZ look slightly pathetic. "Oh everyone's out to get us, no one likes us, they are all frightened of us"....when in reality the message that it sends is, "we are needy and weak and feel victimised".

I am sure the piece is not representative of how most kiwi's think but really, grow up.

[Daveyboy]

I do not believe that Thomson's act was malicious or worthy of a ban.

The paranoia in that NZ article is palpable, however. If journalists had any sort of good reputation, this article might just spoil it. But they haven't, so it can't.

[GT1]

1 week for Adam Thomson!!

[tigerburnie]

You have laws and they have to be applied,I dare say the NZ journo that wrote the quoted piece will still be on some sort of holy war,but it seems fair to me.
You can't allow players to take over from the referee in dealing with offenders,but the punishment should be balanced and fit the crime.

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

At the time I though he 'pulled' the contact - and replays only confirmed it in my mind.

Thomson was looking to give someone's back/shoulder and when he realised he was on Strokosh's head he didn't follow through with force (same as Oz admits to doing in his auto biogrophy) - should it be a ban? debatable - not necessarily for the crime but maybe for the recklessness and potential to have caused major injury akin to reckless contact with the eye area

[G.K]

Simples really - if you make a downward movement with your foot on someone's head (whether it should be there or not) you are committing foul play and risk a ban. Even the dullest of forwards should be able to grasp that concept.

[snoopster]

This wasn't the most serious act of foul play from one of the All Black players during the game - if you look at around the 7 minute 20 mark of the game (it is still on Iplayer), the AB 12 looks like he is trying to "Callum Clark" the Scottish loosehead off the ball.

[4071]

At the time I though he 'pulled' the contact - and replays only confirmed it in my mind.

Thomson was looking to give someone's back/shoulder and when he realised he was on Strokosh's head he didn't follow through with force (same as Oz admits to doing in his auto biogrophy) - should it be a ban? debatable - not necessarily for the crime but maybe for the recklessness and potential to have caused major injury akin to reckless contact with the eye area

If Thomson was looking to "give someone's back/shoulder", then why did he look down at Strokosch's head, and - whilst still looking down - scrape his boot along the back of that head?

Clearly there was no savagery, but it's quite clear that he knew that he was going for the guy's head. He was looking right at him, and put his boot there deliberately.