Injury/Suspensions List

[Scott1]

That Banahan ban is a absolute joke! Same as Hepetema?! Winds me up!

[Scott1]

Banahan got the same suspension as Hepetema. Banahan was an accidental clash of heads, Hepetema assaulted Kobus Van Wyk with a deliberate shoulder to the head.. the system is fundamentally flawed!

Yes it is,that’s an absolute farce! Banahans wasn’t even a red let alone a ban!

[ourla]

Banahan, Hepetema and Van Wyk were also basically the same thing - players in a standing position trying to tackle and ending up making direct contact with the other players head. Players were involved in setting the regulations and it is for their benefit. People can continue to discuss the relative intent or the amount of bad luck involved but it's pretty pointless. All the players now know what will happen and what the consequences are. None of the 3 mentioned above can be defended, nor have they tried to as I understand it. Suck it up and change the behaviour.

[Noggs]

Banahan, Hepetema and Van Wyk were also basically the same thing - players in a standing position trying to tackle and ending up making direct contact with the other players head. Players were involved in setting the regulations and it is for their benefit. People can continue to discuss the relative intent or the amount of bad luck involved but it's pretty pointless. All the players now know what will happen and what the consequences are. None of the 3 mentioned above can be defended, nor have they tried to as I understand it. Suck it up and change the behaviour.

Agreed.

It will take a bit of time to change habits of a lifetime but players and coaches need to find way of reducing the frequency of head injuries. Otherwise players may pay dearly in later life.

[OakhamTiger32]

Banahan, Hepetema and Van Wyk were also basically the same thing - players in a standing position trying to tackle and ending up making direct contact with the other players head. Players were involved in setting the regulations and it is for their benefit. People can continue to discuss the relative intent or the amount of bad luck involved but it's pretty pointless. All the players now know what will happen and what the consequences are. None of the 3 mentioned above can be defended, nor have they tried to as I understand it. Suck it up and change the behaviour.

I largely agree with this although I don't think Hepetema was in the same category whatsoever. Watching the replays he intentionally drives his shoulder into Van Wyk.. how can that be the same as an accidental clash of heads due to poor technique?

[teds]

Banahan? This Banahan?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5tE9S8uwj4

[loretta]

Well I'm glad KVW will get a month to reflect on his, all too frequent, stupid decisions. The great shame is, if he'd made that tackle at chest/lower chest area, it could have been far more effective. Probable turn over in that position on the field. Maybe he should go and study the technique of Dave Lougheed.

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

Banahan, Hepetema and Van Wyk were also basically the same thing - players in a standing position trying to tackle and ending up making direct contact with the other players head. Players were involved in setting the regulations and it is for their benefit. People can continue to discuss the relative intent or the amount of bad luck involved but it's pretty pointless. All the players now know what will happen and what the consequences are. None of the 3 mentioned above can be defended, nor have they tried to as I understand it. Suck it up and change the behaviour.

It's not the ban or card for me, it's the length in comparison, Van Wyk's is a technique error which needs removing from the game for player safety, the Heptema one was a deliberate cheap shot, tweeting something out after the game shouldn't have any influence.

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

Well I'm glad KVW will get a month to reflect on his, all too frequent, stupid decisions. The great shame is, if he'd made that tackle at chest/lower chest area, it could have been far more effective. Probable turn over in that position on the field. Maybe he should go and study the technique of Dave Lougheed.

Lougheed would of gone straight through the bloke.

[Scott1]

Are we really pulling up old videos of a rugby punchup to try and justify a red card? How sad!

[ourla]

Banahan, Hepetema and Van Wyk were also basically the same thing - players in a standing position trying to tackle and ending up making direct contact with the other players head. Players were involved in setting the regulations and it is for their benefit. People can continue to discuss the relative intent or the amount of bad luck involved but it's pretty pointless. All the players now know what will happen and what the consequences are. None of the 3 mentioned above can be defended, nor have they tried to as I understand it. Suck it up and change the behaviour.

I largely agree with this although I don't think Hepetema was in the same category whatsoever. Watching the replays he intentionally drives his shoulder into Van Wyk.. how can that be the same as an accidental clash of heads due to poor technique?

Ultimately it's splitting hairs though - they are all intentionally trying to make a hit, in a position/method that up until this season, would have been deemed "hard hitting" but fair. Hepetema said afterwards "It’s never my intention to go out on the field and hurt someone". It's tricky because in this context (playing rugby) can mean different things to different people. Injure may be a better word to use. I do understand what you are saying, that he's kind of more looking for the contact than perhaps Banahan and Van Wyk were but it's hard to judge and ultimately irrelevant in terms of what these sendings off and bans are trying to achieve.

[ads]

Banahan, Hepetema and Van Wyk were also basically the same thing

No way. Accident and on purpose are very different in all walks of life. They all need bans in order to make the game safer. But something done on puropose should be a much bigger ban. The Hepatema hit was disgusting.

[TigerFeetSteve]

With the Banahan one, because they've stated in the decision that the player was injured they have to put it in the mid range category, I suspect his would have been low end otherwise, and once they're at that they can only apply a 50% reduction.

The Hepetema one had the opposite true, because Van Wyk passed his HIA and continued playing, as no injury occured then it cannot be considered high end.

This means it ended up being both in the same category.

[Scott1]

Banahan, Hepetema and Van Wyk were also basically the same thing - players in a standing position trying to tackle and ending up making direct contact with the other players head. Players were involved in setting the regulations and it is for their benefit. People can continue to discuss the relative intent or the amount of bad luck involved but it's pretty pointless. All the players now know what will happen and what the consequences are. None of the 3 mentioned above can be defended, nor have they tried to as I understand it. Suck it up and change the behaviour.

I largely agree with this although I don't think Hepetema was in the same category whatsoever. Watching the replays he intentionally drives his shoulder into Van Wyk.. how can that be the same as an accidental clash of heads due to poor technique?

Ultimately it's splitting hairs though - they are all intentionally trying to make a hit, in a position/method that up until this season, would have been deemed "hard hitting" but fair. Hepetema said afterwards "It’s never my intention to go out on the field and hurt someone". It's tricky because in this context (playing rugby) can mean different things to different people. Injure may be a better word to use. I do understand what you are saying, that he's kind of more looking for the contact than perhaps Banahan and Van Wyk were but it's hard to judge and ultimately irrelevant in terms of what these sendings off and bans are trying to achieve.

It shouldn’t be irrelevant though! It needs to be looked at again. These reds are spoiling games,I understand and fully agree we need to try and eliminate head contact but these are rugby incidents. I suggest we go down the league route,put the player on report then if the panel deem it’s ban worthy then ban the player by all means. But the. again we can’t even trust the panel with some of the ludicrous decisions they seem to make!

[Scott1]

Going on the severity of the injuries to the player is ridiculous too! So Banahans accident caused more damage than Hepetemas shoulder to the head so he gets a longer ban?! Laughable!