Burgess in the clear

[Mixmasterreece]

While Moimoi nursed head and neck injuries and could not train, Burgess was being cleared by a three-man panel - two of them British - at league headquarters in Leeds.

Having stopped short of claiming outright bias after a judiciary decision not to ban British prop Adrian Morley a fortnight ago for a high tackle, Chalmers did not pull his punches today, claiming there were "two sets of rules - one to suit them and one for dealing with us".

He added: "They seem intent on treating us like a bunch of natives from the colonies."

Chalmers and Kiwi official Malcolm Boyle attended the meeting as observers after the British coach Tony Smith challenged the Kiwis to stop complaining about the disciplinary process and "send someone with some weight".

"We sent two of the heaviest people we could find - All Golds manager Malcolm Boyle and me - but we were still carved up faster than a pork roast at a hangi," said Chalmers.

He said the 2-1 weighting of the panel gave him deja vu.

"It was an appalling set-up job to let Morley free last week and this one just leaves me gobsmacked," he said.

"There is absolutely nothing equitable about the system the RFL has in place."

The meeting was only to decide whether Burgess would face a full disciplinary hearing or not.

Kiwi official Neville Kesha was outvoted by British team manager Abi Ekoku and chairman Stuart Cummings, the British referees director over whether to refer the incident to a full panel.

Boyle took the notes, which reveal Ekoku claiming Burgess' tackle to be a "very minor brush-up off the ball and a lazy arm" and Kesha disagreeing.

It was only in the meeting that the Kiwis then found out Moimoi had been cited by the British for elbowing Burgess, yet there was no evidence that the home nation had followed international rules by providing a written complaint by the deadline of 10.30am the following morning.

Kiwi officials say they were not told until arriving at the meeting of the citing. That too was dismissed, but only after Ekoku - according to Boyle's notes - had said: "If there's no action taken on this what statement goes out not only to the coaches but both sets of players"

Chalmers called the move a "flagrant disregard" of the rules.

British coach Tony Smith told media yesterday that Burgess could have been sinbinned for his tackle and advocated an increased use of the yellow card for foul play in tests to avoid disciplinary "controversies".

Smith insisted justice had been done but he believes there should be an overhaul of the international discipline procedures.

"It's not worked well for many years," he told news agency AFP.

"It's been a controversial part of our game.

"We need to come up with a system that fits right and it's got to be different to the club system. To be suspended for a test match is a whole lot different to being suspended from one game of a 27-round competition.

"We may need to be a bit more liberal maybe with the sin bin and deal with things at the time if they're pretty clear cut.

"The incident such as Sam's the other day, which was accidental rather than deliberate, may have warranted 10 minutes in the sin bin and then it's done and dusted.

"For him to miss a game would have been unjust because it's a third of the whole series. That is like suspending someone from the normal competition for nine games."

 

[Mixmasterreece]

Of particular interest

Ekoku :

"very minor brush-up off the ball and a lazy arm"


Smith :
"For him to miss a game would have been unjust because it's a third of the whole series. That is like suspending someone from the normal competition for nine games."

 

[Fast Eddie]

What a load of bullsh*t.

Justice had been done? All we got out of it was a f**ken penalty.

You have to be kidding me. Boys need to start sorting it out on the field because the judicary is going to do f**k all about it. But then again...as soon as we throw a punch.....two weeks suspension probably. Although we could argue that the punch was just a lazy arm that slipped up and hit him in the face.

 

[roughyedspud]

there is an argument to say burgess' arm did come up off moimoi ball carrying arm..




maybe archer should use the sin bin more in the remaining games??

 

[roughyedspud]

here you go

Excerpt of notes from the meeting of the Match Review Panel at Red Hall, Monday, October 29, 2007.

In Attendance: Stuart Cummins (RFL) Chair
Abi Ekoku (Great Britain Manager/Panel Member)
Neville Kesha (NZRL) Panel Member

Andrew Chalmers (NZRL) Observer
Malcolm Boyle (NZRL) Observer

Stuart Cummins convened the meeting. He advised that there were two “incidents” to look at. One was the alleged use of an elbow by Kiwi prop Fuifui Moimoi, the other an alleged high tackle by Great Britain prop Sam Burgess on Moimoi which referee Tony Archer put on report.

The allegation against Moimoi was the result of a verbal citing immediately after the match to Match Commissioner Steve Presley. There was no written record of this citing request, nor written confirmation that it occurred before the required deadline which was 10.30am on the day after the match.

The Burgess Tackle

This tackle was examined in detail by the panel, both through the television coverage, and through other camera shots, in real time and slow motion.

Neville Kesha offered the following observation: “Burgess did not miss. He went on with the tackle on the ground and was joined by Morley in doing so. It shows direct contact with the head, and then Burgess following through when on the ground.” Neville produced a doctor’s report on Moimoi.

Abi Ekoku replied that there was doubt about whether it was direct contact.
“His arm comes off the top of the ball. His (Burgess&#8217 head goes away from Moimoi’s. It’s a lazy arm which takes Burgess off his feet. They are wrestling on the ground but it is not serious. I don’t think it was premeditated. I don’t think that at any time the referee felt it was an offence requiring ordering off. It was poor technique.”

Neville Kesha: “I disagree with everything you say. To me, he did not hit the ball first at all.”

Stuart Cummins then asked Neville how he would grade the tackle.

Kesha: “Careless”.

Ekoku: “I agree.”

Kesha: “But you can’t go around doing that all day.”

Cummins: “I would actually rule that it was in Burgess’ favour that he didn’t let go of Moimoi.”

Ekoku: “It was a very minor brush-up off the ball and a lazy arm. It’s not a malicious tackle.”

Cummins: “Neville if you were refereeing that game, would you have ordered Burgess off?”

Kesha: “No I wouldn’t.”

Ekoku: “There are higher stakes and I believe a higher tolerance in Test matches. Last year we saw a fantastic Tri-series between Australia and New Zealand, where the intensity and physicality were much higher than other competition matches, and there was a higher tolerance by the referee. That’s what we want to see at Test level – a higher tolerance level but not foul play.

“I think because of his (Burgess&#8217 poor technique, it also had an impact on the second tackle. Poor technique left him exposed. I’m not defending his carelessness, but it was not premeditated.”

Kesha: “Yes but that still does not deal with what happened. The incident needs to be referred (to the judicial panel).”

Cummins: “A couple of observations. From the doctor’s report Moimoi must have come back on the field. He also took advantage of a free interchange. I heard on the referee’s mike a trainer ask if it was a free interchange and the referee said yes.

“I wouldn’t have ordered him (Burgess) off. I think we had a really good battle (between Burgess and Moimoi) which is what we saw. My point is that it was at the lower end of the scale – a deliberate high tackle is different altogether. My recommendation is that the referee took the right action.”

Kesha: “I disagree. I think it needs to go to the judiciary. I am not saying he’s guilty, but for me, I think it should be reviewed by the judiciary.”

Ekoku: “I agree the integrity of the process and the message is important. What we’re saying is careless, not reckless, not malicious, therefore no further action.”

Cummins: “My view is that it should not go forward. Neville, I understand you want it to go forward and Abi, you don’t. Because of what I am about to say there should be no further action. It is unfortunate that I am aligned with the RFL. But I am going to be consistent throughout this series and I can assure you that when there is foul play, I will act against it.”

Kesha: “I must express my disappointment – I know it’s not personal and I will not take it that way.”

The Moimoi Incident

The second case was then tabled and several shots were shown of the Moimoi elbow allegation:

Ekoku: “In terms of being careless, reckless or deliberate, this is more deliberate. When you look at the way he carries, he sees his opponent in front of him and raises his forearm.”

Chalmers: “Where’s the first point of contact? It’s at the top of the chest.”

Kesha: “This is the third incident between the two. He’s (Moimoi) having a go at protecting himself.”

Ekoku: “It’s a challenge which needed to be reviewed here this morning. Fui went with intent into this challenge. If there’s no action taken on this what statement goes out not only to the coaches but both sets of players?”

Stuart: “My view is that yes, it’s borderline, but where it hits doesn’t warrant dismissal. The referee didn’t see it at the time but saw it on review, and his view was that it was borderline, and the case doesn’t warrant further review. My view is that no further action be taken on that.”

Discussion then followed during which Stuart commented, the review process “was now out of date”. He said that they needed to look at systems for the World Cup to develop something “more neutral”.

Abi concluded the meeting by saying “there was nothing in this Test match that was anything other than full-blooded.” Both the English representatives said it would be a great shame if anyone was ruled out of the next Test by the judiciary.

 

[Scorpio30]

Just on your last point there, about the refereeing; Tony Archer was generally decent the other day, but he really needs to do something about the Kiwis laying on at the play the ball, it was getting ridiculous. This isn't union, it's supposed to be a fast, free-flowing ame.

bullsh*t. Its Rugby League not touch footy....Everytime a hand so much as touched the ball carrier, GB would try and play the ball.

 

[mean_maori_mean]

Although Chalmers is partly an idiot - I suppose if he see the hypocritical sh*t going all, I betcha we'll go ape sh*t too.

Is that a transcript for a dry comedy or something?

The system is f'd up that is for sure.

 

[nadera78]

There certainly needs to be a clearer, more defined, dare I say it independent disciplinary system. But then we've been saying the same thing about the RLIF for years. This whole thing, as with many other aspects of our game, needs to be taken out of the hands of the countries involved and given to 3rd parties.

 

[Fairleigh Good!]

bullsh*t. Its Rugby League not touch footy....Everytime a hand so much as touched the ball carrier, GB would try and play the ball.

Thats how we like our league over here though. Fast and exciting.

Watching the NRL from a Super League perspective is unbelivably boring. It's so slow, play the balls take an age and there really is no open play at all. Super League is so much faster and with a bit of momentum built up you get to run at a broken field.

Far more entertaining than the league/wrestling combination sport you pump out of the NRL.

 

[RLIF]

Thats how we like our league over here though. Fast and exciting.

Watching the NRL from a Super League perspective is unbelivably boring. It's so slow, play the balls take an age and there really is no open play at all. Super League is so much faster and with a bit of momentum built up you get to run at a broken field.

Far more entertaining than the league/wrestling combination sport you pump out of the NRL.

thats why Super League gets more fans at the games then NRL:sarcasm:

Even though i'm a hard out Kiwis man i must admit they did hold the ball carrier down alot during the game. Though so did the Poms, though the Kiwis did it more..

Abi Ekoku replied that there was doubt about whether it was direct contact.
“His arm comes off the top of the ball. His (Burgess’) head goes away from Moimoi’s. It’s a lazy arm which takes Burgess off his feet. They are wrestling on the ground but it is not serious. I don’t think it was premeditated. I don’t think that at any time the referee felt it was an offence requiring ordering off. It was poor technique.”

What a load of crap this is!! I cant believe the Gb team manager is on the pannel!! This shows what a joke their system is. I feel something is going to happen this weekend

 

[Sam_the_man]

How does Matai get sent for his tackle of Gasnier but Burgess doesn't even get a week for his tackle. Both were reckless and careless....2 weeks, simple as that.

By the way great to see Nevil Kesha involved in rugby league again. A small man by stature but a giant personality wise.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Watching Super League is like watching Touch.

 

[roughyedspud]

haha haha haha ok.........

 

[Fast Eddie]

I just saw the tackle again.....can't believe it didn't even go to the judicary. What a joke.

 

[MKEB...]

Aah, the Chewbacca defence. Never fails!

 

[Blaze]

Thats how we like our league over here though. Fast and exciting.

Watching the NRL from a Super League perspective is unbelivably boring. It's so slow, play the balls take an age and there really is no open play at all. Super League is so much faster and with a bit of momentum built up you get to run at a broken field.

Far more entertaining than the league/wrestling combination sport you pump out of the NRL.

yeah but the NRL has the more skillful and athletic players so it is a higher quality comp...

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

The ridiculous thing is, all of this talk about mitigating features is absolute nonsense. It was a stone-cold high shot, a textbook example. Moimoi didn't fall in to it, his arm didn't come up off the ball, Burgess wasn't wrong-footed. In other words, Moimoi ran a straight line and Burgess aimed the tackle AT HIS HEAD, in something rather resembling a deliberate manner.

I'm not saying it was the high shot of the century, I'm just saying it was a blatant high tackle in the truest sense of the word. One bloke runs straight at another and the defender goes straight for the head.

You have to be suspended for those, ffs

What happened about the Ellis tackle on Leuluai as well, same deal. Straight on the jaw, reminiscent of SBW on Andrew Johns (send-off + 3 week suspension?)

 

[Iafeta]

Probably deserved a suspension, but to be honest, I like watching young Burgess play. I heard the wraps, and was pleasantly surprised. Looks a real good young player.

Bring it on.

 

[The Clan]

How does Matai get sent for his tackle of Gasnier but Burgess doesn't even get a week for his tackle. Both were reckless and careless....2 weeks, simple as that.

By the way great to see Nevil Kesha involved in rugby league again. A small man by stature but a giant personality wise.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Matai's tackle was way more malicious than Burgess, Matai was late, high and pre meditated and his intent was to foul and if possible incapacitate Gasnier.

 

[The Clan]

The ridiculous thing is, all of this talk about mitigating features is absolute nonsense. It was a stone-cold high shot, a textbook example. Moimoi didn't fall in to it, his arm didn't come up off the ball, Burgess wasn't wrong-footed. In other words, Moimoi ran a straight line and Burgess aimed the tackle AT HIS HEAD, in something rather resembling a deliberate manner.

I'm not saying it was the high shot of the century, I'm just saying it was a blatant high tackle in the truest sense of the word. One bloke runs straight at another and the defender goes straight for the head.

You have to be suspended for those, ffs

What happened about the Ellis tackle on Leuluai as well, same deal. Straight on the jaw, reminiscent of SBW on Andrew Johns (send-off + 3 week suspension?)

Burgess set himself on a line which would allow him to make a big tackle, Moi Moi ran a different line to that which Burgess had anticipated and as a result Burgess ended up reaching and hitting him high. Even though it was high it was'nt an elbow or a swinging forearm, his right arm wrapped around the back of Moi Moi which is not typical for a high shot. It was a foul, it was high but there was no intent to foul and it certainly did'nt warrant a ban

Neville Kesha tries to make out that Moi Moi's elbow was the result of multiple incidents involving the two players but one of those incidents was a huge but totaly legal hit in which Moi Moi got smashed. Fui Fui raised his elbow because he had come off a distant second to Burgess in the head on clashes and he took the cheap way out by making a deliberate attempt to foul. Worse than Burgess IMO but still not worthy of a ban, not at Test level!