The Top 5 Schoolboy Prodigies


Brian O'Driscoll Breakdown Masterclass


Southland sensational try after big bump


Female Streaker has no regrets


Step and unbelievable dummy sets up try


Tana Umaga smashes into brother Mike


Cheslin Kolbe dazzling run, no look pass


Biggest Hits in World Rugby in August


Learn more about incomparable Brad Thorn

Monday, July 08, 2013

Butch James suspended for four weeks for high tackle on Jurgen Visser

A look at the Steenkamp headbutt that was mentioned in the article. Somehow the TMO wasn't shown it by the producers, but the Bulls lock received a two week ban after he was cited for it.

The ref getting bowled over and being treated while chatting to the TMO was a bit of a first too.

Page: 12View All

Posted at 1:35 pm | 18 comments

Butch James banned for four weeks for dangerous charge

Butch James' dangerous tackle and big hit

Butch James hit on Stirling Mortlock in 2006 Tri Nations

Posted in Big Hits & Dirty Play

Viewing 18 comments

yupyupgup July 08, 2013 3:57 pm

Everyone loves a Butch James high tackle! Apart from the victim obviously...

· Reply · Report

Moo July 09, 2013 9:40 pm

Not really - there are too many now it's just getting boring. Did Butch skip school the day of the lesson where they taught the boys how to tackle? Though judging by the lack of intelligence shown here, he may have skipped a deal more than that!

In hindsight, it looks like he cost his team the match too, as if he'd made the tackle or attempted anything resembling one, Visser wouldn't have set up the try.

My guess would be the four weeks is because of the list of previous 'issues', which by now must run into a few volumes!

· Reply · Report

Pedro July 08, 2013 4:06 pm

Great case of play the whistle. 72 mins gone and even if you switch off for a min thinking it will be called up. Nek minute...

· Reply · Report

FoXtroT July 08, 2013 6:11 pm

The good old Butch James special....

· Reply · Report

Gonter July 08, 2013 11:24 pm

not to sure this is a four week suspension punishment yes but not 4 weeks!!!

· Reply · Report

Guy July 09, 2013 8:11 am

I believe James has a history of citings so I guess there will not have been to many mitigating factors.

· · Reply · Report

stroudos July 08, 2013 11:47 pm

What a bloody idiot though. Probably deserves four weeks off for sheer stupidity. I can't really understand what goes through a player's head when attempting a tackle like that. Fair play to Visser though for bouncing up and creating that nice try. Check out James immediately after making the hit - bunched up in self-preservation position as if he's expecting a kicking!

· Reply · Report

themull July 09, 2013 12:10 am

4 weeks seems very harsh in my eyes..Maybe a week or two at most..i mean if it was only worth a yellow card during the game how can it then be worth 4 weeks afterwards...

· Reply · Report

DrG July 09, 2013 1:42 am

I think what the governing bodies are saying is that it is not worth a yellow, it is worth a red...

That is what they say to me when they ban a player given a yellow...

· Reply · Report

themull July 09, 2013 11:39 am

But this is an almost weekly occurrence in the game of rugby where players are given yellow cards, or even just a talking to and then a few days later they are banned for weeks/months...If the IRB are really trying to say these incidents are worth more than a yellow well then the refs clearly are not listening..And with good reason because many of the citing commissioners are getting trigger happy in my eyes..

this incident was a yellow card at most and not worth a ban..if it was a vicious swinging arm then it would be different but it's just a case of a clumsy high tackle which caused no injury to either player..

· Reply · Report

DrG July 09, 2013 1:18 pm

I'd not argue with a red card and no ban on this one... just purely because it was ridiculous..

I agree with you about refs not listening, but to me, banning a player who gets a yellow card is simply saying "the on pitch punishment was not severe enough"...

· Reply · Report

Andy July 09, 2013 11:04 am

Yeah, if it was a first offence he may have been warned or given a slap on the wrist for this, but given the number of "Related posts" on RD with his name on, he's going to be banned whenever he crosses the line. He's spent years perfecting the clothesline and shoulder charge.

Went from winning his team the game to losing his team the game in seconds.

· Reply · Report

Eddie-g July 09, 2013 1:30 pm

A leopard never changes his spots... always rated Butch as a flyhalf, but this kind of nonsense has never been far from the surface.

And this time, he probably cost his side the game. 4 weeks is probably about right given his record.

· Reply · Report

Gonzoman July 09, 2013 2:20 pm

To those of you complaining about the citing commissioner banning James for an on-field yellow...

In this one instance, the judicial process has worked perfectly! The referee can only hand out punishment for what happens on the field during the match. In this instance, the high tackle was clumsy, reckless and demonstrated a lack of discipline. I personally don't think that it's red-card worthy; I tend to reserve red cards for things like punches, dangerous tip-tackles, and heinous swinging arms/shoulder charges. I'm happy with the yellow for the actual incident.

The citing commissioner has to take into account the pattern of a player's offenses. While what James did on the field is only a yellow IMHO, the pattern of his behaviour suggests that he generally lacks discipline and is prone to hot-headed moments. In this case, a more significant punishment for a player with a track record of boneheaded infringements is warranted.

For once, the IRB got it right.

· · Reply · Report

DrG July 10, 2013 11:26 am

You're probably right on this one. However considering the red cards I've seen in the past for tackles similar to this (videos of..not me personally) I wouldn't be so sure this was just a yellow card.

If I were to change 2 things, then I believe it would be a guaranteed red:
1) Visser, or any player on the receiving end, stayed down moaning (whether they meant it or not)
2) Tackler was a Pacific Islander....

Those 2 things which SHOULDN'T have any bearing were to change and I guarantee it'd be red...

· Reply · Report

browner July 11, 2013 12:29 pm


Law 10.e applies here
Sanction: Penalty Kick

In this case there wasn't an injured player, and the referee was playing advantage [which was duly taken] IMO the post match ban is unwarranted. The referee assessed the situation & could of cautioned or YC or RC , he chose neither - so that should be the end of it.

· Reply · Report

DrG July 12, 2013 12:33 am

I'd agree with you however 2 things, firstly injured player or not doesn't mean a thing (unless it is to do with advantage as you said), secondly Gonzoman has summed it up quite well... repeat offender gets punished for his efforts...

· Reply · Report

Rugbydump July 13, 2013 10:42 am

Post now updated to include the headbutt/charge into ruck from Steenkamp. He was suspended for two weeks.

· Reply · Report

Commenting as Guest | Register or Login

All comments are moderated and will be removed immediately if offensive.
 
Site Meter