Do Not Sell My Personal Information
RugbyDump RugbyDump
Monday Aug 1, 2016

TJ Perenara escapes ban after kicking Sam Cane in the face

TJ Perenara escapes ban after kicking Sam Cane in the face
15
Comments

Influential Hurricanes halfback TJ Perenara has avoided sanction after an incident in the second half of the Super Rugby semi final against the Chiefs was missed by both officials on the day, and the citing commissioners. He is a free to play in the final as a result.

Perenara and Beauden Barrett have both been in sublime form as the Hurricanes have stormed towards the final. They will host the Lions, who sensationally beat the Highlanders 42-30.

The All Black’s boot clearly struck Sam Cane in the face though, so he can consider himself extremely lucky that it wasn’t picked up by any of the officials on the day. Even more surprising is that he has not been cited, as has been confirmed by SANZAAR.

All citings for red card worthy offences need to take place within 12 hours of the final whistle of the game, which means that window has long since passed.

The Chiefs loose forward took him out off the ball and Test teammate Perenara lashed out, catching him with what appeared to be his studs. He was immediately apologetic, but quite obviously also very concerned about referee Angus Gardner, as he looked across towards him more than once.

Cane said something to Gardner, with Perenara anxiously watching on, but it couldn’t be heard on camera and whatever it was obviously wasn’t convincing enough to warrant a TMO intervention to check for foul play. To Cane’s credit, he didn’t make a whole lot of it, but probably could have.

If cited and banned, Perenara would no doubt have missed the final against the Lions this coming weekend, and quite possibly even some of the Rugby Championship with New Zealand.

The Hurricanes held on to win the match 25-9, earning themselves a home final.

As for Cane, he could be seen post match looking dejected, with a bruised and battered face.


15 Comments

  • colombes
    4:54 PM 03/08/2016

    I'm just hallucinating and laughing at the same time. Can't wait to see a french player take a 6 months ban for the same offense. Yes, i'm french

    Reply
  • stroudos
    7:57 AM 03/08/2016

    That's exactly how I see it. And I'd go even further after just watching again now: I think the reason he got Cane's face, rather than another part of the body, is that Cane had his face up and looked like he was making some kind of apology for the original clear out. So all in all, a very polite albeit violent exchange.

    Reply
  • drg
    1:08 AM 03/08/2016

    I think he meant to kick Cane, just not in the face... if he could have stuck some studs into Canes chest, stomach, etc something slightly low key... but it seems he struck out to say "you dick"... and caught Cane in the face, then realising that his snap angry movement suddenly had a far more severe outcome than intended he goes into super apologetic mode. Whether this is because he doesn't want to be caught for what he did, or whether it's because he felt bad, or even because he felt bad for where it landed - rather than the action...

    Reply
  • facepalm
    1:14 PM 02/08/2016

    1 week suspension. 3 weeks if there was no twitter apology and he didn't buy him a pint after the game.

    Reply
  • benny
    10:54 AM 02/08/2016

    Now imagine if it had been Richie McCaw instead of Sam Cane, the citing officer would have been in a real predicament. Actually come to think of it, Ali Williams was banned a good few weeks for doing just that.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    10:08 AM 02/08/2016

    Did anyone else notice how much worse it looked on the slow-motion replay, (from about 0:17 onwards)? We've talked about this before on these esteemed pages and how the world's best referee Nigel Owens (and some others) always requests the replay to be shown at real speed. Well, newly published research - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36940475 - backs up this theory, with much more serious implications. In a study where a mock jury was shown video footage of a murder, "Watching the slow-motion version quadrupled the odds that these mock jurors would begin their deliberations ready to convict". (Emphasis mine) We've often discussed "intent" on here and how difficult it is to prove - this research finds that slow motion gave observers "the sense that those carrying out the violent acts on tape have more time to think and deliberate - and the observers therefore believe there is more intent in the violent actions". Interestingly enough, the research did cover our field of interest too: "The authors also look at the issue of slow-motion replays in sports, and found significant bias when referees or umpires had more time to consider a decision - particularly when doling out punishments. According to Prof Caruso, the use of slow-motion should be limited. The reality that the referees actually see in real time, I think is fair as the one to use for that judgement."

    Reply
  • stroudos
    9:44 AM 02/08/2016

    Now then. I don't disagree that a boot to the face really ought to result in a red card and, given that the ref & officials missed it at the time, then a 1-wk suspension via the citing process would be expected. However, I don't think the intent was that clear-cut and all this business about checking if the ref saw I think is also wide of the mark. Cane tackles Perenara off the ball (or rather cleared from a ruck he was not actually attending) - this can be compared to a flanker being held in a ruck, in both cases the bloke just wants to release himself and get quickly to the next breakdown. The kick is more of an instinctive flicking out of the boot(s), in the same way as a flailing arm might be thrown by the trapped flanker. I actually don't think he intended to kick Cane at all, let alone in the face. It looks like Perenara's surprise is genuine to me. As for the glancing repeatedly at the referee, it looks to me that he was checking what was going on at the ruck. He's torn between checking on Cane and apologising (which again looks genuine to me) and trying to get back in position to keep up with the game. This is why you see him go straight back to helping Cane as soon as the ref's whistle goes.

    Reply
  • katman
    7:43 AM 02/08/2016

    He needn't have been so concerned. Unless it involved a switchblade or a lead pipe, they would never prevent a star Kiwi from playing in a crunch match. And even if there were weapons involved, they'd still look hard for extenuating circumstances. Like "he phones his mom once a week, he owns a cat and he's only been arrested for indecent exposure twice".

    Reply
  • drg
    12:40 AM 02/08/2016

    At least he wasn't French....life ban...

    Reply
  • drg
    12:39 AM 02/08/2016

    Hahaha, I actually sort of agree there.... citing the famous cases of folk that have survived hangings and therefore been pardoned... seems only fair... Citings and subsequent bans are just ridiculously inconsistent... as is 90% of the game of rugby these days...

    Reply
  • drg
    12:35 AM 02/08/2016

    It also seemed as if he was concerned about what he'd done in the sense that "did the referee see it".... his continuing gazes in the direction of the referee etc... Red mist, something like that...

    Reply
  • finedisregard
    11:00 PM 01/08/2016

    Look, I don't think there should be any kind of post-match citing process at all. If a player can get avoid the attention of 4 (!) referees then let freedom ring...Still this citing process is incredibly subjective, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. There is a spectrum as to the likelihood of players to be cited. On the hard end of things are Pacific Islanders and South African fwds with Dutch names, then Australians, then New Zealanders, with the light end falling on NZ backs that play for the AB's. Retroactive citing is tricky and sets uneven precedents. If four refs miss something just get it next time.

    Reply
  • katman
    10:48 PM 01/08/2016

    Can only be because no one wanted to see Perenara miss the final. Which makes a complete joke of the citing procedure. Because that kick was nasty, and he immediately knew he'd messed up.

    Reply
  • joeythelemur
    8:38 PM 01/08/2016

    The question is really how it wasn't brought to their attention. Cane or the Chiefs could have done so, but clearly did not, so it probably went past the deadline without notice. Even with some of the mind-boggling citing decisions lately, there's no way they could have "ignored" a strike like that.

    Reply
  • katman
    7:51 PM 01/08/2016

    How the hell does a citing commissioner ignore that? Or should I rather say, would he have ignored that if Perenara wasn't in a Super Rugby final this weekend?

    Reply


Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Amateur

View All

Player Features

View All
TJ Perenara escapes ban after kicking Sam Cane in the face | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos