Rugby

Carter handed tackle ban

2009-11-10 14:32
Email | Print
Banned (File)

London - New Zealand flyhalf Dan Carter is set to miss the All Blacks' Test match against Italy on Saturday after being banned for one week on Tuesday for a high tackle on Wales scrumhalf Martin Roberts.

VIDEO: Dan Carter's Tackle

Carter, who can appeal, is free to resume playing on November 17 - well in time to be available for New Zealand's November 21 international against England at Twickenham.

The All Blacks playmaker was cited for a dangerous tackle on Roberts during New Zealand's 19-12 victory at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff on Saturday.

Man-of-the-match Carter escaped censure from referee Craig Joubert but Wales' Kiwi coach Warren Gatland was adamant he deserved at least a yellow card, which would have seen the playmaker sent to the sin-bin for 10 minutes.

New Zealand are currently preparing for this coming Saturday's Test against Italy in Milan where Carter, who has been struggling with a calf injury, may well have been rested in any event.

After a hearing in London before Judge Jeff Blackett, the International Rugby Board's judicial officer for the match, a statement issued on behalf of the English official said: "Daniel Carter acknowledged responsibility, and had already apologised for, his high tackle on Martin Roberts, Wales's replacement scrumhalf.

"The sanction of one week reflected the low entry point in the IRB's table of sanctions for the offence, together with the maximum allowance for the mitigating factors involved."

 

Your Comments

folio11/13/2009 3:42 PM
When was the last time you guys won a world cup showtime???? Over twenty years ago and we weren't even in it. Seeing as you wanna talk about the past, that was the last time you air lickers beat the French when it mattered!!
neil11/13/2009 3:18 PM
What politics do you have in your rugby showtime????? or is it just stealing players from the islands????
@FOLIO11/12/2009 11:49 AM
ALL BLACK DO NOT GO DOWN 19-0 ON THERE HOME GROUND LIKE THE CRY-BYBYS DID IN CAPE TOWN IN 2008 HAHAHAHAHA
Folio11/11/2009 3:36 PM
Showtime....... your such a farce calling us cry baby's when you okes were moaning hard for the way we played when we put over 30 points past you on 3 occasions in the tri nations. You better be careful our Nick Mallet doesn't suprise you guys with Italy because whatever will you do without Dan Carter hahaha
Ryan11/11/2009 2:39 PM
To ban players for a high tackles is rediculous, this rugby board is turning the game into a girls sport and soon the players will be over exaggerating tackles etc. just like soccer.
Zinzan Youngblood11/11/2009 8:02 AM
The Alblacs ur the bisinis.Dan Kartir is not a durtie playir.The silvir firns ur a fina teem then the stoopid bucs!!
Marcus11/11/2009 1:37 AM
Speaking of even-handedness- does anyone think that a high-tackle which caused no real harm is worse than a kick to the head of a scrumhalf which forces him to go off the field? Maybe a one-match ban for Carter is fair, but you'd think Stephen Jones would have been cited as well.
Babalas11/10/2009 7:13 PM
@ showtime - At least the Springboks did not want the rules changed when we were losing. Do you remember you 'idiot' coach asking for this when we played you off the park with our kicking game? So don't call the BOKS "cry baby's" you loser....... just like the AB's!!
showtime 11/10/2009 4:27 PM
all the spring boks are cry baby`s .you do not see the ALL BLACK with arm bans like girls(spring boks).GO ALL BLAKS!!!!!!
it doesn't matter11/10/2009 4:26 PM
Who cares how long a Bok would have been suspended for... The crux of the matter is that the so-called idiots behind the scene are turning rugby into a sissy game! Catch a grip! Is this little welshman dead or critically injured? NOT! If you can't stand the heat then get off the field!!!!
Dean11/10/2009 4:00 PM
Bakkies would be given the death penalty if he attempts a tackle like that. Crazy stuff !!!!
Mr Controversy11/10/2009 3:39 PM
Any Springbok would have got 8 or more weeks. Becasue its pretty boy Carter, 1 week. Wouldn't be surprised if he appeals and it gets over turned.
mike11/10/2009 3:37 PM
At LEAST a yellow? My understanding of the citing law is that it's only a red-card offence that can be cited. Gatland should have thought it was at LEAST a RED card, not yellow. That's why so many of the buggers have gotten away with murder against us - they technically qualify as yellow card offences, so nothing happens. Whereas we get potential yellow card offences turned into long bans... While Carter deserved it, the even-handedness of application is an issue.
Anon11/10/2009 3:12 PM
Don't be rediculous Willie Victor. More like 4 months at least. :)The 'mitigating' factor is that Dan Carter isn't a Springbok.
delboy11/10/2009 3:04 PM
hell no ! if that was bakkies he would have got life
Willie Victor11/10/2009 2:49 PM
Was this a Springbok it would have been 4 weeks!!!!!!!!1
Your Name
*
Email
*
Comment
*
 
Please enter the text below:

*
 
 

Introducing Bokkie

Dale Steyn's jaw-dropping spell

Varsity Cup - Ikeys v Pukke

Featured Blog

Nary a ball had been kicked in anger in the Super 14, but years of woe haven't dampened Huge Dude's spirit. 'This is their year', he says, the year when the Lions will go forth and conquer, and crush all foes beneath them to a bloody pulp! Take note, fair-weather fans, we have a true supporter in our midst!

Vote

Which South African team will finish highest in the Super 14 standings?

Blueworld

Check your mate!

RSS Feeds

RSS Feeds Sport news delivered really simply.

Mobile

Mobile Sport24 on your mobile phone - WAP, alerts, downloads, services

Free Email

Free Email Get a free 24.com e-mail account and stay in touch

Blogs

Blogs Yes your opinion counts. Get it out there

TV

TV schedule Plan your couch time with our searchable sport TV guide