• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Sam cane may be disciplined due to apology

Umaga's Witness

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
2,869
Country Flag

New Zealand

Club or Nation

Hurricanes

Ok, so Sam cane trips a pitch invader, feels bad about it and so apologizes including by tracking down the person and having a long conversation with them.

Then it becomes a thing. And sanzaar is investigating whether it deserves disciplinary action.

Does anyone else think this wouldn't have become a thing I f he didn't apologise?

That, if anything, he would have been celebrated for protecting himself and his team mates from the risk the pitch invader who ran straight at the all blacks circle would do something dangerous?

Remember when the South African pitch invader got taken out by both All blacks and springboks players and got a dislocated shoulder as a result? Or when maa nonu run after a pitch invader and tackled him? Everyone celebrated, it was great stuff. No one considered that the players may have done something wrong.

I'm interested in what others think.
 
Last edited:
its been interesting, seems really divisive and people are one extreme or the other, ive seen people praising him as a hero for protecting people...and then others calling him out as a thug that could have seriously hurt the guy and should be punished

My first thought was remembering being on the terrace at the brook and cheering on streakers as a bit of a laugh...hell, one of the Highlanders new part owners...Marc Ellis, made the joke about only punishing streakers who wear clothes

I probably would have ignored him if is was Cane, 99.9% of streakers are harmless

But....i do get the argument that if you break the rules and get on the pitch then you cant complain too much when someone tries to stop you

Cane is also going to suffer because tripping someone just have a underhanded vibe, it would be even less of a thing if he's just grabbed his collar or something
 
That's the culture of the world at the moment I'm afraid. There's a whole generation who don't understand consequences and then there's normal people who want to see pitch invaders getting smashed by security or players.

But maybe I'm in the minority these days as the pathetic ones try and enforce their agenda on everyone.
 
Cane is also going to suffer because tripping someone just have a underhanded vibe, it would be even less of a thing if he's just grabbed his collar or something
This would seem quite likely. Rugby is a physical game, and tripping is very much "Not Done", being both explicitly unlawful, and also not a normal enough part of rugby cheating.

That's the culture of the world at the moment I'm afraid. There's a whole generation who don't understand consequences and then there's normal people who want to see pitch invaders getting smashed by security or players.
And yet, Jonny Bairstow is celebrated for picking up and carrying a protester off the field, all of 1 week ago.

I really don'pt see this as being any part of the right's culture war.
 
I would've preferred he clotheslined him to be honest, or at least dipped a shoulder with no attempt to wrap. I'll take the trip, though.
 
While I'd also be v irritated, that's pretty dumb from Cane. Looked more like he kicked out than a straight trip to halt momentum. Either way he and his team mates weren't under any threat. Hard to tell the invader's age or even gender, but certainly a lot smaller than a rugby player.

I get why he's apologised, but there's a reason why the car insurers say never apologise. He, the Union, are now hostages if the 'victim' decides to pursue matters.
 
Actually seen video of it now - that's not really a trip, so much as it is a kick.
Looks to be trying to hurt, not stop the protester. Idiot:


Definitely still counts as a "not done" on the rugby pitch though; the Bairstow and Barkley examples are far better examples of how to deal with an annoying protester on the field of play; Cane's example is of someone showing themselves to be a prize tit.
 
Isn't the reason players are generally told to not get involved are because the invader might be a threat to themselves? I remember this coming up after the Bairstow incident.
 
Should he have done it? No. Do I care that he did it? Also no.

Stay off the pitch.
Totally agreed, except it's not that black and white.

In some places that would probably be deemed assault if someone wants to make an issue of it. Doesn't matter that the intruder shouldn't have been there.
 
You only have to google to see the amount of fans / streakers trespassing then getting smashed by players and staff/security

Run on the pitch and your average person is well aware what might happen. You are not getting politely chatted with, asked if you need a mental health first aider and a nice cup of tea with a biscuit.
 
Last edited:
Terrible rugby tackle by 2nd steward (just not) football. Terrible kick by 1st Steward he should apologise.

 
That's the culture of the world at the moment I'm afraid. There's a whole generation who don't understand consequences and then there's normal people who want to see pitch invaders getting smashed by security or players.
What generation is that? I hear a broad spectrum of ages complaining about cancel culture (AKA consequence culture) and then there's normal people who want to see people held to account for their actions.
 
A chance for WR to show a rare bit of common sense here to be honest. They can come out and say Cane shouldn't have done it(it's not his place to get involved, let's be honest) but not make an example of him. It's a unique incident where his actions were understandable. Just say that there will be penalties for needless physical interaction with pitch invaders in future but in this instance we'll let it go.

I'd say the same of Sexton's incident also unless he went way too far with what he said.
 
Ok, so Sam cane trips a pitch invader, feels bad about it and so apologizes including by tracking down the person and having a long conversation with them.
Because he couldn't sleep at night, wracked by guilt?

Because he knew he'd loused up and was trying to protect his / the ABs backsides?

If you believe the first one Santa Claus will be along in a minute.

Only Cane will know what he intended but it *looks* like a kick designed to hurt. WR can't totally let that go - a token sanction feels in order. Perhaps with some guidance for the future - and a ban for the fan.
 
Because he couldn't sleep at night, wracked by guilt?

Because he knew he'd loused up and was trying to protect his / the ABs backsides?

If you believe the first one Santa Claus will be along in a minute.

Only Cane will know what he intended but it *looks* like a kick designed to hurt. WR can't totally let that go - a token sanction feels in order. Perhaps with some guidance for the future - and a ban for the fan.
Well I don't necessarily believe he felt guilty, that was just lazy articulation on my part. It didn't seem critical to my point.

I would say his main intention was to stop the person, not to hurt him. If his only intention was to hurt him that would be worse.

I thought The fact he apologised could be taken as admission of something more sinister than trying to stop the guy.

But looking at what he actually said publicly, he said he only regretted trying to stop the guy. So, no admission of anything more sinister.

And that's what will have saved him from any punishment I'd think.
 

Latest posts

Top