Security guard cops criticism after streaker 'smashed' (+video)

A streaker is taken from the field during the International Test Match between the New Zealand All Blacks and England at Forsyth Barr Stadium. Photo by Getty
A streaker is taken from the field during the International Test Match between the New Zealand All Blacks and England at Forsyth Barr Stadium. Photo by Getty
A security guard who "smashed" a streaker at last night's All Black's game has been criticised by some viewers for the bruising tackle.

The male streaker dodged security to invade the pitch in the second half of the test against England at Dunedin's Forsyth Barr Stadium.

But he was quickly taken out by a fast-moving security guard who launched a tackle from behind, sending him to the ground.

The streaker is then held in a headlock, and two security guards escort him off the pitch.

  • Are you the streaker involved? If you'd like to tell your story to the ODT please email or phone 477 4760 and ask for the chief reporter  

Video footage of the incident has clocked up almost 117,000 views on Youtube, and condemnation from some fans who said the security guard went too far.

The hard-hitting tackle was described as "bone crushing", "unnecessary" and "mental".

Others joked he should have been playing on the team, rather than manning the security.

Sports website,, described the tackle as "bone crushing".

"We're not talking some small hit here or even a grab around the neck in [an] effort to send the nude fan to the ground. We're talking a full on, two-footed launch from three feet out that would make hard hitting NFL Pro Bowl talent blush.

"I mean seriously – look at [the] dude's neck jerk back. He's lucky it stayed attached to his head."

On Youtube, commentators suggested the move was "a bit excessive".

"Could have really hurt the poor guy," Ilona N David Pu'a posted.

VoztokTV said: "Something tells me that security guard almost made the team but ended up with that job instead."

Namehereplease posted: "Wow that is mental. I hope that guy is ok. I know sure the guy shouldn't have been there but there is sensible and then there is being a munter acting like he is trying out for gridiron."

- by Patrice Dougan of APNZ


Hard to think why people would look at this and say it was not overly aggressive. A massive spot hit from behind. Ridiculous. Basically it was very lucky that the guy's neck was not broken. We all would be having a very different discussion if that had happened. I think the security guard needs better training in order to understand the different levels of agression to use in different situations. Either poor training by the security company, or the guard is bad at his job. 

Justifiable force, yet again.

I take your point, Overit, but still consider it was not excessive force.   In conclusion a tale about a streaker from days gone by...When a police sergeant I happened to be in the Octagon one evening when a young bloke stripped off and streaked.  I gave pursuit and tackled him (He sufferred a nasty graze to his thigh and bum) and we ended up rigt outside the doors of the Regent Theatre just as the doors opened and the crowd emerged.   Poor fellow was fine with being naked while on the move but stationary in front of the crowd was too much for him - so I gave him my police helmet and we stood there with him clasping it over the offending bits until the patrol car arrived and we carted him off.  I got into trouble when his parents complained because I laughed at the sight of him standing there and they felt I was encouraging his shocking behaviour.   


Angus: I am not saying there was collusion as the police have wide powers as to whether or not they pursue a prosecution. What I am saying is that it is not difficult to find similar events where streakers have been handled in an appropriate way. In fact, incidents inside and outside many venues.

As to whether he was just going to stand there, who truly knows? Would a bear hug or arm hold have been sufficient? Probably. What if he had run off? Horror of horrors he might have eluded the guards for a bit, but comparing the two I doubt it.

Given NZ's shameful record of violence we have just proved that when it comes to thugby, anything goes except moderation and level headedness. [Abridged]

Still justifiable force

Overit, get over it.   Do you think there is some sort of collusion between the police, the stadium authorities, the players, the security firm and me that all of us agree the force employed was justifiable?   Or that the streaker was going to stand there until he was tapped on the shoulder and politely asked to leave the field?

Ironically it is because of my aversion to the excessive application of force that I have made a study of the subject in some depth - so yes, I am up with the current law.  We will just have to agree to disagree.


Breach of the peace?

angus fisk: I in no way condone the streaker's actions. And the laws surrounding what security guards etc. can do is very very clear: they must use minimum force to control the situation. The force in this instance is clearly at the other end of the spectrum.

You may have been in the industry for many years but have you kept up with current legislation?

I too have worked in the industry for a number of years and in that time I have witnessed many incidents of security personnel technically being assaulted or being presented with potential breaches of the peace yet none of those I worked with saw any need to smash anyone to the ground. Rather they relied on good sense, good training and when necessary the police to calm situations. In other words, they were professional security personnel. [Abridged]

Bash is better than nudity, right?

How readily reduced to attacks of the vapours and the need for Bertha to pass the smelling salts does Edgar J think other people are in 2014?  "Families with kids don't need to see a halfwit running across the field naked at any time" and "too late for everyone else who's been traumatised".  
Such hand-wringing about the naked human body!  And so little hand-wringing about the traumatic effect of seeing gratuitous violence, indeed justification of it: "the guy got what he deserved"!  
I'd be much happier and feel more secure in NZ if there were changes in offending patterns. I would prefer more people  running around without clothes and a huge drop in violence.  I'm sure children would be less traumatised too.  Nakedness is not what puts kids in intensive care with head injuries. 

Justifiable Force response

When you're sitting in the stands or watching TV a streaker is trivial stuff, fun even. But at an international football match with thousands of fired up and possibly intoxicated spectators anything can happen in an instant - others running onto the field to stop, or support the streaker, objects being thrown, fights, a brawl a full fledged riot even.

One's job as security is to prevent such a breach of the peace as expeditously as possible. OK the way the streaker was brought down was ugly but some situations leave no room for acting with delicacy and finesse. For all Overit's quoting the various provisions of the law he overlooks the provisions of the Crimes Act relating to preventing a breach of the peace and this was an instance where the security guard acted justifiably to prevent serious harm occurring. He stopped the guy and held him until the police could take over. End of story. No unnecessary blows were employed.

Incidentally, anybody else could have forcefully and lawfully intervened before the streaker got on the field. For the record I have been doing this sort of work for over 30 years, am strongly opposed to the use of excessive force and have had one complaint lodged against me years ago, not upheld, and for which the young man later apologised for unjustifiably making the complaint. Furthermore I abhor big money sport and hanker for the days of the amateur.

He hit The Nile on the head

Rugby, The Code, doesn't cause violence. Rugbyheads do. Not all footie fans are hoons. Mobs think as one Hoon. Generally, some followers of every sporting code are prone to violence. Again, you can't pin this rap on FB, they didn't train the guard.

Spoils the game?

Sorry to inform you Edgar J but it was turning the game professional that spoiled it. This is plain to see in the crowd attendance figures for most games these days and this test wasn't even a full house.

Now they take the fun factor out of it and rugby's demise as our national game is coming closer.

Looked to be 50,000 odd at the Geelong- St Kilda AFL match last night and 95,000 at the Moto GP in Spain. Thanks Sommet for the coverage.

Who won the rugby game anyway? Oh, Doesn't matter, it's not important. 

So much for Dunedin jobs

It would seem that DVML has been hiring its security staff from Canterbury - while that may give them plausible deniability when they attack paying customers, it does rather give pay to the claim that they are creating jobs in Dunedin.

Justifiable force?

angus fisk needs to take a good look at himself if he thinks such a tackle is using justifiable force. There is a legal definition of justifiable force and it usually refers to threat to a person/life or property. A drunk standing naked in the midlle of a paddock is likely to be offensive to some. A threat to life or property? Hardly.

Section 56, New Zealand Crimes Act 1961

"Everyone in peaceable possession of any land or building, and everyone lawfully assisting Him/Her or acting by His/Her authority. Is justified in using reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing on that land or building, or to remove Him/Her there from, provided He/She does not strike or cause bodily harm to that person".

Implementation of Section '56' of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961.
After Trespass Act Sections '3' within the premise or Section '4' at the entry point, and the subject refuses to respect the law attributing to the act.
It may become necessary to use justifiable force to either remove or stop the subject from entering the premise. Section '56' of the Crimes Act allows you to start the removal or prevention of entry of the subject.
The amount of force that you are legally allowed to use under this act is the 'Minimum' to achieve this objective.

angus fisk epitomises all that is wrong with big money sport and its supporters.

Drunk, stupid and stupider

Certainly streaking by drunk, stupid men at rugby matches is not uncommon which sort of says something about this type of event, but some serious questions arise from this assault.  Turns out the security guard is a rugby player from Canterbury which leads to many questions as to how these guards were recruited, on what basis, what training did they receive and whether DVML accept any responsibility for the assault.  The streaker, dumb as he is, has slept if off in the cells and now awaits a court fine for disturbance which is what he probably deserves, but is the assault going to go unpunished?  Or in true rugby traditions will it be rewarded covertly in some form or another?


As a society we should not be allowing this kind of unnecessary aggression to take place. The streaker could easily have been escorted off the field by the three security members without this tackle.

But a cheap, cowardly, king hit like this was so far over the top it could have snapped the poor guy's neck or ripped an artery. 

Then the security guard would be up on a manslaughter charge. 

Very lucky for both of them this didn't happen. 

Justifiable force

The degree of force was justified. One could reasonably forsee the risk of a serious breach of the peace arising from the disruption of the game and the security guard's job was to shut that down as quckly as possible.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost

George59 may have taken to heart a little too earnestly the message in the verse when he writes "If the streaker had not carried out this act there would be no event to discuss."

For Want of a Nail

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.


Indeed, and if there had been no test match there would have been no streaker... and so on. Rugby causes violence? Even as one who has consistently opposed the mad extravagance of a rugby stadium we could not afford, I think that's pushing an agenda too far. Likewise George59's claim that "The perpetrator causes mass media hysteria". If he thinks that's mass hysteria he should go to a school sports day when parents are watchi ng the under-6s relay.

Is it a media beat-up to report on gratuitous violence to a non-violent person whose actions probably amused as many of the spectators as they annoyed? To what extend does George59 recommend we turn a blind eye to serious assaults by the people whose duty is maintaining order, or is it OK for security guards, police and teachers and anyone else "in authority" to beat the tar out of peaceful people who may be briefly a bit annoying?


Reality check

Rightly or wrongly the guy got what he deserved. This type of stupid behaviour spoils the game and its atmosphere for everyone. Families with kids don't need to see a halfwit running across the field naked at any time.

The 'offender' should take a good long look at himself (too late for everyone else who's been traumatised) and grow up.

The tackle he received will probably be the only punishment he gets as the court system (if he does get charged) will slap his wrist like a naughty boy.


I personally find a streaker a bit of fun and a laugh, no need to crunch the guy to make yourself look like a hero. [abridged]

Way over the top!

Streaking is a great Otago tradition. I remember seeing streakers at cricket and rugby matches since I was a kid in the seventies. Why all this pearl clutching and hand-wringing?

That massive king-hit from behind was nothing less than a serious assault, and he (the security guard) should be charged with such. When you see how that guy's head was snapped back as he was hit, it's lucky he wasn't seriously injured.

Get a grip people. A Streaker is way down in the list of offences. [abridged]

Excessive tackle

Hell's bells that's over the top. The security guard looks as if he's showing off - completely unnecessary and he could have easily paralysed that guy. Unbelievable excess. 

Good tackle

The only problem here is he should be in the AB squad with a tackle like that - couldn't do any worse than the ABs.


Maybe the security guard was jealous of what the streaker had on show! Streaking used to be a laugh for the crowd . . . that's all it was - a laugh!

Assault is assault

A security guard i.e  anyone employed as a security guard needs to have the requisite qualification including police checks. Did this guy? DVML will be in breach of a number of NZ laws if it employed an unregistered person in such a role.

A lawyer acquaintance has commented that this incident passes all the legal tests for an assault. Will the streaker lay a complaint? Will the police independently press charges? Was the streaker checked for concussion?

Personally I doubt if the DVML management will do more than say "Oops!" [abridged]

Red card the tackler?

The tackler should have gone in below the waist and really got something to hang onto - with both hands of course. More coaching required.

What a world we live in

This is what social media can do to twist reality. The perpetrator causes mass media hysteria which in turn makes the security guards the evil participant. If the streaker had not carried out this act there would be no event to discuss.

Not necessary

Another example of Forsyth Barr's heavy handed security overdoing it.

Sure enough the guy should not have been on the pitch but that tackle, from behind, and the subsequent head lock and roughing up of someone who did not appear to be putting up a fight is in my view, not necessary.

God help us if that security officer ever becomes a meter maid.

Over the top aggresion

What an unnessary show of aggresion by this security person(s). Shameful. Sad, because this is not the Dunedin way.