Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final
-
@Damo said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
People are asking what Smith should have done. See the clip below for what he should have done*:
Dagg knew early on in the chase that he wasn't a realistic chance to compete for the ball so he pulled back and timed his run so as to tackle the catcher the moment his legs hit the ground. It's what Smith should have done. He played with fire and got burnt.
IMO It was a dreadful challenge and deserved a Red Card. Not because of an "interpretation" or because of some silly rule the refs have to follow - he deserved a Red Card because he recklessly committed an act that could have snapped a guys neck if anything had gone majorly wrong.
*Clip shamelessly stolen from the Rugbyrefs forum.
Slightly different situation (and the problem is in these slight differences)
In the Dagg clip the receiving player was well in position near the point of landing and Dagg could see this and allowed him the claim. Dagg jumping would have achieved nothing except add danger the contest so he made a good decision.
In Smith's case no one was near the point of landing so he was running to get there first. Havili was standing back then accelerated into the area and took a flying leap.My initial comments were also based on seeing the slower/closer video and it does look different in the long shot. This post on RugbyRefs is very close to my view now.
*"I can understand the red but this is one where I feel sorry for the guy on the ground (I didn't feel sorry for Finn Russell, fwiw). Maybe this is because my first view of it (a replay during the game) was a side-on clip showing that the jumper first contacted the ball around the groin - I thought he'd mis-timed his jump - before he smashed into the face of Smith. Smith's seemed to be in a good place to compete for the ball. Except there was a (reckless?) jumper.
The fuller view of it shows Smith's chase after the kick ahead, with him looking ahead a couple or more times to check it is clear, whilst he also tracks the ball. He seems surprised by the jump and tries to stop. So it didn't seem a deliberate act, which leaves "reckless" for it to be red, according to the guidelines.
Maybe it was reckless of Smith, but I thought the jumper was more reckless with his own safety in this case - he seemed intent on being high in the air rather than focusing on the catch, which he missed"*
-
The other thing of note in that Dagg clip is that the ball catcher feels obliged to jump (pathetically in this case) when he didn't need to. The current laws encourage players to go to the air and create risk either to draw a penalty/card or simply to make the tackler hestitate.
We all agree that deliberately and unnecessarily jumping for a pass isn't fair so why do we view kicks differently?I like this idea for a law change to be trialled (again stolen from RugbyRefs)
"► A player cannot jump to catch the ball if it was last played by a team-mate.
This would mean kick chasers would not be allowed jump for the ball. It would also mean that a player would not be allowed to jump to catch a pass from a team-mate... this would at least solve the Faumuina-Sinkler scenario." -
@Crucial said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
Slightly different situation (and the problem is in these slight differences)
In the Dagg clip the receiving player was well in position near the point of landing and Dagg could see this and allowed him the claim. Dagg jumping would have achieved nothing except add danger the contest so he made a good decision.Very true. The slightest bit of difference between Dagg example and Smith incident is that the former used the bits of grey matter between his ears to make a decision and adjusted accordingly, and the latter did not.
These are sometimes/often the very slight differences between winning and losing a championship.
-
@Stargazer said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Duluth Thanks for the English lesson.
See how he put unbeaten in bold and italics.
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Crucial said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
Slightly different situation (and the problem is in these slight differences)
In the Dagg clip the receiving player was well in position near the point of landing and Dagg could see this and allowed him the claim. Dagg jumping would have achieved nothing except add danger the contest so he made a good decision.Very true. The slightest bit of difference between Dagg example and Smith incident is that the former used the bits of grey matter between his ears to make a decision and adjusted accordingly, and the latter did not.
These are sometimes/often the very slight differences between winning and losing a championship.
There are situational differences.
How happy would you be as a coach if Smith had stopped running toward the place the ball was coming down and Havili hadn't run forward into a flying leap. You'd be asking Smith why he didn't try to claim possession.
Have a look at where both catchers are in relation to the place the ball comes down. One is standing right there waiting (which Dagg can see) the other is standing back and decides late to run forward and go airborne. That's the difference that can create different decisions from chasers.
When Havili jumped he jumped directly toward a players on the ground putting himself in a dangerous position. He has the right to do that only because the player in the air holds all the rights irrespective of the timing of their jump.
It's an anomaly and the only reason it is being debated in various places is because it would be nice to find a solution that achieves safety but is also fair. -
@Crucial said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
It's an anomaly and the only reason it is being debated in various places is because it would be nice to find a solution that achieves safety but is also fair.
I think the solution is to use your brains. (That's what I inferred with the "grey matter between the ears.")
Player has to size up the options immediately:
- do I make a 35/65 attempt at the ball; understanding that
- if I fail at my attempt for a 35% chance at winning the ball I'll leave my team down a man for an entire half of a major championship?
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Crucial said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
It's an anomaly and the only reason it is being debated in various places is because it would be nice to find a solution that achieves safety but is also fair.
I think the solution is to use your brains. (That's what I inferred with the "grey matter between the ears.")
Player has to size up the options immediately:
- do I make a 35/65 attempt at the ball; understanding that
- if I fail at my attempt for a 35% chance at winning the ball I'll leave my team down a man for an entire half of a major championship?
But it wasn't 35/65, that's the point. Up until Havili jumped it was possibly even in Smith's favour as he was the only one timed to reach the ball where it was coming to ground. When Havili ran in and jumped the picture changed in a big way.
I get the whole 'could have anticipated someone would jump' thing but he was checking the situation while running hence the surprise when he got collected in the head by a flying player.
If it could be adjudicated without too much guesswork then some kind of 5 metre circle thing could be of use. If you are under the ball in that area then you can jump and have rights and anyone entering that zone late must take due care (that includes jumpers). Smith AND Havili entered that 'zone' late. Smith took a risk that if Havili jumped it could go very wrong. Havili took a risk that he was jumping high and toward players on the ground. He had no safe place to land.
We have all sorts of rules around players making sure others are safe but you are free to do an act placing yourself at high risk.
'Yes officer, I was speeding a bit but that tree just jumped out in front of me' -
Smith cops four week suspension
Lions flanker Kwagga Smith has been banned for four weeks for tackling David Havili in the air during the Super Rugby final between the Crusaders and Lions on Saturday. The SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee has accepted a guilty plea from Lions flank Kwagga Smith for contravening Law 10.4(i) Tackling, pushing, pulling, colliding with or otherwise making contact with an opponent who is jumping for the ball in a line out or in open play where there is no realistic prospect of the player competing for the ball, after he was red carded during the Super Rugby final on Saturday. Smith has been suspended from all forms of the game for 4 weeks, up to and including September 2, 2017. The incident occurred in the 38th minute of the match between the Lions and Crusaders at Ellis Park. The SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee of Nigel Hampton QC (Chairman), Stefan Terblanche and John Langford assessed the case. In his finding, Foul Play Review Committee Chairman Nigel Hampton QC ruled the following: "Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and additional evidence, including a statement from the player and submissions from his legal representative, Attie Heyns, the Foul Play Review Committee upheld the ordering off and amended the charge from Law 10.4(e) to Law 10.4(i)." "With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid-range entry point of 8 weeks. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the Player's good Judicial record and the Player's admission of guilt at the first available opportunity the Foul Play Review Committee reduced the suspension to 4 weeks." "The player is therefore suspended for 4 weeks, up to and including the September 2, 2017.” All SANZAAR disciplinary matters are in the first instance referred to the Foul Play Review Committee to provide the option of expediting the judicial process. For a matter to be dispensed with at this hearing, the player appearing must plead guilty and accept the penalty offered by the Foul Play Review Committee.As he hasn't been named in the Springboks squad, I assume he'll serve his ban in the Currie Cup (or Sevens, if he returns to the Blitzbokke)?
-
so is that 4 weeks or are there games that aren't games in there somewhere?
-
@taniwharugby said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
so is that 4 weeks or are there games that aren't games in there somewhere?
Relevant SANZAAR rule:
Relevant part of the Explanatory Guidelines:
-
@Crucial said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
The other thing of note in that Dagg clip is that the ball catcher feels obliged to jump (pathetically in this case) when he didn't need to. The current laws encourage players to go to the air and create risk either to draw a penalty/card or simply to make the tackler hestitate.
We all agree that deliberately and unnecessarily jumping for a pass isn't fair so why do we view kicks differently?I like this idea for a law change to be trialled (again stolen from RugbyRefs)
"► A player cannot jump to catch the ball if it was last played by a team-mate.
This would mean kick chasers would not be allowed jump for the ball. It would also mean that a player would not be allowed to jump to catch a pass from a team-mate... this would at least solve the Faumuina-Sinkler scenario."So say bye-bye to the kick pass?
-
@Crucial said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
The other thing of note in that Dagg clip is that the ball catcher feels obliged to jump (pathetically in this case) when he didn't need to. The current laws encourage players to go to the air and create risk either to draw a penalty/card or simply to make the tackler hestitate.
We all agree that deliberately and unnecessarily jumping for a pass isn't fair so why do we view kicks differently?Because if you don't jump for it, the other bloke might catch it. How many passes fall into that problem?
I like this idea for a law change to be trialled (again stolen from RugbyRefs)
"► A player cannot jump to catch the ball if it was last played by a team-mate.
This would mean kick chasers would not be allowed jump for the ball. It would also mean that a player would not be allowed to jump to catch a pass from a team-mate... this would at least solve the Faumuina-Sinkler scenario."Two things:
- RugbyRefs is full of retards, half of which I'm convinced are not nor ever have been referees. Their knowledge about laws and their application is laughable.
- What other contests for possession would you like to remove from rugby?
-
@antipodean said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Crucial said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
The other thing of note in that Dagg clip is that the ball catcher feels obliged to jump (pathetically in this case) when he didn't need to. The current laws encourage players to go to the air and create risk either to draw a penalty/card or simply to make the tackler hestitate.
We all agree that deliberately and unnecessarily jumping for a pass isn't fair so why do we view kicks differently?Because if you don't jump for it, the other bloke might catch it. How many passes fall into that problem?
I like this idea for a law change to be trialled (again stolen from RugbyRefs)
"► A player cannot jump to catch the ball if it was last played by a team-mate.
This would mean kick chasers would not be allowed jump for the ball. It would also mean that a player would not be allowed to jump to catch a pass from a team-mate... this would at least solve the Faumuina-Sinkler scenario."Two things:
- RugbyRefs is full of retards, half of which I'm convinced are not nor ever have been referees. Their knowledge about laws and their application is laughable.
- What other contests for possession would you like to remove from rugby?
- It's obvious which are which just through a perusal of the site. In any case, nobody should cite it as an authority on anything because it clearly isn't.
- Agreed. No need to radically change the game just because some players are reckless.
-
@Crucial said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Damo said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
People are asking what Smith should have done. See the clip below for what he should have done*:
Dagg knew early on in the chase that he wasn't a realistic chance to compete for the ball so he pulled back and timed his run so as to tackle the catcher the moment his legs hit the ground. It's what Smith should have done. He played with fire and got burnt.
IMO It was a dreadful challenge and deserved a Red Card. Not because of an "interpretation" or because of some silly rule the refs have to follow - he deserved a Red Card because he recklessly committed an act that could have snapped a guys neck if anything had gone majorly wrong.
*Clip shamelessly stolen from the Rugbyrefs forum.
Slightly different situation (and the problem is in these slight differences)
In the Dagg clip the receiving player was well in position near the point of landing and Dagg could see this and allowed him the claim. Dagg jumping would have achieved nothing except add danger the contest so he made a good decision.
In Smith's case no one was near the point of landing so he was running to get there first. Havili was standing back then accelerated into the area and took a flying leap.My initial comments were also based on seeing the slower/closer video and it does look different in the long shot. This post on RugbyRefs is very close to my view now.
*"I can understand the red but this is one where I feel sorry for the guy on the ground (I didn't feel sorry for Finn Russell, fwiw). Maybe this is because my first view of it (a replay during the game) was a side-on clip showing that the jumper first contacted the ball around the groin - I thought he'd mis-timed his jump - before he smashed into the face of Smith. Smith's seemed to be in a good place to compete for the ball. Except there was a (reckless?) jumper.
The fuller view of it shows Smith's chase after the kick ahead, with him looking ahead a couple or more times to check it is clear, whilst he also tracks the ball. He seems surprised by the jump and tries to stop. So it didn't seem a deliberate act, which leaves "reckless" for it to be red, according to the guidelines.
Maybe it was reckless of Smith, but I thought the jumper was more reckless with his own safety in this case - he seemed intent on being high in the air rather than focusing on the catch, which he missed"*
I don't agree that there is much difference between the two incidents. Smith should have realised that he didn't have a realistic chance at the ball just like Dagg did. Dagg had the discipline and presence of mind to pull out whereas Smith didn't.
Havili did not make a flying leap like some are suggesting. He jumped forward, but not dramatically so. IMO it was very foreseeable for a player with game awareness that Havili would jump for the ball which is exactly what happened.
Smith's failure to recognise where he was on the field put Havili in very serious danger of having a catastrophic injury. RC and 4 weeks is what he gets, and he can thank his lucky stars he didn't make someone a paraplegic.
-
Re the Red Card -
It is bizarre how there is basically no complaint from SA supporters about the card and that all the debate I have seen has come from other supporters which question the rules in this instance.
My opinion, the red card sucked, but it was the correct call and the rule is pretty much correct.
The only change I would make is to remove the reference to how the player falls and rather focus on the potential injury. I think this case actually shows that up pretty well; this is a clear red in my opinion, but (putting on my lawyery hat) I don't think you can say definitively that Smith's action caused Havilli to fall on his shouler/upper back. Looking at the video it is impossible to tell whether Havilli would have fallen the way he did if it wasn't for the second contact with Taufua.
I would rather that the red card be determined by the potential harm to the jumper (as caused by the challenge) rather than the result. Not sure how that would be worded, and I am comfortable that this instance should have been a red, just not comfortable that the rule as it is written is 100% right.
-
@SidBarret yeah been a few instances in super rugby this year where the ref has used the landing as a mitigating factor, when in fact how they land is often as lucky for the jumper as unlucky for some of the players that clumsily hit them in the air.
-
@SidBarret said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
Re the Red Card -
It is bizarre how there is basically no complaint from SA supporters about the card and that all the debate I have seen has come from other supporters which question the rules in this instance.
My opinion, the red card sucked, but it was the correct call and the rule is pretty much correct.
The only change I would make is to remove the reference to how the player falls and rather focus on the potential injury. I think this case actually shows that up pretty well; this is a clear red in my opinion, but (putting on my lawyery hat) I don't think you can say definitively that Smith's action caused Havilli to fall on his shouler/upper back. Looking at the video it is impossible to tell whether Havilli would have fallen the way he did if it wasn't for the second contact with Taufua.
I would rather that the red card be determined by the potential harm to the jumper (as caused by the challenge) rather than the result. Not sure how that would be worded, and I am comfortable that this instance should have been a red, just not comfortable that the rule as it is written is 100% right.
Agree. Outcome based sanctions are taking the easy (yet inaccurate) route for WR.
