Is this a red card?
-
<p>should take turns at catching, last bomb put up was taken by team a, so now team b's turn....</p>
-
<p>I think the red card and ban are pretty harsh, at what stage do you have to pull out of chasing the ball in case opposition jumps. Zac was going to jump by look of it and planted foot slipped. Like some have said it getting to stage if you jump no one will be able to compete the way things are going.</p>
-
<p>Maybe they need to make it a rule that you can only jump straight up. players would be better able to judge if they will get under the ball in time to jump straight up to catch and return straight down also means less likely for mid air collisions. basically becomes a race to the spot to jump and if the ball is given enough hang time both players will be jumping straight up and barely have a chance of taking the other out in some horror fashion</p>
-
<p>will you have to come to a complete stop, or just slow to ensure it is clear to jump?</p>
-
<p>Some interesting views expressed.</p>
<p>I hold the view that Zas slipped, resulting in an unfortunate and potentially very dangerous incident.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Having said that, I am all in favour of the Red Card. My thinking being that you want absolutely zero grey area in the refs interpretation of these incidents. They are just too dangerous and we have now had 2 incidents in short time where tragedy could have struck. If you bring in <em>intent </em>or <em>accidental</em> as elements there is just too much room for inconsistent interpretation. The second player competing for the kick needs to carry the responsibility.</p>
<p>So practically that means that the kick receiver, in the air, gets "unfair" advantage over the second player competing for the kick. And I'm ok with that. Teams will need to adjust and take that into consideration when kicking away the ball.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For me the next step - post game sanctions - is where mitigation can come into effect.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In this latest case, I have some sympathy for Zas, but I am ok with the 2 weeks ban.</p> -
<p>Bloody hell, I've just supported Marto over Kafe due to this. Sheesh, I'll be supporting Trump next and reading Whaleoil.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Nathan Grey is just an idiot by trying to make out it was deliberate tactic and the guy didn't slip - you can clearly see Zas' leg slip.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Tiddlywinks.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Webb" data-cid="576871" data-time="1462343585">
<div>
<p>Some interesting views expressed.</p>
<p>I hold the view that Zas slipped, resulting in an unfortunate and potentially very dangerous incident.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Having said that, I am all in favour of the Red Card. My thinking being that you want absolutely zero grey area in the refs interpretation of these incidents. They are just too dangerous and we have now had 2 incidents in short time where tragedy could have struck. If you bring in <em>intent </em>or <em>accidental</em> as elements there is just too much room for inconsistent interpretation. The second player competing for the kick needs to carry the responsibility.</p>
<p><strong>So practically that means that the kick receiver, in the air, gets "unfair" advantage over the second player competing for the kick.</strong> And I'm ok with that. Teams will need to adjust and take that into consideration when kicking away the ball.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For me the next step - post game sanctions - is where mitigation can come into effect.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In this latest case, I have some sympathy for Zas, but I am ok with the 2 weeks ban.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>This is an interesting idea. You could argue that the defending player could have more rights than attacking players I guess.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Webb" data-cid="576871" data-time="1462343585"><p>The second player competing for the kick needs to carry the responsibility.<br>So practically that means that the kick receiver, in the air, gets "unfair" advantage over the second player competing for the kick. And I'm ok with that.</p></blockquote><br>What if the player in the air has leapt above a player standing to take a mark and due to the player jumping into the air they clatter into the grounded player and fall awkwardly? Why should the stationary player bear the burden here?
-
Is this a yellow card? Fucking hell. It's going to be tiddlywinks soon.
(trawled through to find an appropriate thread..)
Edited to put a direct link to the video below.
-
@gt12 said in Is this a red card?:
Is this a yellow card? Fucking hell. It's going to be tiddlywinks soon.
(trawled through to find an appropriate thread..)
Edited to put a direct link to the video below.
Any idea of the reason given? I can't even see a penalty let alone a card.
-
Went to the RugbyRefs site to see if they were discussing it and everyone there is perplexed as well.
Someone has at least translated what was going on."First off, he says he wants to check the tackle of the last phase, whether black (he doesn't have the number) did so in a legal manner or not. Commentators saying it's on the shoulder, not high - impressive but legal.
Then the ref says he tackled at speed, his shoulder made contact first, penalty/yellow card black 8. Repeats that explanation to the players. Commentators say that's very severe.
So it's a yellow card for leading with the shoulder at speed."
Very marginal call IMO on leading with the shoulder. I just think the ref got carried away with his duty of care. Saw a huge hit and decided that the ferocity of it must be dangerous. Then went looking for reasons.
-
wtf, that was a great hit. Shoulder and arm, nicely done given the guy was changing direction too. A marginal penalty if the ref considered it was a no arms hit. Weak sauce.
-
-
WARNING: This incomprehensible yellow card will 100% make you shout '**** off' at your screen | Rugby Onslaught
