Auckland vs Otago
-
Anonymous said:
@higgins It's the knocking it into touch that was the issue.
A player must not: b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.OK, thanks for that. Wonder when referees will start issuing cards for deliberate knock ons when players intentionally drop the ball forward when in possession of the ball playing under penalty advantage then.
-
Stargazer said:
@anonymous Disagree. There's a big difference between knocking it forward and knocking it back.
Yes, but knocking the ball out of play helps the defending team more as it allows them to reset their defence. Whereas knocking it forward doesn't necessarily result in a stoppage.
-
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
-
@anonymous I expect it would depend what the first offence was...
-
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
-
-
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
Collins' infringement was classified as cynical though since Otago was in a compromised position.
-
Anonymous said:
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
Collins' infringement was classified as cynical though since Otago was in a compromised position.
And so are any deliberate knock ons to bring penalty advantage play to an end.
-
-
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
Collins' infringement was classified as cynical though since Otago was in a compromised position.
And so are any deliberate knock ons to bring penalty advantage play to an end.
By the defending team, yeah. But by the attacking team not really.
But a ref who lets them intentionally knock it forward then take a quick tap is stupid.
-
@dice Our defence has been very passive so far. Gonna be a good 2nd half.
-
@african-monkey defense needs to get back up to standard next week because Wellington have made by far the most tackle busts and linebreaks in the comp.
