Reds v Crusaders
-
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).
Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?
This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.
He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.
In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.
Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?
Then it wouldn't hit him would it?
Obviously. So no yellow for you?
-
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).
Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?
This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.
He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.
In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.
Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?
Then it wouldn't hit him would it?
Obviously. So no yellow for you?
Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?
-
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).
Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?
This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.
He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.
In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.
Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?
Then it wouldn't hit him would it?
Obviously. So no yellow for you?
Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?
I'm asking you if that should have been a yellow card if the ball did not hit the player. You have not answered the question. So I have asked it three times. If you don't want to answer it, don't.
-
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).
Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?
This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.
He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.
In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.
Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?
Then it wouldn't hit him would it?
Obviously. So no yellow for you?
Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?
I'm asking you if that should have been a yellow card if the ball did not hit the player. You have not answered the question. So I have asked it three times. If you don't want to answer it, don't.
If the ball didn't hit him he wouldn't have interfered with play would he? Do you think before you type?
-
-
@Stargazer said in Reds v Crusaders:
From the WR Lawbook:
It seems to me, that Mo'unga should have been allowed to stay on the field.
My friend was the one running the subs bench. The doctor ruled the player as category one meaning no HIA required either injured or confirmed concussion/knocked out.
He said the crusaders management were just interested in knowing what the go was so they could avoid the same mistake again they weren't arguing it. Was just the ref didn't understand and came off for further clarification which is why the cameras came On them. Call was correct from their post match review of stuff.
-
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).
Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?
This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.
He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.
In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.
Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?
Then it wouldn't hit him would it?
Obviously. So no yellow for you?
Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?
I'm asking you if that should have been a yellow card if the ball did not hit the player. You have not answered the question. So I have asked it three times. If you don't want to answer it, don't.
If the ball didn't hit him he wouldn't have interfered with play would he? Do you think before you type?
Don't be simplistic. Brynn Hall could have seen the player there, realised there were defenders there and chosen to go to the backline. The player still would have interfered with play and should still be carded the same. The action would be the same, just a different result. Under your proposal you are discouraging half backs from playing positively and encouraging them to fire the ball into retreating players.
If lazy running is a yellow card, it should be a yellow whether the player touches the ball or not.
Hardly a ridiculous point and worthy of discussion, even if you do not think so.
-
@sparky said in Reds v Crusaders:
There aren't a million coaches working the ABs. Indeed there are school sides in England that have more coaches working with them than the ABs have.
Obviously a million voices in the players' heads would be a mistake. But a specialist goalkicking coach could help Barrett and Mo'unga. Neil Jenkins does wonders for the Welsh kickers. They never seem to miss a kick.
All the major international teams in Northern Hemisphere have specialist goalkicking coaches. Or do you think the ABs have nothing to learn from those side?
The Third Lions test in 2017 and the Wellington game against the Boks last year were the warning. I would hate to see the All Blacks lose a RWC knockout game by a point because of poor goalkicking.
Ronan O'Gara is on the Crusaders coaching team, I would have thought he would be ideal for some goalkicking coaching (or maybe that is the problem?)
-
@hydro11 the onus is on the lazy runner to not be there or actively evade the ball. It's not the attacking players responsibility to play around an off side player.
I think you've described a play on AND a yellow card in your scenario.
Also your point depends completely on Hall's pass travelling no where near his supporting player. Your version declares there is no way Hall's pass was intended for or could be caught by his support player.
It's not clear there's evidence for Hall only milking
-
@Magpie_in_aus Okay, cheers. I got a different impression from the after-match presser, but that was immediately after the match, so Razor probably hadn't spoken with all involved yet. From 2'15'':
-
-
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).
Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?
This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.
He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.
In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.
Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?
Then it wouldn't hit him would it?
Obviously. So no yellow for you?
Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?
I'm asking you if that should have been a yellow card if the ball did not hit the player. You have not answered the question. So I have asked it three times. If you don't want to answer it, don't.
If the ball didn't hit him he wouldn't have interfered with play would he? Do you think before you type?
Don't be simplistic. Brynn Hall could have seen the player there, realised there were defenders there and chosen to go to the backline. The player still would have interfered with play and should still be carded the same. The action would be the same, just a different result. Under your proposal you are discouraging half backs from playing positively and encouraging them to fire the ball into retreating players.
If lazy running is a yellow card, it should be a yellow whether the player touches the ball or not.
No because it's entirely more subjective. I'm astonished I have to point this out, but:
- You don't know who the ball was directed at. All you know is who it hit. As it turns out, it hit a retiring player who was offside thereby interfering with play.
- A player can be offside and have no impact on the play. It's not an offence to get back onside.
-
@Stargazer Yup, maybe not the doctors fault, maybe sideline officials but still rubbish
Joubert apologises to Crusaders
Referee Craig Joubert has apologised to the Crusaders for the last-minute penalty in the Super Rugby final according to Richie McCaw.
-
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).
Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?
This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.
He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.
In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.
Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?
Then it wouldn't hit him would it?
Obviously. So no yellow for you?
Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?
I'm asking you if that should have been a yellow card if the ball did not hit the player. You have not answered the question. So I have asked it three times. If you don't want to answer it, don't.
If the ball didn't hit him he wouldn't have interfered with play would he? Do you think before you type?
Don't be simplistic. Brynn Hall could have seen the player there, realised there were defenders there and chosen to go to the backline. The player still would have interfered with play and should still be carded the same. The action would be the same, just a different result. Under your proposal you are discouraging half backs from playing positively and encouraging them to fire the ball into retreating players.
If lazy running is a yellow card, it should be a yellow whether the player touches the ball or not.
No because it's entirely more subjective. I'm astonished I have to point this out, but:
- You don't know who the ball was directed at. All you know is who it hit. As it turns out, it hit a retiring player who was offside thereby interfering with play.
- A player can be offside and have no impact on the play. It's not an offence to get back onside.
The subjectivity is regarding what is lazy running. If a player is offside and has no impact on play, it isn't lazy running.
-
@Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 the onus is on the lazy runner to not be there or actively evade the ball. It's not the attacking players responsibility to play around an off side player.
I think you've described a play on AND a yellow card in your scenario.
Also your point depends completely on Hall's pass travelling no where near his supporting player. Your version declares there is no way Hall's pass was intended for or could be caught by his support player.
It's not clear there's evidence for Hall only milking
I don't think Hall was just milking. The pass was a reasonable option. I'm just saying the referee probably wouldn't have given a yellow card if Hall had chosen a different attacking option. I disagree with that.
I would have rather not seen the player yellow carded. The Crusaders weren't going to score from that pass so I don't see it as a professional foul. The Crusaders were awarded an advantage and penalty in their opposition's 22. For me that is punishment enough for preventing Franks to do a hit up.
The refereeing mentality doesn't make sense to me and is subjectively applied.
-
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).
Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?
This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.
He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.
In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.
Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?
Then it wouldn't hit him would it?
Obviously. So no yellow for you?
Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?
I'm asking you if that should have been a yellow card if the ball did not hit the player. You have not answered the question. So I have asked it three times. If you don't want to answer it, don't.
If the ball didn't hit him he wouldn't have interfered with play would he? Do you think before you type?
Don't be simplistic. Brynn Hall could have seen the player there, realised there were defenders there and chosen to go to the backline. The player still would have interfered with play and should still be carded the same. The action would be the same, just a different result. Under your proposal you are discouraging half backs from playing positively and encouraging them to fire the ball into retreating players.
If lazy running is a yellow card, it should be a yellow whether the player touches the ball or not.
No because it's entirely more subjective. I'm astonished I have to point this out, but:
- You don't know who the ball was directed at. All you know is who it hit. As it turns out, it hit a retiring player who was offside thereby interfering with play.
- A player can be offside and have no impact on the play. It's not an offence to get back onside.
The subjectivity is regarding what is lazy running. If a player is offside and has no impact on play, it isn't lazy running.
No shit Sherlock.
