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
-
@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.
-
@hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@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.
How does the ref judge whether a player has interfered with play if play doesn't go towards the offside player? I get what you're saying about interference being interference and I agree. But the ref can only really judge whether it's interference if either a) the play is towards the retreating player or b) the retreating player does something blatant (e.g. take out a player).
Once the play has gone towards the retreating player then the onus is on them to ensure they're out of the way. They should be reading the game a bit too to tell what the halfback is looking to do to pick what action they need to take.
-
@Magpie_in_aus So have the Super rugby officials hung you mate out to dry? They saying it was a mistake, looked it to anyone who saw Hunt wandering around looking like he lost. Or maybe it Drs fault, which wouldn't surprise me as I couldn't believe that Kerevi wasn't called off for a check after his hit on Ennor.
-
@Dan54 said in Reds v Crusaders:
@Magpie_in_aus So have the Super rugby officials hung you mate out to dry? They saying it was a mistake, looked it to anyone who saw Hunt wandering around looking like he lost. Or maybe it Drs fault, which wouldn't surprise me as I couldn't believe that Kerevi wasn't called off for a check after his hit on Ennor.
Local Prem Grade refs run the sin bin and subs bench and yeah probably as they are an easy scape goat as there is no real consequences for them he will likely still do the next home game and have a Prem's match this weekend so if they are looking to blame anyone may as well be them haha. It was the Dr's error she said was clear cut concussion no need for testing so no HIA if thats the case players who have been subbed can't return. If the Dr had tested him for HIA would have been no problem. I think you will see more Dr's just doing HIA even if its clear cut just to allow those already subbed players to go on in the future.
-
@Magpie_in_aus I think maybe a bit of confusion by the said officials , because if a Dr says a HIA is not required because it was clearcut concussion, that in itself is a HIA, and any player that does not pass a HIA can be replaced regardless . Anyway no doubt now it has happened everyone will be bought up to speed, it pretty important I would think with the worry about head injuries.
-
@Kirwan said in Reds v Crusaders:
@KiwiMurph said in Reds v Crusaders:
Last thing Jordan needs is another head knock
Looked pretty dirty that challenge to me.
Is thst the Scott-Young charge? Should have been a card.
