SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues
-
-
@nogusta said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
The injury was caused by the way he landed not the contact. Penalty only for me. Unlucky though.
They red card guys who 'infringe' at contests for the high ball BECAUSE of the way they land not the contact
There will be a citing this week if it's deemed it should have been a cardable offence won't there?
-
@crazy-horse not necessarily...Laumape didnt get cited for what most saw as a RC offence...
ANyone got a clip of the incident, I missed it.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@nogusta said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
The injury was caused by the way he landed not the contact. Penalty only for me. Unlucky though.
They red card guys who 'infringe' at contests for the high ball BECAUSE of the way they land not the contact
There will be a citing this week if it's deemed it should have been a cardable offence won't there?
Only if they deem it meets RC criteria I believe.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@nogusta said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
The injury was caused by the way he landed not the contact. Penalty only for me. Unlucky though.
They red card guys who 'infringe' at contests for the high ball BECAUSE of the way they land not the contact
There will be a citing this week if it's deemed it should have been a cardable offence won't there?
I don’t think it is RC material. Just dangerous foul play that took a player out of the game. IMO the ref team got to caught up in whether they thought it was a shoulder charge forgetting that tackling off the ball (especially with force) is dangerous play itself.
Was lucky to just be a penalty but hen if he was YCd I think we would be debating if that was too harsh.
Very high end of the penalty only spectrum. -
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@booboo said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@steven-harris said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
That’s seriously cynical from Taylor ..
After multiple cynical and not too subtle (even though he tried to be) spoils by Taylor was thinking how much he was pissing me off, and how much I'd love him for it when he does it for the ABs.
The three penalties (and possible card for repetitive offensives) don't put you off?
The fact he didn't get mentioned for a card way way before he did speaks volumes for his cloak of invisibility.
To me he seemed to get away with shit without even a penalty that should have earned a card.
And got away with just a penalty that should also have earned a card.
If he gets away with that shit for the ABs I'm loving him.
In the meantime, for the Sith, fluffybunny should be RC'ed
-
@taniwharugby said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse not necessarily...Laumape didnt get cited for what most saw as a RC offence...
ANyone got a clip of the incident, I missed it.
Doesn't matter what "most" think. It's what the citing commissioner thinks.
And I don't believe this met an RC threshold, so no citing. But I did think it was worth yellow.
-
To be honest, if Sione Havili Talitui was suspended for the final it would probably be doing the Crusdaers a favour. He's a waste of space in the team, notwithstanding that fact that his performance against the Blues was his best in a Crusaders jersey. Tom Sanders to play at 7 please!
-
@cantab79 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
To be honest, if Sione Havili Talitui was suspended for the final it would probably be doing the Crusdaers a favour. He's a waste of space in the team, notwithstanding that fact that his performance against the Blues was his best in a Crusaders jersey. Tom Sanders to play at 7 please!
He's what, third choice at 7? Harsh call
-
@booboo said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@cantab79 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
To be honest, if Sione Havili Talitui was suspended for the final it would probably be doing the Crusdaers a favour. He's a waste of space in the team, notwithstanding that fact that his performance against the Blues was his best in a Crusaders jersey. Tom Sanders to play at 7 please!
He's what, third choice at 7? Harsh call
2nd choice after Christie.
-
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
If a player is winded, they sit up when they sit up, they get their wind back when they get their wind back.
If the ref thinks a player is milking it, that's a penalty offence and can be dealt with appropriately.
If a doctor is randomly taking guys of the park but not HIA-ing them, that's a problem.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
That's the thing though eh, doc is there for HIA. Not for players being winded. The "A" stands for....."Nope not even gonna look".
-
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
Welcome to the Fern. Stick around, you will read lots more silly things.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
Welcome to the Fern. Stick around, you will read lots more silly things.
You're welcome.
-
@bones said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
That's the thing though eh, doc is there for HIA. Not for players being winded. The "A" stands for....."Nope not even gonna look".
I agree the doctor shouldn't be able to take a player out of the game without taking a look. I wonder what the rules are around that? Did the doctor overstep his mark?
-
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
If a player is winded, they sit up when they sit up, they get their wind back when they get their wind back.
If the ref thinks a player is milking it, that's a penalty offence and can be dealt with appropriately.
If a doctor is randomly taking guys of the park but not HIA-ing them, that's a problem.
So you don't think Talea was playing up the injury to get the tackle looked at? None of us will know, but one would have to be naive to say it doesn't happen.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
If a player is winded, they sit up when they sit up, they get their wind back when they get their wind back.
If the ref thinks a player is milking it, that's a penalty offence and can be dealt with appropriately.
If a doctor is randomly taking guys of the park but not HIA-ing them, that's a problem.
So you don't think Talea was playing up the injury to get the tackle looked at? None of us will know, but one would have to be naive to say it doesn't happen.
It's certainly possible, but I don't see how that then allows the doc to say he should be removed from play for HIA, without the A, when it's not a head issue. Players stay down for prolonged times often, plenty aren't because of a head knock.
-
@bones said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
If a player is winded, they sit up when they sit up, they get their wind back when they get their wind back.
If the ref thinks a player is milking it, that's a penalty offence and can be dealt with appropriately.
If a doctor is randomly taking guys of the park but not HIA-ing them, that's a problem.
So you don't think Talea was playing up the injury to get the tackle looked at? None of us will know, but one would have to be naive to say it doesn't happen.
It's certainly possible, but I don't see how that then allows the doc to say he should be removed from play for HIA, without the A, when it's not a head issue. Players stay down for prolonged times often, plenty aren't because of a head knock.
Hopefully if docs keep doing it from now on we may see less soccer style theatrics. Like when Reece looked like he was shot a while ago. The doc could say 'No mate, you looked like you just took a bullet. Off you come".
