SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues
-
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@stargazer said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse That's a bit far-fetched. The player who was incorrectly taken off the field for a head injury by the match doctor was a back and a reserve back came on (Otere Black). They didn't lose a forward sub as a result of the mistake of the match doctor.
They subbed Gibson for Akira in the 46th minute, so reasonably early in the 2nd half. Does someone know exactly when in the game Papali'i injured his knee, because he played on for quite a while, I think.
Anyway, when Papali'i left the field (71st minute) and they had to play on with 14 players, the Blues were already trailing 6 - 22, so the game was already lost anyway.
You seem to be missing the point. The relevance to that particular game is immaterial.
The laws are relevant, and having a player removed from the match due to foul play and not being able to replace them - even with a player that has been on the field should be allowed.
You shouldn't be down to 14 at the end of a match because you had a game plan, used subs, and previously the opposition did something illegal to injure one of your players.
I am not thinking clearly at the moment, but would a giving a team one extra generic sub in which they can use whomever, whenever, solve the issue?
Yes, but not just one. I think if any players were taken off due to the rules above (foul play, Hi, etc) they should be able to be replaced by anyone that has been on the field already. No increase in subs, just send someone back on. Replaced players would have to stay warmed up ready to go but that isn't huge for probably 20-30 mins.
The risk is the fake blood replacement (Tom Williams thing) but doctors should be able to diagnose better than that.
Bloody hell, I am still confused 😀 I was under the impression they can already replace players who go off for HIA with players who have been on the field previously. Maybe I should stay out of this conversation!
-
@snowy No, I'm not hung up about this match. I'm just replying to statements I don't agree with; comments made relating to this particular match.
By the way, Hunt did get off the field for a HIA. The officials got that wrong and under the rules, they should have left RM on the field. They admitted that after the game and apologised. So the situation is completely different.
I'm sure the situation has happened before, though, and it will happen again. To any team. It's just the way the rules are. Rightly or wrongly.
-
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@stargazer said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy Indeed, for the result it's not important, but you can't ignore the fact that the player taken out of the game for a head injury was a back, and was replaced by a back. They'd never have used Otere Black (or Christie, or Lam) to replace Papali'i.
They could have subbed Plumtree for Papali'i, who was already injured by then, but he thought incorrectly he could close out the game, so they subbed Plumtree for Darry (67th minute). Playing with 14 men (from the 71st minute) wasn't a result of the mistake of the match doctor; it was the result of Papali'i or the coaches thinking he could finish the game and the Darry-Plumtree sub 4 minutes prior.
But were the Blues down to fourteen because they had used their allocation re number of subs used, or because they were unable to replace an injured player with a player who had already been on the field? In other words would the Blues have been able to retain 15 if there was a player on the bench who had not already been on the field?
And we've seen backs replace forwards and vice versa before so I don’t think position is relevant here.Papali'i left the field in the 71st minute; by that time the benches are usually already emptied. Four minutes before that (67th minute), they made the last sub (Plumtree for Darry). I don't think they had run out of subs because Tele'a was incorrectly taken off the field, but because 71 minutes had lapsed.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@stargazer said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse That's a bit far-fetched. The player who was incorrectly taken off the field for a head injury by the match doctor was a back and a reserve back came on (Otere Black). They didn't lose a forward sub as a result of the mistake of the match doctor.
They subbed Gibson for Akira in the 46th minute, so reasonably early in the 2nd half. Does someone know exactly when in the game Papali'i injured his knee, because he played on for quite a while, I think.
Anyway, when Papali'i left the field (71st minute) and they had to play on with 14 players, the Blues were already trailing 6 - 22, so the game was already lost anyway.
You seem to be missing the point. The relevance to that particular game is immaterial.
The laws are relevant, and having a player removed from the match due to foul play and not being able to replace them - even with a player that has been on the field should be allowed.
You shouldn't be down to 14 at the end of a match because you had a game plan, used subs, and previously the opposition did something illegal to injure one of your players.
I am not thinking clearly at the moment, but would a giving a team one extra generic sub in which they can use whomever, whenever, solve the issue?
Yes, but not just one. I think if any players were taken off due to the rules above (foul play, Hi, etc) they should be able to be replaced by anyone that has been on the field already. No increase in subs, just send someone back on. Replaced players would have to stay warmed up ready to go but that isn't huge for probably 20-30 mins.
The risk is the fake blood replacement (Tom Williams thing) but doctors should be able to diagnose better than that.
Bloody hell, I am still confused 😀 I was under the impression they can already replace players who go off for HIA with players who have been on the field previously. Maybe I should stay out of this conversation!
Yes they can, but I think that it is only for the 10 mins for assessment, if an assessment happens. Then they are off and if you have used all of your subs you are down a man regardless of foul play against your guy.
That is how I understand it.
-
@stargazer said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@stargazer said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy Indeed, for the result it's not important, but you can't ignore the fact that the player taken out of the game for a head injury was a back, and was replaced by a back. They'd never have used Otere Black (or Christie, or Lam) to replace Papali'i.
They could have subbed Plumtree for Papali'i, who was already injured by then, but he thought incorrectly he could close out the game, so they subbed Plumtree for Darry (67th minute). Playing with 14 men (from the 71st minute) wasn't a result of the mistake of the match doctor; it was the result of Papali'i or the coaches thinking he could finish the game and the Darry-Plumtree sub 4 minutes prior.
But were the Blues down to fourteen because they had used their allocation re number of subs used, or because they were unable to replace an injured player with a player who had already been on the field? In other words would the Blues have been able to retain 15 if there was a player on the bench who had not already been on the field?
And we've seen backs replace forwards and vice versa before so I don’t think position is relevant here.Papali'i left the field in the 71st minute; by that time the benches are usually already emptied. Four minutes before that (67th minute), they made the last sub (Plumtree for Darry). I don't think they had run out of subs because Tele'a was incorrectly taken off the field, but because 71 minutes had lapsed.
Not trying to be a pain, and I am sure @Snowy will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point he is trying to make is that one of the reasons the Blues bench was empty at the time of the Papalii injury was because one of the bench players had been used to replace Tale'a. That's the bit that is a tad unfair.
-
@stargazer said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I don't think they had run out of subs because Tele'a was incorrectly taken off the field, but because 71 minutes had lapsed.
It's quite possible that they would have used all of the subs already but it doesn't change the fact that one team has 14 men on the field due to foul play by the opposition.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@stargazer said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@stargazer said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy Indeed, for the result it's not important, but you can't ignore the fact that the player taken out of the game for a head injury was a back, and was replaced by a back. They'd never have used Otere Black (or Christie, or Lam) to replace Papali'i.
They could have subbed Plumtree for Papali'i, who was already injured by then, but he thought incorrectly he could close out the game, so they subbed Plumtree for Darry (67th minute). Playing with 14 men (from the 71st minute) wasn't a result of the mistake of the match doctor; it was the result of Papali'i or the coaches thinking he could finish the game and the Darry-Plumtree sub 4 minutes prior.
But were the Blues down to fourteen because they had used their allocation re number of subs used, or because they were unable to replace an injured player with a player who had already been on the field? In other words would the Blues have been able to retain 15 if there was a player on the bench who had not already been on the field?
And we've seen backs replace forwards and vice versa before so I don’t think position is relevant here.Papali'i left the field in the 71st minute; by that time the benches are usually already emptied. Four minutes before that (67th minute), they made the last sub (Plumtree for Darry). I don't think they had run out of subs because Tele'a was incorrectly taken off the field, but because 71 minutes had lapsed.
Not trying to be a pain, and I am sure @Snowy will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point he is trying to make is that one of the reasons the Blues bench was empty at the time of the Papalii injury was because one of the bench players had been used to replace Tale'a. That's the bit that is a tad unfair.
Thank you.
-
@snowy They didn't have 14 men on the field due to foul play:
- they had 14 men on the field due running out of subs because it was late in the game and the coaches had emptied the bench when Papali'i left the field. They would have emptied the bench also if Tele'a had stayed on the field.
- the foul play was the tackle being off the ball (so mis-timed), not the tackle being hard and Tele'a falling awkwardly on another player, causing him to grasp for breadth for a while (and the match doctor mistakenly thinking he had a head injury). So he wasn't taken off the field as a result of the foul play.
-
@stargazer said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy They didn't have 14 men on the field due to foul play:
- they had 14 men on the field due running out of subs because it was late in the game and the coaches had emptied the bench when Papali'i left the field.
- the foul play was the tackle being late, not the tackle being hard and Tele'a falling awkwardly on another player, causing him to grasp for breadth for a while. So he wasn't taken off the field as a result of the foul play.
And they ran out of subs partly because of the injury from foul play. Sure they could have managed their subs differently after Tale'a went off because of foul play, but is it right that they should have to?
I think you are clutching at straws with your second point. Surely he wouldn't have fallen hard if it wasn't for the off the ball tackle though. It's a consequence of the offence.
-
@crazy-horse Hard tackles cause opposition players to grasp for air regularly. Off the ball, or not.
-
@stargazer I know they do. But this was the direct consequence of alleged foul play.
-
@crazy-horse I don't think it made a difference to how they'd manage subs. Tele'a is a back; Papali'i is a forward. You'd have a point if one of the backs got injured in the 71st minute when they ran out of subs.
-
@crazy-horse We'll have to agree to disagree then.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@stargazer I know they do. But this was the direct consequence of alleged foul play.
It wasn't even "alleged" it was deemed to be so by the officials. Penalty awarded for it.
-
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@stargazer I know they do. But this was the direct consequence of alleged foul play.
It wasn't "alleged" it was deemed to be so by the officials. Penalty awarded for it.
I had a feeling someone would pick that up 😀. I only said alleged because in my mind , despite what the official definition may or may not be, foul play is deliberate. I know Tale'a was deliberately tackled, but I think that was because the defender was fooled by the dummy run. I don't think he deliberately tackled a player without the ball if you get my point. That's why I reckon only a penalty was given and not a card as well.
I hate cards they ruin games for me. -
@chris-b said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Seeing as some are doing conspiracy theories about milking a card - I wonder if the Dr is a Crusaders fan?
Not our fault if the Blues assume that @Canerbry wearing a white coat is a doctor.
Blues, poaching our coaches and now our doctors
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@stargazer I know they do. But this was the direct consequence of alleged foul play.
It wasn't "alleged" it was deemed to be so by the officials. Penalty awarded for it.
I had a feeling someone would pick that up 😀. I only said alleged because in my mind , despite what the official definition may or may not be, foul play is deliberate. I know Tale'a was deliberately tackled, but I think that was because the defender was fooled by the dummy run. I don't think he deliberately tackled a player without the ball if you get my point. That's why I reckon only a penalty was given and not a card as well.
I hate cards they ruin games for me.You're a cop. Nice to know that innocence is still assumed and alleged is in use.
Agree with the rest mostly, but tackling a player with out the ball still comes under Foul play section 9, and worse, "dangerous play" - 14:
"A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball."I don't necessarily think it was a card either but the laws are clear that it was foul and dangerous.
-
@act-crusader said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@chris-b said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Seeing as some are doing conspiracy theories about milking a card - I wonder if the Dr is a Crusaders fan?
Not our fault if the Blues assume that @Canerbry wearing a white coat is a doctor.
Blues, poaching our coaches and now our doctors
I think that doctor is seriously one of yours.
-
@act-crusader said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@chris-b said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Seeing as some are doing conspiracy theories about milking a card - I wonder if the Dr is a Crusaders fan?
Not our fault if the Blues assume that @Canerbry wearing a white coat is a doctor.
Blues, poaching our coaches and now our doctors
I'm probably misunderstanding - but, has Canerbry gone to Auckland?
Surely not!
