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.
-
@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!
-
@snowy I think there was a fair bit of fault with the blues player, you're opening up a can of worms if you want to go by the letter of the law there, we'll have penalties every phase with the amount of attacking players in front of the ball running into defenders these days.
-
@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.
That would seem a fair change to the laws.
-
@nepia said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@dan54 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@nepia said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@dan54 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@cantab79 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Does any NZ player divide opinions as much as Akira Ioane? There is something about Akira Ioane, people either love him or hate him. People can watch the same game and see completely different performances. Fwiw I thought he was excellent with ball in hand.
The trouble with Akira is he is usually excellent with ball in hand, but too often not without the ball, when he not on he will make a tackle coming straight at him usually, but as soon as the attack goes 5 meters wide of him he switches off and goes into jog mode. I get impression he was a very good college player who ran over top of people frequently, and was no doubt a star of his team, and maybe got into bad habits with rest of his game. I have seen him play what I consider probly 4 real good games in all the times I have watched him.
It's hard to take you seriously with comments like that.
Ok enlighten me what are all the real good games he has played. He started last year not even getting on bench for Blues ** (remember the fat f* sitting in the stand eating a pie?)**, he had a few good games, one good test, and really hasn't even held his starting spot in Blues this year. Maybe I was being harsh, but you can't say he has in any year played consistently good rugby, why I get so pissed with him, because of his undoubted potential.
You appear to just be doubling down now. He didn't get selected for the ABs on the back of no form last year. As @Kirwan has mentioned multiple times he was being deliberately held back at the start of last season due to the mental health issues (and quite frankly the overworked he'd been in the previous Blues campaigns). Even this year he hasn't been as bad as you're making out. He was topping the Fern MOTM poll for a few weeks there, and there's no higher authority than that.
But, since you appear to want an extra long run then dust off your videotapes from 2018, he was superb all of that season and Evans (who I'm a big fan of as a Magpies boy) made the ABs instead of him despite not playing as well.
But I guess the tone of the bolded bit means that no matter what he does you'll never give him credit.
Ok so we disagree, I thought in 2018 he was very ordinary, because of his workrate. And as you said Evan made ABs ahead of him, because maybe ABs wanted players that would work all around field. We will never agree, you want someone who will stand around and do a caryy every now and then, I want a player who is involved all the time. Apparently so do Blues coaches as he doesn't seem to be first choice there this year ,again!
