Chiefs vs Highlanders

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577960" data-time="1462664205">
Given the recent rulings on Emery, Nadolo and Zas, it won't surprise me to see Charlie cited and missing 2-4 weeks including the game for Te Aroha Cobras this Saturday that Dave's already given him a written advice that he's definitely playing in and to practice his tacking technique. :) </blockquote>
 
Outrageous! They should close that loophole at once

Frank

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577960" data-time="1462664205">
<div>
His big mistake was making the tackle low and then standing and driving up. If he'd tackled him low and gone to ground there's no problem. I don't think there's any real issue about tackling the man in the air. The problem is, he's taken Dixon way above the horizontal and has certainly not returned him safely to earth (JFK). It's all happened in a split second, but Charlie can't have been completely unaware that he's got Dixon's ankles on his shoulder.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Nailed it.

taniwharugby

although oddly, had he NOT stood up, Dixon would unlikely have had the momentum to flip right over and probably woulda landed on his head....

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="577964" data-time="1462664955">
<div>
although oddly, had he NOT stood up, Dixon would unlikely have had the momentum to flip right over and probably woulda landed on his head....
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
A possibly correct, but irrelevant, point. :)
 
People get hurt in legal tackles every day.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577966" data-time="1462665420">
<div>
A possibly correct, but irrelevant, point. :)
 
People get hurt in legal tackles every day.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
true, but people keep talking about the potential for injury form incidents like this, the other 2 that have been in the news too...when there is potential for injury in plenty of legal plays in rugby...it is the action that needs to be judged, not the result or potential for injury.
 
Saying it was a lesser offence because Dixon landed better than say Le Roux...IMO the action that leads to it is the key, not the result and potential. We will never know, but had Le Roux flipped over and landed similar to Dixon, would the card colour have been different? I dont believe it should have been.
 
If you go to stomp on someones head, but they move in time, and you miss his head, will you get the same sanction as you would have had he not moved?

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="577936" data-time="1462645073">
<div>
From the replay it seems to me that Dixon clearly lands on his shoulder which means it should have been a red.
 
Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
<ul><li>Play on â€“ Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only â€“ Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card â€“ Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul>A red card would of course show the bullshit of the law and its interpretations. I think Ngatai gets cited unless they review it and say it was a fair challenge.
</div>
</blockquote>
This Law doesn't really fit the situation that happened though.
 
The way the sport is reffed a player bobbing for the ball is considered in possession of it.
Ngatai and Dixon connected at the same time as Dixon wasn't able to catch the ball. 
Dixon actually jumps after the he spills the ball.
 
It doesn't fit. If people want to go after Ngatai they need to do it with some other dangerous play law, not this one.
 
As for posters saying that Ngatai drove him up, seriously, people need to watch the video and see what chance Ngatai had to do anything.

Chris B.

I'm not arguing on that point at all, TR. Whether Dixon landed on his arse or his head should be irrelevant (for some odd reason it's not).
 
What's at issue is whether Charlie's tackle was legal or not - I think it's clearly not, whereas if he'd not lifted Dixon's ankles he would have been fine - regardless of what happened to Dixon.

taniwharugby

funny though, some are saying it was a dangeorus tackle and some saying he challenged him in the air, which is where they are brining this landing rule back in.
 
For me, like Nepia above, no way was it an in air challenge (as the Le Roux one and the other one last week) it was a tackle, that came from an unfortunate set of circumstances that lead Dixon to losing the ball just prior to Ngatai making contact and then Dixon jumping at the moment as Ngatai made contact.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577970" data-time="1462666167">
<div>
I'm not arguing on that point at all, TR. Whether Dixon landed on his arse or his head should be irrelevant (for some odd reason it's not).
 
What's at issue is whether Charlie's tackle was legal or not - I think it's clearly not, whereas if he'd not lifted Dixon's ankles he would have been fine - regardless of what happened to Dixon. 
</div>
</blockquote>
Watch the video in real time, there was nothing Ngatai could do. Are you suggesting that if everything played out the same, but Ngatai's arms stayed down you think it would be fine? Once Dixon jumped he was always going to flip over Ngatai.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="577971" data-time="1462666469">
<div>
funny though, some are saying it was a dangeorus tackle and some saying he challenged him in the air, which is where they are brining this landing rule back in.
 
For me, like Nepia above, no way was it an in air challenge (as the Le Roux one and the other one last week) it was a tackle, that came from an unfortunate set of circumstances that lead Dixon to losing the ball just prior to Ngatai making contact and then Dixon jumping at the moment as Ngatai made contact.
</div>
</blockquote>
This is the key, and TBH I don't really have a problem with it being penalised (I have an issue with the card), the main issue I have is posters claiming it was some kind of deliberate dangerous play deserving of worse sanction - what it was, as you note, was a series of unfortunate circumstances.

Toddy

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="577969" data-time="1462666075">
<div>
This Law doesn't really fit the situation that happened though.
 
The way the sport is reffed a player bobbing for the ball is considered in possession of it.
Ngatai and Dixon connected at the same time as Dixon wasn't able to catch the ball. 
Dixon actually jumps after the he spills the ball.
 
It doesn't fit. If people want to go after Ngatai they need to do it with some other dangerous play law, not this one.
 
As for posters saying that Ngatai drove him up, seriously, people need to watch the video and see what chance Ngatai had to do anything.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Was he even in possession to be bobbling it?
 
Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that teamâ€™s possession.
 
Dixon was never carrying the ball to begin 'bobbling' it.
 
EDIT
Though in saying that, how would you rule knock-ons if a knock-on is when 'a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward'. So yeah, I can see why the bobbling on a catch could be considered in possession.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="577973" data-time="1462666757">
<div>
Watch the video in real time, there was nothing Ngatai could do. Are you suggesting that if everything played out the same, but Ngatai's arms stayed down you think it would be fine? Once Dixon jumped he was always going to flip over Ngatai.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I am suggesting Ngatai stood up once he made the tackle. He's quite clearly lifted Dixon's feet and taken him past the horizontal.
 
Dixon's obviously made this easier to happen by jumping and changing his centre of gravity.
 
There's a reasonable degree of unfortunate accident in it, but not as much - in my mind - as the "Is this a redcard?" thread below, where Zas has basically just slipped over and has been red carded and given two weeks.
 
To be very clear - Ngatai should have gone to ground rather than standing up. By standing up he has lifted him beyond the horizontal and that is illegal.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="577975" data-time="1462666997">
<div>
Was he even in possession to be bobbling it?
 
Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that teamâ€™s possession.
 
Dixon was never carrying the ball to begin 'bobbling' it.
 
EDIT
Though in saying that, how would you rule knock-ons if a knock-on is when 'a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward'. So yeah, I can see why the bobbling on a catch could be considered in possession.
</div>
</blockquote>
I wasn't actually referring to what is in the Laws but how the game is reffed. We see it often where a player is passed the ball and doesn't catch it on the first go and is tackled while trying to retrieve it - if the laws were enforced strictly as written the tackler would be penalised for taking a player out without the ball.
 
Chris B: As I said, if you watch the video in real time Ngatai didn't have the chance to do anything once Dixon jumped. You're being unrealistic if you think he could have gone to the ground at that stage. FYI - I thought the Zas red card was harsh and people lost the plot over that, Nathan Grey claimed it was a deliberate tactic. If Tana was playing now he'd be busting out a tiddlywink call every week.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="577987" data-time="1462669912">
<div>
Chris B: As I said, if you watch the video in real time Ngatai didn't have the chance to do anything once Dixon jumped. You're being unrealistic if you think he could have gone to the ground at that stage. FYI - I thought the Zas red card was harsh and people lost the plot over that, Nathan Grey claimed it was a deliberate tactic. If Tana was playing now he'd be busting out a tiddlywink call every week.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Don't really agree with the first point - he's gone in to make a tackle low, so I don't really see how standing up once he's made that tackle would ever have a good outcome. It has all happened in a split second, so while there's no intent, it has gone badly wrong and I think it's pretty clear that Charlie has contravened the letter of the law. As above, the way things have been ruled recently it won't surprise me to see him missing some games, but luckily my opinion is completely irrelevant to Sanzar.
 
Agree on Zas. Agree on Tana.
 
Anyway, cheer up - you're still fifth on the table and we've only got one game in hand on you! :)
 
 
 
 
 
:) :)

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577994" data-time="1462670944">
<div>
Don't really agree with the first point - he's gone in to make a tackle low, so I don't really see how standing up once he's made that tackle would ever have a good outcome. It has all happened in a split second, so while there's no intent, it has gone badly wrong and I think it's pretty clear that Charlie has contravened the letter of the law. As above, the way things have been ruled recently it won't surprise me to see him missing some games, but luckily my opinion is completely irrelevant to Sanzar.
 
Agree on Zas. Agree on Tana.
 
Anyway, cheer up - you're still fifth on the table and we've only got one game in hand on you! :)
 
 
 
 
 
 :)
</div>
</blockquote>
True, and you've been playing all the easybeat foreign teams for the past 7 weeks ;).

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="577995" data-time="1462671206">
<div>
True, and you've been playing all the easybeat foreign teams for the past 7 weeks ;).
</div>
</blockquote>
 
A fact that has not escaped me. :)
 
Worst thing is - given the number of derby games to come - even if you top the table, there's a very fair chance you're going to get a very fucking awkward NZ team as your first play-off game.

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577998" data-time="1462672101">
<div>
A fact that has not escaped me. :)
 
Worst thing is - given the number of derby games to come - even if you top the table, there's a very fair chance you're going to get a very fucking awkward NZ team as your first play-off game.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Actually, that's not true because the NZ teams have beaten most of the non-NZ teams and have more points than the rest of the lot. The SA wildcard will most likely be the opponent of the the table topping team.

broughie

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577983" data-time="1462668269">
<div> 
To be very clear - Ngatai should have gone to ground rather than standing up. By standing up he has lifted him beyond the horizontal and that is illegal.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I don't think standing up was the problem. It was the use of his hands that accelerated Dixons momentum that was the problem. If he merely stood up I don't think he should have been called and without using his hands Dixon would not have flip as much as he did. I think he deserved the yellow.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="578005" data-time="1462674838">
<div>
Actually, that's not true because the NZ teams have beaten most of the non-NZ teams and have more points than the rest of the lot. The SA wildcard will most likely be the opponent of the the table topping team.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The South African wildcard team will likely be from the conference that doesn't play any of the NZ teams.
 
Right now, it's the Bulls - and their remaining opponents include the Sunwolves, Jaguares and Cheetahs. I don't think it's unlikely that they will end up higher on the table than e.g the Canes.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="broughie" data-cid="578007" data-time="1462675262">I don't think standing up was the problem. It was the use of his hands that accelerated Dixons momentum that was the problem. If he merely stood up I don't think he should have been called and without using his hands Dixon would not have flip as much as he did. I think he deserved the yellow.</blockquote>
 
there is A good angle on the Herald site at the moment. You can pause the vid at nearly frame by frame as it happens so fast. 
Ngatai goes in safely for a tackle at hip height with his head to the side. Textbook stuff taught to kids. Split second before contact Dixon jumps up and the contact starts at thigh level. Dixon keeps going up and it becomes knee level. 
Ngatai was braced for a solid impact at mid level of a big player. This impact just gave way. It possibly even felt like he missed. He stood up and looked around as if to say "where the fuck did he go?" 
There are two possibles here. One is taking a player out in the air. Those guidelines are written for players approaching a descending kick. Not sure how those principles can apply here. 
The other possibility is the tip tackle guidelines. These revolve around the tackler deliberately or carelessly lifting a player beyond the horizontal and failing to return them to ground safely. This seems to be where there are different views. One says Ngatai took Dixon beyond horizontal the other that Dixon would have gone beyond horizontal no matter what because he jumped into the tackle. 
My view? It was an plain accident of a dynamic contact sport with no one at fault. Shit sometimes happens and. No one deserves a ban because of odd circumstance.

The Silver Fern

Chiefs vs Highlanders