Super Rugby 2022
-
@arhs said in Blues 2022:
@duluth I'd he gets off then I shudder to think what the future holds. Players will be able to early launch with arms in the air and knees out front claiming intention to charge down when really they are trying to physically block the kicker from chasing their kick and putting players onside. The lawmakers need to think carefully here regardless of how innocent and athletically marvellous Leon thinks it was. A kicker would need to be very brave to kick and chase if this type of challenge is legitimised.
High kick. Chaser jumps for the ball as the expectation is to do so to compete for possession and not interfere with the defender who is likely to be in the air.
Defender doesn't jump but chaser collects him with knee to head.How do you rule it? Was chaser meant to wait for a strong indication that defender was going to jump? Defender is fully entitled to claim the space under the kick.
-
@arhs said in Blues 2022:
@nzzp yes. I am challenging the posters saying that a red card should be the end of it. Leon said his crew would be searching the world for evidence of similar to exonerate Caleb. I am just saying that this approach makes it hard for the judiciary and any consequences of the ruling.
I pointed out the laws earlier and the situation isn't covered in the guidelines or accompanying examples. Of course coaches are going to ask for clarity and for the judiciary to make 'case law'
-
@crucial and what happens if the chaser saw him go up, ducks slightly, collects his feet, knocking man in the air off balance, he then lands awkwardly?
-
@taniwharugby said in Blues 2022:
@crucial and what happens if the chaser saw him go up, ducks slightly, collects his feet, knocking man in the air off balance, he then lands awkwardly?
You mean defender and a double red?
I think that would be mitigating circumstances if someone ducked into a head collision.
I guess I'm just wondering what defines reckless when the act itself is a normal part of the game.
-
@crucial I mean in the same situation with Caleb, but the guy that was chasing, if he sees what is happening, ducks to avoid the knee (that he ended up hitting) and in doing so all but runs under Caleb, causing him to rotate and land awkwardly, does Caleb avoid a card and then MP winger gets one?
I just think rugby has got itself in a precarious position when ruling on such incidents.
-
@crucial said in Blues 2022:
@taniwharugby said in Blues 2022:
@crucial and what happens if the chaser saw him go up, ducks slightly, collects his feet, knocking man in the air off balance, he then lands awkwardly?
You mean defender and a double red?
I think that would be mitigating circumstances if someone ducked into a head collision.
I guess I'm just wondering what defines reckless when the act itself is a normal part of the game.
For me, the reckless comes into jumping into an area you have no right to be in. So, being really early or late on a kick contest, or jumping for a chargedown where you may collide with the kicker. legitimate contests are OK in the laws - and by and large we see that reffed.
The question then is the punishment, which is where @ARHS is disputing. For me, Clarke's offence was way less bad than Laulala's, and should be recognised as such at the judiciary. However, others obviously hold a different view.
Let's not even start on the defender staying on the ground and what happens when someone jumps into them! That case does not appear to be consistently refereed (or clear in teh rules). Or teams putting up early jumpers to put off the contest, and flooding the groudn area to pick up the rebound. It's smart rugby, and we don't see the AB doing it.
-
@nzzp as jumping for a chargedown is part and parcel of the game then I see little difference between that and jumping for a high ball. If they are going to ask players to assess risk in one then they should also do so with the other.
I agree with you that it seems crazy to lump the Clarke situation in with the Laulala one and I guess that's why the Blues are defending it. -
-
@crucial Yes. If you had a citing/suspension in the last 12 months (no clean sheet), you may get - say - 4 or 5 weeks, instead of 3. Or if you dispute that you've committed foul play and don't admit to any wrongdoing (this may be Caleb Clarke). Then it could also be 4 weeks instead of 3 (if a mid-range starting point of 6 weeks is being applied).
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby 2022:
@crucial Yes. If you had a citing/suspension in the last 12 months (no clean sheet), you may get - say - 4 or 5 weeks, instead of 3. Or if you dispute that you've committed foul play and don't admit to any wrongdoing (this may be Caleb Clarke). Then it could also be 4 weeks instead of 3 (if a mid-range starting point of 6 weeks is being applied).
I was being a smartarse. Just seems silly to have a system where you get a discount for saying sorry when saying sorry would happen in 99% of cases.
Remorse is a given as well. Usually remorseful that they can’t play and lose match fees -
@crucial remorse gets taken into account in criminal courts too though doesn't it?
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2022:
@crucial remorse gets taken into account in criminal courts too though doesn't it?
It’s a far deeper process of pre sentencing reports. Most criminals are well practiced liars.
-
@crucial but point is, if you can get a reduced sentence for stabbing someone cos u iz soz, then why wouldnt a rugby player get a reduced sentence if they accidentally hit someone with thier knee?
-
Fijian Drua captain Nemani Nagusa given heaviest suspension of season
Nemani Nagusa has been handed the heaviest suspension of the Super Rugby Pacific season thus far following his red card against the Waratahs.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2022:
@crucial but point is, if you can get a reduced sentence for stabbing someone cos u iz soz, then why wouldnt a rugby player get a reduced sentence if they accidentally hit someone with thier knee?
I think you are looking at the 'point' way too simply
On the rugby side everyone says sorry so why build it in as a reduction rather than adding to the standard if someone refuses?
In real life you don't necessarily get a reduction in sentence for being sorry. Remorse and apology form a small part of a bigger sentence assessment. If the judge believes the sincerity alongside other character assessments it gets taken into account. -
Justin's take on mauls below.
It's been an issue for ages; just now that eveyrone is gravitating to BrumbyBall because it's high percentage rugby, he's waking up. Crusaders have been experts at it for years!
All I want to see with mauls is a re-balancing of risk/reward. The old way of 'one go only'; once you were stopped, it was use it or lose it would be a big step in the right direction.
