Northland v Auckland
-
I'm referring to an application guideline that the refs must to follow. It describes precisely how the laws are to be applied. It specifically applies to the 'tackle above the line of the shoulders law' too
The application has been around for 3-4 year now. Not all head contact is foul play.
Are you claiming BOK incorrectly went through the head contact process? If he doesn't follow this process he gets marked down
He clearly described why he thought it wasn't foul play. If you want to complain you should focus on this rather than say BOK went through the wrong process or claiming that all head contact is foul play
-
-
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
@Duluth he didn’t attack the head. Never said that. What I said was that it was a high tackle above the shoulders. With his arm- as he was never in a position to hit with his shoulders and wrap. So a dangerous tackle.Yes BOK got it wrong.
And if you go back at the second player coming in he kicks out with leg, with his knee catching Reihana in the chest ( hence the dropped ball ) and then the foot in the face. If that’s not dangerous play what is? Disgraceful decision. The NRL do it so much better. They would have picked up the second player kicking out as well.
Northland will have a field day with their review of the game.
-
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
@Duluth he didn’t attack the head. Never said that.
I’m not sure what you are responding to here. This doesn’t match up with anything I have said
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
What I said was that it was a high tackle above the shoulders. With his arm- as he was never in a position to hit with his shoulders and wrap. So a dangerous tackle.Yes BOK got it wrong.
Again this isn’t the process. Question one head contact - yes.
Question two was it foul play - BOK explained why he thought it wasn't. He said the player bent at the hips and was wrapping, the head contact was a no fault incident caused by diving at the line.
The HCP specifically allows for no fault head contact. This is the key point. So many rugby drives at line would be impossible to defend without this
The best argument in your favour would be saying it reckless but that doesn’t really fit. BOKs description of what happened seems accurate
-
@Duluth said in Northland v Auckland:
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
@Duluth he didn’t attack the head. Never said that.
I’m not sure what you are responding to here. This doesn’t match up with anything I have said
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
What I said was that it was a high tackle above the shoulders. With his arm- as he was never in a position to hit with his shoulders and wrap. So a dangerous tackle.Yes BOK got it wrong.
Again this isn’t the process. Question one head contact - yes.
Question two was it foul play - BOK explained why he thought it wasn't. He said the player bent at the hips and was wrapping, the head contact was a no fault incident caused by diving at the line.
The HCP specifically allows for no fault head contact. This is the key point. So many rugby drives at line would be impossible to defend without this
The best argument in your favour would be saying it reckless but that doesn’t really fit. BOKs description of what happened seems accurate
Go back and have a look at the second Aucklsnd player - if that is not dangerous, what is? They totally messed this up. Again Northland will have a field day with their review. Totally incompetent.
-
@Duluth said in Northland v Auckland:
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
The NRL
Yes they have different laws for a variety of reasons. Let’s not confuse things even more
Go back and have a look at the actions of the 2nd Auckland tackler. I will be suprised if he isn’t cited after the game. That’s why Reihana was injured in the tackle. And they totally missed it. Incompetent.
-
@gt12 said in Northland v Auckland:
I saw the highlights, that was a player beaten who left their arm out and collected a guy in the head. It was at least a penalty and I can’t really see why there wasn’t a penalty try.
Agree and…. take a look at the 2nd player, who was beaten also and sticks out his leg. Reihana lands on the guys knee, which is why we have the knock on and Reihana is injured in the tackle, and is kicked in the face when his head lands.
-
We need to be a bit better with our attack, like last week we spent long passages on attack for no reward. Even after an error, we get back in the scoring zone but fail to capitalise.
Something not exclusive to us, but the fact we go one pass right, one pass left, one pass right, always playing in the heavy traffic, we need to play a bit wider if we are to to that, otherwise we need to work more one way before coming back.
-
-
@booboo not apart from what you see in this thread, which is mostly blurred by ones own bias as always anyway.
Tackles in the action of scoring a try are fraught with risk for the defender with head contact an issue, on another day, it woulda been as you say, IMO it was a penalty, I personally wouldnt agree with a YC for that though, but the rules are an arse at times.
-
@taniwharugby said in Northland v Auckland:
@booboo not apart from what you see in this thread, which is mostly blurred by ones own bias as always anyway.
Tackles in the action of scoring a try are fraught with risk for the defender with head contact an issue, on another day, it woulda been as you say, IMO it was a penalty, I personally wouldnt agree with a YC for that though, but the rules are an arse at times.
Agree 💯
YC only because mandated for PT. Not for impact..
-
-
-
@booboo said in Northland v Auckland:
Caught up with the highlights of this one eventually last night.
Been much comment on the not-penalty try?
High tackle, prevented "probable" try, PT, YC. YC , not for the tackle but the PT.
Reckon the officials fucked up.
I was sitting near an old* guy in an ARU blazer at the game, he was congratulating those around him for a great come back for the draw. Even he couldn't believe it wasn't a penalty try.
And by old, probably my age but twice the weight and none of the hair didn't help how young you look!
-
Problem is, it still comes back to the individual ref or TMO view on what constitutes 'foul play' which I think many cards/penalties we have seen in recent years are not.
