NH club rugby
-
Because punching is a red card. Kicking is a red card. Trying on purpose to inflict physical injury on your opponent is a red card.
Not jumping as high as another bloke to catch a ball should not be a sending off offense.
To counter - why should it be a red card?
-
@Bones
Pisi was clearly going for the ball.He was on a running line that saw him arrive under the ball.
As MR notes the other guy jumped higher and not jumping as high shouldn't be a red card offence.
Furthermore Pisi braced for the impact of a guy leading with his legs.
-
They need to change the laws, like make jumping illegal or something, because at the moment you've got two guys legitimately going for the ball with a random chance of a game changing red being dished out.
Either that or accept there are risks with jumping for the ball and stop carding players.
-
That's pathetic
-
@Nepia said in NH club rugby:
@Bones
Pisi was clearly going for the ball.He was on a running line that saw him arrive under the ball.
As MR notes the other guy jumped higher and not jumping as high shouldn't be a red card offence.
Furthermore Pisi braced for the impact of a guy leading with his legs.
Eh no. Pisi ran underneath him and took him out. Is a high tackle ok if it's a tall guy on a short guy? It's not the tall guys fault the other fella is short. If the short guy was taller there'd be no issue eh. Or if the tall guy was shorter.
Pisi should have been aware of the danger, the bullshit about going for the ball screams reckless to me. What kind of a player thinks he's the only guy on the field going to catch a ball? Do players all of a sudden lose all ability to scan and/or use peripheral vision in these circumstances?
I like how people scream the game is becoming soft and then it's proposed we remove jumping. How about we just drill it into players to take responsibility for their actions?
-
@mariner4life said in NH club rugby:
That's pathetic
You may have a point there but at least it is becoming (repeat, becoming) more consistent in sanctioning.
That's a positive step.
Of sorts.
-
@MajorRage said in NH club rugby:
Because punching is a red card. Kicking is a red card. Trying on purpose to inflict physical injury on your opponent is a red card.
Not jumping as high as another bloke to catch a ball should not be a sending off offense.
To counter - why should it be a red card?
The rules on reds have moved from "being a dick" - ie punching someone, to "potentially breaking someones neck, shoulder, arm etc" so causing them to flip over & land on their head, spear tackling, neck rolls. All the new directions to refs are to do with preventing serious injury.
Its not a red because he didn't jump as high, its a red because its carelessly causing a situation where another player lands on his neck from 5 feet up. He knew about 3 metres out he had lost that contest & he carried on straight through & the only thing he did was duck his head a bit to limit his own injury potential. There was zero attempt to mitigate the injury to the other player. He could have easily avoided that collision but the oppo player would have steamed off with the ball, so instead he just just a little half jump & tucked his head in.
The point of impact is his back & shoulder going into the player, he wasn't trying to get the ball, the ones where 2 players hit face on & one is a bit higher, those are valid attempts, if you impact a jumper with your shoulder & back you were never trying to get the ball.
I'd argue it was cynical as well as careless
-
They both jump at the same time, and both end up in a position to catch the ball. But the yellow player jumps twice as high. So basically if you are going for the ball, make sure you outjump the opposition or risk being carded.
I personally think the most reckless act there is the bloke jumping as high as he can to catch the ball. And I think anyone doing that should accept the risk that they won't always land safely.
I'm not advocating taking a guys feet out when he jumps, but if it's a fair contest then bad luck.
-
@Bones said in NH club rugby:
@Nepia said in NH club rugby:
@Bones
Pisi was clearly going for the ball.He was on a running line that saw him arrive under the ball.
As MR notes the other guy jumped higher and not jumping as high shouldn't be a red card offence.
Furthermore Pisi braced for the impact of a guy leading with his legs.
Eh no. Pisi ran underneath him and took him out. Is a high tackle ok if it's a tall guy on a short guy? It's not the tall guys fault the other fella is short. If the short guy was taller there'd be no issue eh. Or if the tall guy was shorter.
Pisi should have been aware of the danger, the bullshit about going for the ball screams reckless to me. What kind of a player thinks he's the only guy on the field going to catch a ball? Do players all of a sudden lose all ability to scan and/or use peripheral vision in these circumstances?
I like how people scream the game is becoming soft and then it's proposed we remove jumping. How about we just drill it into players to take responsibility for their actions?
I kind off agree with you however there is also the aspect that Rugby is a game played best on instinct. Instinct does not often involve a full assessment of a potential situation.
Eliminating jumping is not the answer but I also don't think that whacking out red cards whenever instinctive errors occur is the answer either. At the moment the outcome is that players are actually encouraged to place themselves at high risk in order to make the opposition back off.Take the jumping element out and extend the argument and we could see players diving toward a kicker's boot to block a kick with the kicker being expected to see the risk and stop swinging his leg or risk a red card for contact with the head.
in this particular case I think Pisi simply wasn't aware he was creating danger, he has a WTF? look on his face as it happened.
Should he have been more aware? Quite possibly, and that is obviously the conclusion the ref came to as well.Can someone more knowledgeable with AFL let us know how this is dealt with in that game. I understand that the dynamics are different but surely there are times when a jumping players gets his legs knocked from under him.
-
Far worse as a pointer to the rules being a bit far was Armitage getting binned for a hand off (its the bottom video)
Basically, no touching the face or neck I get, but jeez...
-
New initiative to tighten up tackle law may be rugby’s big-bang moment | Robert Kitson
World Rugby’s decision to clamp down on high hits from Tuesday will free up the game for creative ball-carriers and try-scoring rates should soar even higher
In theory it is just another winter Tuesday. No big games are happening on 3 January 2017, no one will instantly sense the change. Could it be, nevertheless, that the date will one day be ranked among the most significant in modern rugby union history? Might it also be the moment the cork is removed from the old-school bottle and, in a spray of sparkling foam, it starts raining tries?
World Rugby’s decision to tighten the tackle law with immediate effect and clamp down on high, dangerous “hits” is meant to be all about improving player welfare. Every minor tweak to rugby’s technical landscape inevitably has a side-effect and suddenly it is defence coaches who face a double-barrelled nightmare. If defenders can no longer risk targeting the upper chest for fear of the impact “riding up” and earning them a card, passing out of the tackle becomes far more practicable. The killer offload is suddenly back in vogue.Leave aside, for now, the other possible side-effect, namely games ending up with 12 players a side until the “steer clear of the head” mantra fully sinks in.
Overlook, too, the inconvenience to players of introducing such punitive measures – and stiffer sanctions – slap-bang in the middle of the northern hemisphere season.
Instead, just for a moment, consider the potential consequences should everyone embrace the spirit of the reinforced law as well as its letter. Could lowering the height of the hit, perversely, be rugby’s big-bang moment?
The possibilities, either way, are intriguing. Even accidental contact with the head is set to attract at least a penalty, as will any challenge that might conceivably be described as reckless. Players will have to change their behaviour and attitudes or risk spending a lot more time in the sin-bin. In the short term, if not longer, there should be more leeway for ball-carriers and try-scoring rates look set to soar.
Clearly rugby is about more than tries alone – low-scoring slugfests can sometimes be the most compelling of all – but in terms of allowing gifted athletes a fraction more scope to display their skills, this may turn out to be the most significant shift since the introduction of the five-point try in 1992. Something had to be done to protect diminutive playmakers and as long as players do not appeal loudly to the referee every time an arm inadvertently grazes their cheeks, it should enhance the prospects of teams who aspire to play a bit more rugby.
-
A double-edged sword for SBW. He may be able to offload at will but need to get rid of his league style tackling forever.
What that article above fails to recognise is that attack coaches will be telling all ball carriers to run with their head leading into contact, especially in a pick and go situation.
Instead of sparkling tries from offloaded balls are we instead going to see endless pick and goes from charging bulls slowly eating up the field 3 metres at a time with their heads forward chanting 'can't touch me'?
-
It might negate the midfield bomb as an attacking weapon, as that now is a flat out red card risk if you don't get the jump on.
Alternately if you have someone outrageously good in the air (Ben Smith, Israel Folau) you can bomb to him knowing he can't be touched.
Re pick & go, its a huge boost to ball playing props, if you are a 5'11 120kg prop with decent hands picking & going against locks & loosies becomes a really good move. Kevin Mealamu could come out of retirement... the emphasis will be on getting low & tackling round the ankles, thats not a terrible thing surely, tho' it makes "winning" the hit almost impossible
SBW's fending will have to change too, half his offloads come with a face massaging fend
-
Bundee Aki has no idea if he will declare for Ireland
Bundee Aki has no idea if he will declare for Ireland
Bundee Aki may have committed his future to Connacht before Pat Lam announced his departure from the Sportsground, but the Pro12 player of the season remai...
Bundee Aki may have committed his future to Connacht before Pat Lam announced his departure from the Sportsground, but the Pro12 player of the season remains coy about his international future.
The 26-year old is eligible to play for New Zealand, Samoa and, from later this year, Ireland, but he is in no rush to make a commitment despite signing a three-year contract extension to remain at the Sportsground. That was before Lam announced he was leaving at the end of the season, invoking a six-month notice clause which allowed him to depart a year before his contract is up.
Connacht chief executive Willie Ruane says none of the players have such a release clause in their contracts.Aki, out until next month with an ankle injury, didn't hide his frustration when he became aware of Lam's shock decision to leave, tweeting that he was 'feeling p****d' after being told.
The centre had since admitted he may have over-reacted and that he is adjusting to what life will be like at Connacht when Lam leaves for Bristol at the end of the season. But Aki is reluctant at this stage to declare for Ireland or be distracted by events outside Connacht."I literally do not know what I want to do at the end of the season, or who I want to play for. First off, I need to make sure that Connacht do well," he said.
Aki's barnstorming performances were key to Connacht's historic success last season and other than sitting out a trip to Treviso, he featured in each of the other 23 games on their march to Pro12 glory, scoring six tries in the process.
-
@Pot-Hale Wow, that's interesting. After all the money Ireland have invested = wonder if a return home is on the cards?
-
@Crash said in NH club rugby:
@Pot-Hale Wow, that's interesting. After all the money Ireland have invested = wonder if a return home is on the cards?
Nah, I think he is genuinely just keeping his mind free of any of those thoughts and will cross the bridge when he comes to it. He doesn't have to make a decision right now so why waste energy on the question.
Family situations especially can change so he's just doing the sensible thing by staying well away from commenting.Saying that, I'd love to see him back in NZ even if he would be more likely to pop up at the Blues than the Chiefs.
-
@Crash said in NH club rugby:
@Pot-Hale Wow, that's interesting. After all the money Ireland have invested = wonder if a return home is on the cards?
It's unsurprising to me. Aki has said all along that he has options for 2-3 countries so this matches with what he's said previously. It also points to the reality of what project player means. SFA in terms of commitment from either side. Te'o decided to go to UK. If Aki helps in keeping Connacht on track for success in PRO12 and qualifying for Euro comps and helping to develop other Irish players then it's good value. As I've said before, I hope he departs and/or declares for Samoa - or possibly NZ but unlikely in the timeframe- which would be the best outcome.
