All Blacks v France Test #2
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Fall is still on the ground (he got off the ground didnt he, meaning he leapt after this contact - I know we are talking split second stuff here) when BB has been in the air for a good second or so, BB has his front knee up as you are taught, looking at that, there is no way Fall wasn't well aware of BB in his peripheral, otherwise the French need to employ Clive Woodwards spatial aareness coach.
Judiciary have made an arse of Gardner and THIER directives...
Although, has Fall been issued with a warning, maybe they issued one without publicizing it this week?
While I don't agree with the RC (due to the way it can ruin a game) the judiciary have got this completely wrong, not only with their ruling, but also the message this sends (although I don't expect we will see the levels of outrage (as in none) we would have if this was the opposite way around - I expect we'd hear more calls for assault charges, lifetime bans, probably expulsion from the next RWC due to our thuggish ways)
Edited:
From the WR Handbook:
17.9.3 Citing Commissioners shall be entitled to issue a Citing Commissioner Warning to a Player who has in his opinion committed an act(s) of Foul Play which falls just short of warranting that the Player concerned be Ordered Off in circumstances where the act of Foul Play was not subject to a Temporary Suspension or Ordering Off.Fall was ordered off and cited, so basically the case was out of the CC's hands.
-
@siam said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Ok World Rugby, let's dial this back a bit.
Punishments are a tool or a way to modify behaviour from undesirable and damaging to something more sustainable and in this case less dangerous.
Sometimes the punishment needs extra reinforcing to facilitate understanding and clarify the undesirable behaviour . e.g. a red card at the time and usually a suspension or fine later.
The red cards tell all players and spectators what behaviour is unwanted.
So what the fuck sort of behaviour are you fluffybunnies trying to modify
and
What behaviour outcomes are you trying to instill?Fucken imbeciles
The IRB are a bunch of weak assholes. If roles were reversed and one of our guys had chopped down a French player I'm sure the outrage and calls for a lifetime ban along with clapping the player in irons would have been deafening from north of the equator. As it is Gardner is like the teacher who sent the naughty boy to the principal's office only for him to be let off Scott free. Great message of consistency to the refs
-
I wonder if in their opinion, it even met YC threshold, based on their wording, you'd have to think not?
Did they just think it should be play on even?
-
@stargazer well aren't they rescinding the red card? So by not issuing a warning, they're saying it doesn't even hit yellow card threshold. Fucking morons.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
I wonder if in their opinion, it even met YC threshold, based on their wording, you'd have to think not?
Did they just think it should be play on even?
Looks like another Frenchman cut a deal
-
just more evidence the refs favour the AB's, dishing out fake red cards to assist us!
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
perhaps my difference of opinion is based on my thinking that i'd back myself to catch a ball no matter if i was chasing it or running towards it I don't really see any difference.
-
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
perhaps my difference of opinion is based on my thinking that i'd back myself to catch a ball no matter if i was chasing it or running towards it I don't really see any difference.
That photo gives no sense of space and time. BB was there first, well before in my opinion. An international test player knows this and adjusts. If he wants to
-
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
perhaps my difference of opinion is based on my thinking that i'd back myself to catch a ball no matter if i was chasing it or running towards it I don't really see any difference.
If you're chasing a kick looking at the ball, never looking at where you're going, how do you take into account other players?
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
perhaps my difference of opinion is based on my thinking that i'd back myself to catch a ball no matter if i was chasing it or running towards it I don't really see any difference.
If you're chasing a kick looking at the ball, never looking at where you're going, how do you take into account other players?
that's the point - no one does. Any footage of Barrett looking at what the other players are doing? In reality he's running into the 'congested' zone coming forward so he needs to be the one looking.. or does there need to be a rule only the person coming forward can jump in the air?
what's the first thing drilled into your head (in any ball sport) "keep your eye on the ball"
so only way to fix it is to ban jumping. which is stupid. -
What is this talk of BB running towards the ball? . He was already under it. He was walking and then positioning himself. Apparently it's then OK to take him out mid-air because "eyes on the ball".
-
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
that's the point - no one does. Any footage of Barrett looking at what the other players are doing? In reality he's running into the 'congested' zone coming forward so he needs to be the one looking.. or does there need to be a rule only the person coming forward can jump in the air?
What congested zone? The ball is kicked into space. Barrett is first there. He can run forward into space with small head movements checking where he's going and the flight of the ball.
You need to be first to dominate the opponent's response. Fall is second and as such he needs to make good decisions. He didn't.
I also reiterate you need to look where you're running. At no point does Fall do that, he's looking up into the air to his right while racing forward. It's basically negligent.
-
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
perhaps my difference of opinion is based on my thinking that i'd back myself to catch a ball no matter if i was chasing it or running towards it I don't really see any difference.
If you're chasing a kick looking at the ball, never looking at where you're going, how do you take into account other players?
that's the point - no one does. Any footage of Barrett looking at what the other players are doing? In reality he's running into the 'congested' zone coming forward so he needs to be the one looking.. or does there need to be a rule only the person coming forward can jump in the air?
what's the first thing drilled into your head (in any ball sport) "keep your eye on the ball"
so only way to fix it is to ban jumping. which is stupid.There's a couple of debates rolled into one here:
-
the law as it currently stands, which the judiciary has inexplicably thrown out the window thus throwing the ref under the bus and causing massive confusion. TBH it brings the game into disrepute.
-
whether the law as it currently stands is the best way of approaching this.
The first one is straight forward, it's an outrageous decision that screams sheer incompetence.
The second one.... there's no easy answer, especially if the focus is meant to be on player safety.
-
-
Eyes on the ball is such bullshit anyway! Is there only a very select amount of people in the world with peripheral vision and the rest have severe tunnel vision? I feel blessed I've been able to play rugby and scan, seeing things out of the corner of my eye like guys I might pass along the ground to or people I may have to pretend to tackle. All without looking directly at them (might make eye contact). I feel sorry for all these highly paid professional rugby players that have such severely poor vision they must have to stop and stand still to catch a pass because if they don't look directly at the ball they won't see it...what a quandary that then they can't see defenders about to smoke them.
-
@no-quarter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@MiketheSnow Fall could have avoided the collision by checking his run. The current laws have actually outlawed "only having eyes on the ball". They've mandated that players must be more aware when chasing high balls. And that's what he was doing - chasing, whereas Beauden was fielding the kick. The duty of care is on the chaser.
They did that to stop players clattering into their opposition while staring at the sky and then claiming innocence.
I don't for a second believe Fall intentionally tried to injure Beauden. But as it stands Beauden landed on his head and was concussed.
And you can bet your ass next time Fall is chasing a high ball like that he will check his run and avoid the collision, which is exactly the behaviour WR is trying to encourage with this.
The judiciary must have stopped reading after my post, not your reply 😉😁
-
@stargazer that's the thing, his red card was 'cancelled' therefore it is gone, so does he now just get an off field yellow...nope, a warning...nope, just the judiciary throwing Gardner under the bus.
I'm fine if they want to rule all future red cards that way, but they need to just look back to this moment as the day they decided that as long as you are looking at the ball (assuming Fall doesn't have peripheral vision and could see those around him) it doesn't matter if you clatter into a player.
This weekend, IF an AB does the same thing, a ref will then be shit scared of issuing a red card, and then we will be back to the ABs getting away with murder.
-
@bones said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@stargazer well aren't they rescinding the red card? So by not issuing a warning, they're saying it doesn't even hit yellow card threshold. Fucking morons.
Sorry, I edited my previous post to say that only the Citing Commissioner seems to be able to issue warnings.
What I'm wondering, is why they didn't use this provision:17.19.7 In cases involving offending that has been classified pursuant to Regulation 17.19.2 as lower end offending, where: (a) ... (b) where the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers that the sanction would be wholly disproportionate to the level and type of offending involved; the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer may apply sanctions less than 50% of the lower end entry sanctions specified in Appendix 1 including in appropriate cases no sanction. In exceptional cases where the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers it is warranted it/he may (i) expunge the Ordering Off (Red Card) from the Player's disciplinary record, or ... (etc)They could have let the red card stand, but impose a low or no sanction (although I still don't agree with the 'eyes on the ball' reasoning).
