Blues v Crusaders
-
Seriously, what do people have against Fakatava's hair cut?
I love how he doesn't give a sh*t about how people think about his hairdo, and does whatever he likes. Just let him be him; he's a character and I love it! He'll get enough of it at some point, and will get his haircut whenever he wants. It's not different from Jack Goodhue's mullet or Cory Jane's dreadlocks, except that other players are less likely to copy it. -
@nepia said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Blues v Crusaders:
@mariner4life said in Blues v Crusaders:
If i was in charge the chances of one really fucked up selection made purely for the talkback/social media melts would be pretty high
I'd use code when discussing the selections. E.g. "he's a strong lad" means he carries the luggage and won't get on the field.
we all know Aaron only gets picked because he gives out free haircuts
Hopefully he picks Folau and forces Aaron to give him a haircut.
honestly, I would have given to a 'gofundme' to get rid of Aaron's topknot. Just not my bag.
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
Seriously, what do people have against Fakatava's hair cut?
I love how he doesn't give a sh*t about how people think about his hairdo, and does whatever he likes. Just let him be him; he's a character and I love it! He'll get enough of it at some point, and will get his haircut whenever he wants. It's not different from Jack Goodhue's mullet or Cory Jane's dreadlocks, except that other players are less likely to copy it.With you completely star, let him be him, we want individuals playing the game, it's what make them what they are.
-
@chris-b said in Blues v Crusaders:
@mariner4life A degree of truth to that, but it's easy for you and I to say.
There's probably quite a few ferners I wouldn't want to see in charge of the job - possibly including me!
Yep mate it easy to post on the net where all our words of wisdom are forgotten in a week and then we jusr say something completely different to appear knowledgeable. Like fozzie (or any coach) or not , I will bet he (and others) havemore knowledge of game and how it played in there little fingers compared to those that just watch the game and not making the decisions on how the team is meant to be playing etc.
-
@yeetyaah interesting.. Ofa red all day not so sure about the other one!
-
@williethewaiter The problem with Eklund's action is that it was a tip tackle to the extreme (almost a complete flip) which could have had very serious consequences if Reece had landed differently (something Eklund didn't really have control over). Not sure, but I also think Reece didn't have the ball, so it was a tackle off the ball as well?
I doubt he'll get suspended for it, however, because you'd have to think that the fact that - despite his theatrics - Reece didn't land on his head/neck area or back, didn't get injured and it all happened quite close to the ground, there are enough reasons to acquit him. If not, then a low-end entry point (6 weeks) could mean a 3 week-suspension if all mitigating factors lead to a 50% deduction.
Ofa is in much more trouble if first contact was indeed with the head. Ofa doesn't have a clean record, with his most recent incident being a red card during the 2020 Tri-Nations, also for a shoulder hit against the head. If the citing is upheld, he'll never get 50% reduction and could even get a week added to his suspension, so could end up with a ban of somewhere between 4 and 6 weeks.
-
@stargazer re: Ofa, learn a lesson son.
just on your first one, it's still weird to me that something could be a "he very well might get off, otherwise it's 3 weeks". It's such a strange way to grade.
-
@mariner4life said in Blues v Crusaders:
just on your first one, it's still weird to me that something could be a "he very well might get off, otherwise it's 3 weeks". It's such a strange way to grade.
No, it's not strange at all if you know how these procedures work.
The first point is about meeting the elements of the offence (was it a dangerous tackle). If the elements of the offence aren't met and it wasn't a dangerous tackle, he'll be acquitted.If it was a dangerous tackle (not acquitted), then you come to the part of the punishment, which is determined in part by the seriousness of the offending, consequences and intent, which affect the entry point: low, mid-range or high. When they have established the entry point, they can have a look at mitigating and aggravating factors. This is a pretty standard procedure.
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
@mariner4life said in Blues v Crusaders:
just on your first one, it's still weird to me that something could be a "he very well might get off, otherwise it's 3 weeks". It's such a strange way to grade.
No, it's not strange at all if you know how these procedures work.
The first point is about meeting the elements of the offence (was it a dangerous tackle). If the elements of the offence aren't met and it wasn't a dangerous tackle, he'll be acquitted.If it was a dangerous tackle (not acquitted), then you come to the part of the punishment, which is determined in part by the seriousness of the offending, consequences and intent, which affect the entry point: low, mid-range or high. When they have established the entry point, they can have a look at mitigating and aggravating factors. This is a pretty standard procedure.
thanks for the condescension, i understand the process
however i spend a lot of time watching NRL and AFL, where the discussion at that level is either get off, fine, or a week. To go from off to 3 weeks seems weird, to me.
-
@mariner4life Sorry, if it came across as condescending. It wasn't meant that way. A lot of people do not understand the process. My bad that I wanted to explain it unnecessarily.
Edited to add that I do not think it's weird at all as it has to do with the seriousness of the offence, but I'll refrain from explaining that.
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
@mariner4life Sorry, if it came across as condescending. It wasn't meant that way. A lot of people do not understand the process. My bad that I wanted to explain it unnecessarily.
yeah no worries.
To be honest i don't think rugby gets it any more "wrong" than those other sports, i think there are flaws in every system. The AFL one should be black and white but it is not. And waaaay to reliant on outcome. The NRL one is just all over the shop.
At least with rugby you can see a reasoning, even if i disagree with it a huge amount of the time.
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
seriousness of the offence
this is my point, and i'll repeat, purely my opinion
a tackle gone wrong shouldn't start at 3 weeks just because of what it was. If it was clumsy and no one got hurt, take a week. If it was malicious and someone got hurt, take 6 weeks.
And stop halving the fucking suspension because he said sorry, even when it's his 4th suspension for the same thing!
-
-
@akan004 said in Blues v Crusaders:
Have to wonder if people even bother to watch the game.
Contentious opinion: People see some flashy stuff towards the end of the game when players are tired and remember that. Yet hard work shifting bodies, ruck leaning etc. goes relatively unnoticed. I like to call it the Ardie effect.
