Blues v Crusaders
-
@nepia That's not entirely correct; the action does matter, too. What should also be factored in - my wording was incorrect, it wasn't a tackle in the air (he challenged for the ball in the air) - is that Reece had his eyes on the ball the entire time and had no time to change direction or stop in time to avoid the collision. It wasn't reckless; he just mis-timed/mis-judged it. That's part of the action, not the outcome. So both action and outcome mattered.
For example: if Reece clearly had the intention of preventing Pat T from catching the ball, knowing he was too late or not high enough to catch the ball himself, he would likely have received a card for cynical play, despite Pat T not landing dangerously.
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
Reece had his eyes on the ball the entire time and had no time to change direction or stop in time to avoid the collision
Definitely. To act in such a reckless manner needs to be stamped out of rugby, or else we'll just get people using such a lame excuse to try and mitigate for all sorts of foul play. Players should definitely be aware there are other players on the field.
"I know I elbowed him in the head at the maul sir, but how could I be expected to know his head was right there if I was looking at the ball when I threw my elbow back at head height while he was trying to reach over the maul"
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
For example: if Reece clearly had the intention of preventing Pat T from catching the ball, knowing he was too late or not high enough to catch the ball himself, he would likely have received a card for cynical play, despite Pat T not landing dangerously.
he was late, and was never going to be high enough competing with lifters. On another day, that's a card. It was pretty stupid from Reece, only eclipsed by the stupidity of Eklund.
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp Yep, I hated Reece's theatrics, but if he'd landed differently, he could have been seriously injured. This kind of behaviour from Eklund has no place in rugby.
eh, there's a bit of pearl clutching these days with that sort of cleanout. Tana and Warburton have made this a hot button topic for 15 years. The tipping and dropping is what damages people, 20 years ago that would have been a 'nothing' event.
That said, and just to make it really clear, that's not the laws. The high tackle/tip tackle framework is crystal clear. Don't do it, and don't get close to doing it.
Honestly, the laws are very poorly written generally. A head to toe rewrite of the laws would be nice, but too hard and you'll never get folk to agree I fear
-
"He's a cheeky fella," Ioane said of Reece at Blues training on Tuesday. "It's awesome gamesmanship. It's good to know I'm not the only one doing it and that people actually notice as opposed to just mocking me. Full credit to them, winners reap the rewards, he scored so it's awesome for him. "I definitely wasn't happy about it, don't get me wrong. It's stuff like that that gets you going and adds to fire. Having Sevu get one up on me, or your mates in the other team get one up or you, is a pretty hollow feeling. You definitely park that deep and once we face them again or even the next game it will be more fuel to the fire. "I actually didn't see it during the game so he came round and asked if I saw it. It's good gamesmanship from them so I enjoy that sort of banter on the field." Try-scoring celebrations and Ioane go together like fish and chips. It's his way of showing his personality on the field and he intends to continue showing swag with celebrations. "It's spur of the moment," Ioane said. "I like to express myself through my game, that's why we train so hard all year round. When it comes to that 80-minute window that's the fun time of the week so I like to have a bit of fun with it. "It's some peoples' cup of tea and others not. I'll keep being me." -
@kiwimurph good quote from Rieko. He's looked fast this year. Learn to draw and pass a bit more and he'll go from 'good' to 'excellent'
-
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder. -
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
-
@chris I suspect this apparent inconsistency is the consequence of the immediate application of the new Head Contact Process. I don't think that new process has made it clearer for cases where there's no direct contact with the head (as is apparently the case here), but where a player's action is still dangerous. There now seems to be an even bigger disconnect between the law and its application. I would have expected him to have been found guilty of striking with the arm and been punished with a low entry point of 2 weeks.
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris I suspect this apparent inconsistency is the consequence of the immediate application of the new Head Contact Process. I don't think that new process has made it clearer for cases where there's no direct contact with the head (as is apparently the case here), but where a player's action is still dangerous. There now seems to be an even bigger disconnect between the law and its application. I would have expected him to have been found guilty of striking with the arm and been punished with a low entry point of 2 weeks.
Yep totally agree
-
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
-
"It's spur of the moment," Ioane said. "I like to express myself through my game, that's why we train so hard all year round. When it comes to that 80-minute window that's the fun time of the week so I like to have a bit of fun with it.So you train so hard because you want to express yourself, not to win?
I've been looking at rugby the wrong way, send me a beret and an easel toot de sweet. -
-
-
-
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
-
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
To my eyes, it appeared to be simultaneous contact to the shoulder and head, still fits the criteria for red under the current guidelines. Should've really been 2-3 week ban if they are aiming to be consistent.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
To my eyes, it appeared to be simultaneous contact to the shoulder and head, still fits the criteria for red under the current guidelines. Should've really been 2-3 week ban if they are aiming to be consistent.
Yep I agree totally
Friendly fire? Blues star responds to All Black teammate's 'cheeky' jibe
Judiciary
