SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues
-
-
@gt12 yea dangerous precedent...im all for trying to knock the milking of penalties on the head but not if matchday doctors are gonna take players off and keep them off! Telea was even pointing to his midriff in one shot indicating he was winded.
-
@nepia said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
But, since you appear to want an extra long run then dust off your videotapes from 2018, he was superb all of that season and Evans (who I'm a big fan of as a Magpies boy) made the ABs instead of him despite not playing as well.
Not disagreeing with your post, but that was the year he was training with the ABs during the June internationals and then wasn't in the top 55 players in the country when they took an army to Japan.
We on the fern know that he was out drinking in Dunedin after the June test and apparently got caught coming in late and given a bollocking by Hansen.
And then Akira didn't appear again with the ABs despite, as you say, playing well.
If Hansen didn't blackball him, then I'm a Dutchman.
-
@chris-b said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@nepia said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
But, since you appear to want an extra long run then dust off your videotapes from 2018, he was superb all of that season and Evans (who I'm a big fan of as a Magpies boy) made the ABs instead of him despite not playing as well.
Not disagreeing with your post, but that was the year he was training with the ABs during the June internationals and then wasn't in the top 55 players in the country when they took an army to Japan.
We on the fern know that he was out drinking in Dunedin after the June test and apparently got caught coming in late and given a bollocking by Hansen.
And then Akira didn't appear again with the ABs despite, as you say, playing well.
If Hansen didn't blackball him, then I'm a Dutchman.
Cover blown Mr. Bakker.
-
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
The other bit that I don't think has been mentioned:
The Blues obviously thought that it was HIA related otherwise they wouldn't have sent Gibson back on after he was subbed. They must know those rules, but were told that they couldn't have him on the park so down to 14. Happened to Crusaders a while back too against the Reds I think. Mo and Hunt. They finished with 14 but might have used all of their subs by then.
Have I got that wrong in this case? Or did the officials? If it was HI replacement that was legit to put Gibson on. Is the below out of date?
Law 3.33 TACTICAL REPLACEMENTS JOINING THE MATCH
Tactically replaced players may return to play only when replacing:
a. An injured front-row player.
b. A player with a blood injury.
c. A player undertaking an HIA.
d. A player who has just been injured as a result of foul play (as verified by the match officials).
e. The nominated player described in Law 3.19 or 3.20. [This refers to front row players, which is not applicable in the incident under discussion.]The officials were talking about "e" or Law 3.19 or 3.20 when they sent Gibson off the field saying that he wasn't front row. So they obviously didn't think it as HI that they sent Gibson off, or they got it wrong under "c".
Could argue that they got it wrong under "d" as well they penalised for the foul play that caused the injury - even if it wasn't a card - it was what caused the injury.
In that Reds v Crusaders game, Hunt did leave the field for a HIA; they should have allowed RM on the field. The refs made a mistake by not allowing RM on the field and apologised after the game.
In the case of Gibson, he was about to come on to replace Dalton Papali'i, who had a knee injury. So obviously, law 3.33 didn't apply, hence Gibson couldn't come on.
-
Guessing the exact chain of events here but this is how it may have gone.
Blue 12 winded. Takes a while to get up
Play restarts
Match doctor decides he must have had a HI serious enough that he couldn't get up within short time and pulls him from field
When Blues are informed it was for HI they put replacement on (as they are entitled to)
Blues ask for HIA as player was only winded
HIA is refused by match doctor. -
@crucial I seem to recall a few instances over the years of people who've looked to have been knocked out later returning to the field - presumably having passed their HIAs - and speculation that they shouldn't be out there.
And people reported by Smithy etc "He's passed his HIA, but they're keeping him off as a precaution". Which I've always assumed was a team decision, but maybe it's the match doctor?
Presumably the protocols are a bit less black and white than we assume?
Edit: And reading above you've said exactly that!
-
@chris-b @Chris-de-B ?
-
@chris-b said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crucial I seem to recall a few instances over the years of people who've looked to have been knocked out later returning to the field - presumably having passed their HIAs - and speculation that they shouldn't be out there.
And people reported by Smithy etc "He's passed his HIA, but they're keeping him off as a precaution". Which I've always assumed was a team decision, but maybe it's the match doctor?
Presumably the protocols are a bit less black and white than we assume?
Edit: And reading above you've said exactly that!
Smithy had it wrong. He never had an HIA.
-
@crucial said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@chris-b said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crucial I seem to recall a few instances over the years of people who've looked to have been knocked out later returning to the field - presumably having passed their HIAs - and speculation that they shouldn't be out there.
And people reported by Smithy etc "He's passed his HIA, but they're keeping him off as a precaution". Which I've always assumed was a team decision, but maybe it's the match doctor?
Presumably the protocols are a bit less black and white than we assume?
Edit: And reading above you've said exactly that!
Smithy had it wrong. He never had an HIA.
I wasn't meaning this specific incident - just more generally that it happens and wondering who makes that precautionary choice?
-
@crucial they got it wrong the week prior too then it seems, as they said Tom Robinson was off due to a cut, not failing his HIA which it appears was what happened.
-
@taniwharugby said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crucial they got it wrong the week prior too then it seems, as they said Tom Robinson was off due to a cut, not failing his HIA which it appears was what happened.
It must be hard to watch the game, eat
a pietwo pies and get the off-field stuff all at the same time. -
@machpants what is worrying to me is that Reece will use the soccer theatrics all the time now..
-
@taniwharugby Robinson did have blood streaming down his face so you can understand when it was reported that he went off initially as a blood bin. I can only assume an HIA was then performed so the situation changed.
The match doctor makes their decision by looking at TV screens, but this should be in conjunction with the ref and team doctor, if the latter two haven't requested an HIA test.
-
@bovidae they said he wouldnt be coming back due to the cut, which would have to be a significant cut nowadays to prevent returning to the field.
Each team has thier own Dr on the field dont they, why didnt he press the issue?
Is Dr. Kara still the Blues Dr?
-
The match doctor is meant to be independent of the teams, who each have their own doctor sideline. You would think (hope) they talk to each other. Clearly not the case in Chch when one party refuses to listen, and obviously the match doctor has the final say. I'm happy MacDonald said something. It might lead to some certainty over the roles and processes that should be followed.
-
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
The other bit that I don't think has been mentioned:
The Blues obviously thought that it was HIA related otherwise they wouldn't have sent Gibson back on after he was subbed. They must know those rules, but were told that they couldn't have him on the park so down to 14. Happened to Crusaders a while back too against the Reds I think. Mo and Hunt. They finished with 14 but might have used all of their subs by then.
Have I got that wrong in this case? Or did the officials? If it was HI replacement that was legit to put Gibson on. Is the below out of date?
Law 3.33 TACTICAL REPLACEMENTS JOINING THE MATCH
Tactically replaced players may return to play only when replacing:
a. An injured front-row player.
b. A player with a blood injury.
c. A player undertaking an HIA.
d. A player who has just been injured as a result of foul play (as verified by the match officials).
e. The nominated player described in Law 3.19 or 3.20. [This refers to front row players, which is not applicable in the incident under discussion.]The officials were talking about "e" or Law 3.19 or 3.20 when they sent Gibson off the field saying that he wasn't front row. So they obviously didn't think it as HI that they sent Gibson off, or they got it wrong under "c".
Could argue that they got it wrong under "d" as well they penalised for the foul play that caused the injury - even if it wasn't a card - it was what caused the injury.
I'm confused, and obviously not for the first time. Didn't Gibson come back on to replace Papalii who had a buggered knee? Or am I missing your point completely?
-
@crazy-horse Yes, Gibson did. I made the same comment above. He definitely didn't come on for Tele'a.
-
@Crazy-Horse @stargazer said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse Yes, Gibson did. I made the same comment above. He definitely didn't come on for Tele'a.
I'm confused as well.
Gibson wasn't replacing Tele'a. He was coming on for a player because Blues had used all 8 replacements (I think) due to HI / foul play for one player in order to keep 15 on the field. Then he was kicked off. Why?
