SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues
-
@dan54 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@nepia said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@dan54 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@cantab79 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Does any NZ player divide opinions as much as Akira Ioane? There is something about Akira Ioane, people either love him or hate him. People can watch the same game and see completely different performances. Fwiw I thought he was excellent with ball in hand.
The trouble with Akira is he is usually excellent with ball in hand, but too often not without the ball, when he not on he will make a tackle coming straight at him usually, but as soon as the attack goes 5 meters wide of him he switches off and goes into jog mode. I get impression he was a very good college player who ran over top of people frequently, and was no doubt a star of his team, and maybe got into bad habits with rest of his game. I have seen him play what I consider probly 4 real good games in all the times I have watched him.
It's hard to take you seriously with comments like that.
Ok enlighten me what are all the real good games he has played. He started last year not even getting on bench for Blues (remember the fat f*** sitting in the stand eating a pie?), he had a few good games, one good test, and really hasn't even held his starting spot in Blues this year. Maybe I was being harsh, but you can't say he has in any year played consistently good rugby, why I get so pissed with him, because of his undoubted potential.
I thought he had great impact for the ABs.
"remember the fat f***"
Doesn't sound like you are very impartial.
We have plenty of good 6s available for the ABs, not so many at 8 (come to think of it, is Savea really the best 8 in the country?)
I like the impact Akira has, but perhaps he isn't an 80 minutes player at int. level. In this era, that might not be a showstopper. -
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
If a player is winded, they sit up when they sit up, they get their wind back when they get their wind back.
If the ref thinks a player is milking it, that's a penalty offence and can be dealt with appropriately.
If a doctor is randomly taking guys of the park but not HIA-ing them, that's a problem.
So you don't think Talea was playing up the injury to get the tackle looked at? None of us will know, but one would have to be naive to say it doesn't happen.
Bones has dealt with this, but my point is that it is none of the business of the doctor to worry about whether the player is playing up an injury, and even if so I don't see why they would then take a player out of the game - that's effectively a red card for staying down too long after being hit by a tackle off the ball?
Therefore, to your point about whether he was playing it up or not, who gives a fuck? That's the ref's job. He could have penalized him as he saw fit and didn't.
That brings us to the doctor, who as I understand it, has the responsibility to carry out assessments of a player and then can stand them down if they fail that assessment. In this case, it seems that no assessment was made and no rationale for the automatic stand-down given, which seems a bit wrong.
-
@gt12 not sure I said or meant to imply the doctor was worrying about Talea playing up an injury. I have no idea why the doctor took him out of the game or if they have the authority. Do you? Hopefully we find out.
-
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
If a player is winded, they sit up when they sit up, they get their wind back when they get their wind back.
If the ref thinks a player is milking it, that's a penalty offence and can be dealt with appropriately.
If a doctor is randomly taking guys of the park but not HIA-ing them, that's a problem.
So you don't think Talea was playing up the injury to get the tackle looked at? None of us will know, but one would have to be naive to say it doesn't happen.
Therefore, to your point about whether he was playing it up or not, who gives a fuck? That's the ref's job. He could have penalized him as he saw fit and didn't.
I do and I would say a few people give a fuck about players 'playing it up' judging by some of the reactions to Reece's antics. I'd hate it to become more prevalent. It gets painful enough now.
It's a big call from the Doctor. Surely by stepping in the doctor believed the Blues should not have let Talea play on. Someone didn't do their job properly.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 not sure I said or meant to imply the doctor was worrying about Talea playing up an injury. I have no idea why the doctor took him out of the game or if they have the authority. Do you? Hopefully we find out.
I suspect that the Dr can do that under the head injury protocols. Instead of ordering an HIA if the Dr thinks there was a concussion they can remove the player from the game. Ref can do that too.
My guess is that the Dr assumed that the Blues were trying to cover up a concussion by saying he was winded. -
Re-read the Stuff story and reckon it comes down to short man's syndrome:
“There was plenty of comms from us, just a stubbiness to listen, just an absolute refusal to listen.
-
@crucial said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Instead of ordering an HIA if the Dr thinks there was a concussion they can remove the player from the game.
So it is a head injury "assumption" not "assessment". I had that wrong.
Sounds like this Dr has redefined the protocols.Seeing as some are doing conspiracy theories about milking a card - I wonder if the Dr is a Crusaders fan?
-
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crucial said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Instead of ordering an HIA if the Dr thinks there was a concussion they can remove the player from the game.
So it is a head injury "assumption" not "assessment". I had that wrong.
Sounds like this Dr has redefined the protocols.Seeing as some are doing conspiracy theories about milking a card - I wonder if the Dr is a Crusaders fan?
I think it is part of the protocol. Eg if the doc sees a player KO’d then they can say “no more”. HIA is for when there is a question over whether the player should continue.
This guy’s fuckup was that he was stubby 😂 -
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.
-
@crucial said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think it is part of the protocol. Eg if the doc sees a player KO’d then they can say “no more”.
Sure, then why was a Blues player sent off?
I must have had this wrong previously.
So a player can be replaced only while undergoing HIA.
A player that has failed an HIA, not necessarily in this case, the replacement must leave the field. If all subs are used you are down to 14.Well if you ever wanted to create a law that encouraged teams and players to hide a possible HI that should do it. Probably only happen late in the game when tactical subs are depleted, but still.
-
@bones said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@bones said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
If a player is winded, they sit up when they sit up, they get their wind back when they get their wind back.
If the ref thinks a player is milking it, that's a penalty offence and can be dealt with appropriately.
If a doctor is randomly taking guys of the park but not HIA-ing them, that's a problem.
So you don't think Talea was playing up the injury to get the tackle looked at? None of us will know, but one would have to be naive to say it doesn't happen.
It's certainly possible, but I don't see how that then allows the doc to say he should be removed from play for HIA, without the A, when it's not a head issue. Players stay down for prolonged times often, plenty aren't because of a head knock.
Hopefully if docs keep doing it from now on we may see less soccer style theatrics. Like when Reece looked like he was shot a while ago. The doc could say 'No mate, you looked like you just took a bullet. Off you come".
That might be nice, except I think you're ignoring the obvious here - the doc is there for head injury, if he's ordering a player off the field, I can't see any excuse not to assess him. If he's not assessing him then it's not an HIA and he shouldn't pull the player.
Or am I wrong, can the doc pull a player off for any reason?
Teehee
Someone behaving like Reece obviously had a head injury to be such a soccer twat, needs to come off, doc.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
If a player is winded, they sit up when they sit up, they get their wind back when they get their wind back.
If the ref thinks a player is milking it, that's a penalty offence and can be dealt with appropriately.
If a doctor is randomly taking guys of the park but not HIA-ing them, that's a problem.
So you don't think Talea was playing up the injury to get the tackle looked at? None of us will know, but one would have to be naive to say it doesn't happen.
Well Tele’a certainly isn't Reece...
-
-
@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!
