Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth)
-
-
-
@chimoaus not sure there was alot of immediate pressure, and he consulted with his TMO.
@Chris-B problem there is, the ref would then need to determine if it was a grub act, I mean reading social media (I know, I know) plenty said what he did was a grub act, deliberate blah blah...
I think 20 mins is a good long period to be 1 man down, then punish the player, not the team and fans.
We are trying to keep people attracted to the game, people dont want to see 14 v 15 for 70 mins, and if you pay $100 to go see a game, for it to become farcical due to a controversial RC doesnt paint the game in a good way
-
@arhs said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@frank said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@stargazer said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
That Ferald article still seems to be the only news. Must have had some inside sauce overnight and everyone else is waiting on Perth to wake up.
I saw Andrew Mulligan tweet the outcome, early this morning, but he deleted the tweet, so I couldn't post it.
This is the stuff article.
A Sanzaar spokesman confirmed to Stuff a statement was due out from the judiciary around noon (NZT).
Awesome if true.
REALLY want to see the end of DMac at 15 for a while.
Completely unconcerned with justice.
(if it were DMac for the exact same offence I would support a ban for a few weeks)Unbelievable - but this is the fern....
DDS
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
There's some information here around the decision.
Aaron Lloyd's response to that tweet:
-
@kirwan said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@kiwimurph so basically it shouldn't have been a red card? Who'd be a ref these days.
Well it shouldn't have been...
-
-
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
We are trying to keep people attracted to the game, people dont want to see 14 v 15 for 70 mins, and if you pay $100 to go see a game, for it to become farcical due to a controversial RC doesnt paint the game in a good way
I was at the ABs France one where there was the (correct but stupidly later overturned) red card in the 12th minute. This lady in front was screaming in joy when it came out. Me and my mates were cursing it. Not cos it was wrong but that was the end of the competition. Even the ABs showed no interest in playing after that, it was a real waste of my 150 (whatever) bucks.
-
@chris-b said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@bones Same as with Jordie's one, I guess. Gives everyone something to talk about for a few days.
Colin Meads was apparently pretty startled when he got sent off.
So why have the distinction? Where's the line? How does a ref know jordie's isn't filth?
Ummm.... good for Colin!
-
@taniwharugby Yeah - and I'm totally on board with not ruining games.
But, I'm talking about pretty rare instances these days. A full on red card in a test match maybe once every two years.
-
@bones It's basically a three card system, where the third card is for "blatant filth" - the stuff you got sent off for 20+ years ago.
Punching someone in the face, running up and kicking someone on the ground away from the ball, biting, eye-gouging, Hopoate's.
I'm not going to write a rule book on it - the line will be determined in the same way as the current line between yellow and red.
-
@chris-b 20 minutes without a player is still a massive disincentive in my book. I doubt there will be many out there saying, hey I got away with [insert filth] and we only got 20 minutes.
Said filth will be dealt with by match review and judiciary. Reputation damage (unless you’re a league player) and all the unwanted media attention that makes coaches/selectors more uneasy these days.
-
@act-crusader said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@chris-b 20 minutes without a player is still a massive disincentive in my book. I doubt there will be many out there saying, hey I got away with [insert filth] and we only got 20 minutes.
Said filth will be dealt with by match review and judiciary. Reputation damage (unless you’re a league player) and all the unwanted media attention that makes coaches/selectors more uneasy these days.
@Chris-B does have a point though, although instances less likely, brain snaps will happen in emotive circumstances and you should be ready for it. Im not ok to leave blatant filth just in the hands of match reveiw judiciary, if you see someone doing a Mike Tyson, Hopate etc
-
@bayimports said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@act-crusader said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@chris-b 20 minutes without a player is still a massive disincentive in my book. I doubt there will be many out there saying, hey I got away with [insert filth] and we only got 20 minutes.
Said filth will be dealt with by match review and judiciary. Reputation damage (unless you’re a league player) and all the unwanted media attention that makes coaches/selectors more uneasy these days.
@Chris-B does have a point though, although instances less likely, brain snaps will happen in emotive circumstances and you should be ready for it. Im not ok to leave blatant filth just in the hands of match reveiw judiciary, if you see someone doing a Mike Tyson, Hopate etc
I don’t think it is though. We are already in the situation that the ref and TMO are going to make a call - penalty only, 10 minutes, 20 minutes. I just think down a man for 20 plus the consequences of the judiciary should weigh heavily on players minds.
Yes there are snaps and red mist moments and they should be 20 plus heavy suspensions.
-
Despite this ruling I also have some sympathy for Murphy, and I feel dirty saying that. In the video Owens says it was a RC, and I was reading that a group of NZ refs were divided on what they would have done (play on or RC). Unfortunately WR won't see the merit of the 20 min RC in situations like this.
-
@act-crusader said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@bayimports said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@act-crusader said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@chris-b 20 minutes without a player is still a massive disincentive in my book. I doubt there will be many out there saying, hey I got away with [insert filth] and we only got 20 minutes.
Said filth will be dealt with by match review and judiciary. Reputation damage (unless you’re a league player) and all the unwanted media attention that makes coaches/selectors more uneasy these days.
@Chris-B does have a point though, although instances less likely, brain snaps will happen in emotive circumstances and you should be ready for it. Im not ok to leave blatant filth just in the hands of match reveiw judiciary, if you see someone doing a Mike Tyson, Hopate etc
I don’t think it is though. We are already in the situation that the ref and TMO are going to make a call - penalty only, 10 minutes, 20 minutes. I just think down a man for 20 plus the consequences of the judiciary should weigh heavily on players minds.
Yes there are snaps and red mist moments and they should be 20 plus heavy suspensions.
Agree to disagree on this one then , I am all for heavy suspensions but for certain infringements I dont think a team should get a player back, 20 minutes is not long enough for me. I do see plenty of reds now that are clearly not intentional or are a tackle slipped up etc where the 20 minute rule works well, but for the intentional very bad stuff, youre also letting your team down and that should be reflected immediately. But thats my opinion.
-
@gt12 said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@kirwan said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@kiwimurph so basically it shouldn't have been a red card? Who'd be a ref these days.
After them saying that intent doesn't matter, now it does? Fun job.
its mad, so all those tackles in the air where the tackler has only watch the ball and not seen the guy jumping over the top of him...no problem, rules where the ref is having to judge what was going on in someone mind, ie intent...is just asking for trouble
-
@bovidae said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Despite this ruling I also have some sympathy for Murphy, and I feel dirty saying that. In the video Owens says it was a RC, and I was reading that a group of NZ refs were divided on what they would have done (play on or RC). Unfortunately WR won't see the merit of the 20 min RC in situations like this.
I'd have some sympathy if he'd acknowledged it was a clear accident without malice or recklessness. He's a shit XVs ref and this is a growing problem because WR sees 7s as a pathway for refs. They're different games and refereed accordingly.
-
Yep - I feel sorry for the referees, including Murphy in this instance. How does he instantly determine if the foot out is to assist balance in landing, or to prevent an oncoming player from legally tackling him once he hits the ground, or malicious intent for the approaching player? I think they should have used common-sense and issued yellow - but if the guys reviewing them want to see a hard-line rule interpretation for a huge viewing audience, what are they to do?
Who wants to become a referee or TMO?
