Super Rugby News
-
@taniwharugby I don't see the head making contact first, I see clearly a shoulder making contact with the head. But for the sake of the argument, for the offending it doesn't make much of a difference. It was a dangerous tackle, without arms, and he made contact with the head. Law 9.13 (A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders) has a mid-range entry point of 6 weeks. It doesn't distinguish between a player being hit in the head with a shoulder or a head clash, considering it was always dangerous. His intent was clear, too. There was nothing accidental about it.
And if you didn't watch that Reds v Sunwolves game, you may want to have a look at this clip. That was a clear head clash, but whether it will make a difference for the outcome of the citing?
-
@stargazer head contact was accidental, the shoulder charge not.
I think with some of the other punishment inconsistenacies, 6 weeks is harsh, given it includes a '2 week discount''
-
@taniwharugby I have read all decisions this year and they haven't been inconsistent at all. Referees have been, but not the Foul Play Review Committee.
-
@taniwharugby he also got 2 weeks because he is a repeat offender. So it's almost 4 weeks + 2 weeks.
-
6 weeks? For that? 6 weeks is an enormous ban, especially when compared with other sports.
Add that to the softest red card in history on the weekend, and it's clear that World Rugby wants us playing touch.
-
@mariner4life Have you already seen the decision of the Foul Play Review Committee regarding that red card that was given to Ed Quirk? (I haven't)
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
@mariner4life Have you already seen the decision of the Foul Play Review Committee regarding that red card that was given to Ed Quirk? (I haven't)
Number of Judicial Findings read by M4L in his life = 0
-
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby News:
@stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
@mariner4life Have you already seen the decision of the Foul Play Review Committee regarding that red card that was given to Ed Quirk? (I haven't)
Number of Judicial Findings read by M4L in his life = 0
There's love for the game and then there's love for the game...
-
@toddy said in Super Rugby News:
I reckon good job. It was a filthy act and he fully deserves it.
Same as Ofa T's in the test, and we all agreed he should have got off.
-
@mariner4life so the chief player was set low for the tackle like Ofa T was? Yeah ok.
-
@toddy said in Super Rugby News:
@mariner4life so the chief player was set low for the tackle like Ofa T was? Yeah ok.
low enough
-
@mariner4life obviously not. He's banned for 6 weeks.
-
@tim said in Super Rugby News:
TAB odds for Hurricanes/Chiefs quarterfinal:
Hurricanes
1.45
Chiefs
2.60Very generous odds for the Chiefs.
Yeah - the Canes have been very scratchy for the past couple of months.
Snuck home against the Reds 38-34, followed by losses to the Crusaders and Highlanders, the June break, a loss to the Brumbies, beating the Blues and a loss to the Chiefs.
Admittedly their losses are all away from home, but confidence is going to be low.
-
@toddy said in Super Rugby News:
@mariner4life obviously not. He's banned for 6 weeks.
yes, i saw that. And already replied i thought it was over the top.
2 weeks would have been right
-
@kiwimurph yea well 2 weeks on for being a dick before and 2 off for being sorry, probably again...makes sense
@Stargazer happy for you. The punishments and decisions do appear inconsistent to fans like me who can't be arsed reading the judicial reports, and I'd say I am in the >90% of other fans who don't read judicial reports unless they get publicised when the nh scribes want everyone to know we get away with shit.
-
@chris-b said in Super Rugby News:
@tim said in Super Rugby News:
TAB odds for Hurricanes/Chiefs quarterfinal:
Hurricanes
1.45
Chiefs
2.60Very generous odds for the Chiefs.
Yeah - the Canes have been very scratchy for the past couple of months.
Snuck home against the Reds 38-34, followed by losses to the Crusaders and Highlanders, the June break, a loss to the Brumbies, beating the Blues and a loss to the Chiefs.
Admittedly their losses are all away from home, but confidence is going to be low.
Chiefs definitely worth putting money, especially as an insurance bet for any Canes fans.
Canes forwards have been absolute shit since the Crusaders dominated them in the return game. Chiefs have the 2nd best drilled pack in NZ and the backs to take advantage of it.
-
@taniwharugby All the decisions of the Foul Play Review Committee are published on SANZAAR's website (after a few days, presumably because there's an appeal period): https://sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/documents/judiciary/
The fact that fans don't read decisions doesn't make the decisions inconsistent. If they appear inconsistent, who's fault is that? Certainly not SANZAAR's but everyone just loves to blame them or their judicial officers/committees. I think a lot of fans, and media, just don't realise that they may not understand what they're reading (or the way judicial procedures work). And the media, well, they're often lazy and manipulate "facts" to get more clicks. But most readers know that, don't they? Certainly on the Fern, everyone knows how shit some journos are.
That's why I never post the Stuff, NZH or other media articles about the judicial decisions, because often they do not contain (all) the relevant considerations of the judicial committees. I only post the texts that seem to be quoted literally from the decisions (or press releases that we don't get to see). That makes Planetrugby, for example, a good site, because they usually publish the text, instead of trying to give their own spin on it. But there's nothing I can do, of course, to make people understand what they're reading, except by replying to comments that IMO are incorrect ... (I have a legal background (a.o.), btw).
