Red Cards
-
@Crucial It's the same professional that doesn't understand what a forward pass is. That clown is clearly too incompetent to be a ref at this level.
My fear is a quarter final with him and Damon Murphy as two parts of the three ringed circus.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:
Finau’s RC decided to be incorrect
10:40 in
What really annoys me about this is that both the ref and TMO decided he was “always high” which is clear nonsense. He is bent at the waist almost parallel to the ground. Also no consideration that the ball carrier clearly lowers his head height and “ducks”
Ref then treats the captain like a naughty kid with a little come here lecture.
Hope there was an apology.Clear camera work, clear mitigation, bad decision making with lots of time to get it right.
These are the ones you fear in a big match.
Poor chap
Even with the ‘outrageous’ jink from the ball carrier he only had a 1.5m hit zone and yet still managed to hit him head first.He took the risk of a body and all tackle, it failed, YC.
I just don’t understand the debate.
this is a fucking hilarious post
With all due respect, you don't understand because you are old, and never even sniffed pro rugby. And that's totally fine. Basically none of us have (unless someone is keeping it super quiet). But lets not pretend we can personally relate.
And, even beyond that, you say yellow and yet he got a red. That's a debate no?
What the guys on the side of "the officials are right, it's the players who are wrong" are seemingly indicating is, they want rugby to reshape itself away from the way that even i was taught, and I started playing seniors like 2 and a half decades ago. And that is, tackle front on, win the gain line. Linespeed is everything. Get up fast, take away all space, win the collision. That's modern rugby defence 101.
As far as i can see, if you take this instance, and many others that have resulted in "questionable" reds, is that the target of the tackler is legal, and even with a margin. The ball carrier drops very late, and suddenly, way past the time to pull out, that original target line is no longer legal. The only way now, to ensure your target will remain legal until after the tackle is made, is to tackle from the side. Then, if they drop their body height, you can adjust, and if you don't, it doesn't matter, the head is past you.And you know what? That can absolutely happen. But you have to fundamentally change the game to do that. And not just coaching, but interpretations around a number of areas. And the game is going to look very very different as coaches are quick to exploit it to advantage.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:
Finau’s RC decided to be incorrect
10:40 in
What really annoys me about this is that both the ref and TMO decided he was “always high” which is clear nonsense. He is bent at the waist almost parallel to the ground. Also no consideration that the ball carrier clearly lowers his head height and “ducks”
Ref then treats the captain like a naughty kid with a little come here lecture.
Hope there was an apology.Clear camera work, clear mitigation, bad decision making with lots of time to get it right.
These are the ones you fear in a big match.
Poor chap
Even with the ‘outrageous’ jink from the ball carrier he only had a 1.5m hit zone and yet still managed to hit him head first.He took the risk of a body and all tackle, it failed, YC.
I just don’t understand the debate.
I get that when you go for a chest tackle you run a risk of something going wrong and you should suck it up.
When you bend over and don’t drive up (and the BC drops) you should also expect the ref and TMO to get it right. -
@mariner4life said in Red Cards:
@MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:
Finau’s RC decided to be incorrect
10:40 in
What really annoys me about this is that both the ref and TMO decided he was “always high” which is clear nonsense. He is bent at the waist almost parallel to the ground. Also no consideration that the ball carrier clearly lowers his head height and “ducks”
Ref then treats the captain like a naughty kid with a little come here lecture.
Hope there was an apology.Clear camera work, clear mitigation, bad decision making with lots of time to get it right.
These are the ones you fear in a big match.
Poor chap
Even with the ‘outrageous’ jink from the ball carrier he only had a 1.5m hit zone and yet still managed to hit him head first.He took the risk of a body and all tackle, it failed, YC.
I just don’t understand the debate.
this is a fucking hilarious post
With all due respect, you don't understand because you are old, and never even sniffed pro rugby. And that's totally fine. Basically none of us have (unless someone is keeping it super quiet). But lets not pretend we can personally relate.
And, even beyond that, you say yellow and yet he got a red. That's a debate no?
What the guys on the side of "the officials are right, it's the players who are wrong" are seemingly indicating is, they want rugby to reshape itself away from the way that even i was taught, and I started playing seniors like 2 and a half decades ago. And that is, tackle front on, win the gain line. Linespeed is everything. Get up fast, take away all space, win the collision. That's modern rugby defence 101.
As far as i can see, if you take this instance, and many others that have resulted in "questionable" reds, is that the target of the tackler is legal, and even with a margin. The ball carrier drops very late, and suddenly, way past the time to pull out, that original target line is no longer legal. The only way now, to ensure your target will remain legal until after the tackle is made, is to tackle from the side. Then, if they drop their body height, you can adjust, and if you don't, it doesn't matter, the head is past you.And you know what? That can absolutely happen. But you have to fundamentally change the game to do that. And not just coaching, but interpretations around a number of areas. And the game is going to look very very different as coaches are quick to exploit it to advantage.
I’m in good company.
Many professional coaches haven’t sniffed pro rugby either.
With age comes wisdom
The coaches and teams which address this quickly will reap the rewards.
The young & dumb can keep getting carded.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:
@mariner4life said in Red Cards:
@MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:
Finau’s RC decided to be incorrect
10:40 in
What really annoys me about this is that both the ref and TMO decided he was “always high” which is clear nonsense. He is bent at the waist almost parallel to the ground. Also no consideration that the ball carrier clearly lowers his head height and “ducks”
Ref then treats the captain like a naughty kid with a little come here lecture.
Hope there was an apology.Clear camera work, clear mitigation, bad decision making with lots of time to get it right.
These are the ones you fear in a big match.
Poor chap
Even with the ‘outrageous’ jink from the ball carrier he only had a 1.5m hit zone and yet still managed to hit him head first.He took the risk of a body and all tackle, it failed, YC.
I just don’t understand the debate.
this is a fucking hilarious post
With all due respect, you don't understand because you are old, and never even sniffed pro rugby. And that's totally fine. Basically none of us have (unless someone is keeping it super quiet). But lets not pretend we can personally relate.
And, even beyond that, you say yellow and yet he got a red. That's a debate no?
What the guys on the side of "the officials are right, it's the players who are wrong" are seemingly indicating is, they want rugby to reshape itself away from the way that even i was taught, and I started playing seniors like 2 and a half decades ago. And that is, tackle front on, win the gain line. Linespeed is everything. Get up fast, take away all space, win the collision. That's modern rugby defence 101.
As far as i can see, if you take this instance, and many others that have resulted in "questionable" reds, is that the target of the tackler is legal, and even with a margin. The ball carrier drops very late, and suddenly, way past the time to pull out, that original target line is no longer legal. The only way now, to ensure your target will remain legal until after the tackle is made, is to tackle from the side. Then, if they drop their body height, you can adjust, and if you don't, it doesn't matter, the head is past you.And you know what? That can absolutely happen. But you have to fundamentally change the game to do that. And not just coaching, but interpretations around a number of areas. And the game is going to look very very different as coaches are quick to exploit it to advantage.
I’m in good company.
Many professional coaches haven’t sniffed pro rugby either.
With age comes wisdom
The coaches and teams which address this quickly will reap the rewards.
The young & dumb can keep getting carded.
And what should the coaches be teaching their players to do?
Lower the height? He did that.
Don’t drive up? Ticked that box as well
Bend and the waist to make it obvious? Yep.I get what you are saying for other instances when these things don’t happen. However I am confused at why you waded in with your comments when discussing a time when it is the ref at fault (as proven by the judiciary).
-
Ok, apart from inconsistency of application, the biggest thing that is fucking stupid in the crackdown on high shots, is ignoring players getting back to their feet after being chopped in a bootlaces tackle. It's becoming more and more prominent - waratahs almost going 18-10 up on the back of a guy making an extra 5m after being brilliantly brought down by Kirifi well behind the advantage line.
If you're going to be so stringent on high tackles, at least make a small amount of effort to get the rest of the tackle situation right.
-
Ok, apart from inconsistency of application, the biggest thing that is fucking stupid in the crackdown on high shots, is ignoring players getting back to their feet after being chopped in a bootlaces tackle. It's becoming more and more prominent - waratahs almost going 18-10 up on the back of a guy making an extra 5m after being brilliantly brought down by Kirifi well behind the advantage line.
If you're going to be so stringent on high tackles, at least make a small amount of effort to get the rest of the tackle situation right.
Agreed
-
@MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:
@mariner4life said in Red Cards:
@MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:
Finau’s RC decided to be incorrect
10:40 in
What really annoys me about this is that both the ref and TMO decided he was “always high” which is clear nonsense. He is bent at the waist almost parallel to the ground. Also no consideration that the ball carrier clearly lowers his head height and “ducks”
Ref then treats the captain like a naughty kid with a little come here lecture.
Hope there was an apology.Clear camera work, clear mitigation, bad decision making with lots of time to get it right.
These are the ones you fear in a big match.
Poor chap
Even with the ‘outrageous’ jink from the ball carrier he only had a 1.5m hit zone and yet still managed to hit him head first.He took the risk of a body and all tackle, it failed, YC.
I just don’t understand the debate.
this is a fucking hilarious post
With all due respect, you don't understand because you are old, and never even sniffed pro rugby. And that's totally fine. Basically none of us have (unless someone is keeping it super quiet). But lets not pretend we can personally relate.
And, even beyond that, you say yellow and yet he got a red. That's a debate no?
What the guys on the side of "the officials are right, it's the players who are wrong" are seemingly indicating is, they want rugby to reshape itself away from the way that even i was taught, and I started playing seniors like 2 and a half decades ago. And that is, tackle front on, win the gain line. Linespeed is everything. Get up fast, take away all space, win the collision. That's modern rugby defence 101.
As far as i can see, if you take this instance, and many others that have resulted in "questionable" reds, is that the target of the tackler is legal, and even with a margin. The ball carrier drops very late, and suddenly, way past the time to pull out, that original target line is no longer legal. The only way now, to ensure your target will remain legal until after the tackle is made, is to tackle from the side. Then, if they drop their body height, you can adjust, and if you don't, it doesn't matter, the head is past you.And you know what? That can absolutely happen. But you have to fundamentally change the game to do that. And not just coaching, but interpretations around a number of areas. And the game is going to look very very different as coaches are quick to exploit it to advantage.
I’m in good company.
Many professional coaches haven’t sniffed pro rugby either.
With age comes wisdom
The coaches and teams which address this quickly will reap the rewards.
The young & dumb can keep getting carded.
And what should the coaches be teaching their players to do?
Lower the height? He did that.
Don’t drive up? Ticked that box as well
Bend and the waist to make it obvious? Yep.I get what you are saying for other instances when these things don’t happen. However I am confused at why you waded in with your comments when discussing a time when it is the ref at fault (as proven by the judiciary).
He lowered his height, but not enough.
High reward, high risk.
Ref got the colour wrong, but it was a card all day.
-
Kahui is free to play in Hamilton. Another example of the judiciary disagreeing with the ref.
Former All Black Richard Kahui will be free to play in his Hamilton homecoming after his contentious red card for a high tackle on Highlanders first five-eighth Mitch Hunt was dismissed. In a hearing on Tuesday night, Sanzaar’s judicial committee said Kahui’s tackle was worthy a yellow card but mitigating circumstances lowered the incident from a red.
The hearing heard by Mike Mika (chair), David Croft and Chris Smith ruled that Kahui had lowered himself into the tackle and the contact on Hunt was neither intentional nor highly reckless. "Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and additional evidence, including from the player, a medical report on the opposition player involved, and having considered the submissions from his legal representative, Michael Tudori. The judicial committee found that the player had not committed an act of foul play worthy of the red card threshold,” Mika said.
“The judicial committee reviewed the case in accordance with Reg 17.16.1 of World Rugby's regulations and the World Rugby Head Contact Process. “The evidence and submissions on behalf of the player, together with surrounding circumstances, satisfied the Committee that there was mitigation to lower the incident from red card to a yellow card. Whilst the incident is dangerous, the contact with the head was not intentional or highly reckless. Kahui was shown to be lowering himself for the tackle on the right-hand side of the opposing player when a significant movement from the ball carrier meant that the late change in direction contributed to head contact.” -
Jesus it's a joke, refs, world rugby, and judiciary need to decide what the laws are. Cos the same thing got a few weeks off in NH last month. I don't care too much what the laws are, but just some consistency in application would be appreciated
-
@Machpants it's too hard to apply a complex system accurately and consistently in the heat of the moment. It's just not feasible.
They need to move to a system where the primary disincentive is decided after the game. It also needs to be more serious. Bigger bans and bigger fines for offences deemed red.
-
lol fucking hell
The problem we have down here seems to be, the refs are working under the rule "if you hit him in the head, you're off" while the judiciary is looking at everything and saying 'yep, hit him in the head, but not all your fault"
And that, right there, is a disgraceful way of handling it.
The NH seem to have the refs and judiciary on the same side?
FWIW i agree with the judicial way of looking at, but that's just my opinion. What i hugely disagree with, and is proving massively unfair to teams, spectators, and the refs, is the two arms being on different pages.
-
@mariner4life presume you're referring to Kahui's Red being overturned.
honestly, the judiciary are a lottery. It's bizarre.
-
honestly, the judiciary are a lottery. It's bizarre.
not sure they are? seems they are pretty consistent. This is now the 2nd one overturned for pretty much the same reason?
It's just they are not saying what the refs are saying. Of course they have a lot more time to look at things, don't have external pressures mounting on them the more they look at stuff. And apparently zero accountability (well, publicly anyway).
-
@Derpus do they currently get fined?
But I agree otherwise, refs have enough pressure on them, without having to make these decisions out there, and ultimately being undermined by a technicality or people with more time on thier hands to make these decisions
@chimoaus yep, take these decisions away from the refs who need to make them with the time constraints in the game, while looking at a big screen and the TMO making a ruling, and they so often get them wrong, I mean ref sees one thing, TMO sees another, one has to back down, and maybe I'm hearing what I want to hear, but often you hear one or the other not overly confident on the ruling the other is asking/confirming.
I mean given these guys careers are on the line, should Kahui now be given compensation or an apology from the ref (I dont think he should, but is this the path we are heading along?)
It is akin (on the less serious scale obviously) to being arrested for something, chucked in the slammer for the night, released only to have charges dropped...
-
And in the mean time we have games altered by red cards and Grumpy Old pricks like me giving up on games.
-
@mariner4life said in Red Cards:
honestly, the judiciary are a lottery. It's bizarre.
not sure they are? seems they are pretty consistent. This is now the 2nd one overturned for pretty much the same reason?
Whose is the second? T he tahs prop who lifted early in the game?
I really feel for the refs; not being supported by the judiciary must be soul destroying.
-
The interesting thing here is that the judicial committee's interpretation of what happened was the same as mine using the same footage O'Keeffe and his ARs used. So the refs need a clear explanation of what is mitigation because they can't even agree amongst themselves.
-
@mariner4life said in Red Cards:
honestly, the judiciary are a lottery. It's bizarre.
not sure they are? seems they are pretty consistent. This is now the 2nd one overturned for pretty much the same reason?
Whose is the second? T he tahs prop who lifted early in the game?
I really feel for the refs; not being supported by the judiciary must be soul destroying.
dude, don't ask me for specifics, some nerd will provide those i am sure
With regards to the refs not being supported, if they are not correct, then their ruling should be overturned. My concern is more that there does not seem to be the communication between the refereeing body, and the judiciary. Both are consistent, just consistently different.
