Bledisloe 2
-
@canefan said in Bledisloe 2:
@Bones said in Bledisloe 2:
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial no, i would say very very few people actually think...im going to injury this guy
I have always just seen a difference between
"im going to tackle this knee"
and
"im watching the ball....watching...watching...of shit where did you come from?"
That guy jumping in the air you talk about is doing it deliberately without care.
These guys are the best in the business. They know exactly what they are doing
For a moment there I thought you were talking about the judiciary 😅
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@canefan said in Bledisloe 2:
@Bones said in Bledisloe 2:
@Kiwiwomble said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial no, i would say very very few people actually think...im going to injury this guy
I have always just seen a difference between
"im going to tackle this knee"
and
"im watching the ball....watching...watching...of shit where did you come from?"
That guy jumping in the air you talk about is doing it deliberately without care.
These guys are the best in the business. They know exactly what they are doing
For a moment there I thought you were talking about the judiciary 😅
-
@Machpants That's a misconception that keeps on popping up. The Judiciary is not a lottery at all. The officiating is, and whether someone is cited maybe, too, but the Regulations and how they are applied are quite clear.
-
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
@Machpants That's a misconception that keeps on popping up. The Judiciary is not a lottery at all. The officiating is, but the Regulations and how they are applied are quite clear.
Riiiiiiiiight. BBBR broken cheek and an upended Beaudy says you're talking arse
-
@Machpants BBBR = the Irishman got yellow. Never reached the Judiciary.
The decision and 4-week suspension of Arendse was entirely predictable and totally consistent with the Regulations and how they are consistently applied.
-
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
@Machpants That's a misconception that keeps on popping up. The Judiciary is not a lottery at all. The officiating is, and whether someone is cited maybe, too, but the Regulations and how they are applied are quite clear.
Up to the point where they pull some shit out about the player telling his mum how much shame he feels so we will reduce the regulated ban.
Start points are also totally at the panel discretion. -
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
@Machpants BBBR = the Irishman got yellow. Never reached the Judiciary.
The decision and 4-week suspension of Arendse was entirely predictable and totally consistent with the Regulations and how they are consistently applied.
I was talking about the frog a few years ago. And wrong
DISCIPLINARY UPDATE: A citing complaint against Ireland prop Andrew Porter for an act of foul play has been dismissed by an independent judicial committee.
Porter was cited on Monday for the high tackle which broke the cheekbone of New Zealand lock Brodie Retallick during last weekend’s series-clinching 32-22 victory over the All Blacks. -
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
@Machpants That's a misconception that keeps on popping up. The Judiciary is not a lottery at all. The officiating is, and whether someone is cited maybe, too, but the Regulations and how they are applied are quite clear.
Up to the point where they pull some shit out about the player telling his mum how much shame he feels so we will reduce the regulated ban.
Start points are also totally at the panel discretion.Incorrect. If there's head contact, the minimum starting point is always mid-range.
-
@Machpants Okay, that disciplinary update isn't on SANZAAR's website. Still don't think it's a lottery. They have their own guidelines and they have camera angles that we don't get to see.
-
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
@Machpants That's a misconception that keeps on popping up. The Judiciary is not a lottery at all. The officiating is, and whether someone is cited maybe, too, but the Regulations and how they are applied are quite clear.
Up to the point where they pull some shit out about the player telling his mum how much shame he feels so we will reduce the regulated ban.
Start points are also totally at the panel discretion.Incorrect. If there's head contact, the minimum starting point is always mid-range.
Still just a start point. There may be minimums for some acts but still the refs pass plenty onto the panel
-
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
@Machpants Okay, that disciplinary update isn't on SANZAAR's website. Still don't think it's a lottery. They have their own guidelines and they have camera angles that we don't get to see.
And lawyers. They help to get a surprising outcome.
Serious question: did you think Porter would get off from that head high tackle? Do you think it reached the RC threshold in light of Ta'avo the week before?
-
@Crucial And, the rulings have been so predictable, that everyone knows about those bullshit reasons that are used as mititgation, so that most player get a 50% deduction from the entry point used.
I'm not saying that I agree with all decisions, or with how the Regs are applied in all cases, but it's bs to say that it's a lottery. It's not. In most cases, once you know a player has been cited under a certain provision, you know what decisions will be once he has been found guilty of the offence. They're very consistent, unlike officiating.
-
@nzzp said in Bledisloe 2:
@Stargazer said in Bledisloe 2:
@Machpants Okay, that disciplinary update isn't on SANZAAR's website. Still don't think it's a lottery. They have their own guidelines and they have camera angles that we don't get to see.
And lawyers. They help to get a surprising outcome.
Serious question: did you think Porter would get off from that head high tackle? Do you think it reached the RC threshold in light of Ta'avo the week before?
There are always exceptions to the rule.
-
@Stargazer this is pretty standard victim mentality from RA.
-
@Frye said in Bledisloe 2:
@Stargazer this is pretty standard victim mentality from RA.
All Blacks not only control the refs, we control the judiciary as well.
So when Swain cops a ban, it's because we did it
-
@Stargazer that’s a shocker.
Even Rennie has a big chip of gumtree on his shoulder claiming it wasn’t even a yellow.
Maybe the mantra this week is all about playing the victim that fights back. -
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Stargazer that’s a shocker.
Even Rennie has a big chip of gumtree on his shoulder claiming it wasn’t even a yellow.
Maybe the mantra this week is all about playing the victim that fights back.#Cheikastyle
-
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Tim said in Bledisloe 2:
Nearly a week later? Can't think that Rennie will be pleased with not knowing if a player is available.
As long as it doesn't make Rennie 'bloody angry' again.
-
@voodoo said in Bledisloe 2:
@Crucial said in Bledisloe 2:
@Daffy-Jaffy said in Bledisloe 2:
Scott Barrett is probably our best performing forward according to Jase.
Just shows that a coaches lens is different to a TV screen, eh?You reckon? I think there is a pretty general consensus around here that SB has surprised to the upside this season, and is locked (sorry) in to a position in the 23. I'd go further and say that I reckon 95% of posters would have him as the 3rd lock, and many would even have him in the top 2 at the moment as BBBR works his way back. Go further again, and I'd guess that there is even a significant cohort that would pick SB at 6 if the SB/BBBR duo are fit and starting.
Aside from Sami who is clearly #1 (sorry Jase, we know you agree), what's the competition for #2? Ardie for the lovers out there, then daylight to SW I guess?
I reckon SB at 6 smacks of the coaches wanting to get the best 15 on the park, rather than the best players in each position. There are other examples of this in the team.
Did Foster do this at the Chiefs? I can't remember.
