Chiefs vs Highlanders
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="577830" data-time="1462620035">
<div>
<p>But that is exactly what many of us have been saying. The way this is being ruled is stupid in situations where it is the actions of the jumping player giving the other one no time to pull out or react differently.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As for saying that Ngatai carried on with it. Stop watching the slo=mo and watch real time. He had no time to do untying and was flummoxed as to what happened. he had absolutely no clue.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>He lifted him and did not put him down safely. I thought a red card but was glad it was only yellow</p> -
Howfur badly haes Naholo bin missed by th' highlanders ?<br><br>...and ah cannae hulp wondering how come Ryan Tongia hasn't filled in in Naholo's absence...baffling fur he averages at least a huv a go a gam sae if ah hud yin quaistion fur joseph that wid be it..<br><br>For th' Chiefs luckily thay cuid afford a loss gaun intae th' gam wi' th' luxury o' a nine point advantage ower th' landers...albeit reduced tae five now...<br>Sadly tae mony dropped baws th' nicht by th' Chiefs...but ah dae loue th' wey thay keep attacking tae th' bitter end..
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="577718" data-time="1462610062">
<div>
<p>well I expect Ngatai thought a player of Dixons quality would have caught it...<strong>or do we have to stand back and wait to see now?</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>From a kick? Are you asking does a tackler have to wait and see if someone fields a kick before tackling them?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What a stupid question</p> -
Highlanders halves owned Chiefs halves. Chiefs could have badly used TKB tonight but dont think it would have changed the result.<br><br>
Aaron Smith was the best player on the field. His kicking was pinpoint and was brilliant around the field. Naholo was excellent for first game back - please stay healthy.<br><br>
Sopoaga clearly outplayed Cruden. Still not convinced Cruden has the same spark in his running as he did pre-ACL injury - I known it often takes an extra year to get the full recovery effect - if at all.<br><br>
I dont think Weber did himself many favours - quick pass but very one dimensional and didnt mix it up.<br><br>
For the Chiefs was impressed with Retallick, Ngatai and to a lesser extent Cane - he worked hard but like was mentioned didn't have much breakdown effect.<br><br>
Christie is a good player but I think Landers are better off with Pryor at 7. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gunner" data-cid="577769" data-time="1462612093">
<div>
<p>Are my eyes playing tricks on me?<br><br>
L Whitelock with a nice little run followed by a good offload....<br><br>
Nup, can't be, I'm going to <strong>Specsavers </strong>on Monday.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That where all the bloody refs need to go</p> -
<p>From the replay it seems to me that Dixon clearly lands on his shoulder which means it should have been a red.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align:justify;font-family:'Open Sans', sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);"><span style="margin:0px;"><strong>Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)</strong></span></p>
<ul><li>Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul><p>A red card would of course show the bullshit of the law and its interpretations. I think Ngatai gets cited unless they review it and say it was a fair challenge.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="577831" data-time="1462620476"><p>
It's from the same poster who would have you believe that Rennie deserves little credit for two titles and it was Smith who was coaching the Chiefs.<br><br>
Of course he has been quiet as the Chiefs have gone seven straight and have topped the conference. All with an extremely ropey tight five at times.<br><br>
Then one loss and the same old invective comes out.<br><br>
Just petty really.</p></blockquote> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="577839" data-time="1462623859"><p>From a kick? Are you asking does a tackler have to wait and see if someone fields a kick before tackling them?<br>
<br>
What a stupid question</p></blockquote>
<br>
God you are ignorant -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="577936" data-time="1462645073">
<div>
<p>From the replay it seems to me that Dixon clearly lands on his shoulder which means it should have been a red.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align:justify;font-family:'Open Sans', sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);"><span style="margin:0px;"><strong>Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)</strong></span></p>
<ul><li>Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul><p>A red card would of course show the bullshit of the law and its interpretations. I think Ngatai gets cited unless they review it and say it was a fair challenge.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The thing is that he wasn't challenging a player in the air for the ball. He went in low for a tackle and the guy jumped. There wasn't anything he could have done, really. If that becomes a card, what is to stop a player from jumping into every tackle situation to get another player sent off? There is the risk of serious injury, but still still doesn't happen too often, and I think some people might be willing to take that risk if the game was important enough (e.g. RWC final).</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bobily" data-cid="577944" data-time="1462652020">
<div>
<p>The thing is that he wasn't challenging a player in the air for the ball. He went in low for a tackle and the guy jumped. There wasn't anything he could have done, really.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>His big mistake was making the tackle low and then standing and driving up. If he'd tackled him low and gone to ground there's no problem. I don't think there's any real issue about tackling the man in the air. The problem is, he's taken Dixon way above the horizontal and has certainly not returned him safely to earth (JFK). It's all happened in a split second, but Charlie can't have been completely unaware that he's got Dixon's ankles on his shoulder.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Given the recent rulings on Emery, Nadolo and Zas, it won't surprise me to see Charlie cited and missing 2-4 weeks including the game for Te Aroha Cobras this Saturday that Dave's already given him a written advice that he's definitely playing in and to practice his tacking technique. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In hindsight I shouldn't be so surprised at this result. At full strength the Highlanders have got an absolutely shit hot set of backs - on paper they're even better than the Chiefs. If they get parity in the forwards, they're very, very hard to beat. Crusaders will need to smash them up front or we will get a toweling this coming week. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577960" data-time="1462664205"><p>
Given the recent rulings on Emery, Nadolo and Zas, it won't surprise me to see Charlie cited and missing 2-4 weeks including the game for Te Aroha Cobras this Saturday that Dave's already given him a written advice that he's definitely playing in and to practice his tacking technique. :)<br><br></p></blockquote>
<br>
Outrageous! They should close that loophole at once
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577960" data-time="1462664205">
<div>
<p>His big mistake was <u><strong>making the tackle low and then standing and driving up</strong></u>. If he'd tackled him low and gone to ground there's no problem. I don't think there's any real issue about tackling the man in the air. The problem is, he's taken Dixon way above the horizontal and has certainly not returned him safely to earth (JFK). It's all happened in a split second, but Charlie can't have been completely unaware that he's got Dixon's ankles on his shoulder.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Nailed it.</p> -
<p>although oddly, had he NOT stood up, Dixon would unlikely have had the momentum to flip right over and probably woulda landed on his head....</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="577964" data-time="1462664955">
<div>
<p>although oddly, had he NOT stood up, Dixon would unlikely have had the momentum to flip right over and probably woulda landed on his head....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>A possibly correct, but irrelevant, point. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>People get hurt in legal tackles every day.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577966" data-time="1462665420">
<div>
<p>A possibly correct, but irrelevant, point. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>People get hurt in legal tackles every day.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>true, but people keep talking about the potential for injury form incidents like this, the other 2 that have been in the news too...when there is potential for injury in plenty of legal plays in rugby...it is the action that needs to be judged, not the result or potential for injury.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Saying it was a lesser offence because Dixon landed better than say Le Roux...IMO the action that leads to it is the key, not the result and potential. We will never know, but had Le Roux flipped over and landed similar to Dixon, would the card colour have been different? I dont believe it should have been.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you go to stomp on someones head, but they move in time, and you miss his head, will you get the same sanction as you would have had he not moved?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="577936" data-time="1462645073">
<div>
<p>From the replay it seems to me that Dixon clearly lands on his shoulder which means it should have been a red.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align:justify;font-family:'Open Sans', sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);"><span style="margin:0px;"><strong>Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)</strong></span></p>
<ul><li>Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul><p>A red card would of course show the bullshit of the law and its interpretations. I think Ngatai gets cited unless they review it and say it was a fair challenge.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This Law doesn't really fit the situation that happened though.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The way the sport is reffed a player bobbing for the ball is considered in possession of it.</p>
<p>Ngatai and Dixon connected at the same time as Dixon wasn't able to catch the ball. </p>
<p>Dixon actually jumps after the he spills the ball.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It doesn't fit. If people want to go after Ngatai they need to do it with some other dangerous play law, not this one.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As for posters saying that Ngatai drove him up, seriously, people need to watch the video and see what chance Ngatai had to do anything.</p> -
<p>I'm not arguing on that point at all, TR. Whether Dixon landed on his arse or his head should be irrelevant (for some odd reason it's not).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What's at issue is whether Charlie's tackle was legal or not - I think it's clearly not, whereas if he'd not lifted Dixon's ankles he would have been fine - regardless of what happened to Dixon. </p> -
<p>funny though, some are saying it was a dangeorus tackle and some saying he challenged him in the air, which is where they are brining this landing rule back in.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For me, like Nepia above, no way was it an in air challenge (as the Le Roux one and the other one last week) it was a tackle, that came from an unfortunate set of circumstances that lead Dixon to losing the ball just prior to Ngatai making contact and then Dixon jumping at the moment as Ngatai made contact.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577970" data-time="1462666167">
<div>
<p>I'm not arguing on that point at all, TR. Whether Dixon landed on his arse or his head should be irrelevant (for some odd reason it's not).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What's at issue is whether Charlie's tackle was legal or not - I think it's clearly not,<strong> whereas if he'd not lifted Dixon's ankles he would have been fine</strong> - regardless of what happened to Dixon. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Watch the video in real time, there was nothing Ngatai could do. Are you suggesting that if everything played out the same, but Ngatai's arms stayed down you think it would be fine? Once Dixon jumped he was always going to flip over Ngatai.</p>
