Chiefs vs Highlanders
-
<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> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="577971" data-time="1462666469">
<div>
<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, <strong>that came from an unfortunate set of circumstances</strong> 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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the key, and TBH I don't really have a problem with it being penalised (I have an issue with the card), the main issue I have is posters claiming it was some kind of deliberate dangerous play deserving of worse sanction - what it was, as you note, was a series of unfortunate circumstances. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="577969" data-time="1462666075">
<div>
<p>This Law doesn't really fit the situation that happened though.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The way the sport is reffed a player bobbing for the ball is considered in possession of it.</strong></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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Was he even in possession to be bobbling it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that team’s possession.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dixon was never carrying the ball to begin 'bobbling' it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>EDIT</p>
<p>Though in saying that, how would you rule knock-ons if a knock-on is when '<em>a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward'. S</em>o yeah, I can see why the bobbling on a catch could be considered in possession.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="577973" data-time="1462666757">
<div>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I am suggesting Ngatai stood up once he made the tackle. He's quite clearly lifted Dixon's feet and taken him past the horizontal.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dixon's obviously made this easier to happen by jumping and changing his centre of gravity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's a reasonable degree of unfortunate accident in it, but not as much - in my mind - as the "Is this a redcard?" thread below, where Zas has basically just slipped over and has been red carded and given two weeks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To be very clear - Ngatai should have gone to ground rather than standing up. By standing up he has lifted him beyond the horizontal and that is illegal.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="577975" data-time="1462666997">
<div>
<p>Was he even in possession to be bobbling it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that team’s possession.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dixon was never carrying the ball to begin 'bobbling' it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>EDIT</p>
<p>Though in saying that, how would you rule knock-ons if a knock-on is when '<em>a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward'. S</em>o yeah, I can see why the bobbling on a catch could be considered in possession.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I wasn't actually referring to what is in the Laws but how the game is reffed. We see it often where a player is passed the ball and doesn't catch it on the first go and is tackled while trying to retrieve it - if the laws were enforced strictly as written the tackler would be penalised for taking a player out without the ball.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Chris B: As I said, if you watch the video in real time Ngatai didn't have the chance to do anything once Dixon jumped. You're being unrealistic if you think he could have gone to the ground at that stage. FYI - I thought the Zas red card was harsh and people lost the plot over that, Nathan Grey claimed it was a deliberate tactic. If Tana was playing now he'd be busting out a tiddlywink call every week.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="577987" data-time="1462669912">
<div>
<p>Chris B: As I said, if you watch the video in real time Ngatai didn't have the chance to do anything once Dixon jumped. You're being unrealistic if you think he could have gone to the ground at that stage. FYI - I thought the Zas red card was harsh and people lost the plot over that, Nathan Grey claimed it was a deliberate tactic. If Tana was playing now he'd be busting out a tiddlywink call every week.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't really agree with the first point - he's gone in to make a tackle low, so I don't really see how standing up once he's made that tackle would ever have a good outcome. It has all happened in a split second, so while there's no intent, it has gone badly wrong and I think it's pretty clear that Charlie has contravened the letter of the law. As above, the way things have been ruled recently it won't surprise me to see him missing some games, but luckily my opinion is completely irrelevant to Sanzar.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree on Zas. Agree on Tana.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway, cheer up - you're still fifth on the table and we've only got one game in hand on you! :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>:) :)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577994" data-time="1462670944">
<div>
<p>Don't really agree with the first point - he's gone in to make a tackle low, so I don't really see how standing up once he's made that tackle would ever have a good outcome. It has all happened in a split second, so while there's no intent, it has gone badly wrong and I think it's pretty clear that Charlie has contravened the letter of the law. As above, the way things have been ruled recently it won't surprise me to see him missing some games, but luckily my opinion is completely irrelevant to Sanzar.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree on Zas. Agree on Tana.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Anyway, cheer up - you're still fifth on the table and we've only got one game in hand on you! </strong> :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
:)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>True, and you've been playing all the easybeat foreign teams for the past 7 weeks ;).</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="577995" data-time="1462671206">
<div>
<p>True, and you've been playing all the easybeat foreign teams for the past 7 weeks ;).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>A fact that has not escaped me. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Worst thing is - given the number of derby games to come - even if you top the table, there's a very fair chance you're going to get a very fucking awkward NZ team as your first play-off game.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577998" data-time="1462672101">
<div>
<p>A fact that has not escaped me. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Worst thing is - given the number of derby games to come - even if you top the table, <strong>there's a very fair chance you're going to get a very fucking awkward NZ team as your first play-off game</strong>.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Actually, that's not true because the NZ teams have beaten most of the non-NZ teams and have more points than the rest of the lot. The SA wildcard will most likely be the opponent of the the table topping team.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="577983" data-time="1462668269">
<div><br><p> </p>
<p>To be very clear - Ngatai should have gone to ground rather than standing up. By standing up he has lifted him beyond the horizontal and that is illegal.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't think standing up was the problem. It was the use of his hands that accelerated Dixons momentum that was the problem. If he merely stood up I don't think he should have been called and without using his hands Dixon would not have flip as much as he did. I think he deserved the yellow.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="578005" data-time="1462674838">
<div>
<p>Actually, that's not true because the NZ teams have beaten most of the non-NZ teams and have more points than the rest of the lot. The SA wildcard will most likely be the opponent of the the table topping team.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The South African wildcard team will likely be from the conference that doesn't play any of the NZ teams.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Right now, it's the Bulls - and their remaining opponents include the Sunwolves, Jaguares and Cheetahs. I don't think it's unlikely that they will end up higher on the table than e.g the Canes. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="broughie" data-cid="578007" data-time="1462675262"><p>I don't think standing up was the problem. It was the use of his hands that accelerated Dixons momentum that was the problem. If he merely stood up I don't think he should have been called and without using his hands Dixon would not have flip as much as he did. I think he deserved the yellow.</p></blockquote>
<br>
there is A good angle on the Herald site at the moment. You can pause the vid at nearly frame by frame as it happens so fast. <br>
Ngatai goes in safely for a tackle at hip height with his head to the side. Textbook stuff taught to kids. Split second before contact Dixon jumps up and the contact starts at thigh level. Dixon keeps going up and it becomes knee level. <br>
Ngatai was braced for a solid impact at mid level of a big player. This impact just gave way. It possibly even felt like he missed. He stood up and looked around as if to say "where the fuck did he go?"<br>
There are two possibles here. One is taking a player out in the air. Those guidelines are written for players approaching a descending kick. Not sure how those principles can apply here. <br>
The other possibility is the tip tackle guidelines. These revolve around the tackler deliberately or carelessly lifting a player beyond the horizontal and failing to return them to ground safely. This seems to be where there are different views. One says Ngatai took Dixon beyond horizontal the other that Dixon would have gone beyond horizontal no matter what because he jumped into the tackle. <br>
My view? It was an plain accident of a dynamic contact sport with no one at fault. Shit sometimes happens and. No one deserves a ban because of odd circumstance. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="577816" data-time="1462614680"><p>
Apologies to all those I disagreed with about Dixon getting tackled without the ball. I thought Dixon was contesting a ball that had been kicked and was taken out in the act of gathering that ball<br><br>
Upon viewing the replay it is abundantly clear that Dixon had the ball, then jumped into a tackle which caused him to flip in the air :think:<br><br>
Ngatai will no doubt be cleared because he did nothing wrong and was at no fault whatsoever :idiot2:<br><br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/79739197/chiefs-second-fiveeighth-charlie-ngatai-yellowcarded-for-dangerous-tackle">http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/79739197/chiefs-second-fiveeighth-charlie-ngatai-yellowcarded-for-dangerous-tackle</a></p></blockquote>
<br>
Just watched that video.<br><br>
In my opinion you are wrong.<br><br>
Ngatai had the right to asume he had the ball. He tackled him. Dixon flipped because he jumped.<br><br>
No fault fi6r the flip should be attrubuted to Ngatai. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="578029" data-time="1462681716">
<div>
<p>Just watched that video.<br><br><strong>In my opinion you are wrong.</strong><br><br>
Ngatai had the right to asume he had the ball. He tackled him. Dixon flipped because he jumped.<br><br>
No fault fi6r the flip should be attrubuted to Ngatai.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah so it seems</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Oh well you learn something new everyday. No case for tackling a player who didn't have possession of the ball then</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Assumptions vs what really happens - so be it</p> -
<p>It is hard to consider that a tip tackle. He wasn't attempting to drive him into the ground or take him past horizontal. Dixons jump created the scenario but I believe Ngatais use of the arms and shoulder, subtle as it was, accelerated Dixons momentum and the somersault. Certainly out of the ordinary. Maybe taking him out in the air is a better call and there is a good case for nothing at all as you suggest Crucial. </p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="578031" data-time="1462682222">
<div>
<p>Yeah so it seems</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Oh well you learn something new everyday. No case for tackling a player who didn't have possession of the ball then</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Assumptions vs what really happens - so be it</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Ok, Siam, I've mentioned that juggling trying to catch the ball and being tackled while doing so doesn't generally result in a sanction - are you wanting to argue it usually does?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="broughie" data-cid="578032" data-time="1462682236"><p>. Certainly out of the ordinary. Maybe taking him out in the air is a better call .<br></p></blockquote>
<br>
But Dixon wasn't in the air when Ngatai committed to the tackle, and had no reason to expect Dixon to be in the air at any time. Jumping was a weird thing to do in that situation. I reckon if Ngatai made that same tackle another dozen times it would just be a standard outcome without any drama. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="577832" data-time="1462620693">
<div>
<p>Sopoaga 8 easily outplayed Cruden 6</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Cruden was outplayed by Barrett and now by Sopoaga. He did not run his backline smoothly and his kicking from hand was poor. I think Sopoaga is now the favourite for the starting spot à 10 for the AB. He is a good goalkicker and has the advantage of forming a seasoned pair with Aaron Smith.</p>
<p>But if the AB slectors want Charlie Ngatai at 2nd five, maybe it could be easier to accommodate him with Cruden inside him ...</p> -
<p>Although TBF the service Cruden has been getting hasnt been as good as Sopoaga or BB...I expect the AB coaches will know exactly what they are going to do at 10, which I believe will still be Cruden, who we know can work well with Smith.</p>
