Chiefs vs Highlanders

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="578064" data-time="1462692917">
<div>
It was interesting seeing Fekitoa kicking from hand at 2nd 5. He's known for the odd grubber from centre, but haven't really seen a clearing kick game from him. 
On the AB midfield discussion I would like to see Fekitoa at 12 and Crotty at 13 given the first shot. Ngatai/Moala could be a good backup combo.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I guess it is inevitable that there will always be comparisons with Nonu, but he didnt really develop a decent kicking game for quite some time...he always had 'a' kicking game, but by the end it was pretty good in terms of execuition and when to do it.

No Quarter

Do the selectors see Ngatai and Fekitoa as 12s? Do we think that anyone but Crotty has a realistic shot at the 13 jumper?

Frank

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="577973" data-time="1462666757">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
But then Ngatai would not have been deemed to have done anything. Driving up with his arms and body was the mistake.

Gunner

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="578070" data-time="1462695883">
Do the selectors see Ngatai and Fekitoa as 12s? Do we think that anyone but Crotty has a realistic shot at the 13 jumper?</blockquote>Surely Fekitoa is a 13 first, 12 second - he just doesn't have the miles on the clock at 12 for anyone to seriously consider that its the other way round.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="578060" data-time="1462691970">
<div>
No I don't want to argue with a rugby man who changes his team because he doesn't like a coach
 
I don't want to argue that a ball hitting a shoulder is juggling or that Dixon was in possession when tackled
 
I don't want to argue that assuming someone will catch a ball and then flipping him is an accident that should carry no censure
 
I'll just stick to what the people in the rugby industry decide and take my learnings from there. So far they've decided Ngatai committed a yellow card act of reckless play 
</div>
</blockquote>
Are you just trolling now? I can't work it out because in all the babbling you just did you didn't exactly address the question I asked you.
 
Also, you best watch out, as you'll now be in the sights of the ad hominem police as well.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Frank" data-cid="578075" data-time="1462697447">
<div>
But then Ngatai would not have been seemed to have done anything. Driving up with his arms and body was the mistake.
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't think he 'drove up' with his arms and body, it all happened too quickly.

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gunner" data-cid="578076" data-time="1462698438">
Surely Fekitoa is a 13 first, 12 second - he just doesn't have the miles on the clock at 12 for anyone to seriously consider that its the other way round.</blockquote>He's started at both 12 and 13 for the All Blacks in his short career. So the AB selectors have seen it the other way round. 
In fact Crotty has also started in both positions for the ABs. Ngatai seems to be a 12 for the Chiefs but has played 13 this season as well. 
Will be interesting to see what the AB selectors believe each player is most suited too, unless they now feel 12 and 13 are interchangeable.

Siam

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="578078" data-time="1462698769">
<div>
Are you just trolling now? I can't work it out because in all the babbling you just did you didn't exactly address the question I asked you.
 
Also, you best watch out, as you'll now be in the sights of the ad hominem police as well.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yeah perhaps I did babble (been known to happen) I like your last sentence too
 
I don't think a ball hitting you on the shoulder constitutes juggling - might be wrong but I can't see that in the laws. Suspect there must be arm or hand contact
 
Thing is, here's a lot of talk of the tackler "assuming" and "expecting" and that Ngatai wasn't at fault and I believe none of these opinions or assessments have any reference to the laws of the game.
 
I believe Dixon never had possession of the ball and Ngatai transgressed a fundamental law. I know there are instances when tacklers take the man upon the man catching the ball and that often players get tackled as they touch the ball then subsequently knock it on in the tackle if you like.
 
I also know that it's an offence to tackle someone early, and this happens, but it's also an offence to tackle someone without the ball.
 
 
I think there's a lot of making excuses and opinions bringing in all sorts of explanations that have no relevance to the laws (It all sounds like leftard talk ). Yeah sorry ref I tackled him early but I assumed he'd catch the ball, the fact that he didn't isn't really my fault now is it". "Oh ok then play on" :think:
 
Not sure why it isn't as simple as Ngatai getting shit wrong like Emery and the Stormer did
 
If you can find the laws that say you can take out a man not in possession in loose play, based on expectation then I'll happily concede, but with all due respect I'll build my knowledge through the people paid to uphold the laws rather than 40 year old TV watching Chiefs fans

Stargazer

Just tweeted by Radio Sport:
 
"SANZAAR has confirmed no further action will be taken over Charlie Ngatai's tackle in last night's Chiefs v Highlanders match."
 
 
Edit: If I'm correct, that means that SANZAAR is of the opinion that it was not a red-card offence, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't agree with a yellow card.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="578086" data-time="1462700562">Yeah perhaps I did babble (been known to happen) I like your last sentence too 
 
I don't think a ball hitting you on the shoulder constitutes juggling - might be wrong but I can't see that in the laws. Suspect there must be arm or hand contact 
 
Thing is, here's a lot of talk of the tackler "assuming" and "expecting" and that Ngatai wasn't at fault and I believe none of these opinions or assessments have any reference to the laws of the game. 
 I believe Dixon never had possession of the ball and Ngatai transgressed a fundamental law. I know there are instances when tacklers take the man upon the man catching the ball and that often players get tackled as they touch the ball then subsequently knock it on in the tackle if you like. 
 
I also know that it's an offence to tackle someone early, and this happens, but it's also an offence to tackle someone without the ball. 
 
 
I think there's a lot of making excuses and opinions bringing in all sorts of explanations that have no relevance to the laws (It all sounds like leftard talk ). Yeah sorry ref I tackled him early but I assumed he'd catch the ball, the fact that he didn't isn't really my fault now is it". "Oh ok then play on" :think: 
 
Not sure why it isn't as simple as Ngatai getting shit wrong like Emery and the Stormer did 
 
If you can find the laws that say you can take out a man not in possession in loose play, based on expectation then I'll happily concede, but with all due respect I'll build my knowledge through the people paid to uphold the laws rather than 40 year old TV watching Chiefs fans</blockquote>
 
99 times out of a hundred Dixon catches that ball, and Ngatais timing of hitting him a split second after he catches the ball is impeccable, but on the one occasion he doesn't, the coaching manual of Siam says Ngatai should step back, wait to confirm Ngatai catches the ball before attempting to tackle him, instincts be damned! 
I might be wrong, but you seem the lone wolf on the 'tackled without the ball' angle.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="578090" data-time="1462701545">Just tweeted by Radio Sport: 
"SANZAAR has confirmed no further action will be taken over Charlie Ngatai's tackle in last night's Chiefs v Highlanders match." 
Edit: If I'm correct, that means that SANZAAR is of the opinion that it was not a red-card offence, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't agree with a yellow card.</blockquote>
 
Means that the citing officer doesn't see that it should have been red. 
Will be interesting to see if the Chiefs appeal the yellow though as happened with Lowe last year. Although I think this can only happen after being called up to face the JO after three YCs. 
Lowe's YC for Fekitoa jumping into his tackle was wiped as was one of his YCs for tackling a player in the air IIRC.

Siam

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="578095" data-time="1462703607">
<div>
99 times out of a hundred Dixon catches that ball, and Ngatais timing of hitting him a split second after he catches the ball is impeccable, but on the one occasion he doesn't, the coaching manual of Siam says Ngatai should step back, wait to confirm Ngatai catches the ball before attempting to tackle him, instincts be damned! 
I might be wrong, but you seem the lone wolf on the 'tackled without the ball' angle.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I see players waiting for people to catch bombs all the time.
 
I'm ok if I'm wrong, being in a majority doesn't assure correctness. I'll stick to the rule book to learn about the game rather than relying on probability, assumptions and expectations
 
Appreciate your point of view though.
 
I haven't written a coaching manual. We'll see if the people paid to know the game rescind his yellow and clear his record

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="578086" data-time="1462700562">
If you can find the laws that say you can take out a man not in possession in loose play, based on expectation then I'll happily concede, but with all due respect I'll build my knowledge through the people paid to uphold the laws rather than 40 year old TV watching Chiefs fans</blockquote>
 
Here's the funny thing though. You are confusing the laws as they are written with the laws as they are upheld. 
This incident is being discussed on a rugby refs forum as well with a similar disparity of conclusions as here. Not one ref is concerned about possession though.

Toddy

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 
"Naturally it was raised by the Citing Commissioner but (it was) felt there were enough elements out his (Ngatai's) control that it didn't meet red card threshold. On field yellow was appropriate," a Sanzaar spokesman said.
</blockquote>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/79754907/yellow-card-sufficient-punishment-for-charlie-ngatai-says-sanzaar'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/79754907/yellow-card-sufficient-punishment-for-charlie-ngatai-says-sanzaar</a>
 
Actually seems like a pretty sensible response from Sanzaar.

reprobate

bloody hell, chiefs fans have made this hard reading.
i am totally opposed to what has happened re the freedom with which cards are given out these days - anyone care or remember the lasting shame which used to go alongside receiving a red card??
having said that, this one is in no way inconsistent with what has been happening recently. so no issue at all.
 
it was bad luck, it was accidental. it was dangerous. ngatai could have pulled out more effectively and made it safer. ngatai didn't know what was going on. his ignorance is no excuse. dixon never had control of the ball (in fact i don't think he ever even attempted to catch it). all of these things are true, but so what.

Siam

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="578118" data-time="1462736132">
<div>
Here's the funny thing though. You are confusing the laws as they are written with the laws as they are upheld. 
This incident is being discussed on a rugby refs forum as well with a similar disparity of conclusions as here. Not one ref is concerned about possession though.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yeah mate I hear ya.
 
Yellow card was about right and enough

broughie

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="578044" data-time="1462687403">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You do admit that when Ngatai made contact Dixon was moving vertical of his own volition though.? Looks like it to me from the replays. Never said Ngatai expected Dixon to be in the air. Agree with your last statement.

taniwharugby

Took one for the team, and clicked on a Treason article as the title had me intrigued....first time in god knows how long I have deliberately clicked on an article form him or Twattue
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/79772215/mark-reason-elliot-dixon-should-have-been-carded-along-with-charlie-ngatai'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/79772215/mark-reason-elliot-dixon-should-have-been-carded-along-with-charlie-ngatai</a>
 
Elliot Dixon should have been carded along with Charlie Ngatai
 
OPINION: Why didn't Elliot Dixon receive a yellow card on Saturday evening? The Highlanders' flanker was guilty of dangerous play. His actions were just as reckless as Charlie Ngatai's. Both men were playing the opponent rather than the ball.
At least Sanzaar got it right, not a statement that we are moved to make too often. The notion that Ngatai should have received a red card, which was seriously being discussed on the pitch at Waikato Stadium, was just ludicrous. In real time it would have been an impossible decision to make. But the replay revealed just how difficult a job the refs sometimes have.
It shows that just before the crucial moment of impact neither man is looking at the ball. Neither man makes a serious attempt to play the ball. They knew there was a big collision coming and reacted in different ways. Ngatai lowers his head and drops his shoulder. Dixon glances at Ngatai and decides to jump, leading with his knee.
 
<div><img src="http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/b/h/8/r/2/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1bhsmv.png/1462754481510.jpg" title="" alt="1462754481510.jpg"><div>BRUCE LIM/PHOTOSPORT</div>
<div>
Highlanders flanker Elliot Dixon is upended by Chiefs midfielder Charlie Ngatai during the Super Rugby match at Waikato Stadium.
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
Under the laws both men were guilty of dangerous play. Ngatai is guilty of tackling an opponent whose feet are off the ground. It is arguable whether he is guilty of tipping an opponent jumping for the ball, as Dixon makes no attempt to play the ball and it bounces off his right shoulder.
 
<div> </div>
<div><img src="http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/b/h/f/c/2/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1bhsmv.png/1462754481510.jpg" title="" alt="1462754481510.jpg"><div>BRUCE LIM/PHOTOSPORT</div>
<div>
Referee Angus Gardner issues a yellow card to Chiefs midfielder Charlie Ngatai, obscured, for a dangerous tackle on Highlander Elliot Dixon.
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
Dixon is guilty of striking an opponent with the knee. Dixon's cheerful explanation was, "He just read it wrong and got me a goodie on my knees." Hmm. If you jump into an opponent who does not have the ball and lead with your knee, then that constitutes dangerous play if you are not attempting to catch the ball.
Both men are guilty of playing a player without the ball. Under the laws both men should have received a yellow card. But the best way to sort this all out is to outlaw players jumping for the ball outside the lineout.
Sooner or later someone is going to get their neck broken and the lawmakers will be responsible for a failure to act, despite repeated warnings. Yes, if the law were changed to outlaw jumping, then players will be bombed by high balls and wiped out by the chase, but at least they have a chance.
The way things have gone recently, it will be a miracle if this season does not end without a catastrophic injury. And, in my opinion, the family of that player would have every reason to take legal action against World Rugby.

Siam

Now I know I have to alter my interpretation of the event TR! ;)

WillieTheWaiter

anyway back to the game and my 2 cents since I haven't commented...
 
prior to last season I'd never really thought too highly of Joseph, he seems to be going great guns compared to Rennie who seems to be stuck in a certain style and the Chiefs aren't adapting during the game.
 
This game highlighted to me how rugby can be such a simple game... especially on defence which is how the 'landers won this game.
 
Basically the landers didn't commit anyone to the breakdown, and just fanned out in defence leaving very little room.
 
They did this for two reasons:
1. The Chiefs stack their backline with forwards in the middle (e.g. Brodie) - so the obvious counter to not committing forwards to rucks - which is keeping it tight and going up the middle, is never going to happen either cause the Chiefs didn't have no's there.
 
and secondly, the chiefs rely a lot on the little guys finding those holes (prob cruds more than Mackenzie cause he still seems able to break tackles).. with the defence how it was there wasn't a lot of space, Chiefs got frustrated and started spilling the ball everywhere.
 
Lowe did his AB chances a lot of damage in that game I thought too, he was pretty average.. and Tamanivalu - how was amazing in the last game was just totally absent..
 
Overall I thought the landers delivered a pretty good template on how to knock the chiefs over..

The Silver Fern

Chiefs vs Highlanders