Northland v Auckland
-
@Duluth thats your tunnel vision view of sport players. Critics like you ruin the sport when you only speak negatively and don't see tic for tac.
And this is a forum right? My comments shouldn't bother you so much but obviously they do if you keep removing my accounts
-
I haven’t removed any of your 5 accounts (plus 2 renamed accounts) that all defended and/or praised Reihana exclusively
Yes this is a forum and people might say a player isn’t playing well. Particularly if he misses a sitter and dropped the ball scoring a potential winning try
-
@Gunner said in Northland v Auckland:
I’m still fucking pissed at that last play.
Reihana copped a high shot, that’s a penalty every fucking day of the week, and probably a penalty try.
Fucking horrendous refereeing!!!!
Me too. Never seen it reffed any other way? It’s always the tacklers job to lower his height esp. on the goal line. NZRFU need to explain that.
-
@kev on another day, another ref awards a PT, today, we get nothing, as above, IMO that is a pen, purely for that head contact, whihc would be consistent with how most other situations like that are ruled.
on the try line, it does beocme even harder for defenders too, as player is going to be going low, so always playing with fire going in like that, which highlights how poor the rules are around this.
-
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
Never seen it reffed any other way?
I’m sure you won’t believe me but yes I have
Remember the refs flow diagram. First question is was there head contact, second is was there foul play. The third question decides the sanction, the degree of danger. Fourth is there any mitigation.
But the key thing is not every head contact is foul play. If both players are getting low then you can get that ruling
-
-
@Duluth said in Northland v Auckland:
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
Never seen it reffed any other way?
I’m sure you won’t believe me but yes I have
Remember the refs flow diagram. First question is was there head contact, second is was there foul play. The third question decides the sanction, the degree of danger. Fourth is there any mitigation.
But the key thing is not every head contact is foul play. If both players are getting low then you can get that ruling
Ignore the foul play YC stuff. It’s a high tackle in the act of scoring. PT every day.
-
@Nepia said in Northland v Auckland:
@sparky said in Northland v Auckland:
Great game.
The NPC really is the jewel in the crown.
Unfortunately I think the NZR think of it more as the pebble in their shoe.
Idiots. It widens our base of rugby players. Great games every week. Love it.
-
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
Ignore the foul play YC stuff. It’s a high tackle in the act of scoring. PT every day.
You are mistaken. It's not YC stuff, it's the 'Head Contact Process' that refs go through for all head contact rulings
Listen to BOK he answers yes to the first question and no to the second
-
@Duluth said in Northland v Auckland:
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
Ignore the foul play YC stuff. It’s a high tackle in the act of scoring. PT every day.
You are mistaken. It's not YC stuff, it's the 'Head Contact Process' that refs go through for all head contact rulings
Listen to BOK he answers yes to the first question and no to the second
See dangerous play R13 tackling above the line of the shoulders. Penalty. In the act of scoring. Prevents a try. Penalty try.
-
I'm referring to an application guideline that the refs must to follow. It describes precisely how the laws are to be applied. It specifically applies to the 'tackle above the line of the shoulders law' too
The application has been around for 3-4 year now. Not all head contact is foul play.
Are you claiming BOK incorrectly went through the head contact process? If he doesn't follow this process he gets marked down
He clearly described why he thought it wasn't foul play. If you want to complain you should focus on this rather than say BOK went through the wrong process or claiming that all head contact is foul play
-
-
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
@Duluth he didn’t attack the head. Never said that. What I said was that it was a high tackle above the shoulders. With his arm- as he was never in a position to hit with his shoulders and wrap. So a dangerous tackle.Yes BOK got it wrong.
And if you go back at the second player coming in he kicks out with leg, with his knee catching Reihana in the chest ( hence the dropped ball ) and then the foot in the face. If that’s not dangerous play what is? Disgraceful decision. The NRL do it so much better. They would have picked up the second player kicking out as well.
Northland will have a field day with their review of the game.
-
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
@Duluth he didn’t attack the head. Never said that.
I’m not sure what you are responding to here. This doesn’t match up with anything I have said
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
What I said was that it was a high tackle above the shoulders. With his arm- as he was never in a position to hit with his shoulders and wrap. So a dangerous tackle.Yes BOK got it wrong.
Again this isn’t the process. Question one head contact - yes.
Question two was it foul play - BOK explained why he thought it wasn't. He said the player bent at the hips and was wrapping, the head contact was a no fault incident caused by diving at the line.
The HCP specifically allows for no fault head contact. This is the key point. So many rugby drives at line would be impossible to defend without this
The best argument in your favour would be saying it reckless but that doesn’t really fit. BOKs description of what happened seems accurate
-
@Duluth said in Northland v Auckland:
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
@Duluth he didn’t attack the head. Never said that.
I’m not sure what you are responding to here. This doesn’t match up with anything I have said
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
What I said was that it was a high tackle above the shoulders. With his arm- as he was never in a position to hit with his shoulders and wrap. So a dangerous tackle.Yes BOK got it wrong.
Again this isn’t the process. Question one head contact - yes.
Question two was it foul play - BOK explained why he thought it wasn't. He said the player bent at the hips and was wrapping, the head contact was a no fault incident caused by diving at the line.
The HCP specifically allows for no fault head contact. This is the key point. So many rugby drives at line would be impossible to defend without this
The best argument in your favour would be saying it reckless but that doesn’t really fit. BOKs description of what happened seems accurate
Go back and have a look at the second Aucklsnd player - if that is not dangerous, what is? They totally messed this up. Again Northland will have a field day with their review. Totally incompetent.
-
@Duluth said in Northland v Auckland:
@kev said in Northland v Auckland:
The NRL
Yes they have different laws for a variety of reasons. Let’s not confuse things even more
Go back and have a look at the actions of the 2nd Auckland tackler. I will be suprised if he isn’t cited after the game. That’s why Reihana was injured in the tackle. And they totally missed it. Incompetent.
