Northland v Auckland
-
@kev the high tackle stuff is BS, I hate cards, no way that is anything more than a penalty, purely for the head contact.
Dare I say we looked sharper when Nock came on, I'd be tempted to give Nichols a run at 12 and Salmon a start.
-
@Kirwan reviewing all of Northland tries, but none of Aucklands, just the same stuff every other week for us true Northland supporters
-
-
@maoriruggas said in Northland v Auckland:
@Kirwan reviewing all of Northland tries, but none of Aucklands, just the same stuff every other week for us true Northland supporters
I felt the same for how he reffed the ruck, but if both sides are unhappy with the ref then he probably did ok.
-
@maoriruggas said in Northland v Auckland:
@Duluth yeah let's the blame someone who didn't get yellow carded 🙄 our discipline lost the game, not Reihana. If anything it should have been penalty try.
Hmmm this is your 5th account. All talking about the same topic
-
Admin hating on a specific player? Sounds personal @Duluth
-
I don’t hate him I just think he’s shit and he cost his teams games this year.
You’ve created 5 accounts. Seems personal?
-
@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
