All Blacks vs Wales Test #2

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="kiwiinmelb" data-cid="590014" data-time="1466413517">
I was replying to canefan who said he was miles from it and had no chance of catching it </blockquote>He didn't have a chance to catch it, Williams was there in position and Naholo was late. I don't see why it matters if he could have caught it if Williams wasn't there because he was

kiwiinmelb

I guess it depends what we are debating , my point was I dont think it was intentional , 
 
He was running an angle that he thought he could catch it , if his eyes were on the ball only , he probably didnt see Williams untill it was too late , 
 
When williams caught it , his feet had already left the ground in his own attempt to catch it , 
 
Im not sure at what point he pulls out if he is looking at the ball only

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="590018" data-time="1466414895">
<div>
He didn't have a chance to catch it, Williams was there in position and Naholo was late. I don't see why it matters if he could have caught it if Williams wasn't there because he was
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I agree, it doesn't.
 
Most guys now are taught to jump no matter what, so they jump even when they are far too late & have zero chance of actually contesting, its cynical & dangerous & should be pinged. The application is usually "did he have any chance of contesting? No? Penalty. In doing so did he put the other player at risk of serious injury (ie he landed on his head)? Yes? Yellow card."
 
If you listen to the ref mike that exactly the process he goes through (that may have been tough on NZ commentary with Marshall shouting "whoom-PA!" over the top & Nisbo saying "well, whats happened there? That doesn't look good, I wonder what the outcome of this will be" as the ref explains it all.)
 
Genuine 50/50's are not usually penalised, Naholo's was not a 50/50, he was late, had no chance & just auto-jumped because that what they get told in practice. The one later on was an actual 50/50.
 
In contrast Ben Smith regularly sees he won't get there in time to contest, checks his run makes the tackle the second the guy hits the deck & rolls him. McCaw used to do the same.

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="kiwiinmelb" data-cid="590023" data-time="1466416139">I guess it depends what we are debating , my point was I dont think it was intentional , 
He was running an angle that he thought he could catch it , if his eyes were on the ball only , he probably didnt see Williams untill it was too late , 
When williams caught it , his feet had already left the ground in his own attempt to catch it , 
Im not sure at what point he pulls out if he is looking at the ball only</blockquote>
That's just it though. It's reckless to only have eyes on the ball (which sounds dubious to me anyway - do we think our top players don't have peripheral vision and train that aspect).

kiwiinmelb

ok ill accept defeat and move on

Catogrande

You get forgiven purely on the quality of your avatar

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="590034" data-time="1466418246">
<div>
You get forgiven purely on the quality of your avatar
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Until she turns around and it's yours.

Catogrande

You leave Fridge Raider out of this.

booboo

Sorry ... back on topic ... do we ban jumping for the ball in the air?

Tim

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="590046" data-time="1466421160">
<div>
Sorry ... back on topic ... do we ban jumping for the ball in the air?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
How do they deal with this in Aussie Rules?

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="590046" data-time="1466421160">
<div>
Sorry ... back on topic ... do we ban jumping for the ball in the air?
</div>
</blockquote>
I can't find video of the challenge, but IIRC Naholo didn't even manage to grab a piece of the ball. You've at least got to get some of it IMHO to make it a bonafide 50/50

Catogrande

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="590046" data-time="1466421160">
<div>
Sorry ... back on topic ... do we ban jumping for the ball in the air?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That's a difficult one isn't it? I sort of think the laws as they are are probably as near to what we want as is possible but the interpretation of them is such a grey area. Someone above mentioned how good Ben Smith's judgement seems to be in respect of when to contest and when to wait and tackle as the jumper lands. You'd think that all professional players would have a degree of the same good judgement. If that was the case we'd see far fewer occurrences like the Williams/Naholo one. It really would then just be down to the times when there is a proper contest.
 
So. Short answer is I don't know.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="590051" data-time="1466421707">
<div>
I can't find video of the challenge, but IIRC Naholo didn't even manage to grab a piece of the ball. You've at least got to get some of it IMHO to make it a bonafide 50/50
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Disagree. You can position yourself perfectly and someone else can get some part of their body in the way.

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="590056" data-time="1466422322">
<div>
Disagree. You can position yourself perfectly and someone else can get some part of their body in the way.
</div>
</blockquote>
I'm happy to agree to disagree. Challenge was sloppy though, it deserved the penalty. It helped that Williams went down like he got shot but so did our man

kiwiinmelb

I think it is a grey area , is it the action or the intention that is punished , 
 
How many times do you hear commentators say , but his eyes are on the ball only , 
 
Is that actually relevant or not , ive got no idea ?

canefan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="kiwiinmelb" data-cid="590059" data-time="1466422483">
<div>
I think it is a grey area , is it the action or the intention that is punished , 
 
How many times do you hear commentators say , but his eyes are on the ball only , 
 
Is that actually relevant or not , ive got no idea ? 
</div>
</blockquote>
It is grey. I can only give it the eye test and at the time it looked bad to me

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="590049" data-time="1466421470">
<div>
How do they deal with this in Aussie Rules?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
They have some simple rules around the contestability of marks. Ultimately they're not too dissimilar in that as long as you're contesting the mark and not playing the man, you're fine. They also have a much better approach that you're responsible for your own health if you leap and fall awkwardly in a contest. Even if you managed to leap much higher than someone else.

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="590049" data-time="1466421470">
How do they deal with this in Aussie Rules?</blockquote>
 
I did have my tongue partially in my cheek then (not completely ... maybe it is a solution) but ... 
Good question. I follow the game superficially so i couldn't tell you the rulings. 
As far as i can tell if players are going for the ball anything goes ... but the sort of bad landings we're getting in rugby don't seem to happen in Strayan Roolz. 
Quite spectacular when you see some guy climbing up someone elses back. 
Players are often coming from the same direction towards the ball rather than on a collision course. 
No hands in the back. Tiniest pressure there puts the opponent off his stride. 
Players fall from a great height often. 
Mark gets awarded for having control for the minimal amount of time. You don't have to bring it to earth with you. 
Don't get these collisions in loigue either. Perhaps due to the nature of the bombs to the in goal when players are reasonably stationary.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="590058" data-time="1466422450">
<div>
I'm happy to agree to disagree. Challenge was sloppy though, it deserved the penalty. It helped that Williams went down like he got shot but so did our man
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Agree the challenge was sloppy and Naholo going down probably saved him from a card.
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="590064" data-time="1466423213">
<div>
Players are often coming from the same direction towards the ball rather than on a collision course.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Coming from the direction of the kick is penalisable. Basically what makes it safer is that both players are moving towards the ball.

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="590065" data-time="1466423402">
Agree the challenge was sloppy and Naholo going down probably saved him from a card. 
Coming from the direction of the kick is penalisable. Basically what makes it safer is that both players are moving towards the ball.</blockquote>
 
Yeah that was essentially my point. In rugby players by nature of the game have to be moving towards each other. Creates an element of danger. Mitigated in league with the high kicks to in goal as they are generally from close enough for the contesters from both sides to set themselves under the ball. Or often given the nature of the game defenders have to come forward while ball is in hand and then have to retreat back, so players aren't heading towards each other at a million miles an hour. 
Didn't know that was illegal to come from the diection of the ball in AFL.

The Silver Fern

All Blacks vs Wales Test #2