Canes v Tahs (and drinks?)
-
<p>He got a yellow because that is the directive at the moment - only red when lands on shoulder/head. Yeah its a shit decision, but then you look at the danger level of something like this and wonder if yellow was the right call here, given MNS landed on his shoulder/head and it was late and barely a tackle:</p>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Not jumping for the ball is the big difference, buts still bloody irresponsible by the Crusaders player.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="595757" data-time="1468141453">
<div>
<p>BB got up smiling. That's all</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Could see him on the big screen having a chuckle once he got his wind back. He knew the guy was off the field, even if it was just for 10 minutes. Glad he landed like he did because it could have been a right shocker.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Taqele can fuck off. Doesn't work hard unless the ball is in his hands, and wasn't smart enough to step inside late in the game with Barrett coming across. Got picked off like the big, fat, lazy prick he is.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="595767" data-time="1468143443"><p>To his credit the big guy apologised to BB, that's when I saw him smiling in reply. Very clumsy and very dangerous though. Reminded me a little bit of the Naholo one versus Wales</p></blockquote>
It was nothing like the Naholo one vs Wales. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="595761" data-time="1468141890">
<div>
<p>He got a yellow because that is the directive at the moment - only red when lands on shoulder/head. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's within Pollock's power to red card him though, isn't it? I know there are guidelines around how a player falls, but if a player intentionally commits foul play, then surely the ref can red card him.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="595773" data-time="1468146984">
<div>
<p>It's within Pollock's power to red card him though, isn't it? I know there are guidelines around how a player falls, but if a player intentionally commits foul play, then surely the ref can red card him.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yep absolutely. I haven't heard the comms or the ref's mike, just seen replays at the ground from waaaaaay up in the stands opposite the comm boxes. And it looked dodgy as fuck.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So it comes down to the discussion the officials are having, which I haven't been privy to. I suppose they're only going for red when the guidelines give them no choice. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Where did the recommendation come from?</p> -
IMHO it was a shocking decision. Yes there is a directive, but in that situation the ref would have been more than justified in giving a red. But he didn't have the balls. Landed on back? Ok, just a yellow. Fuck that is stupid.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="595775" data-time="1468148112">
<div>
<p>Yep absolutely. I haven't heard the comms or the ref's mike, just seen replays at the ground from waaaaaay up in the stands opposite the comm boxes. And it looked dodgy as fuck.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So it comes down to the discussion the officials are having, which I haven't been privy to. I suppose they're only going for red when the guidelines give them no choice. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Where did the recommendation come from?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>IIRC it was a typical shit decision by Pollock with no overrule by the TMO or the touchie (until they start making a valuable contribution I can't call them ARs)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="595784" data-time="1468151374">
<div>
<p>IMHO it was a shocking decision. Yes there is a directive, but in that situation the ref would have been more than justified in giving a red. But he didn't have the balls. Landed on back? Ok, just a yellow. Fuck that is stupid.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't blame the ref, blame the laws. The same laws that see people (IMO) quite ridiculously red carded for genuine challenges. The level of punishment is entirely dependent on the landing position of the player in the air. If it's head/neck/shoulders it's a red, if it's on his back it's a yellow. So the YC was right according to that, as BB landed flat on his back.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But it was a genuinely reckless play. I think the law needs to be amended to take intent into account, as well as landing position. It makes no sense that someone with eyes for the ball and arms outstretched can get a red, while Taqele can make an appaling play on a jumping man and get a yellow.</p> -
<p>the law regarding the landings of the player - I think - were specifically made for<strong> </strong><em>contesting the bal<strong>l</strong></em> in the air. Nayaravoro clearly <em>tackled </em>the player in the air, and it was probably one of the worst timed tackles possible, he tackled him exactly at the highest point Barrett jumped to. Red card. SANZAAR agrees.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tordah" data-cid="595797" data-time="1468166793">
<div>
<p>the law regarding the landings of the player - I think - were specifically made for<strong> </strong><em>contesting the bal<strong>l</strong></em> in the air. Nayaravoro clearly <em>tackled </em>the player in the air, and it was probably one of the worst timed tackles possible, he tackled him exactly at the highest point Barrett jumped to. Red card. SANZAAR agrees.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>No. The laws refer only to a 'fair challenge', with no leeway if a player is 'contesting' or not. Below is the <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=8'>World Rugby clarification</a> issued to refs last year.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align:justify;font-family:'Open Sans', sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);"><span style="margin:0px;"><strong>Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)</strong></span></p>
<ul><li>Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on</li>
<li>Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down</li>
<li>Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side</li>
<li>Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder</li>
</ul><p style="margin:0px;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0px;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0px;">To the letter of the law, Pollock was correct. It wasn't a fair challenge, there was no contest and BB landed on his back.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;"> </p>
<p style="margin:0px;">As I said earlier, I think it's a ridiculous law that needs to be changed, but regardless of what SANZAAR said I think Pollock got it right.</p> -
<p>It definitely was in the "not a fair challenge, no contest" category, but given the law it was closer to the YC than the RC definition IMO</p>
-
<p>I'll say it. I think the law's fine. Consequence, either by luck or by action, should be a mitigating factor.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't know if it's just an intrinsic dislike of the Waratahs, it may be influenced by Kearns, but the Sydney crowds always seems to come across as the most whinging, one-eyed of them all. The live games always seem to come across that they prefer to moan about perceived bad decisions / foul play than enjoy their teams success. The noise through the telly on Saturday seemed to be louder for the non-penalised trip than the superb Folau solo try.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="595840" data-time="1468197734">
<div>
<p>The live games always seem to come across that they prefer to moan about perceived bad decisions / foul play than enjoy their teams success. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Given the relative quantities of the two on the night, I can see why you'd form that opinion :)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="595786" data-time="1468152552"><p>
Don't blame the ref, blame the laws. The same laws that see people (IMO) quite ridiculously red carded for genuine challenges. The level of punishment is entirely dependent on the landing position of the player in the air. If it's head/neck/shoulders it's a red, if it's on his back it's a yellow. So the YC was right according to that, as BB landed flat on his back.<br><br>
But it was a genuinely reckless play. I think the law needs to be amended to take intent into account, as well as landing position. It makes no sense that someone with eyes for the ball and arms outstretched can get a red, while Taqele can make an appaling play on a jumping man and get a yellow.</p></blockquote>
<br>
The directive is a yellow but I believe the ref has the discretion to give a red if the act was bad enough to warrant one. This was clearly one of those cases, but Pollock wasn't interested. Piss poor and cowardly refereeing. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="595747" data-time="1468139760">
<div>
<p>Fair play - he's not JUST a big lazy thug. He does have good hands for the offload and is one of the best players I've seen at disrupting mauls.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He could definitely stand to <strong>lose</strong> <strong>about 10kg </strong>and pick his moments to smash someone though.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I would say more like 20 KG and needs to seriously work on his cardio. He looks knackered after 5 minutes.</p>
