Rugby Championship 2017

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

But didn't.

And there's the rub.

I don't agree with OP but I do agree in general with risk minimisation.

If that was a world cup final it would have been a mistake. In a dead rubber it's absolutely fine and good to get in the shop window like that.

brocbrocach

swiwi_ wrote: »

But didn't.

And there's the rub.

Yeah I'd agree with ye if it worked. But it didn't.
I like seeing a bit of adventure but as much as anyone but that wasn't the time or place. Once he'd fixed the defender he had to let it go pronto.

brocbrocach

brocbrocach wrote: »

Yeah I'd agree with ye if it worked. But it didn't.
I like seeing a bit of adventure but as much as anyone but that wasn't the time or place. Once he'd fixed the defender he had to let it go pronto.

?

It did work. He got the ball to his teammate and committed the Bok 14. It's not in his control as to what happens after that.

Buer

Sonny Unimportant Jack wrote:

Smith had a far better chance of scoring than NMS did, who was well covered by the winger. Also find it bizarre that someone would 'look like a right tit' for attempting something that comes with a modicum of risk, must be drilled into us as Irish fans.

Well, I clearly never said that. I said if it went to ground he would have looked foolish, not for attempting it.

Passing was the right decision. My point was that it was a simple, straightforward pass. The flick was a showboat. The game is a brighter place for those moments of skill but it doesn't change the fact that he'd have looked rather silly if Smith hadn't held it.

Former Former

Basil3 wrote: »

I dunno. Their explanation says there wasn't actual head contact, and I can't actually see head contact in the footage I've seen. I have no issues with the red being rescinded.

How far do they have to go to stop head injuries though? Do they have to tell Stander he can no longer charge into contact head down?

This is a red all day long for me.



I don't understand the Stander reference.

swiwi_

Buer wrote: »

Well, I clearly never said that. I said if it went to ground he would have looked foolish, not for attempting it.

Passing was the right decision. My point was that it was a simple, straightforward pass. The flick was a showboat. The game is a brighter place for those moments of skill but it doesn't change the fact that he'd have looked rather silly if Smith hadn't held it.

Pleeeeease Buer. Harlem Globetrotters is wot we do.

Let me remind you of the number of posters on this forum who did away with the need for Viagra following Zebo's (in)famous flick...

irishbucsfan

If there wasn't head contact I can understand the red card being rescinded. If there was, it's a red card all day without a doubt.

irishbucsfan

swiwi_ wrote: »

Pleeeeease Buer. Harlem Globetrotters is wot we do.

Let me remind you of the number of posters on this forum who did away with the need for Viagra following Zebo's (in)famous flick...

Eh? Zebo's flick wasn't needless. I think you've missed Buer's point. A flick where a pass would do is completely different to Zebo's flick where there was no alternative and we would have lost possession if he hadn't done it.

I'm fine with a bit of showboating myself. Has a bit of a psychological effect, especially for a side as dominant as the ABs.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

This is a red all day long for me.



I don't understand the Stander reference.

Stander is just picking out a player who drops the head into contact. If players are forced to run upright, without dropping their head, less accidental contact with the head will occur. It's just an extreme of how far they could go to avoid contact in the head area.

Your image does show that he touched his neck and jaw after initial contact being with the chest. There was no impact in it, so I have no problem with a bit of common sense being applied. Next thing we will be red carding players for a fend to the face.

CatFromHue

It looks bad in that still but not so bad in real time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flNnHbt7Nd8

It's very different than the Stander incident.

There's more neck contact than anything but there's no force behind it. The Bok has slowed right down and the Kiwi milks it a bit.

Former Former

Basil3 wrote: »

Stander is just picking out a player who drops the head into contact. If players are forced to run upright, without dropping their head, less accidental contact with the head will occur. It's just an extreme of how far they could go to avoid contact in the head area.

Your image does show that he touched his neck and jaw after initial contact being with the chest. There was no impact in it, so I have no problem with a bit of common sense being applied. Next thing we will be red carding players for a fend to the face.

https://youtu.be/lS1N8Px82FQ

There's definite contact there, and it's late and it's deliberate. It's not a massive impact and a week would have been fair but to say it wasn't a red is crazy.

It's just more evidence that rugby isn't really bothered with player safety beyond lip service.

On your Stander idea, yes, players ducking into contact creates a risk. If that can be mitigated, great, let's do it. But if not, it doesn't mean we should do nothing about anything else.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

https://youtu.be/lS1N8Px82FQ

There's definite contact there, and it's late and it's deliberate.

It's just more evidence that rugby isn't really bothered with player safety beyond lip service.

On your Stander idea, yes, players ducking into contact creates a risk. If that can be mitigated, great, let's do it. But if not, it doesn't mean we should do nothing about anything else.

Is the contact deliberate? Yes. Is it late? Yes. Was it deliberate, late contact to the head? I don't think so.

The point is that you can't take a hardline approach. You have to use common sense. A yellow would have been sufficient.

Former Former

Basil3 wrote: »

Is the contact deliberate? Yes. Is it late? Yes. Was it deliberate, late contact to the head? I don't think so.

The point is that you can't take a hardline approach. You have to use common sense. A yellow would have been sufficient.

That is exactly what should be happening. There is supposed to be a zero tolerance approach, as mandated by World Rugby - but it lasted about two months because no one is taking this seriously.

Edit: at the Aviva on Saturday, we saw a few high tackles that, a year ago, would have been yellows. Not particularly dangerous but just highlights again how zero tolerance has been totally dropped.

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

Basil3 wrote: »

Is the contact deliberate? Yes. Is it late? Yes. Was it deliberate, late contact to the head? I don't think so.

The point is that you can't take a hardline approach. You have to use common sense. A yellow would have been sufficient.

That is exactly what should be happening. There is supposed to be a zero tolerance approach, as mandated by World Rugby - but it lasted about two months because no one is taking this seriously.

This. Either they are taking a zero tolerance approach or they aren't. And beyond the first few weeks it's been clear that they aren't. There's all sorts of ways De Allende could have made contact there. Forearm out in front at a height is def one of the worst ways he could have done it.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

That is exactly what should be happening. There is supposed to be a zero tolerance approach, as mandated by World Rugby - but it lasted about two months because no one is taking this seriously.

So you think any contact with any part of the head should be a straight red, without any context taken into account? Watch a game of rugby, count the number of times there is contact with a head.

World Rugby's statement said:

Accidental tackle

When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent's head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders, the player may still be sanctioned. This includes situations where the ball-carrier slips into the tackle.

Minimum sanction: Penalty

Former Former

Basil3 wrote: »

So you think any contact with any part of the head should be a straight red, without any context taken into account? Watch a game of rugby, count the number of times there is contact with a head.

Nope, not any contact.

But a guy deliberately hitting an opponent late, knowing the opponent is wide open to the hit, would seem to be a good place to start.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

Nope, not any contact.

But a guy deliberately hitting an opponent late, knowing the opponent is wide open to the hit, would seem to be a good place to start.

See my edit above. The decision on whether the head/neck contact was accidental is pretty pivotal. I'd say it was agreed that he didn't intentionally try to make contact with the head.

Del.Monte

It was stupid, late, cynical and I don't think that he was too fussy what part of the neck/head area he made contact with - thuggery.

Former Former

Basil3 wrote: »

See my edit above. The decision on whether the head/neck contact was accidental is pretty pivotal. I'd say it was agreed that he didn't intentionally try to make contact with the head.

You've quoted the law relating to accidental contact as part of a tackle.

A forearm is not a tackle.

Look, it's an ideological difference between "it's a physical game, get over it" and "it's a physical game, we need to make it as safe as possible". You're in the former, and that's fine - but World Rugby claims to be in the latter and they're not following through on it.

You can't come out and say "we have a zero tolerance policy", then have a referee correctly implement that policy, then allow a disciplinary committee to cut the legs out from under the ref.

So we either have the policy and we do it, or we say "meh, that didn't pan out, forget it". At the moment, we're saying one thing and doing another.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

You've quoted the law relating to accidental contact as part of a tackle.

A forearm is not a tackle.

Look, it's an ideological difference between "it's a physical game, get over it" and "it's a physical game, we need to make it as safe as possible". You're in the former, and that's fine - but World Rugby claims to be in the latter and they're not following through on it.

You can't come out and say "we have a zero tolerance policy", then have a referee correctly implement that policy, then allow a disciplinary committee to cut the legs out from under the ref.

So we either have the policy and we do it, or we say "meh, that didn't pan out, forget it". At the moment, we're saying one thing and doing another.

I think I just view the zero tolerance different to some. Whereas I see it as meaning 'head contact should always be punished', others might think 'head contact should always be a red'.

An example is Sexton's tackle on Barrett as he scored last November. Had that happened after World Rugby made their statement, would the tackle be elevated from not even a penalty right up to a straight red?

Yeah_Right

CatFromHue wrote: »

It looks bad in that still but not so bad in real time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flNnHbt7Nd8

It's very different than the Stander incident.

There's more neck contact than anything but there's no force behind it. The Bok has slowed right down and the Kiwi milks it a bit.

Sopoaga is leaning back, gets hit while off balance, falls over and sits up straight away. How is that milking it? It's not like he did a Sexton and yell at the ref then lie back down clutching his head.

Didactic Ninja

Vunipola and o brien both got away with head shots during lions tour also.SOB concussed naholo with a swinging arm and vunipola attacked Barretts head off the ball.

Didactic Ninja

Former Former wrote: »

Once again, rugby shows that actually, it doesn't give a f**k about head injuries.

The discipline system is a joke. Whether it's corrupt or just incompetent I don't know but it is not to be taken seriously.

Their explanatory statement just makes it worse. They acknowledge that he could have pulled out before he hit him. Crazy.

In the same week Sinckler only got 7 weeks for gouging, it's not a good look.

I definitely think the TMO system is corrupt/inept and a conduit for refereeing cowardice. The pregnant pauses, phrasing of questions and awkward silences are damning. The rugby league guys do it much better. The TMO talks through it as he sees it. No bull****ting.
Garces actually asked the other day " any reason i cannot award the try" TMO comes back and says its all good. Jerome then says " we need to be sure about the grounding"- something he didn't emphasise initially and is now only concerned about because the parochial host broadcaster has it on constant michael bay slow mo repeat on the big screen. its a blight on the game.

I love the suspense of TMO

Former Former

Didactic Ninja wrote: »

I definitely think the TMO system is corrupt/inept and a conduit for refereeing cowardice. The pregnant pauses, phrasing of questions and awkward silences are damning. The rugby league guys do it much better. The TMO talks through it as he sees it. No bull****ting.
Garces actually asked the other day " any reason i cannot award the try" TMO comes back and says its all good. Jerome then says " we need to be sure about the grounding"- something he didn't emphasise initially and is now only concerned about because the parochial host broadcaster has it on constant michael bay slow mo repeat on the big screen. its a blight on the game.

It's a blight on the game when the ref makes too much use of the TMO? OK - but if the referee ever uses his own judgement, people like you lose their sh*t demanding why he didn't go to the TMO.

The only three certainties in life are death, taxes and people moaning about referees. I think Groucho Marx said that.

CatFromHue

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Sopoaga is leaning back, gets hit while off balance, falls over and sits up straight away. How is that milking it? It's not like he did a Sexton and yell at the ref then lie back down clutching his head.

the way he moves his arms is how he milks it a bit.

Dog Botherer

CatFromHue wrote: »

the way he moves his arms is how he milks it a bit.

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that, just watched it twice and nothing about his arm movement looks unnatural.

You'd think people would be glad that a cheap shot actually got punished for once.

CatFromHue

his arm movement is socceresque

it's not a natural reaction unless you're looking to milk it a bit.

irishbucsfan

CatFromHue wrote: »

his arm movement is socceresque

it's not a natural reaction unless you're looking to milk it a bit.

That is absolutely incorrect

Dog Botherer

CatFromHue wrote: »

his arm movement is socceresque

it's not a natural reaction unless you're looking to milk it a bit.

Well that clarified about as much as I expected, cheers for that.

FYI, given he didn't immediately scream in pain, grab a random body part, roll around in agony, all while screaming at the ref to send off De Allende, makes it pretty difficult to describe his reaction as "socceresque".

I think it's okay to blame the refs for overreacting (they didn't, cheap shots should always be a red), but to suggest Sopoaga tried to influence them is nonsense.

CatFromHue

I said a bit, not a lot.

anytime i've been tackled or hit like that my arms were always much lower trying to resist the tackler.

your man ends up on his back with his arms above his head looking at the ref, this is what's socceresque.

Dog Botherer

CatFromHue wrote: »

I said a bit, not a lot.

anytime i've been tackled or hit like that my arms were always much lower trying to resist the tackler.

your man ends up on his back with his arms above his head looking at the ref, this is what's socceresque.

I mean, De Allende had several seconds to pull out, which is what Sopoaga thought he was going to do, given that obvious late hits like that are fairly unusual in the modern pro game. If anything it looks like his arms flew back due to the impact.

Sopoaga does look at the ref, but in fairness the ref is right there. He didn't roll around trying to attract his attention or start screaming at him. Literally the next thing we see is Sopoaga immediately back on his feet, running back to cover the backfield from the 22m dropout from his missed drop goal.

This is going to be my last post about this, because this is beyond stupid.

matthew8

Dog Botherer wrote: »

I mean, De Allende had several seconds to pull out, which is what Sopoaga thought he was going to do, given that obvious late hits like that are fairly unusual in the modern pro game. If anything it looks like his arms flew back due to the impact.

Sopoaga does look at the ref, but in fairness the ref is right there. He didn't roll around trying to attract his attention or start screaming at him. Literally the next thing we see is Sopoaga immediately back on his feet, running back to cover the backfield from the 22m dropout from his missed drop goal.

This is going to be my last post about this, because this is beyond stupid.

He didn't have several seconds to pull out. As far as I can see less than 1 second elapsed between him landing and him making contact.

irishbucsfan

matthew8 wrote: »

He didn't have several seconds to pull out. As far as I can see less than 1 second elapsed between him landing and him making contact.

He knew well before he wasn't going to make it

matthew8

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He knew well before he wasn't going to make it

Do you mean he wasn't justified jumping in the first place?

irishbucsfan

matthew8 wrote: »

Do you mean he wasn't justified jumping in the first place?

He was justified in his half-hearted jump. Just not everything that followed. He could easily have avoided contact if he wanted to, he didn't.

CatFromHue

Dog Botherer wrote: »

I mean, De Allende had several seconds to pull out, which is what Sopoaga thought he was going to do, given that obvious late hits like that are fairly unusual in the modern pro game. If anything it looks like his arms flew back due to the impact.

Sopoaga does look at the ref, but in fairness the ref is right there. He didn't roll around trying to attract his attention or start screaming at him. Literally the next thing we see is Sopoaga immediately back on his feet, running back to cover the backfield from the 22m dropout from his missed drop goal.

This is going to be my last post about this, because this is beyond stupid.

If that's your last post that's fine, I don't know why you're taking this so hard. I always said he milked it a bit, I dunno why you're taking this as anything more than that.

You see it regularly in soccer where a guy puts his arms up as he's falling to make something look worse. This is what your man did.

irishbucsfan

CatFromHue wrote: »

If that's your last post that's fine, I don't know why you're taking this so hard. I always said he milked it a bit, I dunno why you're taking this as anything more than that.

You see it regularly in soccer where a guy puts his arms up as he's falling to make something look worse. This is what your man did.

No. It’s not what he did. Not at all. When you get knocked down like that and you start to go over your arms go up to try and get control. Or there’s fencer’s response. There are so many reasons that are entirely subconscious that explain it.

nahiean.sa

The season was very good,
I saw some game was an extraordinary game.
After a long time, it was very good to hear it here.

Thank you. :angel:

Didactic Ninja

Didactic Ninja wrote: »

Wait until you see asafo aumua

scored twice again today.

Del.Monte

Another man from Lower Hutt - some place - also birthplace of Thomas "The Tank" Waldrom.

Aussie score, exactly what you want early on in the match

Bridge93

Aussie jersey is outstanding

Erik Shin

Bridge93 wrote: »

Aussie jersey is outstanding

Aussie team not so much

Bridge93

Erik Shin wrote: »

Aussie team not so much

Sadly not

Read's offload holy sploosh.

nahiean.sa

I like the game of New Zealand and Australia. 
Nice game It seems that after a long time I saw such a game. 
New Zealand 35 Australia 29 The point of view of the game was to increase my heart tremors.
Bladen Barrett Bladysl also threw away the epic epic because all the forts returned from under 17-0.
Where is a great game to be called.
:)

Del.Monte

Scrappy enough first half but entertaining.

Clegg

Rob Simmons has a lot of doctors around him. Neck now in a brace.

Hope he's ok.

Erik Shin

2 thumbs up from the guy...so hopefully he's ok